Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label language. Show all posts

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Names and THE Name


(From USCCB, used w/o permission.)

Depending on whether or not folks are going through RCIA, we could be hearing either Exodus 3:1-8a, 13-15; 1 Corinthians 10:1-6, 10-12; and Luke 13:1-9 — or Exodus 17:3-7; Romans 5:1-2, 5-8; and John 4:5-42 during Mass today.

The first set is the usual Year A readings for the third Sunday of Lent, the other are the set for today's Year A Scrutinies. Scrutinies are part of RCIA, the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, a reboot of ancient procedures for processing adults into the Church.

Today's RCIA goes back to 1972, "as part of the liturgical renewal mandated by Vatican II."1 Before that we'd been using a Rite of Baptism introduced in 1614: which was just baptism.

I suppose some folks are upset that we changed something that'd been around since the year Pocahontas married John Rolfe and the Siege of Osaka began. Tokugawa Ieyasu became the next shogun, and yes: there are worse things than American presidential elections. My opinion.

By the way — if this post seems a bit more scattershot than usual, you're quite right.

I've been beset by a swarm of minor frustrations, or been unusually poor at managing my time — more likely a mix of both, plus getting downwind of the butterfly effect on steroids.

Butterflies on steroids?

That's a mental image that'll stick with me, and I'm not going to get distracted by gonane, cyclohexane rings, cyclopentane structures, bicycles, and entomology — etymology, yes, and I'll get back to that.

Still with me?

Okay — Make sure your seat backs and tray tables are in their full upright position. Make sure your seat belt is securely fastened and all carry-on luggage is stowed underneath the seat in front of you or in the overhead bins. Thank you, and I hope you enjoy your flight.

Councils


I'm not upset that we're not trying to revive the 'good old days' of 1972, 1962, or 1614.

But I realize that ecumenical councils like the Second Vatican Council, First Vatican Council, and Council of Trent, deal with global issues; and that we no longer live in the 20th, or 16th, century.

I'll grant that the First and Second Vatican Councils happened pretty close together: 1870 and 1962–1965.

Instead of wringing my hands how fast the world's changing, I'll point out that the First Council of Niceaea, First Council of Constantinople and Council of Ephesus, convened in 325, 381, and 431. The seventh ecumenical council happened in 787, back in Nicaea.

What's more remarkable, I think, are gaps when these councils didn't meet, like 870 to 1123 and 1563 to 1870.

This world keeps changing, so I see the Church making occasional adjustments in how we present the deposit of faith as routine. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1, 24, 84-87, 172-175, 302, 1511-1513, 1200-1206)

Where was I? Exodus, Niceaea, Pocahontas. Right.

"What am I to Tell Them?"


There's a lot going on in Exodus 3:1-15: sandals and holy ground, being afraid to look at God, and diffidence over getting orders directly from the top.2

It's also when we learned God's name, or title. One of them, that is:
"...'But,' said Moses to God, 'when I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' if they ask me, 'What is his name?' what am I to tell them?'

"6 God replied, 'I am who am.' Then he added, 'This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.'

"God spoke further to Moses, 'Thus shall you say to the Israelites: The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. 'This is my name forever; this is my title for all generations...."
(Exodus 3:13-15)
I've talked about what happened centuries, maybe a millennium, later. (October 18, 2015; April 5, 2015)
"24 Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.'

"So they picked up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid and went out of the temple area."
(John 8:58-59)
Getting back to that interview with I AM; also names, language, and culture.

John, Jesus, and Me


Names mean things, or did at some point. Some examples —

Brian, my given name, harks back to Irish and Breton languages. It may come from an Old Celtic word for "hill" or "high place," and by extension mean "high" or "noble." I'm named after Brian Boru, High King of Ireland about a millennium back.

That's not what we'd mean these days by 'king of Ireland,' and I'm not going to get distracted by the Battle of Clontarf. My surname, Gill, means gully or ravine; or, if it's the word incorporated in Gilchrist, servant or slave. "Noble Gully/Slave?" There are worse names, I suppose.

Some names, like the Latin-derived Victor, still mean something in my native language. Others, like Benjamin, don't: and predate Western civilization's current iteration.

David is my language's version of דָּוִד, "beloved." An Ethiopian version is Dawit, and that's another topic.

John/Giovanni/Juan/Johann/Jens/Ieuan/Seán/Ivan/Janez/ יוֹחָנָן (Yôḥānān)/יְהוֹחָנָן (Yəhôḥānān) — means "YHWH has been gracious." That explains Gabriel's message for Zachariah in Luke 1:13. I've talked about Gideon, Gabriel, Mary, and guts before. (December 21, 2014)

Several decades back, I heard "Jesus Loves Me" sung by a Chinese child: discovering that our Lord's name in her language is Yasu — which is closer, I think, to the original ישוע (Yeshua) than my Germanic language's "Jesus."

I like English, but will admit that it's not the most euphonious language on the planet.

Anyway, Yeshua was a common alternative to יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Joshua) when Gabriel had that interview with Mary.

I've read that "YHWH Saves/[is] Salvation/[is] a Saving-Cry" are not-unreasonable translations: and am inclined to see 'all of the above' as accurate. The denotative distinctions aren't all that disparate — alliteration happens — I suspect "God Saves" isn't far from the mark.

So, what about Ehyeh Ašer Ehyeh and Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, "I am who am" and "I AM" in my translation of Exodus 3:14?

"...Tell the Israelites..."


First off, my hat is most respectfully off to the millennia-old custom of avoiding uttering the Names of God. My own beliefs don't require it: and I'll find out soon enough if that's a problem.

I've talked about particular judgment, sin, and long-term planning, before. I hope that, at the end of all things, folks who wear tefillin get special commendation for following instructions to the letter, and that's yet another topic. (November 1, 2015; August 12, 2015; March 8, 2015)

Next, let's remember that Exodus 3:14 recalls something that happened — most likely after the Late Bronze Age Collapse and before Philip II of Macedon hired Aristotle as Alexander III of Macedon's tutor.

Back then, folks in Sumer and other Mesopotamian regions had an extensive roster of gods: like Anu/An, "Lord of the Constellations, Spirits and Demons;" and Ereshkigal, ruler of Irkalla, the underworld.

Today, several millennia later, we've gotten into the habit of using phonetic approximations of ancient names: and tend, I think, to forget that the names meant something, like "Victor" does today.

Someone who understood Sumerian, but hadn't heard of Anu, wouldn't have had trouble guessing what Anu's sphere of influence was. "An" means "sky" in Sumerian.

Ereshkigal, , means "queen of the great earth:" which isn't far from "queen of the underworld."

I suspect Moses understood at least some implications of "I am who am" and "I AM:" even if he hadn't realized that God is God and everyone else isn't.

