Crackpot Challenge Part 2 - Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alethios
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Arctic ice is thinning – that’s why the Arctic Ocean may be ice free in summer before long, putting polar bears at risk of extinction.
Click to expand...
Why the concern about the polar bears… it’s survival of the fittest, baby, and the bears just can’t cut it in an Arctic sauna. Any Darwinista will tell us new ‘species’ will adapt to the tropical Arctic by natural selection, perhaps parar bears: bears with parasols growing out of their head like horns, to shade them from the Sun… or with giant ears like the African elephant, to cool off by fanning.

Feel free to join in, speculate wildly and then label your fantasy as proof of evol.
Then write a book and get lots of $.

Of course, evolution never ‘predicts’ exactly what changes will evolve… that would risk being proven wrong.

Predicting future events is what valid science theories do.
Postdicting past events is what evol. theories do.

The bears have been around for a gazillion years - time to give another ‘species’ a chance!
Or maybe humans evolved a gene for sympathy with other species? Then how would that benefit our survival, when the bear treats us as prey?
Think, evols, think!
…do you think that mankind is responsible for the decreasing ice, or the increasing ice?
Click to expand...
Man is a product of the evolution path of common descent - chimp to man, remember? So whether man is the possible cause of the future bear extinction due to evolving greater intelligence is irrelevant. If the bear gets in the way of the evolution of man, or any other evolved ‘species’, then it’s just a case of extinction of the unfittest.

Or could it be that there’s now some doubt about Charlie D’s claims?
Think, evols, think!
…you are prepared to cite papers that you have misunderstood in the hope of persuading the naive, but when someone comes along who knows what they are talking about and points out your errors, you admit that no evidence will persuade you to change your mind. That’s hypocritical and does not show that respect for the truth that you were lecturing me about.
Click to expand...
Are we all prepared to respect the truth and accept evidence according to the rules on this thread?
Think, evols, think!

AMDG
 
Alethios said:
Why the concern about the polar bears… it’s survival of the fittest, baby, and the bears just can’t cut it in an Arctic sauna. Any Darwinista will tell us new ‘species’ will adapt to the tropical Arctic by natural selection, perhaps parar bears: bears with parasols growing out of their head like horns, to shade them from the Sun… or with giant ears like the African elephant, to cool off by fanning.

Feel free to join in, speculate wildly and then label your fantasy as proof of evol.
Then write a book and get lots of $.

Of course, evolution never ‘predicts’ exactly what changes will evolve… that would risk being proven wrong.

Predicting future events is what valid science theories do.
Postdicting past events is what evol. theories do.

The bears have been around for a gazillion years - time to give another ‘species’ a chance!
Or maybe humans evolved a gene for sympathy with other species? Then how would that benefit our survival, when the bear treats us as prey?
Think, evols, think!

Man is a product of the evolution path of common descent - chimp to man, remember? So whether man is the possible cause of the future bear extinction due to evolving greater intelligence is irrelevant. If the bear gets in the way of the evolution of man, or any other evolved ‘species’, then it’s just a case of extinction of the unfittest.

Or could it be that there’s now some doubt about Charlie D’s claims?
Think, evols, think!

Are we all prepared to respect the truth and accept evidence according to the rules on this thread?
Think, evols, think!

AMDG
Click to expand...
Does that mean it is OK to eat meat and poultry again? 😃
 
reggieM said:
With all respect, granny – I think your distinction is irrelevant to the point. Animal populations evolved one way, humans another (as the story goes). It’s all a function of physical laws and randomness, supposedly.

This is also offered with due respect for differences of opinions especially since I enjoy looking at life from the viewpoint of an evolutionist.

The point is that animal species are now vastly different from the human species. This could have been accomplished by a variety of evolutionary theories including the contributions of Neo-Darwinism. Personally, I find the founder effect quite interesting.

Or the differences, along with the similarities, between animal species and human species could signify that the evidence of evolution needs to be reexamined in the light of modern Homo sapiens.
That’s good to hear – except that your embrace of evolutionary theory necessitates that you should rightly consider yourself as an object. You share an inheritance with worms and with inanimate objects – and you are moved by physical laws and mutations alone. To flat out refuse to accept the implications of the theory is to be a contradiction to yourself, as I see it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
grannymh said:
The really big essential difference is that I am able to tell the difference between being considered an apple off the tree and being the apple of my Dad’s eye.
Click to expand...
Granny, are you assuming these are incompatible?
 
Quote from granny: “The really big essential difference is that I am able to tell the difference between being considered an apple off the tree and being the apple of my Dad’s eye.”
StAnastasia said:
Granny, are you assuming these are incompatible?
Click to expand...
Since the apple reference involves essential differences between the human species and an animal species, incompatibility is in the eye of the beholder.

The point is that animal species are now vastly different from the human species. This could have been accomplished by a variety of evolutionary theories including the contributions of Neo-Darwinism. Or the differences, along with the similarities, between species signify that the evidence of evolution needs to be reexamined.

In other words, what are the real differences between cousin chimp and other shirttail relatives and the human species?

In your opinion StA, how do you see yourself as different from animal species?
 
grannymh said:
In your opinion StA, how do you see yourself as different from animal species?
Click to expand...
Granny, genetically humans are an animal species. We are eukaryotes, sharing in the common genetic heritage of the planet. We are symbiotes, beings with other beings incorporated into us, beings with populations of other people’s cells living inside us. We reflect the universe, carrying within our cells the very energy of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to the universe. We are not as fast as some animals, nor do we have as keen eyesight. or hearing or smell We are not as strong or as fierce or as tenacious as some species. We are in some respects more intelligent than most other species.

