Ignorance and evolution

[itinerant1]

ai don’t think so

Your views aren’t holding up under the pressure of other members.

The internerant1 says “Huh?” I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you thinking of somebody else perhaps? I’ve been busy in other threads. And I haven’t had the opportunity or freedom to really say much here. I am not even sure I care enough to find time for this thread.

I hadn’t noticed such. Are you sure?

Just because you do not know what is going on, does not mean I am not sure of what I posted.

I suppose it was when you dropped the name Stanley L. Jaki who supports Intelligent design and creationism. Stanley Jaki’s book Miracles & Physics. Like I said God has nothing to do with physics. I’ll pass on Stanley L. Jaki’s book Miracles & Physics (1). God has nothing to do with physics! It’s insulting to me as a Catholic woman to have God used in such a manner as you and Jaki have itinerant1. The Vatican:Holy See has there own medical commission to check out claims such as miracles. They do phyical examinations on people.

Huh? I don’t get it. If Jaki supports creationism as you allege, why is that in so many of his books he argues against creationism? Are we thinking of the same Stanley L. Jaki? LOL

Either you do not know what creationism is or you do not understand Jaki’s works. How else can one possibly interpret what you have said? Also, Jaki is too knowledgeable in philosophy to be misled by I.D.

So, again I have no idea what you are talking about. Most assuredly, we live in alternative universes.

Don’t you remember you were the one who brought Jaki into the conversation. Do you recall what you originally said about him?
My response to you was appropriate. It seems you may be having a difficult time understanding English. Perhaps it’s not your mother tongue? Is that the case?

This is not an appropriate response on your part, either. Must you always be so insulting? At least the fundametalists at CAF, so far, have been emotionally calm and charitable when we argue. This totally suprised me. I assumed things would be the other way around with evolutionists and creationists. Shows you what I know.

Shoot ?

I haven’t read everything you have posted to this topic. You did seem to imply that you were telling Catholic priests and scientists how to think by referring them to a philosophy that you thought they should adhere to. I think you should know that Vatican II changed the direction of the Church. Calm down. Relax. Take a rest and smile.

Yes, you certainly did misread what I said, and I will very calmly and humbly add that I know fairly well what V-II did and did not do.

I’m not ignorant. There is a lot of information available on the Internet that I haven’t read but that doesn’t make me ignorant.

I was not referring to you in particular. I said everybody is ignorant, just on different subjects. This includes myself. Why do you keep misinterpreting what I am saying? You are giving me a complex. LOL. I am ignorant on most subjects. But as far as what I know about you, which is virtually nothing, you may be very knowledgeable in some subject or even many subjects. But can anyone on this planet deny that they are ignorant on many or most subjects without having their sanity called into question?

Whenever someone uses the word moot I think of a scoop of sherbert that disappears into my tummy within 27 licks. Oh, and guess what… I’ve just about read every document there exists in the Vatican:Holy See. I’ve posted to this board more than I can count. I’m a walking memory stick. I don’t mean to be unkind but don’t need to argue because one thing is 100 percent correct and that is evolution is a fact and the Scientific Advisory Committee and the Pope know it to be true. And this is old news. ah, Darwin was a brilliant man along with thousands of other scientists and priests and people.

I very rarely use the word “moot”, because oddly enough, it has two meanings that are exactly opposite to each other. But as long as the word seems so conjure up pleasurable memories of sherbert for you, I will try to remember to say as often as possible that your point is moot.

Darwin may have been brilliant in some areas but he was, like the rest of us, (not meaning you in particular) ignorant in other areas. He stubbornly rejected some of Huxley’s sound advice. Darwin did not have the mental depth to grasp Wallace’s objection to his using reason to destroy reason. Darwin’s contemporary admirers were generally more comfortable with recalling his personal humanness than his mental powers. The fact that Darwin’s ideal philosopher was Herbert Spencer speaks volumes. And then there is the odd side of Darwin that enjoyed recalling to friends the times he shot hundreds of birds in a single day just for the sport of it.

Just in case you have some objections to what I said about Darwin, I would like to formally state in advance that any point you try to make will be considered moot. How does that work for you, sherbert lady?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Darwin may have been brilliant in some areas…

Such as biology, anatomy, geology, etc.

but he was, like the rest of us, (not meaning you in particular) ignorant in other areas.

Speaking of moot; we are talking biology.

He stubbornly rejected some of Huxley’s sound advice.

Such as Huxley’s observation that Darwin’s theory was consistent with saltation.

Darwin did not have the mental depth to grasp Wallace’s objection to his using reason to destroy reason.

Perhaps you should be a little more clear here.

Darwin’s contemporary admirers were generally more comfortable with recalling his personal humanness than his mental powers.

Hmm… Huxley’s observation was that he felt stupid, when he realized how clearly Darwin had seen the solution to variation.

The fact that Darwin’s ideal philosopher was Herbert Spencer speaks volumes.

Um, in science all that matters are the theories and the evidence that does or doesn’t support them. You’re not going to do one of those creationist “Darwin wasn’t a nice man” things are you?

And then there is the odd side of Darwin that enjoyed recalling to friends the times he shot hundreds of birds in a single day just for the sport of it.

I guess you’re going to do that. So we should criticize gravitational theory, because Newton tried to smear Leibniz for co-inventing the calculus? Do you have any idea how your behavior is seen by other people?

