Tralaticium Matrimonium [Traditional Marriage]

There may exist traditional marriages around the world but, as with all traditions, tradition changes with the times largely due to external factors. Three examples of marriage customs will be summarized as well as their purposes, structure, ritual, standards benefits, and how they contrast towards to the typical western notion of marriage. I attempted to analyze three cultures that have different marriage customs—fictive, polyandrous, and same-sex—in order to maximize the diversity in contrast to the standard western notion of marriage, one woman and one man.  

Firstly, we have the Nandi peoples of Kenya. Residing in what is now named Nandi county, the population of the Nandi peoples are about 753,000 as of 2009 [1]. Largely agricultural, the major crops are millet, corn, and yam; cattle is primarily used for food, bride-payments, rituals et cetera [2]. Polygyny seems to be common as 25% or so of the males have multiples wives [3]. Though, there exists woman-woman marriages despite the Kenyan government outlawing homosexual acts. Such marriages existed before colonization but, with the western influences, it would seem that woman-woman marriages are in decline despite the Kenyan court, more recently, allowing such traditional marriages to be legally recognized in or around 2011 [4]. 

Regarding the woman-woman marriages, when a woman has not borne any children, she takes the male role in the relationship/marriage. She—or, perhaps, he—provides the woman she marries a home and urges her to ,then, find a male—who is a member of spouse's clan—for a sexual relationship in order to bear a child; same-sex sexual acts, however, not reported to occur as such acts are illegal [5] [6].  Such order of things allows for the female husband to, essentially, become a male, especially in regards to the traditional division of labor between male and female—the female husband is able to attend/partake in male events. The female husband is able to pass on her property and the ilk to her male heir that is to be provided by the female wife [7]. The basis and importance of these same-sex marriages may largely be based on the importance of male inheritance and supporting a family lineage in a patrilineal culture or society. Contrasted to the West, the emphasis on heirs, gender, sex, and clan are almost nonexistent; sexual activity and love tend to be emphasized normally in a marriage and there can exist a lack of an objective within a marriage. The objective of marriage in a culture like the Nandi is to pass on whatever may be passed on to the son and to raise children to carry on the clan or family.  

Secondly, there exists the Nyinba peoples of Tibet. These people are comprised of many tribes and villages within Tibet and are largely agricultural. Something that makes the Nyinba people special is that they are, according to Pasternak, one of four cultures that are known to be polyandrous and the only one known to practice fraternal polyandrous [8]. Fraternal polyandry is the practice of brothers marrying a wife—or wives [9]. Why fraternal polyandry? It is believed that a wife shared by fraternal brothers lowers the amount of jealousy produced in contrast to people who are not related and share a wife [10]. This practice of fraternal polyandry is to have occurred since time immemorial. In the present, about 70% of marriages are initially polyandrous but may become monogamous as brothers die out, brothers move away from the household, and so forth; depending on circumstance, brothers may marry, also, the sister(s) of the first wife [11]. In regards to who marries whom and when, it is usually the eldest brother, the most dominant of the siblings, that decides who the brothers will marry—the youngest or younger brothers do not usually participate in the marriage ceremony; marriages tend to occur in the middle teens [12]. The wife is to be shared equally between the brothers. To the Westerner, this may seem scandalous or odd but it is the norm in this culture and not thought of as unusual [13].  

Furthermore, in regards to how fraternal polyandry works, if, say, one of the younger brothers is unhappy with the shared wife and, say, the eldest brother does not marry another wife, then the younger brother may divorce—if he is married to the shared wife—and or move from the shared household to marry. As for the children, they remain with the other brother(s) regardless if it known that the child(ren) belong to the departing brother [14]. The structure or hierarchy within the marriage reflects that of the culture, generally. That is, the older brother is the dominant one and tends to make the decisions. The reason and benefit for this practice of fraternal polyandry is said to mainly material. Dorje, one of three brothers married to one wife, for example, stated that this practice  prevented a division within the family and promoted a higher standard of living [15]. So long as a divorce does not splinter the household, this would hold true most likely. With every new generation of progeny, the land held by the family is passed on as noted by Joe LeMonner. [16] 

An economic rationale for fraternal polyandry is outlined in the diagram below, which emphasizes only the male offspring in each generation. If every wife is assumed to bear three sons, a family splitting up into monogamous households would rapidly multiply and fragment the family land. In this case, a rule of inheritance, such a primogeniture, could retain the family land intact, but only at the cost of creating many landless male offspring. In contrast, the family practicing fraternal polyandry maintains a steady ratio of persons to land.  

