Debating a theistic evolutionist - does modern human evolution contradict Darwinian evolution?

[Tyrannohotep]

An online friend of mine asked me for my input on the evolution of modern human intelligence, especially when contrasted to that of "archaic" hominins like the Neanderthals and Denisovans. As far as I can tell, his position seems to be that since one specific lineage of humans (i.e. Homo sapiens) evolved greater "behavioral modernity" (i.e. intelligence) than other branches of the hominin family tree, it had to be the product of some sort of "grand plan" or "direction in evolution", as opposed to the standard "Darwinist" model. His language made me think he was arguing for some sort of theistic evolution that contrasted with atheistic "Darwinism".

Anyway, I feel the crux of his argument (namely, that other hominin branches not reaching the same level of behavioral modernity as Homo sapiens contradicts the Darwinian model) hinged on a teleological assumption that all hominin lineages must necessarily "aim" for modern human intelligence in the Darwinian model. Unfortunately, when I pointed this out to him, he accused me of "not addressing his evidence" (namely, Homo sapiens being more behaviorally "modern" than other hominins, which I did not dispute). He also said that, when I pointed out that there were religious undertones to his argument that made me uneasy about engaging with him further, he cried "ad hominem".

This is his latest post in our conversation (http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009989;p=2#000071)

Quote

So, to sum it up, you said 1) that there was "something about Africa", that 2) persisted over millions of years, that 3) disproportionately affected the human lineage that led to us and 4) did not affect other archaic lineages enough to be archaeologically visible.

Please explain to me (without resorting to weak appeals to ridicule):

a) how natural selection can maintain such a trend selectively over millions of years, disproportionately affecting one human lineage
b) how you know for a fact that this trend you speak of, could only have been maintained by currently accepted evolutionary processes

BTW, it's funny to me that you accuse me of teleology, claiming some sort of high scientific ground. I'm pretty sure your professors would be fuming right now reading the two quotes above and question your loyalty to the church of Darwinism. I think you should make up your mind. You can't evoke selective evolutionary processes that target only one human lineage, yet at the same time accuse me of teleology.

So what are your thoughts on this discussion? Do you think he has a point?

To provide the full context, here is the link to our conversation:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009989;p=1#000044

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, Tyrannohotep said:

An online friend of mine asked me for my input on the evolution of modern human intelligence, especially when contrasted to that of "archaic" hominins like the Neanderthals and Denisovans. As far as I can tell, his position seems to be that since one specific lineage of humans (i.e. Homo sapiens) evolved greater "behavioral modernity" (i.e. intelligence) than other branches of the hominin family tree, it had to be the product of some sort of "grand plan" or "direction in evolution", as opposed to the standard "Darwinist" model. His language made me think he was arguing for some sort of theistic evolution that contrasted with atheistic "Darwinism".

Anyway, I feel the crux of his argument (namely, that other hominin branches not reaching the same level of behavioral modernity as Homo sapiens contradicts the Darwinian model) hinged on a teleological assumption that all hominin lineages must necessarily "aim" for modern human intelligence in the Darwinian model. Unfortunately, when I pointed this out to him, he accused me of "not addressing his evidence" (namely, Homo sapiens being more behaviorally "modern" than other hominins, which I did not dispute). He also said that, when I pointed out that there were religious undertones to his argument that made me uneasy about engaging with him further, he cried "ad hominem".

This is his latest post in our conversation (http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009989;p=2#000071)

So what are your thoughts on this discussion? Do you think he has a point?

To provide the full context, here is the link to our conversation:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009989;p=1#000044

Has he ever thought of available resources and serendipity giving an advantage to a group or particular groups over others. I think cooking increased caloric intake for less effort, for one example.

[Tyrannohotep]

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Has he ever thought of available resources and serendipity giving an advantage to a group or particular groups over others. I think cooking increased caloric intake for less effort, for one example.

He seems to think that, because the hominins that stayed in the African "cradle of humanity" longer ended up evolving into modern humans whereas the ones that left Africa in earlier waves (e.g. Homo erectus, and then the Homo heidelbergensis ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans, etc.) appear more "stagnant" with regards to behavioral modernity, there was some sort of conscious (theistic) force guiding modern human evolution in Africa. My rebuttal to that (which I just posted in the original Egyptsearch thread) is that the trend we observed simply reflects the African "cradle" being more conducive to the evolution of behavioral modernity than other regions, hence why hominins staying inside it ended up more modern than those that left earlier.