Just in case you have some objections to what I said about Darwin, I would like to formally state in advance that any point you try to make will be considered moot. How does that work for you, sherbert lady?

What a gentleman you are.

 

[itinerant1]

Speaking of moot; we are talking biology.

Are we? Okay, let me begin an attempt to clarify a few things. You said “We are talking biology”. Who are the “we” that you are referring to? I would not include Darwin and many of the neo-Darwinists, because they are not talking strictly biology. And this is the crux of the matter. I introduced this fact in my first post with a quote from the “Descent” regarding Darwin’s conclusion that man differs from the higher animals by difference that is only a difference in degree, and Darwins cliam to be able to account for the moral sense via evolution. This is not biology folks. But nobody wanted to talk about because Darwin is the past, or I was wrong, and various other rationalizations were given for ignoring the issue. Well the issue is back with Wallace. And this issue is alive today with neo-Darwinians. Dang! It just won’t go away.

Darwin is not talking biology only. He is asserting a philosophical assumption, one he held before his trip on the Beagle. Darwin’s early Notebooks reveal his delight in the idea that animals and man may merge into one. He also talks about dethroning “the Citadel”, by which he means human reason. Wallace and a few other contempories criticized Darwin for this direction he was taking. This direction is spelled out clearly in the *Descent *where he falsely assumes he is drawing a scinetific conclusion based on scientific research.

Yet, Darwin was being consistent with the principles articulated in the Origin concerning phylogenetic continuity. The idea that man is an animal who differs from apes in degree only is a conclusion required by his erroneous concept of continuity. I will show more about this in a separate post, especially in regard to the problem Darwin had with the notion of species. He expressed a wish that there was no such concept as species. The concept of species is not consistent with his view of a continuum.

The bottom line on Darwin’s concept of man, is that if it is so, then science is not possible. If thought is reduced to physiological processes then there is no condition accounts for conceptual thinking. Hence, specifically human thinking or knowledge, in theory, has been eliminated. It is not biology when non-biological reality is reduced to the biological.

This is not a Darwinian flaw buried in the past and subsequently excavated. Present day neo-Darwinism keeps alive the absurd tradition, though with some variation on the theme. Neo-Darwinists admit there is more than a difference in degree between man and higher animals. A difference in kind is acknowleged, but the difference in kind is not seen as radical. It is a difference in kind that is superficial. This is an improvement over Darwin, but it does not go far enough. Reason remains reduced to the physiological.

This in only one of many issues in “biological” evolutionary theory, which are really based on tacit or overt philosophical assumptions. It is not strictly science. This includes such matters as the assertion by biologists that there is no “purpose” in natural selection. It is random and determined only. However, a biologist’s explanation based on his scientific research that there is no “purpose” in evolution “appears” to be a scientific judgement, but it is a philosophical one based on scientific information, and a wrong one at that. The main point here is contemporary biologists think they a making a scientfic judgement on a scientific issue. The situation reveals a confusion about the proper domain and limitations of the natural sciences and the province of philosophy.

It will be easy enough to give examples of this in another post using the writings of Mayr and other evolutionists in their explanations of what evolution is. Either pure science is not something they concerns themselves with, or it is not something they see as to how it differs from philosophy. Either way it is there, and it is a problem when it is presented as science. It is no problem when the biologists says he is speaking as a man or as a philosopher on a philosophical aspect of evolution, and not as a scientist. But this is not what is happening.

When an erroneous judgement of a philosophical nature nature is made, such as the assertion that the human mind can be explained completely in terms of physiological and neurological processes, it should be obvious that it has an adverse effect on actual scientific research and conclusions.

The merit of Darwin’s theory, of course, remains independent of the oddity of his delight in slaughtering so many birds. Who can doubt that. However, I was pointing out that there are many sides to Darwin, as there are to other people who influenced the course of history. Oftentimes the real person gets lost behind the legend. Yet understanding the real person oftentimes throws light on what they said and why they said it. And that is a genuine scientific approach to understanding the history of great ideas.

Unfortunately, some great people become cultic heros. When that happens unravelling the myths that surround them upsets a lot of people.

If one is not concerned about this topic because it is not specifically biology shop talk, then it seems to make much better sense to ignore what is said rather than make an issue of it by figuring out how it can be turned into an excuse to lash out based on what some fundamentalists may do.

And I will conclude here with the comment that what I said about “sherbet lady” and “moot” was a light hearted joke in response to what she said about sherbert and moot. I suppose one would not necessarily see that when things are viewed out of context, as they so frequently are. Still, I thought a little subtile and light humor was very gentleman like of me. It’s boring when people are so humorless.

Be back soon. Cheerio!

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Because of **hecd 2’s **inability to refrain from ridicule, sarcasm and msleading remarks I had already resolved not to address his posts. However his latest requires a response.

First the following statement I made needs correcting:

The only argument he used (actually it was taken from Kevin Henke) was the truism that in a vertical line the particle at the bottom is older that the one at the top. Everybody agrees including Guy Berthault, but it proves nothing about the age or formation of strata. Pierre Julien’s video explanation is crystal clear. Strata do not consist of a series of lateral layers as Henke’s argument requires.

The last sentence should have read a series of “vertical” layers.

In this connection hecd2 writes:

So Coconino is older than Tonto which is older than the Supergroup and Tapeats is older than Bright Angel which is older than Muav.