                  

In contrast the Western tradition of marriage, love may not be quite as emphasized with the Nyinba. Perhaps, the eldest brother may choose a wife that he fancies and or loves but the wife may be shared among the brother of which may or may not love her. The benefits of this fraternal polyandry may easily be contrasted to that of the Western notion of marriage. Here, with the fraternal polyandry, the standard of living is emphasized and a reason for such marriages as well as the ratio of persons to land—inheritance and upkeep with polyandry is easily done. Lineage is easy to continue as well. Is the initial wife infertile? Marry her sister or another wife. Is one of the brothers infertile? Most likely, one of the brothers is fertile. In addition, a family with many brothers and wives is able to care for a large amount of land, thus potentially improving the standard of living and or status.  

Thirdly, and finally, we have the Nuer tribe of (South) Sudan. As of modern times, the Nuer tribe has faced many difficulties due to contact with foreigners like the Ottomans, English, and Ethiopians and a concrete population consensus is lacking. It is approximated that the Nuer are about 500,000 strong [17]. With cattle being highly revered and valuable among the tribe and by those the tribe trades with, they are known for their cattle herds and are a pastoral people [18] [19]. Similar to the Nandi peoples, the culture is patrilineal and the male children are grouped into age-sets. Polygyny is traditional and courting is often done with a blood sacrifice via cattle or the transfer of cattle between the spouses' families; whether or not the male and female elope is decided after courting and may result in bloody family feud if they do not elope [20].   

In fact, a unique form a marriage practice is practiced by the Nuer people, fictive marriage—a really uncommon practice. In the case of the Nuer, the brother of the deceased groom takes the place of the groom. Any children are then subsequently considered to be of deceased groom's [21]. This could, potentially, allow for a wealthy woman to marry someone who is deceased in order to retain her wealth and that of the deceased. If a wealthy woman were to marry a live man, however, her wealth would then belong to that of the husband. Such form of marriage allows for a man's lineage to continue after death but may be perpetuated by women who benefit immediately. 

 ghost marriage helps to create familial bonds and brings cattle into the family of the bride, which can be invested into the bride-wealth of a male relative in order to increase the likelihood that he will be able to procure a wife . Second, he was told by his informants that ghost marriage is important in that it provides a means "to create a line of male heirs for a dead man" [22] 

Though, as the Nuer are polygynous, a female who is married to a male may marry the deceased brother of her husband, the male; the children produced by the female will be the heir(s) of the deceased brother [23]. This unique marriage, in contrast to the Western marriages, emphasizes the inheritance or passing on of, essentially cattle—wealth—and the continuation of a male lineage. Love, in the fictive marriages, is seemingly nonexistent and, of course, sexual activity between the deceased is, well, not quite possible; the deceased does not quite exist in the present. This almost defies the Western definition or expectation of marriage. Love, absent, sexual activity, also absent, initial groom, dead. 

In toto, three types of marriages practiced by different cultures that are distinct and separated by distance have been described and contrasted to the West. These traditional marriages, two of them being rare, add towards the uniqueness and adaptive ability of the cultures. These marriages clearly have an objective(s) different than that of the Western marriages of which, in the present, are not quite goal orientated. In the West, children are not always the goal of marriages and neither is the production of a heir. The standard of living, however, may be increased if both the spouses work; or, perhaps, one spouse works while the other attends to domestic duties. Whilst, in the cultures described, children tend to be the goal of marriages in order to inherit and care for land/property, bear a legacy, care for the parents, and so forth. The benefits appear to be numerous.   

1: "Kenya Census 2009." Scribd. August 28, 2009. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.scribd.com/doc/36672705/Kenya-Census-2009. 

2: Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "Nandi", accessed December 12, 2015,http://www.britannica.com/topic/Nandi-people. 

3: "Nandi and Other Kalenjin Peoples - Marriage and Family." Marriage and Family. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.everyculture.com/Africa-Middle-East/Nandi-and-Other-Kalenjin-Peoples-Marriage-and-Family.html. 