I think it's likely that Moses would realize that the God of Abraham ruled: not just the sky, or our world, or some other subset of reality. God, I AM, rules — existence, reality, everything.

We're still, I think, getting used to that idea.
"For the LORD, your God, is the God of gods, the LORD of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who has no favorites, accepts no bribes;

"who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and befriends the alien, feeding and clothing him.

"So you too must befriend the alien, for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt."
(Deuteronomy 10:17-19)

"Great is the LORD and worthy of high praise; God's grandeur is beyond understanding.

"One generation praises your deeds to the next and proclaims your mighty works.

"They speak of the splendor of your majestic glory, tell of your wonderful deeds.

"They speak of your fearsome power and attest to your great deeds.

"They publish the renown of your abounding goodness and joyfully sing of your justice.

"The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in love.

"The LORD is good to all, compassionate to every creature."
(Psalms 145:3-9)

"1 In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets;

"in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe,

"who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word. When he had accomplished purification from sins, he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

"as far superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs."
(Hebrews 1:1-4)

(From NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA); ESA/Hubble Collaboration; used w/o permission.)

There's more, lots more, including what our Lord said about tower at Siloam, and that's yet again another topic:
1 RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) background:
"...The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA), retrieved from biblical and patristic sources and adapted for use by the Catholic Church in 1972, offers possibilities for an agreed expression of our theological understanding and practice. The RCIA was introduced into the Catholic Church as part of the liturgical renewal mandated by Vatican II. It resulted from a revision of the rite of baptism in light of studies of liturgical history drawn from scriptural and patristic texts, especially that of the early centuries. As its name implies, this rite is for the full initiation of a person into the church. The previously existing Rite of Baptism, that came into effect in 1614 as a rite of baptism only, was an abbreviated version of the ancient rite for the initiation of adults and had been used for the most part in the modified form suitable for the baptism of infants. The Rite of the Baptism of Infants, introduced in 1969 to answer the need of a rite suited to infants, follows the practice of the previous rite in being for baptism alone, rather than one of full initiation. The limited scope of this Rite brings into prominence, by way of contrast, the comprehensive nature of the RCIA...."

"...The renewed Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, drawn from the tradition of the ancient church, is intended to guide the person as 'a new creature, an adopted [child] of God, who has become a partaker of the divine nature, member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit' (CCC 1265). Baptismal experience helps a person to grow in faith, hope and love towards God, to live under the prompting of the Holy Spirit and to mature in holiness. Adults also receive the sacrament of confirmation during their initiation, that is, 'the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost' (CCC 1302). This increases the grace of baptism such that their sense of divine filiation or adoption is deepened, their union with Christ is more firm, the gifts of the Holy Spirit increase, the bond with the church is more perfect, and by the special strength of the Holy Spirit they are enabled to witness to Christ by word and action (cf. CCC 1303). Reception of the eucharist in 'first communion' is a sharing in the sacrament of intimate union with Christ that 'preserves, increases, and renews the life of grace received at baptism". As "the bread for our pilgrimage until the moment of death' (CCC 1392), the eucharist grants the necessary nourishment for continued growth in Christian life."
("On Becoming a Christian: Insights from Scripture and the Patristic Writings with Some Contemporary Reflections," 48, 162, Report of the Fifth Phase of the International Dialogue Between Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders and the Catholic Church (1998-2006))
RCIA and scrutinies:
"...What are the 'scrutinies?' The RCIA describes them as 'rites for self - searching and repentance and above all a spiritual purpose. The scrutinies are meant to uncover, then heal all that is weak, defective, or sinful in the hearts of the elect; to bring out, then strengthen all that is upright, strong and good.For the scrutinies are celebrated in order to deliver the elect from the power of sin and Satan, to protect them against temptation, and to give them strength in Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life.' (#141)..."
(Bulletin Article 1 | The Season of Lent, USCCB (2012))
More from the UCCB:
2 Apparently some historians figure Moses didn't really exist. One of the arguments is that whoever was Pharaoh at the time didn't have scribes and masons memorialize the plagues and subsequent fiery cloud incident. (Exodus 13:21-14:31)

I'm not terribly surprised at the lack of Egyptian documentation. This was pharaonic Egypt, not America after the Freedom of Information Act passed.

It's hard to imaging a pharaoh being eager to record how his decisions resulted in Egyptians going through a sequence of disasters, topping the debacle off by losing a valuable labor force and an elite military unit.

I've talked about Sacred Scripture, culture, and assumptions, before: but not, oddly enough, George Washington's cherry tree:
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, September 11, 2015

Big Eyes, Bonobo Squeaks

Neanderthals apparently had bigger eyes than folks living today. One scientist says that means they didn't play well with others.

Bonobos, chimps living south of the Congo River, squeak. The squeaks are the same, whether they're happy, sad, or angry — and may tell us something about how language developed.
  1. Neanderthals: Big Eyes, Big Brains, and Being Social
  2. Squeaking Bonobos
I think accepting God's universe 'as is' makes sense, so I'll ramble on about hubris, movies, and St. Thomas Aquinas, before discussing Neanderthals and squeaking bonobos.

Hubris and the Man With the X-Ray Eyes


Hubris, self-confidence above and beyond the call of reason, makes dialog like this possible:
"Dr. James Xavier: I'm blind to all but a tenth of the universe.

"Dr. Sam Brant: My dear friend, only the gods see everything.

"Dr. James Xavier: My dear doctor, I'm closing in on the gods."
("X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes" (1963), via IMDB.com)
Maybe hubris contributed to hoaxes like Piltdown Man and archaeoraptor; and atrocities like the Auschwitz, Dachau, Tuskegee, and Willowbrook State School experiments. (March 27, 2015; August 8, 2014)

Cautionary tales like Marlowe's Faustus, the legend of Daedalus and Icarus, and 'mad scientist' movies, can teach useful ideas: like 'trying to do the impossible is a bad idea;' or 'drinking and driving don't mix.'

But I wonder if movies like "Island of Lost Souls," "The Fly," and "The Brain That Wouldn't Die," teach that curiosity is bad: particularly when it's scientific curiosity. (August 8, 2014)

Science and technology, studying this universe and developing new tech, is part of being human. Using the brains God gave us does not offend the Almighty. Ethics apply, as they do with everything we do. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159, 2292-2296)

This isn't a new idea. One of the Genesis creation stories has Adam, not God, naming critters:
"So the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name."
(Genesis 2:19)
Putting anything — pleasure, family, power, science — anything, or anyone, above God on the priority list is a very bad idea. 'It's for science' is not an excuse for hurting folks. (Catechism, 2112-2114)

Truth and Secondary Causes


I could be a Christian and believe that we live on a plate, and that stars are on a dome between us and the cosmic ocean.