[Ten oz]

14 minutes ago, Tyrannohotep said:

An online friend of mine asked me for my input on the evolution of modern human intelligence, especially when contrasted to that of "archaic" hominins like the Neanderthals and Denisovans. As far as I can tell, his position seems to be that since one specific lineage of humans (i.e. Homo sapiens) evolved greater "behavioral modernity" (i.e. intelligence) than other branches of the hominin family tree, it had to be the product of some sort of "grand plan" or "direction in evolution", as opposed to the standard "Darwinist" model. His language made me think he was arguing for some sort of theistic evolution that contrasted with atheistic "Darwinism".

Both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA exists in Humans today. Not everyone have the genes either. A significant portion of both genomes still live in humans. The fact that both were able to interbred so successfully with Homo Sapiens also shows they were capable of living alongside Homo Sapiens in communities. 

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/dtcgenetictesting/neanderthaldna

 

29 minutes ago, Tyrannohotep said:

Anyway, I feel the crux of his argument (namely, that other hominin branches not reaching the same level of behavioral modernity as Homo sapiens contradicts the Darwinian model) hinged on a teleological assumption that all hominin lineages must necessarily "aim" for modern human intelligence in the Darwinian model. Unfortunately, when I pointed this out to him, he accused me of "not addressing his evidence" (namely, Homo sapiens being more behaviorally "modern" than other hominins, which I did not dispute). He also said that, when I pointed out that there were religious undertones to his argument that made me uneasy about engaging with him further, he cried "ad hominem".

It has never been established how intelligent Neanderthals and Denisovans were. 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/rethinking-neanderthals-83341003/

[SamCogar]

26 minutes ago, Tyrannohotep said:

An online friend of mine asked me for my input on the evolution of modern human intelligence, especially when contrasted to that of "archaic" hominins like the Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Given the scientific claims that the last of the Neanderthals perished some 40,000 or so years BP, how can anyone make a comparison of the evolution of modern human (Homo sapien sapien) intelligence and the intelligence of an extinct hominin (Homo neanderthalensis)?

 

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, Tyrannohotep said:

He seems to think that, because the hominins that stayed in the African "cradle of humanity" longer ended up evolving into modern humans whereas the ones that left Africa in earlier waves (e.g. Homo erectus, and then the Homo heidelbergensis ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans, etc.) appear more "stagnant" with regards to behavioral modernity, there was some sort of conscious (theistic) force guiding modern human evolution in Africa. My rebuttal to that (which I just posted in the original Egyptsearch thread) is that the trend we observed simply reflects the African "cradle" being more conducive to the evolution of behavioral modernity than other regions, hence why hominins staying inside it ended up more modern than those that left earlier.

It is not known for sure why Neanderthals and Denisovans went extinct but their numbers were never vast and their habitats were small compared to Homo Sapiens. Also it is Homo Sapiens who migrated into their habitats and not vice verse. So it is possible scarcity had force a change in Homo Sapien behavior which lead to migration.  

[Scott of the Antares]

29 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It has never been established how intelligent Neanderthals and Denisovans were.

True. And some researchers now believe that Neanderthals are responsible for some ancient cave paintings, showing they had a reasonable level of development.

There is also a ~47,000 year old cave that was recently discovered that had signs of use of fire, ritual mounds and rings on the floor, and reworking of the cave walls all ascribed to Neanderthals. In another similarly dated cave,  bones were arranged on an alter, again, with the work identified as Neanderthals. They certainly seemed to have started developing abstract lines of thought and gained an identity of the self.

[Tyrannohotep]

I've given up on the conversation. He won't change his mind (and he won't even explain the details of the "grand plan" he believes in when asked), so I've figured continuing the discussion is not worth it.

[Ten oz]

12 minutes ago, Tyrannohotep said:

I've given up on the conversation. He won't change his mind (and he won't even explain the details of the "grand plan" he believes in when asked), so I've figured continuing the discussion is not worth it.

The whole notion is built around an inaccurate concept of evolution, Neanderthal & Denisovan history, and the nature of intelligence.