...
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. The augments above 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 assumes 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.
Yes this was the main point of my post, these initial posits are highly unlikely. There isn't enough evidence to consider them plausible enough to formulate serious theories around, when compared to the huge amount of hard biological and historical evidence. Even discussing them in a "thought experiment" way is kind of pointless IMO, it's similar to basing theories on the plot of "Star Wars" - fun but ultimately useless.
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.
I didn't say "human intelligence alone", other factors could have been involved, e.g. natural phenomenon such as mutation of plant DNA, environmental change (ice ages/sea level rises), causing natural selection, which could have been exploited through selective breeding by our early human ancestors that were learning to communicate more complex ideas with each other.
Both of your points are pretty much the same thing, and yes I think they are reasonably strong arguments. There are elements of assumption (there always is in science and philosphy), but as I said there's plenty of evidence that humans 20-50,000 years ago were becoming intelligent and sophisticated - fashioning weapons for hunting, forming social groups, making cave paintings (the oldest found is 40,000 years old) and building tools. This link shows the oldest tools ever found (3.3m years) and predate early humans:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32804177 I think it's likely that the changes in human intelligence and society, that evidence shows happened around 50,000 years ago, would have an accelerating impact on the knowledge and skills required to hunt, gather and farm. Information passed on from generation to generation, and being improved all the time.
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 racial 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 not a difficult process and would well within the abilities of primitive man.
2) Early Man was very dumb and suggestible.
First of all, I don't think we should be using the Bible in this discussion. Mainly because we are talking about events that happened way before the bible existed, >20,000 years ago. The bible is not relevant here.
Anyhow, you're comparing apples and oranges here - even intelligent people today believe the most ridiculous things. Just look at how the Nazis indoctrinated their countrymen, the same with Soviet communism, people today that believe the Earth is flat. Don't forget that in biblical times there were severe consequences for people that defied the bible - look what happened to the heretic scientists when the suggested heliocentrism.
Clever people often believe ridiculous things. Doesn't mean they can't perform basic observation and communication to their piers, e.g. "keep the seeds from the juiciest plants and plant them next year, throw away the seeds from the weakest plants". It's really not that hard, right?
However, qwik2learn's argues above that the botanical literature suggests that such a process of selective breeding is not a simple one. Indeed that it is so hard that we find it either very 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.
I agree, that is interesting and it's something I won't comment on here as I was unaware of the research. However I would re-stress the fact that many of the staple grains and fruits farmed 10-20,000 years ago and eaten by early humans could have been freak beneficial mutations, that were then exploited through selective breeding. We are talking on much larger timescales here (~10,000 years) than the 100 or so years that this stuff has actually been academically studied, so obviously less natural mutations could occur.
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 follow 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 then 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.
An example of your confirmation bias (IMO) is basically how your OP rejects looking at the quality of the initial evidence, and then makes too many assumptions that all seem to be trying to provide evidence for a supernatural/alien intervention. Perhaps I was mistaken, however your comments about the Bible/angels etc. (and your belief that atheism is poisonous) led me to believe you were quite a religious/spiritual person.
I'm assuming you believe in some sort of god/supernatural creator? Or do you think it was... aliens?
Anyway, this is irrelevant to the topic, I might consider reading some more into this if any good evidence arises.