But my faith doesn't require ignorance of what we've learned in the last couple dozen centuries. (March 29, 2015)

We're told that truth is important: in relations with each other, and with God. (Psalms 15:2-3; Ephesians 4:15; Catechism, 144, 150, 153-160, 2464-2503)

We're also told that truth about creation and the universe is important. (Catechism, 287-305)

That does not mean that Catholics must believe that Earth is flat, and only a few thousand years old.

The universe is a place of order and beauty, and scientific discoveries are invitations "...to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator...." (Catechism, 32, 283, 341)

I don't have to believe that physical realities exist or that God exists. Everything we observe reflects some facet of the Creator's truth, according to its nature. (Catechism, 301-308)

All natural processes involve secondary causes: creatures changing in knowable ways, following laws woven into this creation. (Catechism, 306-308)

Believing that God creates, and knowing that a fire's light and heat involve electron transitions, doesn't threaten an informed faith.
"...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God...."
(Catechism, 159)

Humility, Science, and Being Reasonable


Humility, Catholic style, is accepting reality:
"HUMILITY: The virtue by which a Christian acknowledges that God is the author of all good. Humility avoids inordinate ambition or pride, and provides the foundation for turning to God in prayer (2559). Voluntary humility can be described as 'poverty of spirit' (2546)."
(Catechism, Glossary, H)
Pride, in the Catholic sense, is pretty close to hubris in ancient Greek tragedies: "excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis." (Oxford Dictionaries)

Sin is being unreasonable. Getting personal preferences and eternal principles mixed up is a bad idea, and I've been over this before. (April 26, 2015; September 7, 2014)
"PRIDE: One of the seven capital sins. Pride is undue self–esteem or self–love, which seeks attention and honor and sets oneself in competition with God (1866)."
(Catechism, Glossary, P)

"SIN: An offense against God as well as a fault against reason, truth, and right conscience. Sin is a deliberate thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the eternal law of God. In judging the gravity of sin, it is customary to distinguish between mortal and venial sins (1849, 1853, 1854)."
(Catechism, Glossary, S)
St. Thomas Aquinas explained why boasting is a bad idea. Basically, it's an offense against reason and truth: and God. It's a really bad idea.
"...The sin of boasting may be considered in two ways. First, with regard to the species of the act, and thus it is opposed to truth; as stated (in the body of the article and Question [110], Article [2]). Secondly, with regard to its cause, from which more frequently though not always it arises: and thus it proceeds from pride as its inwardly moving and impelling cause...."
("The Summa Theologica," Question 112, St. Thomas Aquinas)

"...Humility restrains the appetite from aiming at great things against right reason: while magnanimity urges the mind to great things in accord with right reason. Hence it is clear that magnanimity is not opposed to humility: indeed they concur in this, that each is according to right reason...."
"The Summa Theologica," Question 161, St. Thomas Aquinas)

"...'A man is said to be proud, because he wishes to appear above (super) what he really is'; for he who wishes to overstep beyond what he is, is proud. Now right reason requires that every man's will should tend to that which is proportionate to him. Therefore it is evident that pride denotes something opposed to right reason...."
("The Summa Theologica," Question 162, St. Thomas Aquinas)
(translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947))
We're called to holiness, not delusion, so I figure pretending I'm more or less than what I am is imprudent.

So, I think, is clinging to our notions of how the universe 'should' work: instead of learning more about the wonder-filled realities around us. (March 29, 2015; November 21, 2014)


(From Thomas Hawkins; via The Online Books Page, University of Pennsylvania; used w/o permission.)

- - - and that reminds me of H. P. Lovecraft, Yeats, and fashionable melancholia; which are different topics.

1. Neanderthals: Big Eyes, Big Brains, and Being Social



(From NHM/Alamy, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("Neanderthals (r) had bigger eyes"
(BBC News))
"The Mystery of Neanderthals' Massive Eyes"
Melissa Hogenboom, BBC News (August 6, 2015)

"Our extinct cousins had eyes much larger than ours. Were these giant peepers the reason for the Neanderthals' demise, or the secret of their success?

"We won't ever come face to face with a real-life Neanderthal. They went extinct thousands of years ago. All we can do is use their remains to reconstruct what they were like.

"In many ways they were a lot like us. In fact they were so similar, our species actually interbred with theirs.

"Nevertheless there were some differences. One stands out: they had weirdly large eyes...."
I know too much about my ancestors to let the second and third paragraphs go without comment. I'll try to keep my harangue about 'species,' 'interbreeding,' and people to a minimum this time.

From some viewpoints, I'm the result of "miscegenation," another word for "interracial marriage."

Not Missing the 'Good Old Days'


The daughter of a respectable family caught the eye of an Irishman a couple generations back — to the great dismay of her parents.

As one of my ancestors said, "he doesn't have family, he's Irish." The youngsters got married anyway, which made me possible. (October 31, 2014; July 6, 2014)

The respectable family coped, most Americans eventually accepted the Irish, miscegenation hasn't been a felony here since 1967, and I am heartily glad that the 'good old days' aren't coming back.

About Neanderthals, species, and all that — scientists still say that Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Red Deer Cave people are different "species."

We don't have Red Deer Cave DNA yet, but most folks living today have Neanderthal or Denisovan ancestors. I'm guessing that Red Deer Cave people are no less "human" than the rest of us.

I'll admit to a bias here, since my ancestors are from northwestern Europe, Neanderthal country. I don't think our profuse body hair and Neanderthal DNA make us less "human" than folks from other parts of the world. But I'm one of 'them,' so like I said: I'm biased.

Ainu apparently aren't genetically similar to Europeans, although I'm not clear on which Europeans Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza, used for comparison — and that's almost another topic.

The more we learn about life on Earth, the more scientists revise the old Linnaean taxonomy. (May 29, 2015; November 21, 2014)

A century from now, maybe sooner, looking at Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the rest of us, as separate "species" may seem as quaint as seeing the Irish and English as separate "races" does today. (May 29, 2015; October 31, 2014; July 11, 2014)

Differences and DNA



(From Elisabeth Daynes/SPL, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("What a Neanderthal may have looked like"
(BBC News)
"...Neanderthals were around before we evolved. They first appeared around 250,000 years ago and spread throughout Europe and Asia.

"Our own species, Homo sapiens, evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. They reached Europe around 45,000 years ago, and found it was inhabited by Neanderthals.

"We co-existed with them for 5,000 years, according to the latest estimate. But eventually they disappeared, perhaps as early as 40,000 years ago.