4: C., Paul. "Traditional Same-Sex Marriage Approved by Kenyan Court." Traditional Same-sex Marriage Approved by Kenyan Court. October 28, 2011. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.care2.com/causes/traditional-same-sex-marriage-approved-by-kenyan-court.html. 

5: Telewa, Muliro. "Kenya's Legal Same-sex Marriages - BBC News." BBC News. February 15, 2012. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-16871435. 

6: Telewa, Muliro. "Kenya's Legal Same-sex Marriages - BBC News." BBC News. February 15, 2012. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-16871435. 

7: Oboler, Regine Smith. 1980. “Is the Female Husband a Man? Woman/woman Marriage Among the Nandi of Kenya”. Ethnology 19 (1). University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education: 69–88. doi:10.2307/3773320. 

8: Wynn, Jenna. "Fraternal Polyandry: Common Wives of the Nyinba." Expandyourbrain. September 18, 2012. Accessed December 13, 2015. https://expandyourbrain.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/fraternal-polyandry-common-wives-of-the-nyinba/. 

9: Goldstein, Melvyn. "When Brothers Share a Wife." When Brothers Share a Wife. 1987. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/family.html. 

10: Levine, Nancy. "Fathers and Sons: Kinship Value and Validation in Tibetan Polyandry." June 1, 1987. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/documents/0.pdf. 

11: "Nyinba - Marriage and Family." Marriage and Family. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.everyculture.com/South-Asia/Nyinba-Marriage-and-Family.html. 

12: Goldstein, Melvyn. "When Brothers Share a Wife." When Brothers Share a Wife. 1987. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/family.html. 

13: Goldstein, Melvyn. "When Brothers Share a Wife." When Brothers Share a Wife. 1987. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/family.html. 

14: Goldstein, Melvyn. "When Brothers Share a Wife." When Brothers Share a Wife. 1987. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/family.html. 

15: Goldstein, Melvyn. "When Brothers Share a Wife." When Brothers Share a Wife. 1987. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/family.html. 

16: Goldstein, Melvyn. "When Brothers Share a Wife." When Brothers Share a Wife. 1987. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/family.html. 

17: Jok, Jok, John Burton, Robert Collins, "Nuer." The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Ed.. 2015, and "Nuer." Oxford Dictionary of Rhymes. 2007. "Nuer." Encyclopedia.com. 2002. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nuer.aspx. 

18: Jok, Jok, John Burton, Robert Collins, "Nuer." The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Ed.. 2015, and "Nuer." Oxford Dictionary of Rhymes. 2007. "Nuer." Encyclopedia.com. 2002. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nuer.aspx. 

19: "Nuer." New World Encyclopedia. January 27, 2015. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Nuer. 

20: Jok, Jok, John Burton, Robert Collins, "Nuer." The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Ed.. 2015, and "Nuer." Oxford Dictionary of Rhymes. 2007. "Nuer." Encyclopedia.com. 2002. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nuer.aspx. 

21: Schwartze, Lucas. "Grave Vows: A Cross-Cultural Examination of the Varying Forms of Ghost Marriage among Five Societies." 2010. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=nebanthro. 

22: Schwartze, Lucas. "Grave Vows: A Cross-Cultural Examination of the Varying Forms of Ghost Marriage among Five Societies." 2010. Accessed December 13, 2015. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=nebanthro.

Art: Thomas Blackshear

Apology-Crito Inconsistency—Addressed [Draft]

 At the first glance, it would appear that Socrates contradicts his stance on civil disobedience in the Apology and the Crito. The Apology-Crito problem revolves around how Socrates engages in civil disobedience, telling the state he will not obey the rulings of the state; however, in the Crito, Socrates complies with the state by his lack of defiance and arguing against fleeing from the state. This seeming inconsistency begets what has been notably termed as the Apology-Crito inconsistency problem. In short, this problem is the result of a seemingly common misunderstanding that I intend to resolve by referring to Socrates, for Socrates did not, I contend, contradict himself in the Apology-Crito.

