Gaps in Evolution

[grannymh]

…because they have less advanced brains. If you want something 100% unique- no animal can craft an object with moving parts

And this leads to the difference between “kind” and “in degrees”. Too bad the thread is reaching its limit.

As for something 100% unique, please look in the mirror.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Hi Charles,

You may have to reconsider putting number 19 back on the list. If all those things exist, apparently, where did they come from if not from evolution?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

Well let just say, not that i agree , that god did infuse them into our brain. It would still have no bearing on the evidence that proves (as much as science can “prove” anything) common descent.

 

[reggieM]

Evolutionary Question and Answer:

Q. Why do humans have brains that are far more complex and powerful than needed for survival?

A. Because they are more advanced.

Q. Why do animals not have advanced brains like humans in order to build skyscrapers and cars?

A> … because they have less advanced brains.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Evolutionary Question and Answer [Fixed]:

Q. Why do humans have brains that are far more complex and powerful than needed for survival?

A. Because survival is not the driving force behind evolution, though this is a very common misconception.

Q. Why do animals not have advanced brains like humans in order to build skyscrapers and cars?

A. Because the goal of evolution is not to skyscrapers and cars.

 

[grannymh]

Evolutionary Question and Answer [Fixed]:

Q. Why do humans have brains that are far more complex and powerful than needed for survival?

In order to choose which method of survival will succeed or to reject all obvious ones by creating a new method.

Q. Why do animals not have advanced brains like humans in order to build skyscrapers and cars?

Because they do not have the creative imagination to go beyond built-in survival mechanisms. Dirt mounds and shady trees are sufficient for mating.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

**
Because they do not have the creative imagination to go beyond built-in survival mechanisms. Dirt mounds and shady trees are sufficient for mating.**

Why would they develop big brains if reproductive advantage was was not gained by doing so?

 

[grannymh]

original grannymh post1002
Because they do not have the creative imagination to go beyond built-in survival mechanisms. Dirt mounds and shady trees are sufficient for mating.

Why would they develop big brains if reproductive advantage was was not gained by doing so?

I’m sure that animals needed every big brain cell possible. Maybe there is more to reproductive advantage… or maybe humans liked the idea of more and freely chose accordingly.

 

[j1akey]

ReggieM:

Q. Why do humans have brains that are far more complex and powerful than needed for survival?

A. Because they are more advanced.

Q. Why do animals not have advanced brains like humans in order to build skyscrapers and cars?

A> … because they have less advanced brains.

So, human brains are more advanced because we’re more advanced and animals have less advanced brains because they’re less advanced brains.

That doesn’t really answer anything.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I’m sure that animals needed every big brain cell possible. Maybe there is more to reproductive advantage… or maybe humans liked the idea of more and freely chose accordingly.

Im not sure i follow?

 

[grannymh]

So, human brains are more advanced because we’re more advanced and animals have less advanced brains because they’re less advanced brains.

That doesn’t really answer anything.

That is correct. It answers everything if one is an evolutionist who believes that humans and animals are only different by degrees.

It doesn’t answer the question “why” humans have intellect and free will which does make them different in kind from other animals.

 

[grannymh]

Im not sure i follow?

Would a man freely choose which girl to marry? And could that choice be based on something more than reproductive advantage?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

That is correct. It answers everything if one is an evolutionist who believes that humans and animals are only different by degrees.

It doesn’t answer the question “why” humans have intellect and free will which does make them different in kind from other animals.

I have never understood why people pick out a big brain then claim it makes us special.

Why brain size, why not speed, or size, or strength, or sight? You have no right to pick the one thinking that we happen to do better than any other animal, then cliam because we do it better we are special.

Why are cheatas not gods special creature because there the fastest animals on earth?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Would a man freely choose which girl to marry? And could that choice be based on something more than reproductive advantage?

Its a null point. We are not talking about the individual we are talking about the species. The reproductive success of the species is what matters, not how an individual chooses to marry. For every human that marries there is anyone having unsafe sex with as many people as possible.

Humans also have the unique ability to cheat evolution, for example contraceptive. The ironic thing is that the less intelligent humans are out breeding the intelligent ones.

 

[j1akey]

grannymh:

Would a man freely choose which girl to marry? And could that choice be based on something more than reproductive advantage?

I’m trying not to nit pick because I know what you’re getting at but marriage isn’t a prerequisite for reproduction and has nothing to do with the evolutionary process.

