...
3. The article make more assumptions, that what it calls "directed crossbreeding" is an incredibly technical process, that couldn't have been achieved by "primitive barbarians". In fact, this crossbreeding would have almost certainly started in the form of artificial selection/selective breeding, and is actually a very simple and easy concept to observe. I have no doubt that primitive humans that were capable of planting crops could have started selective breeding within a few generations. If a beneficial mutation occurred in a plant (higher yield/larger fruit etc) then this knowledge could have been applied straight away to exploit the mutation, creating huge amounts of crops even within a single human generation.
Another relevant theory (which I think you touch on in your post) is the population explosion and more sophisticated behaviour in humans that occurred about 50,000 years ago. Is it not much more plausible that this increase in population, intelligence and social sophistication allowed humans to start experimenting with plants, noting which ones grew well in certain conditions etc? There is strong evidence for their hunting techniques improving at this time, and if we look at some ancient tribes, they have incredibly specific knowledge about the plants and animals that inhabit their environment.
So to sum up, although your theory is certainly an interesting one, I don't believe there is anywhere near enough evidence for it. You are showing strong signs of confirmation bias, trying to fit selective evidence and theories into what I suspect is some sort of religious/supernatural worldview.
portokol I believe your challenges are fair. Furthermore Spendulus refuses to proceed past the initial posits rejecting them as false. My argument in the OP of course assumes the initial two posits are true.
1) That's there was outside intervention between 5,000-10,000 years ago whose end result was to stabilize and improve man's food supply.
2) That biblical events surrounding the beginnings of monotheism the exodus from Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea etc are fact.
I believe the conclusion I draw is the most logical one if we assume the initial posits true. Obviously, each posit could and should be challenged. I am not in a position to defend the first as I am not a botanist or terribly familiar with the body of knowledge surrounding that field. I took the quote above from qwik2learn so we will have to rely upon him to defend the science behind it.
However, your argument that human intelligence alone led to the changes in crops carries its own assumptions. 1) that such a process would not be difficult for primitive man and would occur with limited effort or 2) that early humans were very intelligent and perceptive able to accomplish great tasks of observation and intellect with limited resources. Similarly, the early miracles in the bible are reported as being witnessed by the entire Jewish people and would be beyond the abilities of early man to fake. If we assume that they never happened we must assume that bible is a giant fake given to a gullible Jewish people complete with fabricated history and miracles. For this to be true we must assume 1) That Early Man was very dumb and suggestible, or 2) The Jewish people in particular are dumb and suggestible.
We can rule out the Jewish people being particularly dumb as they are on record as having the highest recorded IQ of any group. Therefore the only combinations of assumptions that allows one to reject both posits are.
1) Selective breeding converting wild time plants into currently domesticated plants is easy and was well within the abilities of primitive man.
2) Early Man was so dumb that even the group of Man with the highest average IQ was completely bamboozled when someone came along and made up a fictitious history and tradition for them.
qwik2learn's argues above that the process of selective breeding is not simple. Indeed that it is so hard that even today we find it difficult or impossible to replicate.
in 1837 the Botanical Garden in St Petersburg, Russia, began concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form of domestication. They are still trying, because their rye has lost none of its wild traits, especially the fragility of its stalk and its small grain. Therein lies the most embarrassing conundrum botanists face.
I find that very interesting. I agree it is certainly not proof but it is interesting.
You accuse me of confirmation bias. I would challenge you to show me an example of such bias. Up thread I presented an argument that rationally follows from its starting posits.
You accuse me of a supernatural/religious worldview when I have already shared my worldview elsewhere. I believe that atheism is fundamentally poisonous and that the data on human health and reproduction support this view. I have highlighted this data in the
Health and Religion thread. Other than a rejection of atheism as unhealthy I have an open mind. I am not an adherent of any mainstream or alternative religious group. I am perhaps sympathetic to Torah observant Judaism but I am neither Torah observant nor Jewish.