   Firstly, I argue thusly, Socrates, in the Crito, states that we, the people, have an obligation to obey the law, not that we must always, all things considered, obey the law (Crito 50-51). Socrates also states, in the Crito,

Do you not realize that you are even more bound to respect and placate the anger of your country than your father’s anger? That you must either persuade your country or do whatever it orders, and patiently submit to any punishment that is imposes, whether it be flogging or imprisonment? And… you must not give way or retreat or abandon your position. Both in war and in [court]… you must do whatever your country commands, or else persuade it that justice is on your side; but violence against mother or father is an unholy act, and it is a far greater sin against your country. (51b-c; emphasis mine)

Socrates seems to utterly act in accordance to his own words above, for he has voiced his opinion in an effort to persuade the court—an agent of the state; this being so, Socrates must (a) patiently submit to any punishment dictated by state and (b) continue the attempt to persuade that justice is on his side as well as never abandoning his position. The reasoning is based on a few considerations. Socrates, namely, states that he has subscribed to laws of the State—from, seemingly, birth—and to unsubscribe to them now would be unjust for reasons stated in the Crito (Crito 51-52). This, he does. His attempt to persuade the court was made when Socrates attempted to defend himself from the accusations from the accusers. This failing, Socrates is to submit to the court, an agent of the State.

Secondly, I contend that Socrates did was not uncivilly disobedient. It is Socrates’ attempt to change the State’s view of what is just that has been interpreted as some sort of crime or disobedience. Perhaps Socrates was disobeying the laws before being sentenced, knowingly or not; however, after being sentenced, Socrates acts as if he were obedient towards the laws of the State while having attempted to change the State’s views. If, the laws, per se, allow for either a sort of disobedient or obedient manner in which one may attempt to persuade the State in some manner, then Socrates attempts the latter—assuming that he was obedient towards the laws previous to his trial and or crime. Furthermore, in the Apology, Socrates states that if the State were to have him acquitted but prohibit him from the practice of philosophy, he, Socrates, would rather be put to death (Apology 29-30). This act of defiance is what is often referred to as Socrates’ civil disobedience despite it not being unlawful. In addition, Socrates’ attempt at the defending himself from accusations was lawful, civil, but, from the perspective of the State, disobedient as the State found him guilty of a corrupting the youth. If you contend that Socrates was guilty of knowingly corrupting the youth, presumably in an attempt to rectify Athens, then Socrates was indeed disobedient; however, if you contend that the charges brought upon Socrates are not legitimate, false, then Socrates was not disobedient—I contend the latter. So, with this in there may not be an inconsistency with Socrates’ statement and stance about how Socrates would prefer to be put to death than to stop his philosophy in the Apology and his abidance to the States’ laws in the Crito. If, however, Socrates was acquitted, the State would have no say in whether or not Socrates is to stop or continue practicing philosophy. Being acquitted, the prohibition of the practice of philosophy would be a suggestion as an acquittal does not bind Socrates to any obligation rendered by the State. So, in short, Socrates’ disobedience, choosing death rather than not practicing philosophy, is lawful/civil. Furthermore, Socrates likely regards the Laws with respect for he has not disobeyed the laws on purpose and does not want to disobey the laws even when the Laws are to result in his death.  In this perspective, Socrates remains in accordance to his obedience towards the law that is notably stated in the Crito (50-51)—the conflict between Crito and Apology erodes. Socrates remained obedient towards the law in his effort to change the views of the State towards what is just.

In toto, the two arguments above are to erode what some people subscribe to, the Apology-Crito inconsistency. From my perspective, this problem seems to arise from a sort of Socratic ignorance and or misunderstanding of Socrates or an assumption of guilt that Socrates intended to corrupt the youth of Athens. When both the Apology and Crito are both carefully read and analyzed there does not exist the possibility that the Apology-Crito inconsistency holds true, for Socrates does not disobey the law intentionally—it is questionable that he actually committed a crime in the first place. Assuming that Socrates did not intentionally commit a crime and that the court simply disliked Socrates, Socrates was innocent and did not disobey the Laws but attempted to defend himself and promote what gave Socrates meaning—Philosophy and the attempt to find one wiser than him.

Resources used:

Tredennick, Hugh, and Harold Tarrant. The Last Days of Socrates. London: Penguin Classics, 2003. Print.

Art: http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/436105

Lawyer's Case for God [project on hold]

Jacob states that it is up to the individual to decide whether or not one ought to decide their religious beliefs; however, he goes on to mention the decision making process in order to support his case. In a sense, Jacob supports his case primarily on "buyer's remorse" where those he believes are on the wrong path purchased their path that does not lead to eternal paradise. This part essentially plays the role of an introduction where Jacob wants you to evaluate his evidences for the existence of his God. I plan on evaluating his evidences as I read along in a chronological order.