Either way I think there are several reason why 2 people would choose to reproduce. I’m not talking about the drunk one night stand type of reproducing because of a night of sex that you hardly remember but 2 people making a concious choice to have offspring. I think at the end of the day it comes down to just being able to reproduce and passing on your genes. Not every person has a reproductive advantage, some have disadvantages. The ugly, the chronically sick or diseased, those that have mental and physical defects, etc. Good looks and being healthy and strong lead to having good lookng and strong, healthy children and this is what people look for. Sure it will many times lead to things like love and staying together for extended periods of time but no one walking down the street says “Wow! Look at the brains on her!”, you look for physical traits that indicate good health. Things like lust are the initial drive for sexual reproduction but it’s not all there is to it.

There are so many layers to what the human brain look for on a subconcious level that I don’t think I’d really be able to actually go over it all but I know there are several books on the subject and even a few discovery channel 2 hour specials if you’re not a reader.

 

[grannymh]

I have never understood why people pick out a big brain then claim it makes us special.

At the end of the thread, we find ourselves on the same page. I agree with you.

Why brain size, why not speed, or size, or strength, or sight?

I agree. Why not quality or more important how one uses the gift of the brain.

You have no right to pick the one thinking that we happen to do better than any other animal, then claim because we do it better we are special.

It is not brain size which makes us special. There is more to us than cells, etc.

Why are cheetahs not gods special creature because there the fastest animals on earth?

Ah, one says. Cheetahs and all animals are God’s special creatures. Their sheer beauty lifts our spirits.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

It is not the brain alone which makes us special. There is more to us than cells, etc.

And this is where we part ways . I see nothing to suggest there is anything more to us than our physical make up. However, i will concede there is alot about our make up we do not understand.

 

[grannymh]

And this is where we part ways . I see nothing to suggest there is anything more to us than our physical make up. However, i will concede there is alot about our make up we do not understand.

We do not need to part ways. I can accept your view as your view. I do agree and concede that there is a lot about our make up that we do not understand.

 

[reggieM]

Hi Reggie,

I’m curious about your number 29. “Convergent evolution” in your list on post 985. The following definition is from www.evolution.berkeley.com “Process in which two distinct lineages evolve a similar characteristic independently of one another. This often occurs because both lineages face similar environmental challenges and selective pressures.”

Hi Granny,

I will post something on this topic shortly.

RM

 

[PaulF2]

What do you believe and why?

I don’t believe in extraordinary claims withour evidence. Why? Because the scientific method is the best means of futhering the knowledge of mankind. I want to futher the knowledge of mankind because it relieves suffering. I think suffering is bad because of empathy.

Well, let me give you a synopsis of what I believe and why, and then respond to your statements above.

Starting from the very general, materialism vs. something other than materialism, I will say that outside of the very good logical evidence, it is self-evident to me that the mind is not matter. Furthermore - and this is critical - I would like to point out to you that your assumption that the mind is physical, and that strong evidence is needed to counteract that assumption, is shakey. On the contrary, it is acknowledged by virtually all materialists - and I’m thinking of materialist mind/brain researchers - that what we call “mind” is separate from the physical brain. What makes them materialists is that they believe that mind - consciousness - “emerges” from the physical brain.

I, and many others, would argue that the natural assumption should not be that the mind is an “emergent” property because to assert that something physical can produce something non-physical is something that itself requires proof, and there is no such proof. Since we know that “consciousness” itself is not the brain, without direct evidence we should not believe something non-material to proceed directly from something material. There is no reason whatsoever to do so - unless one has decided a priori to stick to a personal philosophy of materialism. Such has nothing to do with science or the scientific method. No, it is more logical to assume that matter cannot, by itself, produce something non-material.

I believe you are, quite possibly unintentionally, mistaking the philosophy of materialism - the belief that the physical is all that exists - with “science”. The two are not the same thing at all. You are entirely correct that the scientific method - gathering evidence, producing hypothesis, refining them into theories - is exactly the right way to deal with science. As in, studying the physical universe and the laws behind it. But this is not all their is to life by any means, as mature and honest scientists of all stripes will generally agree. Science answers the “what” of the physical world, not the “why”, and not reality beyond the physical (if there is one).

I will give you some food for thought regarding how you may have been influenced by things you’ve read and whether or not your point of view is truly objective. Here’s a quote from famous Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin:

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Emphasis is mine.

Note just what he is saying here - atheistic scientists are rarely so candid! He is stating directly that:

1. His materialistic philosophy drives his science: he imposes it upon his science, and does not allow the possibility of any conclusion that contradicts this philosophy.
2. That the above results not infrequently in constructs that are not just untenable or “against common sense” but downright “patently absurd”.
3. It is not at all anything scientific that drives him to materialism: it is his a priori belief/preference.