"In 2013, a team led by Eiluned Pearce of the University of Oxford in the UK proposed a radical explanation: their eyes were to blame...."
(Melissa Hogenboom, BBC News)
Summarizing the next 986 words in Melissa Hogenboom's article: Neanderthals almost certainly had bigger eyes than the average person living today, but that probably didn't kill them off.

Again, I don't think Homo sapiens and Neanderthals are "us" and "them."

We're learning that folks with Neanderthal traits started showing up in Eurasia some 350,000 to 600,000 years back. The anatomically modern human (AMH) model that showed up about 200,000 years ago in Africa.

Some time after that, folks whose descendants would be today's Europeans started heading into Eurasia, meeting Neanderthals and other pioneers.

I haven't had my DNA tested, but unless I'm really weird, I've got Neanderthal ancestors. As I've said before, humanity's story is complicated: and Neanderthals are arguably no more "extinct" that Gauts. (May 29, 2015; July 11, 2014)

Nifty Idea, Big Problems


We've come a long way since Marcelline Boule had an artist draw that picture of a 'primitive' Neanderthal, based on his study of an arthritic old Neanderthal's partial remains.

In fairness, your average Neanderthal would have trouble blending into most crowds today. Think someone like William "The Refrigerator" Perry on a high school's relay team.

Neanderthal adults had bigger brains than we do, on average, but they were — robust, so the brain/body ratio wasn't all that different.

The average Neanderthal brain wasn't shaped quite like the average AMH, which suggests that the wiring was a bit different.

Pearce's team says that their big eyes had to have bigger visual cortices to handle their bigger eyes: and that this meant the 'social' part of their brains was smaller.

If that was true, Folks today might mostly look like us because our ancestors were better at cooperating.

It's a nifty idea, with big problems.

For starters, as Hogenboom's article points out, the human brain is heavily interconnected. Visual processing also involves parts of the brain used for storing and processing memories and emotions.

Some of us recall and imagine images better than others, some don't, and that's yet another topic:

Eyes and Size of Social Groups


Folks at the University of Wisconsin-Madison compared 18 living primate species. They discovered that the size of their eye sockets and social groups were connected.

The big-eyed primates have larger social groups than their small-eyed counterparts — and, for the most part, bigger neocortices.

Maybe Neanderthals declined because they spent too much time playing the Pleistocene equivalent of Parcheesi. Then again, maybe not.

I'm not at all surprised that Neanderthals and folks who lived in other parts of the world didn't look exactly alike.

There isn't as much regional variation today, but folks whose ancestors have been living in Kenya, Japan, and Scandinavia don't look quite alike.

Interestingly, folks who live in upper latitudes may still have very slightly larger eyes, and marginally bigger brains, than folks who live near the equator. Since my ancestors are from the big-eyed folks, I'm not inclined to think that we're 'less evolved,' but again: I'll admit to a bias.

More:

2. Squeaking Bonobos



(From Zanna Clay/Lui Kotale Bonobo Project, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
"Bonobo squeaks hint at earlier speech evolution"
Jonathan Webb, BBC News (August 4, 2015)

"Wild bonobos use a single high-pitched call in a variety of contexts, showing a flexibility in their communication that was thought to be uniquely human.

"That is the conclusion of a study by UK and Swiss psychologists.

"Bonobos are just as closely related to humans as chimpanzees, but their wild communication is much less studied.

"Researchers say the new findings push back the development of context-free vocal calls to our shared ancestor with bonobos, 6-10 million years ago...."
Non-human primates like chimps and bonobos, communicate with calls that indicate an emotional state. For that matter, so do we: just listen to crowd sounds during the Olympics.

This research apparently shows that functional flexibility — communicating with the same sound in different contexts — isn't uniquely human.

We start squealing and growling early, sometimes as early as three to four months after birth: leaving our parents guessing whether we're happy, sad, or just squealing and growling.

Turns out, bonobos do pretty much the same thing: except they squeak. Or maybe it's more like a peep.

The bonobo squeak or peep isn't tied to one activity or emotional state: so either the bonobos figure out what the others are saying from context — or maybe they just squeak a lot.

Analysis of recorded bonobo squeaks show that they're acoustically identical, regardless of what the bonobo is doing. The squeaks could be the start of language. I wouldn't be surprised if they're the bonobo equivalent of whistling why they work/play/whatever.

Either way: this is new information.

What it means is something I'm pretty sure we'll learn, if we keep studying bonobos. Since studying this world is part of being human,1 I think it's very likely indeed that we'll keep learning more about bonobos, how language emerged, and ourselves.

More:
My take on newly-discovered pages from humanity's long story:
If you've been here before, you probably know why I don't fear knowledge.

1 Intense folks like the fictional Mr. Squibbs notwithstanding, science and technology aren't transgressions.

They're part of being human.

We're supposed to be curious, study this astounding universe, and develop new technology.

Ethics apply, but part of our job is taking care of this world: and that takes knowledge and tech. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2292-2296, 2402-2405, 2456)

I talk about that a lot:
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, June 5, 2015

Human Nature, Change, and Dinosaur Names

Human remains in Sima de los Huesos/Pit of Bones show evidence of a lethal attack — 430,000 years ago. On the 'up' side, evidence of human compassion goes back 1,800,000 years.

The sauropod we've called "Brontosaurus" has that name again, probably, which gave me an excuse to mention Gertie the Dinosaur and Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses.
  1. CSI, Sima de los Huesos
  2. "Welcome Back, Brontosaurus?"

Acknowledging Change


This universe got started about 13,798,000,000 years ago, give or take 37,000,000. Earth's a lot younger: 4,540,000,000 years, plus or minus 50,000,000. The earliest life we know of started 3,500,000,000 to 3,700,000,000 years back.

We've learned a lot since Psalms 8:4-6 and Psalms 139:17-18 were written. I see scientific discoveries as opportunities for "greater admiration" of God's work. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 283)

We live in a world of order and beauty. Studying it and using what we learn are part of being human. I've been over this before. A lot. (March 6, 2015; February 27, 2015; February 13, 2015; February 6, 2015)

Our world is basically good: but it isn't perfect. That's one of my recurring topics, too. (September 5, 2014; November 21, 2014; October 31, 2014)

We're not what's wrong with the universe, by the way. Humanity is good, too: basically. That's hard to remember, sometimes, when someone takes 'your' parking space, or murders someone for being different.