Chapter II — There is no evidence that God exists

Immediately and, to me, not surprisingly, Jacob invokes an argument from beauty and design. "Imagine you are walking along a sandy beach and you stumble upon a robot. Would you conclude that someone had assembled the robot. Would you conclude that someone had assembled the robot and left it there? Or would you decide that this robot had assembled by random chance?" Naturally, one would assume that someone assembled the robot as robots are not naturally occurring and require an agent to be assembled. Non-synthetic life, however, is naturally occurring given the present state of, say, Earth. A friend of mine said this after reading the Jacob's example about the robot, "Put another way, it can be said, "Imagine you are walking along amidst things that were not intelligently designed, and you find something that was intelligently designed. Naturally, that means everything is intelligently designed!". Oddly, Jacob does not go too much more into the robot and human example but, rather, asks a question, "How did humans get here? Did God create us?". Again, immediately, Jacob makes an argument from intricacy or complexity starting with, of course, the brain and goes on to include the eyes, heart, circulatory system, body, et al in a rather magniloquent manner that I wish to reply to briefly. Jacob initially simply states that the brain is too amazing to not have been created by his god without considering simpler alternatives; his argument then turns into a sort of an argument from ignorance. Later, we will find notice how Jacob denies macroevolution which is relevant to his argument from complexity. Without an understanding of macroevolution, there probably is not an alternative explanation as to the complexity of the human body and so creationism is the foundation or leading ideology supporting Jacob's argument. As early humans have been proven to have evolved over time, the brain became as complex as it is now; Jacob, of course, would deny this. Natural selection, essentially, selected for a hominid/hominin species—which managed to adapt and survive to its environment— that allowed for Homo sapiens to be extant. Beginning with, say, Homo habilis, natural selection favored a hominid species that was able to use tools which requires a higher brain function; with tools, the early hominids were able to consume more meat and protein that would increase brain function. This begins a positive feedback loop wherein the better brain function, the better tools and the better tools, the better brain function. The species with higher brain function abilities would have the better tools that allow for increased potential adaptiveness and so forth. As the brain increases in complexity, so too does the rest of the body; or, perhaps, as the rest of the body furthers in complexity, so too does the brain. Evolution via natural selection equipped the Homo sapiens to survive and so Homo sapiens survives. Homo sapiens is far from perfect but it is just good enough to remain extant.


Furthermore, Jacob includes something I find quite funny. "The hair on your head never stops growing, yet eyelashes, eyebrows, and arm hair do. Teeth stop growing. Fingernails do not. How does each body part "know" this?" From a biological perspective, the one word answer would be DNA. The genetic material, deoxyribonucleic acid, does what it does after the result of evolution. In regards to the length of arm hair, the length of time that the hair is able to spend growing during the growth phase controls the maximum length of the hair. The human hair growth cycle goes through three phases: anagen, catagen, and telogen. Anagen, the growth period or phase, has a duration for about two to six years—the longer the anagen phase, the longer the hair. The catagen phase is, essentially, the beginning of the hair follicle's dormancy wherein the hair length is reduced to where the hair is about one-sixth the original size. The telogen is when the hair follicle is in rest for about four or so months before being pushed out to make way for a new hair strand to grow in its place—shedding, essentially. [1] So, in a sense, the hairs are always growing.

To my benefit and to the disadvantage of Mr. Jacob, Jacob decides to quote Darwin in a way to support his position that the human eye is too finely tuned or perfect to have been the result of evolution.

Even Charles Darwin, the creator of the theory of evolution, acknowledged that is was "absurd to the highest degree" to conclude that the eye happened by chance: To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. (Jacob 17)

Two problems are present here. One, Darwin was an exceptional scientist, one that I absolutely adore, but he was a man of his time to a degree. He had limited evidence to work with to construct his theory that holds true to this day. Perhaps Darwin was unable to understand how the eye came to be. Two, Darwin actually accounts his lack of knowledge sequent to the quote used by the purposely misleading Mr. Jacob.

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of vox populi, vox dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory (Darwin 190). If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case (Darwin 194).