One has only to look at the words to see hecd2 has confused “particle” with “formation”. Henke’s flawed argument referred to “particles” in a vertical line, not rock units. (I could go into the order of age he proposes to show it doesn’t even correspond to the geological column)

Berthault’s experiments propose a mechanism for the formation of strata. They demonstrate that in the presence of a water current, strata do not form successively. The flume experiments attest to the accuracy of this fact. Those who disagree, particularly if they apply the scientific method, must first explain why what occurs in the flume cannot be accepted as the empirical fact that it obviously is. This would seem the logical course to take. I have been asking those who have some knowledge of the subject to show where there is a flaw in the reported experiments. One has only to look through the posts to find that reference is made to many things but never the experiments. As an example hecd2, when he is not saying Berthault is “a YEC is a YEC, is a YEC”, lists a number of subjects, giving the impression to the lesser informed that they refute the laboratory work. But those items could be taken out of the index of any geological manual. Their only interest is in turning attention away from the subject, i.e. why the experiments cannot be taken on face value.

Here is his proposed list.

…the depth of sedimetary layers, the Grand Canyon Supergroup, the mineralogical discontinuity between Zorosater and Tonto, water ripples, trilobite trails and brachiopod fossils in the Tapeats Sandstone, coarse grained inclusions in Bright Angel, Temple Butte, Redwall, Supai Group, and the Hermit, Coconino, Toroweap and Kaibab formations, Surprise Canyon, varves, stromatolites, volcanic tuffs, pumice, lapilli and other tephra, igneous rock and breccias formed by volcanic ash and lavas, aeolian beds, evaporites, the absurdity of hydraulic sorting, and radiometric dating.

But where is the empirical evidence? The fact that some of the items can be used as an argument against rapid strata formation is far from justifying the hostile accusations inferring that the experiments are invalid. This, despite the fact they have been published by Academies of Science and reviewed by professional sedimentologists. Such credentials our geologists dismiss because when all else fails they know they can rely on their most effective weapon; the Straw Man.

Peter

 

[The_Barbarian]

Are we? Okay, let me begin an attempt to clarify a few things. You said “We are talking biology”. Who are the “we” that you are referring to?

Anyone on-topic on this thread.

I would not include Darwin and many of the neo-Darwinists, because they are not talking strictly biology.

Hmm… evolution is entirely about biology. And Darwin’s theory was entirely about biology. Most scientists do have other interests than biology, however. But that’s no excuse to go off-topic, either.

And this is the crux of the matter. I introduced this fact in my first post with a quote from the “Descent” regarding Darwin’s conclusion that man differs from the higher animals by difference that is only a difference in degree,

“Higher” of course, is not a scientific term. And biologically, we do differ from other animals in degree. Are you possibly conflating that fact with the idea that man is only his body?

and Darwins cliam to be able to account for the moral sense via evolution.

Apes have a moral sense, albeit very rudimentary compared to ours. They rarely are able to show altruistic behavior that cannot be shown to be evolutionarily favorable for them. But every now and then, that happens. Would you like some examples?

This is not biology folks.

If you think so, you don’t know much about biology. But you aren’t a biologist, are you?

Darwin is not talking biology only. He is asserting a philosophical assumption.

I’m looking through The Origin of Species, and I can’t find it, except at the very end, where he says God made the first living things. What else?

Yet, Darwin was being consistent with the principles articulated in the Origin concerning phylogenetic continuity. The idea that man is an animal who differs from apes in degree only is a conclusion required by his erroneous concept of continuity.

The evidence shows you are wrong. And you’re still conflating the fact of evolution, with the idea that man is only his body.

I will show more about this in a separate post, especially in regard to the problem Darwin had with the notion of species. He expressed a wish that there was no such concept as species. The concept of species is not consistent with his view of a continuum.

In fact, if every organism that ever lived were alive today, there would be no species, only a continuum.

If thought is reduced to physiological processes then there is no condition accounts for conceptual thinking. Hence, specifically human thinking or knowledge, in theory, has been eliminated. It is not biology when non-biological reality is reduced to the biological.

I’m certainly in awe if you’ve been able to so completely understand consciousness. But having spent a long time looking at the problem, I have to say you seem to have assumed a great deal that is not evident.

It seems that you’re offended that science isn’t able to support your philosophical assumptions about consciousness. But it’s not obliged to do that.

This includes such matters as the assertion by biologists that there is no “purpose” in natural selection. It is random and determined only.

In the sense that there is no “purpose” to gravity. Natural phenomena are not intelligent or purposeful. Which is not the same thing as saying that some intelligence isn’t using them to His purposes. Here, you’ve conflated methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism.

The merit of Darwin’s theory, of course, remains independent of the oddity of his delight in slaughtering so many birds.

You seem a bit obsessed with that. You do know that the concept of conservation was unknown in his time, and a person who objected to that in those times would have been considered odd or excessively anthropomorphic in his view of birds.

Unfortunately, some great people become cultic heros. When that happens unravelling the myths that surround them upsets a lot of people.

Or cultic antiheros. The “Darwin was not a nice person” cult seems to be much more obvious and widespread than the “Darwin could do no wrong” cult.

And I will conclude here with the comment that what I said about “sherbet lady” and “moot” was a light hearted joke in response to what she said about sherbert and moot.