But God makes us, and God doesn't make junk. (Genesis 1:31; Catechism, 31, 299, 355)

We're made of spirit and the stuff of this world, rational creatures who decide what we do. (Catechism, 311, 325-348, 1704, 1730-1731)

Made "in the image of God," the first of us decided that being like God wasn't good enough: we wanted top billing. That was a very long time ago, and we're still dealing with the disastrous results. (Genesis 1:26-27; Catechism, 396-412)

We've changed a bit over the last couple million years. Our faces have gotten smaller and our foreheads bigger, and we've been getting better at communication. We're slowly learning how to reunite humanity's huge and sadly-dysfunctional family, and that's another topic. Topics. (April 26, 2015; December 12, 2014; September 7, 2014; July 5, 2013)

We've learned a great deal about humanity's backstory since 1859, which horrifies some folks — and convinces others that because some Christians don't like change, God can't exist. Knowing more about the "clay" God used doesn't bother me. (June 20, 2014)

Anyway, I'm a Catholic, so acknowledging that the universe is in a "state of journeying" toward an ultimate perfection is mandatory. (Catechism, 282-308)

Dinosaurs, Imagined and Real



(From Winsor McCay, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Winsor McCay's comic strip Dream of the Rarebit Fiend. (May 25, 1913))

Interestingly, Winsor McCay's tree-munching sauropod was on land, not partly submerged as scientists once thought.

I'll be talking about brontosaurs a bit later, but figured this would be a good place to give an overview of Earth when these famous dinosaurs lived.


(From Ron Blakey, NAU Geology, used w/o permission.)
(North America during the Late Jurassic, about 150,000,000 years ago.)

Brontosaurus lived in what's now Wyoming, south of an inland sea in North America. The Atlantic was forming between North America and Eurasia, but hadn't separated Africa and South America yet.

We know about several sorts of sauropods that lived in North America at the time, plus some in Europe and Africa. North American sauropods shared their continent with ankylosaurs like Gargoyleosaurus and Mymoorapelta: herbivorous tanks, sort of. Think a scaled-up, hornless, rhinoceros.

Archaeopteryx was flying where Bavaria is now, and the Ceratosaurus lived in the same part of North America as brontosaurs. Ceratosaurus was probably about half the size of Allosaurus, another North American predator of the era.

Ammonites swam where the western Sierra Nevada is today. Various species of those spiral molluscs would endure until the big mass extinction some 66,000,000 years back. (April 24, 2015; January 16, 2015)

Knowing that won't help me predict what the weekend's weather will be like, but I find this sort of thing fascinating. Your experience may vary.

1. CSI, Sima de los Huesos



(From PLOS ONE, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("A detailed CT scan of the skull showed that the two fractures were almost indistinguishable"
(BBC News))
"Evidence of 430,000-year-old human violence found" Victoria Gill, BBC News (May 28, 2015)

"Human remains from a cave in northern Spain show evidence of a lethal attack 430,000 years ago, a study has shown.

"Researchers examined one skull from a site called the Pit of Bones, which contains the remains of at least 28 people.

"They concluded that two fractures on that skull were likely to have been caused by 'multiple blows' and imply 'an intention to kill'...."

"...The forensic investigation of this ancient death provides a piece in the puzzle of how these people came to be in the cave...."
Cranium 17 is from a young adult, one of 28 people whose remains were in Sima de los Huesos, Spanish for "Pit of Bones," in the Atapuerca Mountains.

A Wikipedia page, citing Stanley Greenspan's work, says they were Homo heidelbergensis, folks whose descendants include Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo Sapiens.

Hats off to BBC News for calling them "people." That's a big step forward from the previous century's attitudes about 'cavemen.' (October 31, 2014)

Scientists studying the "two clear perimortem depression fractures on the frontal bone" say they were most likely made "with the same object in face-to-face interpersonal conflict." (PLOS ONE)

Sima de los Huesos/pit of bones is a 13-meter/43-foot-deep shaft used, probably off and on, for some 130,000 years as a repository for bodies.

One of them, a child we call Cranium 14, was born with severe Craniosynostosis. Someone took care of this child for at least five years.

A deformed and mentally crippled child would be accepted in some cultures today, killed before birth in others. I think of everyone in humanity's family as "human," anyway: and that's yet another topic.

"We Have Not Changed Much"



(From Arsuaga et al., Javier Trueba (Madrid Scientific Films); via PLOS-ONE; used w/o permission.)
(Diagram (left) of deposits at the bottom of Sima de los Huesos/Pit of Bones; photo of Cranium 17, taken by Javier Trueba (Madrid Scientific Films).)
"...And while this study does not tackle that scientific debate, it suggests that the long vertical shaft of this cave was a place where these ancient people deliberately 'deposited deceased members of their social groups'."

"The researchers conclude in their paper that this may have been 'a social practice among this group', and may even be 'the earliest funerary behaviour in the human fossil record'.

" 'Intentional interpersonal violence is a behaviour that accompanies humans since at least 430,000 years ago,' commented Dr Sala, 'but so does the care of sick or even the care of the dead.

" 'We have not changed much in the last half million years.'..."
(Victoria Gill, BBC News)
I agree, that "we have not changed much in the last half million years:" and see mounting evidence that folks have been acting like humans for much longer.

We don't know much about KNM-ER 1808, who lived roughly 1,500,000 years back in what's now Kenya: apart from how she died.
"...An abnormal outer layer of bone on her thigh shows evidence of bleeding just before death. After consulting doctors and accounts of wilderness explorers, researchers concluded that an overdose of vitamin A—perhaps from eating a carnivore's liver, which concentrates vitamin A—caused the bleeding and her death."
(Smithsonian)
Before that, she'd have suffered weeks or months of abdominal pain, nausea, headaches, dizziness, blurred vision, lethargy, trouble thinking.

Without help — someone to fend off predators and get water, at least — someone weighing around 59 kilograms/130 pounds, in that condition, wouldn't last long in the African savannah

Folks still get Hypervitaminosis A occasionally. Eating a carnivore's liver, or some sorts of honey, chugging cod liver oil, or overdosing on some supplements or vitamins will do it. KNM-ER 1808 might have suffered from yaws, in which case the bone and soft tissue damage would have taken years to kill her. (PLOS-ONE/NCBI) And that's almost another topic.

Then there's Dmanisi skull 4 and mandible D3900, the remains of an elderly man: one of five Homo erectus skulls found in Dmanisi Gorge, Georgia.

These folks, who lived about 1,800,000 years ago, were a diverse lot — but no more so than folks living today. I gather that thinking they're all the same species is still debated. As I said last week, I think scientists are going to be re-thinking what "species" actually means. (May 29, 2015)

The point is that Dmanisi skull 4/mandible D3900 only had one tooth left when he died. He almost certainly had someone finding and preparing soft food for him in his last years. Or maybe he was really good at finding gummable plant products.

My guess is that we've been taking care of folks who can't care for themselves, and occasionally acting in less ethical ways, for a very long time.

More:

1. "Welcome Back, Brontosaurus?"