And we should trust such a person to come up with the correct answers to the great truths of life - why?

Let this quote - which I suspect Dr. Lewontin wishes he’d never put in print - be a lesson to all the disciples of the New Atheists who think they’re really guided by science and impartial with regard to evidence! Now, Lewontin implies above that science and materialism are “one and the same” but that is not at all the case, and that is provable by this simple fact: one can engage in science, using the scientific method, while not accepting materialism. Surely, if that’s not possible, science never would have “gotten” started anyhow, for it was in the Christian West that it did. (And there are probably reasons for that. Christianity brought belief in a rational universe created by a rational God. Creator & created are separate; the latter is not endowed with its own mind, as the pagans tended to imagine the earth, stars, etc. The universe would thus behave rationally and consistently, it was assumed, and could be described mathematically. That is science. In comparison, other cultures, with their beliefs in irrational “gods” that behaved like humans, and heavenly bodies with their own minds and thus no consistent, deterministic behavior, produced “stillbirths” of science (Jaki).)

 

[PaulF2]

[Continued]

So - perhaps you will consider that perhaps what you have been led to believe is obvious and a sensible set of assumptions is not so much either.

Because, frankly, it ought to be entirely obvious to any thinking person, properly educated, who considers the question, that the mind cannot be merely a physical thing. It ought to be intuitively obvious, and don’t make the mistake of thinking that evidence that can’t be easily formalized is not evidence. What am I talking about? I’m talking about the very notion that the consciousness we all know is reducible entirely to neurons is laughable. I’m talking about free will - the fact that I know that I have moral free will. I know this, and so does anyone else who wants to know it. I know that I have the choice to do right or wrong when a choice is put before me. It is a fact that the determinism you assert removes all possibility for true free will - why is it that so few materialists want to acknowledge this? Some do, of course: it has real benefits. “I’m just a biological machine, programmed to do what I do” removes all limits to human behavior and silences the conscience (eventually). However, it seems that most atheists are, in fact, the moralizing kind, decrying the awful, awful morality practiced by us Christians (a totally preposterous assertion in the light of actual history). All such people have simply not come to terms with the irrefutable consequences of their belief system. #1, there can be no free will - you simply can’t logically blame anybody for anything. Secondly, there can be no objective morality. Obviously, for there to be a true moral standard - a true standard of right and wrong - there must be a Source of right and wrong - an infallible Definition of truth. There is no way an atheistic belief system can come up with one - as soon as an atheist tries he is actually talking about God before he knows it.

But - these are nebulous things. By that I don’t mean not momentous or extremely important, as they are, but that they are things that can be ignored by a soul easily enough who has decided he won’t ponder them.

I will now speak a bit to your statement that the primary goal [of humanity] should be to reduce suffering and that the best way to do that is via science. First of all, I think you’re setting up some kind of false dichotomy by implying that scientific progress (especially WRT medicine) and Christianity are somehow mutually exclusive. That is a very silly notion. (It is via science and medicine that God works His mercy very often, I would argue, and it in seeing the compassion and kindness that takes place in the practice of medicine that made me realize why God works through it.)

Secondly, once again, you must acknowledge that your assertion here that easing human suffering is a primary goal is nothing other than arbitrary unless you will acknowledge a Source for such moral law.

Thirdly, it is definitely fair to point out that those in pursuit of certain types of science with a certain a priori worldview (see above) have produced untold human suffering and death, especially in the 20th century. If you are not aware that the Nazis used social Darwinism to justify their eugenics and ultimately their genocide, please look into it. Stalin and the Communists used their atheist Marxism and its belief in the “common good” to justify their mass murders as well.

[As to what I believe, more specifically: I believe in the basics of the Christian worldview. I believe every dogma formalized by the Holy Catholic Church, each of which was revealed at least in kernel form by the apostles. Note that there are almost no dogmas that have anything even tangentially to do with science, evolution, etc. It is dogma that the universe was created ex nihilo by God at the beginning of time - a postulate long-regarded as unfounded if not absurd by the scientific community and then completely vindicated in the 20th century. It is also dogma that Adam and Eve were actual human beings. Belief in the evolution of their bodies is not forbidden. While I have been or was a firm believer in theistic evolution for two decades or so I am increasingly swayed by the evidence that neo-Darwinism is not a plausible or convincing explanation for macroevolution.]