Ah, it was just a joke. A mere misunderstanding. Not meant to be condescending and dismissive. Of course.

 

[itinerant1]

What a Difference Makes

This is my brief introduction the the various distinctions of difference used in evolutionary biology. The distinctions are related to the application of the biological continuum and the concept of species by Darwin and contemporary neo-darwinists, not to mention others.

In the Descent of Man, Chapter IV, Darwin’s summary statement of the last two chapters includes the following remark:

*“Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree, and not of kind.” *

T.H. Huxley already held this view of the human mind. Darwin’s position differed from that of Huxley concerning speech. In Man’s Place in Nature, Huxley says man “alone possess that marvelous endowment of intelligible and rational speech.” However, when one claims that man posses a property not possessed by higher animals, this does not represent a difference in degree only. Hence, T.H. Huxley’s view was not a self-consistent one.

This is a list of those distinctions, which are relevant to the problem here:

1. A difference in degree is one in which biological form A, possesses more of property X than does biological form B. The natural continuity between A and B is manifest.
2. A difference in kind that is superficial is one in which property X is absent from A and it is possessed by B. Also, property Y exists in a greater degree in Y than it does in X. The continuum of degrees of property Y has a threshold, the operation of which accounts for the manifest difference between X and Y in respect to property X. There is a natural continuity between A and B, which is manifest.
3. A manifest difference between A and B which is a difference that is radical in kind, involves a more complex relationship in which property X is absent from A while it is possessed by B. In addition, there is also property Y, which is absent from A and possessed by B, and the difference with respect to property X is rooted in the difference with respect to property Y. There is a manifest discontinuity in nature between A and B.

Attempts to prove by means of the natural sciences whether the difference of man from anthropoid apes and other higher animals, is a difference of category 1, 2, or 3, narrows down to considerations of that property which Huxley says man alone possesses: “intelligible and rational speech”. I will refer to man’s unique type of speech as “propositional speech”.

Science, so far failed to prove that propositional speech can be sufficiently accounted for in biological terms. If science alone were able to account for propositional speech it would mean the man’s difference is that of either category 1 or 2, or at least that there is manifest continuum between man and other animals. Furthermore, science has not disproven that man’s difference is that of category 3.

For example, if the dolphin, whose brain mass/body ratio is closest to that of man’s, is shown to possess propositional speech, then a larger brain mass would appear to sufficiently account for propositional speech. Accordingly, the natural sciences would then, at least in principle, if not in practice, be able to offer a full account of man’s nature because rationality is purely a physiological phenomenon. This is the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian position, the import of which is, if the theory is true, nothing matters, not even Darwinism.

Meanwhile, a Darwinism “assumes” the truth of category 1 or 2, that remains, at best, an hypothesis for which there is little evidential support. Nonetheless, a flimsy hypothesis was Darwin’s pre-investigative guide, as well as his post-investigative guide to interpreting the accumulated facts. The same situation holds true for neo-Darwinists studying man and higher animal types. One only needs to look at the many situations that reveal how this working assumption has skewed modern science.

The issue of man’s difference in Darwinism is integrally linked to the Darwinian model of phylogenetic continuity and the concept of species, a topic that I will also introduce.

 

[itinerant1]

Anyone on-topic on this thread.

Hmm… evolution is entirely about biology. And Darwin’s theory was entirely about biology. Most scientists do have other interests than biology, however. But that’s no excuse to go off-topic, either.

Consider this quote from George Gaylord Simpson’s The Meaning of Evolution. And say whether you think Simpson is off-topic:

“To say that man is nothing but an animal is to deny, by implication, that he has essential attributes other than those of animals.

“As applied to man the “nothing but” fallacy [a fallacy which Simpson attributes to Huxley] is more thoroughgoing than in application to any other sort of animal, because man is an entirely new kind of animal in ways altogether fundamental for understanding his nature. It is important to realize that man is an animal, but it is even more important to realize that the essence of his nature lies precisely in those characteristics that are not shared with any other animal.”

Again, is The Meaning of Evolution, off-topic?

Just FYI: Simpson proceeds to make a paradoxical statement, which appears to be the first of its kind in history. He asserts that man is “unique in degree” and well as “unique in kind”.

 

[itinerant1]

Anyone on-topic on this thread.

“Higher” of course, is not a scientific term. And biologically, we do differ from other animals in degree. Are you possibly conflating that fact with the idea that man is only his body?

“Higher” and “lower” are not scientific terms as far as Darwinism is concerned. However, Darwin did not always stick to his own rule in this matter. But whether “higher” or “lower” can be legitimate scientific terms in a non-Darwinian model of evolution appears to be an open question.

Also, I see not a clue to indicate that I am conflating. I am using the distinctions as they are used in biology. May I refer you back to my previous two posts for some clarification of this matter?

 

[itinerant1]

Anyone on-topic on this thread.

Apes have a moral sense, albeit very rudimentary compared to ours. They rarely are able to show altruistic behavior that cannot be shown to be evolutionarily favorable for them. But every now and then, that happens. Would you like some examples?

First, state explicitly whether your statement, “Apes have a moral sense…” is a scientific statement. My concern is not relevant to the truth-value of your statement, only to its category as being scientific or not.

Also, your ape example gives me concern that you have deviated from what I have been saying about Darwin’s theory of human evolution, i.e. that the human moral sense evolved. I was not referring to apes, even though the topic is related in Darwinian thought.

