R
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
Thanks for bringing up the point “Evolution is not striving towards any specific target” again. In rethinking it, I find a couple of ways to understand that statement. In a sense, evolution occurs because it is a natural method. In that sense, the method is key and keeps going in a rather general pattern. On the other hand, if one throws in the idea of survival, than that could be a target of specific evolution in a living organism. There are very few things that I consider as the “mutually exclusive or”. I like the idea of a variety of explanations which is “both / and”.
Every time I run across Homo sapiens sapiens, I smile. I don’t care how dumb some of us appear, we all have a bit of wisdom in our hearts. Homo sapiens sapiens is great; but, most likely I will use only one sapiens out of habit.
I scanned the recommended essay (post 20) too briefly. Because I am very interested in animal sentience, I need to stop and read in depth. Thank you.
The comment which attracted my attention was: “In Christianity, that ideology is Cartesianism.” (section II) Descartes is giving me one big headache.
As to the rest of your post, I am sure that other posters will comment – while I read.
R
redhen
Guest
I think I posted this on a thread on animal suffering. I searched for a quote from Descartes that outright denies animal pain but couldn’t find one. The closest I found was this one;
“For in my view, pain exists only in the understanding. What I do is explain all the external movements which accompany feeling in us; in animals it is these movements alone which occur, and not pain in a strict sense.”
Nature red in tooth and claw : theism and the problem of animal suffering
Michael J. Murray. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2008, p50.
Cartesians latched onto this idea to deal with the problem of natural evil (theodicy). Since non-human animals don’t experience pain, there is no problem of evil.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thinking about the TV show “Nova – Becoming Human”Yes, for sure! Some chimps are smarter when it comes to knowing their place.
Questions for Rwoehmke, post 9
and others interested in any of the natural sciences, chemistry, biology, etc., as well as others interested in human life. If some chimps are smarter when it comes to knowing their place, post 9 – and we should know where that place is – What is the place of humans in a world in which intellective abilities advanced in degrees because repeated environmental changes somehow caused an increase in cranial size?
Does walking upright really make a difference?
More important – Does the overwhelming evidence for a materialistic evolution of humanity slow down
a person’s search for the purpose of life?
Blessings,
granny
The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
R
redhen
Guest
One of the reasons humans have been so successful (in population), is that we are generalists, not specialists. That means we can adapt more readily and are not tied to a specific resource like food, or specific skills like digging with claws. So our place in the world is not determined. We can make of it what we will. We can make a heaven out of hell or a hell out of heaven.
I’m still here on CAF. Still searching.
G
GramdpaMunster
Guest
I think the difference between humans and animals involves the ability to reason and think abstractly. Wheather or not you believe in evolution, at one time there were beings on earth that resembled humans in that they walked upright. THe archeological evidence, however, indicates that art and other evidence of abstract thinking came only when homo sapiens came on the seen. I think that has something to do with being created in the image of God in Genesis. Also did you know that every human on earht today is the descendant of a very small group of poeple, perhaps as little as 10,000?
BTW: If you read “The prehistory of sex” and “THe prehistory of desth” By Taylor (?) You will get a good picture of what athiestic evolutionists think our ancestors were like, and it’s not very flattering. We were scavengers that cleaned up after the other scavengers were through, sort of like seagulls. Also cannibals.
I like reading archeology and comparing it to the bible, it’s interresting.
BTW: If you read “The prehistory of sex” and “THe prehistory of desth” By Taylor (?) You will get a good picture of what athiestic evolutionists think our ancestors were like, and it’s not very flattering. We were scavengers that cleaned up after the other scavengers were through, sort of like seagulls. Also cannibals.
I like reading archeology and comparing it to the bible, it’s interresting.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I thought it was 2???
R
reggieM
Guest
Mr. Tortley – Welcome, and I hope you will stick around.
I’m familiar with your erudite and superb posts on UD.
I think you could do a lot to help Catholics here who are enamored with Darwinian ideology.