As the quote above follows directly after the quote used by Jacob, I wonder if Jacob even read the Origin of Species, operating under hearsay, or used only part of the quote by Darwin with the intent of furthering his claim—the eye could not have been the result of evolution. Simply put, something as complex as an eye does not require a designer—a designer whose existence has to be argued for. Jacob's argument boils down to "Wow, this is so amazing, therefore my god did it." Unfortunately, such an argument does not
substantiate a claim that someone must have designed it. Furthermore, it is often implied that the only choices we have are that chance or a designer is the cause of the complex—this is falsely implied. Both are not able to account for the complexity of life. Natural selection, however, is the only working alternative for the explanation of complexity seen within life due to end products of natural selection—the accumulation of small pieces that result in a rather complex organism. This accumulation is a gradual slope from basic to the more complex order of things. As for the designer, well, Richard Dawkins answers this.

Intelligent design suffers from exactly the same objection as chance. It is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability. And the higher the improbability, the more implausible intelligent design becomes. Seen clearly, intelligent design will turn out to be redoubling of the problem. Once again, this is because the designer himself (herself/itself) immediately raises the bigger problem of his own origin. Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as improbable as a Dutchman's Pipe (or a universe) would have to be even more improbable than a Dutchman's Pipe. Far from terminating the vicious regress, God aggravates it with violence (Dawkins 120).

Jacob continues stating how amazing the body. He states, "Is this 'machine' brought to you by random chance or by an almighty God who had the power and ingenuity to create the most amazing machine ever? King David, of David-and-Goliath fame and one of Israel's greatest kings, credited God for our bodies." and then quotes Psalm 139:14. Firstly, I have no idea why Jacob continues to refer to the human being as a machine—the most amazing one at that. The Homo sapiens is pretty amazing but there are many more animals that are pretty unique and as, if not more, complex. Secondly, I suppose the quote from Psalms adds substance to Jacob's claim which does, in a sense. The main audience of Jacob's book is probably Christians seeking to reaffirm their faith and the Bible is supposed to be infallible; so I can not quite bemoan about how he feels it necessary to quote the Bible on a topic regarding biology and whatnot. Secondly, Jacob points to conception. At conception, two microscopic cells join together in order to multiply billion-fold. Quite amazing it is, yes. However, Jacob is trying to tackle the "improbability" of evolution by pointing at the top of the biological complexity. Evolution is known for being a "bottom-up" structure sort of thing as the most complex organisms are the result of gradual change from the not quite complex towards the complex. The reason why human conception is seemingly complex and functional is because there existed ancestors that were not as complex but evolved via natural selection. Apparently Jacob is astounded that his lawn-mower, remote control, and computer cannot evolve and procreate. Honestly, I laughed quite hard.

This newborn develops into a "machine" that has the ability to create new machines. I know of no other machine with that capability. My lawn-mower cannot do that; my car cannot do that; my remote controller cannot do that; my car cannot do that; even my computer cannot do that (Jacob 20)

Hopefully, my few readers will simply face-palm after reading that quote by Jacob and say, "Jacob, firstly, a newborn is not able to procreate at birth; secondly, you are comparing a living organism to a bloody remote controller? What." Your remote controlling is not a living organism. Surely Jacob knows better? If so, then by releasing a book based on proving the existence of a god based on self-known false equivalencies and information he is exploiting his audience—that is, if his audience actually takes him seriously.

Jacob decides to leave some bullet-points and additional intriguing facts about the human body that, I suppose, help substantiate his claim. A lot of them refer to the amount of cells and DNA is harbored within our bodies and how our DNA, if unraveled, would reach the moon. How this invokes "God did it" I know not. One thing I found interesting was that Jacob states "[t]he probability that the average gene would form spontaneously is 1 in 419,000 —a virtual impossibility!". The keyword is "virtual". A virtual impossibility fosters a possibility regardless how unlikely. In a grand-scale perspective of things, a virtual impossibility is more than likely in a sense. The Earth has been around for 4.54 billion years; that is a lot of time for a miracle to occur [2]. A lot of the other facts that Jacob uses is able to be answered from basic evolutionary studies. Though I dislike the word "miracle", I will agree with Jacob that we are, indeed, miracles. The Homo sapiens managed to survive on Earth for a million and more years. That is quite astounding but, knowing better, it is very easily for the Homo sapiens to go extinct. All it takes is some sort of catastrophic volcano, asteroid or alien projectile, or a disease to be able to bottleneck the human population. It is quite unfortunate but it is simply the nature of things.



1: http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/hair-loss/science-hair?page=2 2: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html