The assertion that apes have a rudimentary moral sense begs the question. To state that apes and man both have moral a sense in a synonymous use of the term, that is, apes have a moral sense, but in a much lesser degree than man, implies a difference in degree or a difference in kind that is superficial, between apes and man. But this is precisely what remains in question.

Additional considerations:
One must first consider whether the instinctual or non-rational behavior of apes can be moral behavior, albeit in a rather rudimentary sense. Any type of moral behavior requires free-will. There is simply no other kind. If we see no reason to assert apes have a moral sense in the literal sense of the term, then we can assert apes have a moral sense, but only in an analogical way with man’s moral behavior.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Higher" of course, is not a scientific term. And biologically, we do differ from other animals in degree. Are you possibly conflating that fact with the idea that man is only his body?

“Higher” and “lower” are not scientific terms as far as Darwinism is concerned.

Or for biology in general.

Also, I see not a clue to indicate that I am conflating. I am using the distinctions as they are used in biology.

You’re not a biologist, are you? But you don’t have to be. Any Catholic should know that we are not merely our bodies. This is the source of your confusion.

Consider this quote from George Gaylord Simpson’s The Meaning of Evolution. And say whether you think Simpson is off-topic:

“To say that man is nothing but an animal is to deny, by implication, that he has essential attributes other than those of animals.

Simpson was, as you likely know if you actually read the book, discussing what philosophical implications evolution might have. How did you not know that?

“As applied to man the “nothing but” fallacy [a fallacy which Simpson attributes to Huxley] is more thoroughgoing than in application to any other sort of animal, because man is an entirely new kind of animal in ways altogether fundamental for understanding his nature. It is important to realize that man is an animal, but it is even more important to realize that the essence of his nature lies precisely in those characteristics that are not shared with any other animal.”

Again, is The Meaning of Evolution, off-topic?

If I pointed out that giraffes have characterisitics which are not shared with any other animal, is that not biology? You’re not even a scientist, are you?

Just FYI: Simpson proceeds to make a paradoxical statement, which appears to be the first of its kind in history. He asserts that man is “unique in degree” and well as “unique in kind”.

I suppose, it seems that way for anyone who refuses to accept the idea that man has a body and a soul. Otherwise, no paradox.

 

[The_Barbarian]

First, state explicitly whether your statement, “Apes have a moral sense…” is a scientific statement.

Since it’s an observation, it is indeed. Apes able to sign make moral judgements, and apply them.

My concern is not relevant to the truth-value of your statement, only to its category as being scientific or not.

Inference from evidence. That’s how science works.

Also, your ape example gives me concern that you have deviated from what I have been saying about Darwin’s theory of human evolution, i.e. that the human moral sense evolved.

If our nearest relatives have some rudimentary sense of morality, then it’s good evidence that our common ancestor had it also.

I was not referring to apes, even though the topic is related in Darwinian thought.

The assertion that apes have a rudimentary moral sense begs the question. To state that apes and man both have moral a sense in a synonymous use of the term, that is, apes have a moral sense, but in a much lesser degree than man, implies a difference in degree or a difference in kind that is superficial, between apes and man. But this is precisely what remains in question.

The fact remains. What you want to make of it, or ignore about it, is your own decision.

One must first consider whether the instinctual or non-rational behavior of apes can be moral behavior,

Probably no more the the instinctual or non-rational behavior of humans can be moral behavior.

Any type of moral behavior requires free-will.

What makes you think animals can’t make decisions? Apes can, and do act contrary to instinct. They are better at it than any other animal, except man.

There is simply no other kind. If we see no reason to assert apes have a moral sense in the literal sense of the term, then we can assert apes have a moral sense, but only in an analogical way with man’s moral behavior.

All inter-specific behavior is like that. It can even be drawn tighter. You might as well say that we can assert that women have a moral sense, but only in an analogical way with the moral behavior of men.

 

[anthony022071]

Really?? Why’s that? Both sympatric and allopatric speciation are completely relevant to the theory of evolution and the concept of common descent.

Because we can only be “descendants” of anyone or anything by reproduction.

Speciation is only complete when there is a genetic barrier to reproduction. And when a genetic barrier occurs between two individuals of same species,the result will be a hybrid that can’t reproduce (hybrid inviability,hybrid sterility,or hybid breakdown). The common descent theorists forget this little fact. So where is the possibility of humans being a genetic offshoot of chimpanzees or apes? There is none.

 

[itinerant1]

In fact, if every organism that ever lived were alive today, there would be no species, only a continuum.

Your statement is innaccurate.

The number of past and extant varieties cannot represent enough variations to eliminate species. You would need, instead, the imaginary scenario Dobzhansky describes in which completely random interbreeding and genetic swamping realize all possible variations. In this situation, a perfect continuum would be realized.

Yet Dobzhansky’s perfect continuum is not the same as Darwin’s continuum. Darwin’s continuum reduces all forms to differences in degree. Dobzhansky, Mayr, J. Huxley, and perhaps a majority of leading evolutionists involved with the origin of man admit a difference in kind, albeit a superficial one. In view of their theories of salutatory speciation and quantum jumps, it would be inconsistent to assert that genetic swamping would eliminate superficial differences in kind.

 

[itinerant1]

Since it’s an observation, it is indeed. Apes able to sign make moral judgements, and apply them.