I’m very sure that most of the evolutionary propagandists here have never encountered your level of scholarship. So I’d just enjoy sitting back and watching the house of cards come tumbling down.
… if there are any other Catholics on UD, please feel free to invite them here.
R
reggieM
Guest
It’s getting to the point where that is the default understanding and someone will struggle to discover something that he was not mistaken about.
This is, indeed, encouraging. Scholars might be getting a glimpse of the truths that the rest of humanity has already known with certainty.
R
reggieM
Guest
It was 2 – not 10,000.I thought it was 2???
R
reggieM
Guest
Regarding the supposed 2% difference in humans vs chimps – the feet alone show far more than 2% difference in form.
The genetic code does not explain the difference between human and chimp.
Chimps are not like humans - May 2004
Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts, The results reported this week showed that “83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect,” Sakaki said.
cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0405/119.htm
Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009
B
buffalo
Guest
And as time goes on it will get worse. When they understand better the difference in the genetic instructions of a human and an ape.
D
djeter
Guest
Hi grannymh:
Read about “Ardi” here:
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574449012560741086.html
This very recent scholarship as reported in the Wall Street Journal article of 10/4/09
I’ve never really fully understood how evolution varies from the creation stories found in Genesis and this most recent research makes it even more difficult for me to understand how the opposition ever came about.
Are you familiar with Fr. Michael Heller?
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/11/03/fr-michael-heller/
I’m with him and with Catholic theologican John Haught:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/08/05/the-atheist-delusion-an-interview-with-prof-john-haught/
Here is Haught bringing the needed balance to the debate: “What response can the theologian make to these attempts to provide a Darwinian debunking of religious faith? I have no doubt that one way of understanding faith is to explore it through the tools of evolutionary science, and I am convinced that theology should encourage science to push evolutionary understanding as far as it can within the limits of scientific method.
From a scientific point of view our capacity for religious faith has evolved like all other living phenomena, and biology can lend an interesting new light to religious studies. But, like almost everything else, religious phenomena also admit of a plurality of levels of explanation.
The phony rivalry the new atheists posit between science and religion is the result of a myth, a myth that asserts — without any experimental evidence — that only a scientific frame of reference, or only what counts as “evidence” in scientific circles, can lead us reliably to truth."
Warmest regards,
dj
Read about “Ardi” here:
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574449012560741086.html
This very recent scholarship as reported in the Wall Street Journal article of 10/4/09
I’ve never really fully understood how evolution varies from the creation stories found in Genesis and this most recent research makes it even more difficult for me to understand how the opposition ever came about.
Are you familiar with Fr. Michael Heller?
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/11/03/fr-michael-heller/
I’m with him and with Catholic theologican John Haught:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/08/05/the-atheist-delusion-an-interview-with-prof-john-haught/
Here is Haught bringing the needed balance to the debate: “What response can the theologian make to these attempts to provide a Darwinian debunking of religious faith? I have no doubt that one way of understanding faith is to explore it through the tools of evolutionary science, and I am convinced that theology should encourage science to push evolutionary understanding as far as it can within the limits of scientific method.
From a scientific point of view our capacity for religious faith has evolved like all other living phenomena, and biology can lend an interesting new light to religious studies. But, like almost everything else, religious phenomena also admit of a plurality of levels of explanation.
The phony rivalry the new atheists posit between science and religion is the result of a myth, a myth that asserts — without any experimental evidence — that only a scientific frame of reference, or only what counts as “evidence” in scientific circles, can lead us reliably to truth."
Warmest regards,
dj
R
reggieM
Guest
True. How many times have we heard that the 98% similarity was evidence for evolution? I think just about every Darwinian apologist on this site has mentioned that in discussion.