(From Davide Bonadonna, CC- BY NC SA, via Smithsomian Magazine, used w/o permission.)
("Welcome back, Brontosaurus?"
(Smithsonian Magazine))
"Back to Brontosaurus? The Dinosaur Might Deserve Its Own Genus After All" Brian Switek, Smithsonian Magazine (April 7, 2015)

"It may be one of the most famous dinosaurs of all time. The trouble is that shortly after being discovered, the Jurassic creature fell into an identity crisis. The name for the long-necked, heavy-bodied herbivore Brontosaurus excelsus—the great 'thunder lizard'—was tossed into the scientific wastebasket when it was discovered that the dinosaur wasn't different enough from other specimens to deserve its own distinct genus.

"But now, in a paleontological twist, Brontosaurus just might be back. A new analysis of dinosaur skeletons across multiple related species suggests that the original thunder lizard is actually unique enough to resurrect the beloved moniker, according to researchers in the U.K. and Portugal.

" 'We didn’t expect this at all at the beginning,' says study co-author Emmanuel Tschopp of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa. At first, Tschopp had been working only with Octávio Mateus of the Museu da Lourinhã to update the family tree of diplodocid dinosaurs.'..."
This particular sort of long-necked dinosaur has been around, either as living critters or fossils, since the Late Jurassic. That's about 155,000,000 years now.

What's been changing for the last 136 years is the critter's basionym, which is a name for the names of taxa — which is a name for groups of organisms we think of as a unit. The last I heard, philosophers still aren't sure exactly what names are and how they work, and that's yet again another topic.

The more we learn about life's long story, the more we need to re-think what we learned earlier. Until 1993, for example, scientists thought dogs were related to the dhole, or maybe golden jackal. Mitochondrial DNA showed that dogs are a subspecies of wolf. I talked about dogs and wolves last week. (May 29, 2015)

Re-classifying this particular sort of sauropod is important for scientists studying sauropods in the Kimmeridgian age of the Late Jurassic. It's made headlines — probably because brontosaurus has been a major cultural landmark for more than a century.

Brontosaurs have been an iconic dinosaur, from Gertie the Dinosaur to Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses: and on Sinclair Oil Corporation's logo. There's one of those little green sauropods on a gas station sign downtown, here in Sauk Centre, Minnesota.

Charles R. Knight did a fine job in that 1897 painting of sauropods. At the time, quite a few scientists thought brontosaurs lived in water, and that diplodocus dragged its tail.

These days, it's more of a 'what's wrong with this picture?' situation. Apatosaurs may have cracked their whip-like tails, making a sound of over 200 decibels. And that's still another topic.

More, mostly about humanity's past:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, March 6, 2015

Mutant Cows, Mass Migrations, and a Brain Gene

Bovine tuberculosis may not be a big problem, if Ministry of Agriculture in Northwest A&F University, Yangling, research pays off.

Meanwhile, we may be learning who made Europe look and sound the way it does today: and scientists at the Max Plank Institute discovered how a uniquely-human gene helps our brains grow.
  1. Gene-Swapped Cows
  2. Yamnaya, Yamna; and 'There Goes the Neighborhood,' 4,500 Years Back
  3. Another Uniquely-Human 'Brain' Gene

Science, Competence, and Ethics


Scientists in China have developed tuberculosis-resistant cows. I think it's a good idea: but am pretty sure that some folks won't.

So, why aren't I recoiling in horror at scientists "tampering with things man was not supposed to know?"

Short answer: I'm a Catholic, and know a little about my faith.

Studying this universe and using that knowledge to make new tools is part of being human. Ethics apply, but science and technology aren't transgressions. They're part of our job. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2292-2296, 2402-2405, 2456)

I've seen attitudes toward science and technology shift, quite a bit. I grew up when quite a few folks still thought human ingenuity would solve all our problems: or at least make "the future" a magical place to live.

I miss the silly optimism, sort of. But don't think it made much more sense than assuming that science and technology would kill us all, destroying Earth's "fragile" ecosystem in the process. (June 15, 2014; February 14, 2014)

Movies like "Things to Come" and "Soylent Green" reflect those attitudes. I recommend seeing the 1936 "Things to Come" — and H. G. Wells' "The Shape of Things to Come" 1933 novel.

Maybe "Biker Mice from Mars" and "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" represent a more balanced view — a less serious one, at any rate.

H. G. Wells' "The Shape of Things to Come" is, depending on your point of view, quite optimistic or very grim.

Me? I'll be surprised if we cobble together a global government in the next few millennia.

Humanity's fractured family may eventually build an "international authority with the necessary competence and power" to settle arguments without war. (Catechism, 2307-2317; "Gaudium et Spes," 79 § 4)

I hope so.

When, and if, we build a reasonable facsimile of Tennyson's "Federation of the world," I'm quite sure it won't be perfect. But it could easily be better than the mess we have now.

("Sun City," by Adimono, used w/o permission.)

Meanwhile, we have work to do. Lots of work. And that's another topic. (February 20, 2015; October 26, 2014; September 7, 2014)

1. Gene-Swapped Cows

"Scientists produce TB-resistant cows"
BBC News (March 3, 2015)

"Scientists in China have produced a herd of genetically engineered cows that are better able to ward off bovine TB infection.

"The long-term goal of the research is to avoid the need to cull livestock by breeding disease resistant cattle.

"Bovine TB is a risk in many areas, including New Zealand, England and Wales, and parts of Africa and Asia.

"In the UK over 26,000 cattle were slaughtered in 2013 at a cost to taxpayers of £100m.

"Researchers at the Ministry of Agriculture in Northwest A&F University, Yangling, China, used hi-tech genetic technology to insert a mouse gene into Holstein-Friesian cattle...."
If bovine tuberculosis is a problem in New Zealand, England, and Wales: how come Chinese scientists are trying to make TB-resistant cows?

My guess is that China is finally getting back on its feet, recovering from what happened after the Qing dynasty went into auto-destruct mode. China had been a — arguably, the — world economic power since the days of the Han dynasty and silk road.

I don't mind the idea of a world with a contemporary equivalent of Shanxi merchants — partly because I'm an American, and realize that folks with wealth make better customers and trade partners than those without.

On the other hand, taking a line through "The Mask of Fu Manchu" and "Battle Beneath the Earth," I could assume that there's a plot afoot. Think "The Manchurian Candidate" meets "Brainstorm." And that's yet another topic. Topics.

More seriously: protecting against mild tuberculosis infections is a start. Developing cows with more resistance sounds like a good idea.