Inference from evidence. That’s how science works.

The inference is false, and represents an underlying assumption about the nature of moral behavior in itself that is not supported by scientific evidence. Your assertion is not provable. To point to the ape as evidence is circular reasoning, which demonstrates what I have been talking about all along.

If our nearest relatives have some rudimentary sense of morality, then it’s good evidence that our common ancestor had it also.

Statement shows an underlying misconception about the nature of moral behaviour.

The fact remains. What you want to make of it, or ignore about it, is your own decision.

That is a non-answer. I was hoping you could do better than that.

Probably no more the the instinctual or non-rational behavior of humans can be moral behavior.

Statement wrongly assumes the human instinctual behavior, which we have in common with other animals, is identical in nature to animal instinct. We can have something in common in one sense while it differs in another.

The identity, though, of instinctual behavior is consisent with the darwinian conception of man. Demonstrating once again, what I have seen saying about Darwinian philosphical assumptions being incorporated into modern evolutionary theory, which then effect scientific judgement.

You are helping me prove my original point.

What makes you think animals can’t make decisions? Apes can, and do act contrary to instinct. They are better at it than any other animal, except man.

I never said animals cannot make decisions. Provide a quote as to that nature. Of course you won’t be able to provide a quote because I never said any such thing.

However, your interpretive error of my statment reveals your misunderstanding of the radical difference in kind between ape decision making and human decision making. Also, your concepts reveal a lacking of understanding between actions that the result from free choice and those which are voluntary but are not consequent upon the faculty of free-will.

To reject any real distinction between human and higher animal decision making is a darwinian fallacy. Dude, you are the pre-eminent walking, talking piece of evidence that supports my original argument. I love it!!!

All inter-specific behavior is like that. It can even be drawn tighter. You might as well say that we can assert that women have a moral sense, but only in an analogical way with the moral behavior of men.

Blatant fallacy of ambiguity here. Also, there is misunderstanding of analogical relationship here. I would not expect anyone familar with morphology to commit such a blatant error. Do-overs are allowed.

 

[itinerant1]

Barbarian observes:
Higher" of course, is not a scientific term. And biologically, we do differ from other animals in degree. Are you possibly conflating that fact with the idea that man is only his body?

Or for biology in general.

You’re not a biologist, are you? But you don’t have to be. Any Catholic should know that we are not merely our bodies. This is the source of your confusion.

The intinerant1 says “No, your statement above indicates your inexplicable confusion about what I am saying.” There is nothing I have said that should lead anyone to make the kind of comment you did. Unless you are trying for the “straw man” award, I do not know where you are coming from.

“To say that man is nothing but an animal is to deny, by implication, that he has essential attributes other than those of animals.

Simpson was, as you likely know if you actually read the book, discussing what philosophical implications evolution might have. How did you not know that?

That’s my point! I just wanted you to say it. The philosophical implications of neo-Darwinism are inconsistent with the Catholic faith. Any Catholic should know that, but obviously many don’t.
And they are sure as heck are not likely to take the popes’ words for it.

“As applied to man the “nothing but” fallacy [a fallacy which Simpson attributes to Huxley] is more thoroughgoing than in application to any other sort of animal, because man is an entirely new kind of animal in ways altogether fundamental for understanding his nature. It is important to realize that man is an animal, but it is even more important to realize that the essence of his nature lies precisely in those characteristics that are not shared with any other animal.”

If I pointed out that giraffes have characterisitics which are not shared with any other animal, is that not biology? You’re not even a scientist, are you?

Yes, that is correct about giraffes. And most likely you understand it better than I do. Nonetheless, for you to put your statement to work in the context of my argument, you have to show what kind of difference this constitutes, according to the distinctions in differences I posted, and then explain why you think it is option 1, 2, or 3. Otherwise, your statement, as is, remains pert’ near DOA. Breathe some life into it!

I suppose, it seems that way for anyone who refuses to accept the idea that man has a body and a soul. Otherwise, no paradox.

What has no soul is your statement. How did your false assumptions about my beliefs come into play. Are going for a rank version of argumentum ad baculum? Can’t you leave religious beliefs out of science or philosophical implications of scientific theory? LOL Are you next going to invoke the existence of God as proof that there is no paradox in Simpson’s statement are you?

To fail to recognize the paradox is consequent to not understanding the actual meaning of differences the author is talking about. Probably your understanding is just vague enough that the paradox escapes your grasp. I’m not faulting you for that, because Simpson missed seeing it. It was left for historians of evolutionary theory to highlight what should have been obvious to a scientist of Simpson’s caliber. There is no advantage to denying that eminent scientists are not infallible.

 

[anthony022071]

Mostly genetic, but other ways exist. The key is that once reproductive isolation occurs, the two populations will then diverge farther and farther from each other.

When reproductive isolation occurs on account of a genetic barrier,the result will be,at the most,a hybrid that can’t reproduce.

No, that’s wrong, too. For example, polar bears diverged from brown bears very recently, but their ways of life and geographical isolation kept them from reproducing. Two species that got along fine in zoos, well enough to produce a grolar bear or two. Or maybe a pozly bear… whatever…

But are the hybrids capable of reproduction? If they are,then speciation between the two species wasn’t complete. In regard to the common descent theory,it’s the complete speciation of humans which is the stumbling-block

Now with the sea ice melting, polar bears are ranging on land again. And recently, a hybrid was shot by a hunter. So you see that your “theory” is refuted by reality, again.