G
grannymh
Guest
Time only permits a brief reply. Regarding your comment, “I have no doubt that one way of understanding faith is to explore it through the tools of evolutionary science, and I am convinced that theology should encourage science to push evolutionary understanding as far as it can within the limits of scientific method.” I can agree when the emphasis is placed on tools leaving theories open for all kinds of possibilities. The OP further gives my own opinions.
Regarding Ardi –
The best place for information is a direct link. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to link it here. Please go to post 29, thread “Did apes descend from us?” in the philosophy section for the link. See info about free access.
Blessings,
granny
The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
R
redhen
Guest
I don’t think I’ve ever used that quote. It’s not the quantity of genes we share that is interesting, for we also share 50% of our genes with bananas. Does that mean we’re half bananas? Obviously not. The point is that just a minute variation in the genome can have drastic effects.
Also, you can either believe the species are static (creationism), or they evolve on their own, Intelligent Design has been trashed in the courts by Dr. Ken Miller, a cell biologist and a practicing Catholic.
youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Full video is here youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
G
grannymh
Guest
Briefly, since I need to leave for a bit.
Definitely, it is not the quantity of genes we share with my cousin chilly chimp. I look for the quality, i.e., the function of particular genes. This point made by redhen – “The point is that just a minute variation in the genome can have drastic effects.” – needs to be taken seriously.
Is there a possibility that just a minute variation in the genome caused a divergence from a common ancestor which eventually led to the differences between us and brute animals?
R
reggieM
Guest
That is to your credit.
The fact that we share 50% of our genes with bananas doesn’t mean that we’re half banana – that is right. The problem is that the amount of genetic similarity doesn’t translate over into the amount of kinds of differences found in organisms. It has been discovered that the same gene sequences in two different organisms serve different functions. So, genes are just a part of the organism – and they don’t provide evolutionary explanations.
B
buffalo
Guest
So the truth is determined by a court? Not!
Whether Intelligent Design is Science A Response to the Opinion of the Court in
Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District
Introduction
On December 20, 2005 Judge John Jones issued his opinion in the matter of Kitzmiller, in which I was the lead witness for the defense. There are many statements of the Court scattered throughout the opinion with which I disagree. However, here I will remark only on section E-4, “Whether ID is Science.”
The Court finds that intelligent design (ID) is not science. In its legal analysis, the Court takes what I would call a restricted sociological view of science: “science” is what the consensus of the community of practicing scientists declares it to be. The word “science” belongs to that community and to no one else. Thus, in the Court’s reasoning, since prominent science organizations have declared intelligent design to not be science, it is not science. Although at first blush that may seem reasonable, the restricted sociological view of science risks conflating the presumptions and prejudices of the current group of practitioners with the way physical reality must be understood.
On the other hand, like myself most of the public takes a broader view: “science” is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. By those lights, intelligent design is indeed science. Thus there is a disconnect between the two views of what “science” is. Although the two views rarely conflict at all, the dissonance grows acute when the topic turns to the most fundamental matters, such as the origins of the universe, life, and mind.
Below I proceed sequentially through section E-4. Statements from the opinion are in italics, followed by my comments.
more…
G
GramdpaMunster
Guest
I’m sorry, the title of the books are “The Burried Soul” and “The prehistory of sex” by Taylor.
I think your misunderstanding my point. I also take a literal interpretation of Genesis. What I’m saying is that DNA studies don’t contradict the bible, actually just the opposite. There’s also a good book called “The search for the Real Eve” that deals with studies to try to determine human migration after we left Africa. What I’m saying is that DNA studies and archeology seems to indicate:
I think your misunderstanding my point. I also take a literal interpretation of Genesis. What I’m saying is that DNA studies don’t contradict the bible, actually just the opposite. There’s also a good book called “The search for the Real Eve” that deals with studies to try to determine human migration after we left Africa. What I’m saying is that DNA studies and archeology seems to indicate:
- All of us came from a very small group of people.
- All of us came from a single place, probobly in Africa
- Abstract thinking came with Homo Sapiens, not hominid ancestors
All of this tends to support Genesis.
- Status