Maybe there's a practical problem with putting mouse genes in cows: but gene-swapping between species has been going on for — most likely — billions of years. What's new is that we're doing the swapping. (February 6, 2015)

I don't see ethical issues with tweaking the genetics of livestock. We've been doing that for — a very long time, not that 'we've always done it' is an excuse for bad behavior. More to the point, grafting olive trees is a metaphor in Romans 11:19-24: and those verses don't seem to condemn the practice.

Maybe someone's assumed that Deuteronomy 22:9 forbids grafting, or condemns marrying outside Debrett's Peerage, a lower Dun & Bradstreet number, or whatever.

I don't: particularly since it's about seeds, and comes between a rule about parapets and another about using draft animals. (February 14, 2014)

Laban's Sheep


Genetic engineering tech like gel electrophoresis is new — but genetic manipulation isn't. Unless you're a hunter, the odds are pretty good that you've never eaten food that didn't come from a genetically modified plant or animal.

We don't think of "domesticated" animals as "GMOs," but today's cattle are the result of more than ten millennia of genetic tweaking.

We're developing new technology: but people have been using 'synthetic' organisms like chickens, macaroni wheat, and dogs, for a very long time. (February 14, 2014; November 22, 2013)

Not everybody has been up to speed with genetic technologies. Laban, son of Nahor, for example, probably wouldn't have agreed to Jacob's suggested wages if he'd known more about sheep. (Genesis 30:31-34)

I think technology, old or new, can be dangerous: if we aren't careful. But we've learned how to live with fire, chickens, and telephones. I think we'll keep learning.

More:

2. Yamnaya, Yamna; and 'There Goes the Neighborhood,' 4,500 Years Back



(From BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("By 5,000-6,000 years ago, Europeans were a two-way mix of indigenous hunters and Near Eastern farmers"
(BBC News))
"Genomes document ancient mass migration to Europe"
BBC News (March 2, 2015)

"DNA analysis has revealed evidence for a massive migration into the heartland of Europe 4,500 years ago.

"Data from the genomes of 69 ancient individuals suggest that herders moved en masse from the continent's eastern periphery into Central Europe.

"These migrants may be responsible for the expansion of Indo-European languages, which make up the majority of spoken tongues in Europe today.

"An international team has published the research in the journal Nature....

"...Their analyses show that 7,000-8,000 years ago, a closely related group of early farmers moved into Europe from the Near East, confirming the findings of previous studies....

"...Eventually, the two groups mixed, so that by 5,000-6,000 years ago, the farmers' genetic signature had become melded with that of the indigenous Europeans...."
I'm particularly interested in this news, since my ancestors of a few centuries back came from northwestern Europe. This unfolding tale of hunters, farmers, and migration, is family history: prehistory, more precisely.

Apparently those two groups, the older hunter-gatherers and the newer farmers, weren't enough to explain "the genetic complexity of modern Europeans." That's why scientists were looking for a third group, added recently — comparatively speaking.

Professor David Riech's team say that the Yamnaya, who lived in what's now southern Russia back in the Bronze Age, are the most likely source for the third group.

I'm not sure, but my guess is that "Yamnaya" and "Yamna" are different versions of the same word — or what happened to Ямная, transliterated into our version of the Latin alphabet.

I've noticed little change in human nature since we started keeping records — and suspect that when those 'foreigners' moved into Europe, some 4,500 years ago, some folks were appalled.

Many obviously weren't, though: which is why I look the way I do.

Learning About Indo-European Languages

"...The scientists contend that a group similar to the Yamnaya moved into the European heartland after the invention of wheeled vehicles, contributing up to 50% of ancestry in some modern north Europeans. Southern Europeans on the whole appear to have been less affected by the expansion.

Even more intriguing is the possible link between this steppe expansion and the origins of Indo-European languages.

"Most indigenous European tongues, from English to Russian and Spanish to Greek, belong to the Indo-European group. The classification is based on shared features of vocabulary and grammar.

"Basque, spoken in south-west France and northern Spain, does not fit in this group, and may be the only surviving relic of earlier languages once spoken more widely...."
(BBC News)
Starting around the 16th century, Europeans visiting the Indian subcontinent noticed some words in the languages there sounded a lot like their European counterparts. A fairly famous example is reich, rex, and raj: all of which mean something like "king," "ruler," or "royal."

Professor Reich told BBC News that Iranian and Indian Indo-European languages spoken were probably already unlike the Yamnaya versions back when some Yamnaya apparently moved west.

I gather that most of what we know about the Indo-European languages comes from reverse-engineering today's languages, and I'm drifting off-topic.

One thing's for sure: folks who lived back then won't be telling us what happened.

3. Another Uniquely-Human 'Brain' Gene



(© MPI f. Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, via Max Plank Institute, used w/o permission.)
("This picture shows a cerebral cortex of an embryonic mouse. The cell nuclei are marked in blue and the deep-layer neurons in red. The human-specific gene ARHGAP11B was selectively expressed in the right half of the brain, which is visible by the folding of the neocortical surface." (MPI f. Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics))
"A gene for brain size - only found in humans"
Following the traces of evolution: Max Planck Researchers find a key to the reproduction of brain stem cells
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, München (February 26, 2015)

"About 99 percent of human genes are shared with chimpanzees. Only the small remainder sets us apart. However, we have one important difference: The brain of humans is three times as big as the chimpanzee brain. During evolution our genome must have changed in order to trigger such brain growth. Wieland Huttner, Director and Research Group Leader a the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics (MPI-CBG), and his team identified for the first time a gene that is only present in humans and contributes to the reproduction of basal brain stem cells, triggering a folding of the neocortex. The researchers isolated different subpopulations of human brain stem cells and precisely identified, which genes are active in which cell type. In doing so, they noticed the gene ARHGAP11B: it is only found in humans and in our closest relatives, the Neanderthals and Denisova-Humans, but not in chimpanzees. This gene manages to trigger brain stem cells to form a bigger pool of stem cells. In that way, during brain development more neurons can arise and the cerebrum can expand. The cerebrum is responsible for cognitive functions like speaking and thinking..."
It's hardly surprising that about 99 percent of our genes are in chimps, too. A sizable fraction of our genes are in most animals.

An example — Drosophilidae, a family of flies; zebrafish; and humans; all use the PAX6 gene to grow retinas. (January 9, 2015)

Life's molecular machinery is highly modular, which is why we can patch code from bacteria into tobacco plants and potatoes: letting the plants produce their own pesticides. (February 6, 2015; January 9, 2015; December 26, 2014)

Like any other technology, gene splicing isn't "safe," in the sense that bad things won't happen if we don't use our brains. Rocks can crush fingers; and we still have occasional trouble with fire, after upwards of a million years' experience. (May 9, 2014; April 27, 2014)

"Pinky and the Brain" — and Autopsies


I'm not worried that mad scientists will create a mouse with The Brain's desire for world domination.