Theologically, the human race might be said to stand as “priests” for the world before God. Just as the Catholic priest represents the community of believers in the celebration of the Eucharist, so the human species represents creation to God, standing before God as the most highly developed form of evolving rationality, morally aware and spiritually sensitive to the presence of God. With the Incarnation, God assumed this creation: in assuming human DNA and its long history, God took the very creation into Godself.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
"Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism." ~ Communion and Stewardship (2002)

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
The above was on the bottom of your post. I am not familiar with this document from the International Theological Commission. Would you please provide the paragraph number? Thank you.
 
In answer to my original question: “In your opinion StA, how do you see yourself as different from animal species?” You kindly replied.
StAnastasia said:
We are not as fast as some animals, nor do we have as keen eyesight. or hearing or smell We are not as strong or as fierce or as tenacious as some species. We are in some respects more intelligent than most other species.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Would it be fair to classify speed, eyesight, hearing or smell, strong, fierce, and tenacious as physical attributes? These are readily observable.

However, how would you classify "in some respects more intelligent than most other species? And how would you determine the truth of this statement?

Thank you.
 
rossum said:
Google “meme” for one approach to cultural evolution.

rossum
Click to expand...
Did Google “meme” and checked some sites below Wikipedia. Thank you. You are right, it is one approach to cultural evolution. Richard Dawkins is certainly creative! If I were to critique it, I would put Dawkins’ idea in the same classification as “urban myths”. However, like some urban myths, there may be some truth to be considered.

While I am not convinced that there is such a thing as cultural evolution, I will put Dawkins’ creativity as an example of one of the main differences between humans and animals.
 
reggieM said:
I don’t understand what you mean by “evolved separately”. Supposedly, we all have the same common ancestors –
Click to expand...
I saw an interesting one-liner of yours on another thread – “That is logical evidence.”

When one looks at the possibility of humans evolving separately from primates, one should start with “logical evidence”. As I recall logic, it involved a lot of questioning.
One should start questioning the meaning of common ancestor. How far back does the concept of a common beginning go? Is it logical to limit the so-called “Primordial Soup” to only one conclusion as to how life evolved?

To me, the logical evidence that current humans evolved separately from current chimps is the observable differences between them.

In post 257, you commented: “This became multi-cellular life, then complex organisms, then fish, then mammals, then humans…” If there are multi-cellular life and complex organisms, what is the logic of limiting descent to one evolutionary “story”? If the answer is that the evidence supports only one kind of descent, what is the logic of not looking further? Scientists certainly continued to look at cell structure long after Darwin’s death.
 
grannymh said:
Would it be fair to classify speed, eyesight, hearing or smell, strong, fierce, and tenacious as physical attributes? These are readily observable.
However, how would you classify "in some respects more intelligent than most other species? And how would you determine the truth of this statement?
Thank you.
Click to expand...
(1) Yes, these are physical attributes

(2) Cognitive difference, based on brain size and increased neural complexity

(3) We Homo sapiens can build jet air planes and fly them into tall buildings.
 
StAnastasia said:
(1) Yes, these are physical attributes

(2) Cognitive difference, based on brain size and increased neural complexity

(3) We Homo sapiens can build jet air planes and fly them into tall buildings.
Click to expand...
“Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much… the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons.”

Douglas Adams - Hitchhiker’s Guide.

rossum
 
rossum said:
“Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much… the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons.”

Douglas Adams - Hitchhiker’s Guide.
rossum
Click to expand...
Regarding: “(2) Cognitive difference, based on brain size and increased neural complexity.” in post 273

Rossum, is it possible to provide references or source material on “quality” of cognition rather than physical size of tissue (or whatever it is called) and neural complexity in one’s cranium? I desperately want to avoid another mile of posts about quantifying information. The “Hitchhiker” is familiar but I don’t remember a thing beyond hearing about the concept.
 
StAnastasia said:
Paragraph 63 from Communion and Stewardship

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
Click to expand...
Thank you so much. This individual document looks interesting. However, I must be having one of those mental blocks regarding the following from paragraph 63:

“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.”

I am still having a mental block. How can intangibles such as intentionality, freedom and creativity can be scientifically related to a mass of matter? :confused::confused:

Certainly civilization evolved. Social status within populations changed. Cultural activities such as art and music can be said to have changed over time. But how does an intangible such as freedom which is related to an objective truth evolve? Does intentionality start out as unintentionality? :confused::confused::confused:
What happened to the difference between quantity (size) and quality?
 
grannymh said:
Rossum, is it possible to provide references or source material on “quality” of cognition rather than physical size of tissue (or whatever it is called) and neural complexity in one’s cranium?
Click to expand...
I am not an expert in the area of cognition etc. For the scientific literature type keywords into either Google scholar (scholar.google.com/) or PubMed (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/). Those will get references to actual scientific articles, rather than the popular summaries in the press.
The “Hitchhiker” is familiar but I don’t remember a thing beyond hearing about the concept.
Click to expand...
Avoid the film. The TV seeries wasn’t bad. The books are the real thing.

rossum
 
grannymh said:
Thank you so much. This individual document looks interesting. However, I must be having one of those mental blocks regarding the following from paragraph 63:

“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.”

I am still having a mental block. How can intangibles such as intentionality, freedom and creativity can be scientifically related to a mass of matter? :confused::confused:

Certainly civilization evolved. Social status within populations changed. Cultural activities such as art and music can be said to have changed over time. But how does an intangible such as freedom which is related to an objective truth evolve? Does intentionality start out as unintentionality? :confused::confused::confused:
What happened to the difference between quantity (size) and quality?
Click to expand...
It is good to read the complete document.
 
rossum said:
“Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much… the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons.”Douglas Adams - Hitchhiker’s Guide.rossum
Click to expand...
“So long, and thanks for all the fish!”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top