The existence of hybrids does not make for evidence of humans descending from other life-forms.

If a hybrid can reproduce,then there was no genetic barrier between the parents,and speciation was not complete. And if there was a genetic barrier btween the parents,then the hybrid can’t reproduce its own and there will be no new species from that hybrid.

The theory of common descent doesn’t make sense because the genetic barriers that occur within a species don’t allow for there to be a hybrid species that can reproduce.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The key is that once reproductive isolation occurs, the two populations will then diverge farther and farther from each other.

When reproductive isolation occurs on account of a genetic barrier,the result will be,at the most,a hybrid that can’t reproduce.

That’s demonstrably wrong. For example, Dobzhansky showed that over a period of years, a species of fly in South American diverged into two reproductively isolated populations. But they continued to reproduce, just not with each other.

Barbarian observes:
No, that’s wrong, too. For example, polar bears diverged from brown bears very recently, but their ways of life and geographical isolation kept them from reproducing. Two species that got along fine in zoos, well enough to produce a grolar bear or two. Or maybe a pozly bear… whatever…

But are the hybrids capable of reproduction?

Yep. The speciation was very recent, and they are still largely interfertile, if perhaps less so than within their own species. This is precisely what you would expect in speciation.

If they are,then speciation between the two species wasn’t complete.

Not yet. Recently-diverged species should still be partially interfertile.

In regard to the common descent theory,it’s the complete speciation of humans which is the stumbling-block

Not if you accept the evidence. We have, for example, various other human species which might have been interfertile with anatomically modern humans.

Barbarian observes:
Now with the sea ice melting, polar bears are ranging on land again. And recently, a hybrid was shot by a hunter. So you see that your “theory” is refuted by reality, again.

The existence of hybrids does not make for evidence of humans descending from other life-forms.

That evidence would be fossil record, DNA and molecular data, and anatomical information.

If a hybrid can reproduce,then there was no genetic barrier between the parents,and speciation was not complete.

It’s not an all-or-none issue. In general, speciation starts with geographic isolation, and then gradually decreasing interfertility.

And if there was a genetic barrier btween the parents,then the hybrid can’t reproduce its own and there will be no new species from that hybrid.

That’s not how it usually happens, although it certainly can.

The theory of common descent doesn’t make sense because the genetic barriers that occur within a species don’t allow for there to be a hybrid species that can reproduce.

You need to learn more about population genetics, and mechanisms of speciation. Individuals don’t evolve; populations do.

So a species can evolve simply by gradually changing over time (horses are a good example of this mode, called “sympatry”) or by geographic isolation of a part of the population, which then evolves apart from the rest of the population. (allopatry)

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You’re not a biologist, are you? But you don’t have to be. Any Catholic should know that we are not merely our bodies. This is the source of your confusion.

No, your statement above indicates your inexplicable confusion about what I am saying.

You’ve conflated statements about man as a biological entity, with statements about what man is in toto.

There is nothing I have said that should lead anyone to make the kind of comment you did. Unless you are trying for the “straw man” award, I do not know where you are coming from.

I suspect that you do.

To say that man is nothing but an animal is to deny, by implication, that he has essential attributes other than those of animals.

Barbarian observes:
Simpson was, as you likely know if you actually read the book, discussing what philosophical implications evolution might have. How did you not know that?

That’s my point! I just wanted you to say it. The philosophical implications of neo-Darwinism are inconsistent with the Catholic faith.

You’ve gotten confused again. Simpson made it clear that he was not discussing science but philosophy when he wrote that. Have you actually read the book?

It is important to realize that man is an animal, but it is even more important to realize that the essence of his nature lies precisely in those characteristics that are not shared with any other animal.

Barbarian chuckles:
If I pointed out that giraffes have characterisitics which are not shared with any other animal, is that not biology? You’re not even a scientist, are you?

Yes, that is correct about giraffes. And most likely you understand it better than I do.

So what makes you think that such a statement applied to humans is not part of biology? This is an emotional issue for you, not an intellectual one.

Barbarian on the idea that man can be different by degree, and in kind, from other animals:
I suppose, it seems that way for anyone who refuses to accept the idea that man has a body and a soul. Otherwise, no paradox.

What has no soul is your statement.

More precisely, an immortal soul. Only man has one. This is why man is different in kind. His physical nature is different in degree.

How did your false assumptions about my beliefs come into play.

How can the boogyman be in millions of closets at once? The answer is the same.

Are going for a rank version of argumentum ad baculum?

Now I know for sure you aren’t a biologist… “Baculum” indeed.

Can’t you leave religious beliefs out of science or philosophical implications of scientific theory?

Notice that Simpson had to leave science to make that statement, and acknowledged so. Perhaps the distinction is not clear to you.

You’re not a philosopher either.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Since it’s an observation, it is indeed. Apes able to sign make moral judgements, and apply them.

Inference from evidence. That’s how science works.

The inference is false,

I thought you were only interested in whether or not it was science. Scientists, observing apes making moral distinctions, inferred that they are able to do so. That’s what science does.

and represents an underlying assumption about the nature of moral behavior in itself that is not supported by scientific evidence.