Rewiring a mouse's brain with a human gene may be an effective way to tell exactly what ARHGAP11B does. I don't doubt that we learned quite a bit from that experiment.

I'm also sure that the researchers meant well but good intentions don't change what's ethical and what's not. (Catechism, 1759)

I am, however, a bit concerned about a mouse with human genes: and hope that the human cerebrum tissue's donor was already dead; or that the sample was too small to matter.

Autopsies are okay, by the way, for legal investigations and scientific research. So are organ transplants and donating organs. (Catechism, 2296, 2301)

We're expected to make sure the subject is dead first, though: and killing someone for their organs is strictly against the rules. (Catechism, 2268-2269; "Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions," 35, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (September 8, 2008))

Recognizing that ethics apply in scientific research, and everything else we do, is a far cry from feeling that autopsies are morally wrong: or that thinking is a sin. (November 21, 2014)

I've talked about Christianity's attitude studying nature, Herophilus of Chalcedon, English history, and getting a grip, before. (August 15, 2014)

Safflowers, Ethics, and Doing Our Job


Making "artificial" insulin sounds like a good idea. It could make insulin more readily available to folks who need it.

Putting human DNA into safflowers resulted in plants that produce human insulin. It's a remarkable achievement: but probably a bad idea. (February 14, 2014)

This isn't a knee-jerk rejection of science and other newfangled ideas. The problem is that humans are people, and safflowers aren't.

The last I heard, making a critter that's not human — but has a substantial amount of human DNA — is "an offense against the dignity of human beings." ("Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions")

Whether that principle applies to safflowers with just enough human genes to produce insulin, or mice with the ARHGAP11B gene, I don't know.

Again: Part of our job is taking care of this astounding creation: studying it and developing new tools. Science and technology are part of being human. It's what we do. (Genesis 1:27-31; Catechism, 31, 355-361, 374-379)

More-or-less-related posts:
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Like it? Pin it, Plus it, - - -

Pinterest: My Stuff, and More

Visit Brian H.'s profile on Pinterest.

Advertisement

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Popular Posts

  • A 'Saint Brian,' Sort of
    My name is Brian Gill. In keeping with the customs of my culture, the first name is one which my parents chose for me, the last is the name ...
  • Mass Murder in Orlando
    I'd be writing a longer, more detailed, post about this; but still haven't resolved some technical issues. ( May 6, 2016 ; updated M...
  • Blind Mice; Heroism During the 'Batman' Killings
    The London 2012 Olympics start today: but instead of analyzing the significance of a South Korean flag being displayed with a North Korean...
  • Elijah and Pushing a Rock
    10th Sunday in Ordinary Time, 2016: 1 Kings 17:17 - 24 Galatians 1:11 - 19 Luke 7:11 - 17 Third Sunday of Easter, 2016 by Deacon L...
  • A Catholic Citizen in America: New Location
    The good news is still that Blogger's changes haven't made images in my posts here unviewable. ( May 6-16, 2016 ) Instead of jumpi...

Label Cloud

1277 abortion ADD ADHD-Inattentive Adoration Chapel Advent Afghanistan Africa America Amoris Laetitia angels animals annulment Annunciation anti-catholicism Antichrist apocalyptic ideas apparitions archaeology architecture Arianism art Asperger syndrome assumptions asteroid astronomy Australia authority balance and moderation baptism being Catholic beliefs bias Bible Bible and Catechism bioethics biology blogs brain Brazil business Canada capital punishment Caritas in Veritate Catechism Catholic Church Catholic counter-culture Catholicism change happens charisms charity Chile China Christianity Christmas citizenship climate change climatology cloning comets common good common sense Communion community compassion confirmation conscience conversion Corpus Christi cosmology creation credibility crime crucifix Crucifixion Cuba culture dance dark night of the soul death depression designer babies despair detachment devotion discipline disease diversity divination Divine Mercy divorce Docetism domestic church dualism duty Easter economics education elections emotions England entertainment environmental issues Epiphany Establishment Clause ethics ethnicity Eucharist eugenics Europe evangelizing evolution exobiology exoplanets exorcism extremophiles faith faith and works family Father's Day Faust Faustus fear of the Lord fiction Final Judgment First Amendment forgiveness Fortnight For Freedom free will freedom fun genetics genocide geoengineering geology getting a grip global Gnosticism God God's will good judgment government gratitude great commission guest post guilt Haiti Halloween happiness hate health Heaven Hell HHS hierarchy history holidays Holy Family Holy See Holy Spirit holy water home schooling hope humility humor hypocrisy idolatry image of God images Immaculate Conception immigrants in the news Incarnation Independence Day India information technology Internet Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Japan Jesus John Paul II joy just war justice Kansas Kenya Knights of Columbus knowledge Korea language Last Judgment last things law learning Lent Lenten Chaplet life issues love magi magic Magisterium Manichaeism marriage martyrs Mary Mass materialism media medicine meditation Memorial Day mercy meteor meteorology Mexico Minnesota miracles Missouri moderation modesty Monophysitism Mother Teresa of Calcutta Mother's Day movies music Muslims myth natural law neighbor Nestorianism New Year's Eve New Zealand news Nietzsche obedience Oceania organization original sin paleontology parish Parousia penance penitence Pentecost Philippines physical disability physics pilgrimage politics Pope Pope in Germany 2011 population growth positive law poverty prayer predestination presumption pride priests prophets prostitution Providence Purgatory purpose quantum entanglement quotes reason redemption reflections relics religion religious freedom repentance Resurrection robots Roman Missal Third Edition rosaries rules sacramentals Sacraments Saints salvation schools science secondary causes SETI sex shrines sin slavery social justice solar planets soul South Sudan space aliens space exploration Spain spirituality stem cell research stereotypes stewardship stories storm Sudan suicide Sunday obligation superstition symbols technology temptation terraforming the establishment the human condition tolerance Tradition traffic Transfiguration Transubstantiation travel Trinity trust truth uncertainty United Kingdom universal destination of goods vacation Vatican Vatican II veneration vengeance Veterans Day videos virtue vlog vocations voting war warp drive theory wealth weather wisdom within reason work worship writing

Marian Apparition: Champion, Wisconsin

Background:Posts in this blog: In the news:

What's That Doing in a Nice Catholic Blog?

From time to time, a service that I use will display links to - odd - services and retailers.

I block a few of the more obvious dubious advertisers.

For example: psychic anything, numerology, mediums, and related practices are on the no-no list for Catholics. It has to do with the Church's stand on divination. I try to block those ads.

Sometime regrettable advertisements get through, anyway.

Bottom line? What that service displays reflects the local culture's norms, - not Catholic teaching.