Apes who have been trained to sign, do make statements about guilt, normative ideas, and so on. This evidence leads scientists to infer that they can make moral judgements, albeit in a very rudimentary fashion. They have a sense of fairness too, and are capable of empathy, something only apes and humans can do, so far as we can tell.

Your assertion is not provable.

Nothing in science is provable. Do you understand why?

To point to the ape as evidence is circular reasoning,

Perhaps you don’t know what “circular reasoning” means.

Barbarian observes:
If our nearest relatives have some rudimentary sense of morality, then it’s good evidence that our common ancestor had it also.

Statement shows an underlying misconception about the nature of moral behaviour.

Perhaps you have a personal definition of the term, the rest of us don’t know about.

Barbarian on the evidence:
The fact remains. What you want to make of it, or ignore about it, is your own decision.

That is a non-answer.

No, it points out that you suddenly shifted your focus from “is it a scientific statement?” to “is it true?”

I was hoping you could do better than that.

I’m very good at catching that kind of behavior.

One must first consider whether the instinctual or non-rational behavior of apes can be moral behavior,

Barbarian observes:
Probably no more the the instinctual or non-rational behavior of humans can be moral behavior.

Statement wrongly assumes the human instinctual behavior, which we have in common with other animals, is identical in nature to animal instinct.

Hmm… you have evidence that they are different? Let’s take a look at it.

We can have something in common in one sense while it differs in another.

Waffling, um?

The identity, though, of instinctual behavior is consisent with the darwinian conception of man.

There isn’t a lot of pure instinctive behavior in apes and humans. Adverse reactions to loud noises, snakes, and falling. And the grasp reflex in newborn apes and humans. One big difference is the diving reflex, apparently a recent one, after humans became able to swim (apes can’t swim and drown in deep water).

“Instinct” is largely what we call it, when we don’t know how it works.

Demonstrating once again, what I have seen saying about Darwinian philosphical assumptions being incorporated into modern evolutionary theory, which then effect scientific judgement.

You are helping me prove my original point.

You seem to have abandoned your original point. It appears you aren’t sure what you think, now.

Barbarian observes:
What makes you think animals can’t make decisions? Apes can, and do act contrary to instinct. They are better at it than any other animal, except man.

I never said animals cannot make decisions. Provide a quote as to that nature. Of course you won’t be able to provide a quote because I never said any such thing.

You don’t think free will involves making decisions?

However, your interpretive error of my statment reveals your misunderstanding of the radical difference in kind between ape decision making and human decision making.

That’s sounds like a promising issue. Show me the evidence that they are different.

Also, your concepts reveal a lacking of understanding between actions that the result from free choice and those which are voluntary but are not consequent upon the faculty of free-will.

Show us the evidence from apes and humans that it is different.

To reject any real distinction between human and higher animal decision making is a darwinian fallacy.

You seem to be arguing with yourself, now.

Dude, you are the pre-eminent walking, talking piece of evidence that supports my original argument. I love it!!!

Most creationists, when they feel the walls closing in, declare victory. In fact, if it were so, they wouldn’t have to say so.

Barbarian observes:
All inter-specific behavior is like that. It can even be drawn tighter. You might as well say that we can assert that women have a moral sense, but only in an analogical way with the moral behavior of men.

Blatant fallacy of ambiguity here.

There might be some blurring of gender, but not much. I think you’re completely off-base on that. Incidentally, there is some good evidence that thinking in men and women procedes differently on a neurological level.

 

[itinerant1]

Barbarian observes:
You’re not a biologist, are you? But you don’t have to be. Any Catholic should know that we are not merely our bodies. This is the source of your confusion.

You’ve conflated statements about man as a biological entity, with statements about what man is in toto.

I suspect that you do.

To say that man is nothing but an animal is to deny, by implication, that he has essential attributes other than those of animals.

Barbarian observes:
Simpson was, as you likely know if you actually read the book, discussing what philosophical implications evolution might have. How did you not know that?

You’ve gotten confused again. Simpson made it clear that he was not discussing science but philosophy when he wrote that. Have you actually read the book?

It is important to realize that man is an animal, but it is even more important to realize that the essence of his nature lies precisely in those characteristics that are not shared with any other animal.

Barbarian chuckles:
If I pointed out that giraffes have characterisitics which are not shared with any other animal, is that not biology? You’re not even a scientist, are you?

So what makes you think that such a statement applied to humans is not part of biology? This is an emotional issue for you, not an intellectual one.

Barbarian on the idea that man can be different by degree, and in kind, from other animals:
I suppose, it seems that way for anyone who refuses to accept the idea that man has a body and a soul. Otherwise, no paradox.

More precisely, an immortal soul. Only man has one. This is why man is different in kind. His physical nature is different in degree.

How can the boogyman be in millions of closets at once? The answer is the same.

Now I know for sure you aren’t a biologist… “Baculum” indeed.

Notice that Simpson had to leave science to make that statement, and acknowledged so. Perhaps the distinction is not clear to you.

You’re not a philosopher either.

I don’t see anything in your responses that is relevant to the problem I posed about darwinian materialistic conception of man. Huxley was straightforward enough to acknowledge the obvious implications of darwinian theory. It’s hard to find people with such candor.

In contrast to Huxley, all of your replies only served as an evasion of the issue at hand, an issue that you have refused to address in any manner whatsoever. You have sidetracked everything. How convenient for you.

I don’t doubt that you are doing your best, and that you sincerely believe you have done well.