Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Crous

That’s The Evolution Way.

Recommended Posts

Some time ago there was the common ancestor who gave birth to a daughter. This doter will be the great ancestor of the humans. Although she still looked like her cousins, she had a small mutating that will result in her being one of the missing links of mankind. Her cousin was the great ancestor of the chimpanzee. There was no discrimination between their children and their children. In time there fur colour change their facial features change and their culture change. And somewhere in-between all these changes one became the superior animal.

 

Fast forward to today. Man sees the chimpanzee as a lesser animal. The chimpanzee is not allowed to vote or own land. Although the man know today that the chimpanzee is a distend cousin. Hi still treat him as a lesser animal.

Then he ponders, looking at the chimpanzee. When in the past have our forefather decide to discriminate against their cousins and way? Was it when they lost their fur? Was it when they changed their diet? Was it when there facial features changed?

 

If humans will over time evolve in to the next “superhuman†when will the superhuman discriminate against his lesser human cousin? And treat him as the next chimpanzee. How makes that decision? According to evolution the fittest will survive. The strongest lion make the decision. The one with authority makes the rules. If we look at the human history, haven’t some already attempted to make this decision? It may not have been the right time to discriminate against our human cousins. But it will happen in the future. Maybe next year or the year after that or the years after that, but it will happen. That’s the evolution way.

 

Some time ago nature decided if someone will or will not be borne. Today we as human decide our self when to end an unborn lesser human. We decided a fetus is a lesser human. I mean it cannot feel, it’s not aware, it cannot suffer. I mean it cannot even vote. That’s the evolution way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom is the right to choose: the right to create for oneself the

alternatives of choice. Without the possibility of choice, and the exercise

of choice, a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing.

â€â€ÂThomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We decided a fetus is a lesser human.  I mean it cannot feel, it’s not aware, it cannot suffer. I mean it cannot even vote. That’s the evolution way.

66711[/snapback]

They used to believe that newborns could not suffer. I know for a fact after their treatment of me (born at 28 weeks) that they can indeed suffer, and in fact remember it.

 

I will not for an instant believe that the unborn cannot feel pain, are not aware, cannot suffer. How much earlier in the development would a child need to be? One month earlier than when I was born? 2 months? 3? Don't you dare tell me that you know a human being who has no way of communicating meaningfully is not feeling pain or suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fast forward to today. Man sees the chimpanzee as a lesser animal. The chimpanzee is not allowed to vote or own land. Although the man know today that the chimpanzee is a distend cousin. Hi still treat him as a lesser animal.

66711[/snapback]

Chimpanzees can’t vote because they can’t read. Or write. Or speak a human language. Humans are more intelligent than chimps and partake in cultural activities such as politics, but that doesn’t mean chimps are “lesser animalsâ€ÂÂ. They’re a different species, and we treat them as such. As for land, a lot of effort goes into ensuring that chimps (and many other animals) have suitable habitats.

If humans will over time evolve in to the next “superhuman†when will the superhuman discriminate against his lesser human cousin? And treat him as the next chimpanzee. How makes that decision?

66711[/snapback]

Evolution does not suggest that humans will evolve into “superhumansâ€ÂÂ. Evolutionary change is caused by mutation and adaptation to an ever-changing environment, not a race to become more powerful.

According to evolution the fittest will survive. The strongest lion make the decision. The one with authority makes the rules.

66711[/snapback]

Fitness, in an evolutionary context, does not refer to physical strength. If refers to an organism’s reproductive success. If an animal is fit, it means that it can produce many offspring which survive to the age of reproduction. In other words, it can successfully pass on its genes.

If we look at the human history, haven’t some already attempted to make this decision? It may not have been the right time to discriminate against our human cousins. But it will happen in the future. Maybe next year or the year after that or the years after that, but it will happen. That’s the evolution way.

66711[/snapback]

No, that’s the power-hungry nature of certain corrupt governments and dictators. Although they may use a warped version of the evolutionary theory to justify their actions, that is not what evolution is about. There are just as many examples of how religion has been used for murder and discrimination, and we both know that’s not a fair representation of what religion is really about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chimpanzees can’t vote because they can’t read. Or write. Or speak a human language. Humans are more intelligent than chimps and partake in cultural activities such as politics, but that doesn’t mean chimps are “lesser animalsâ€ÂÂ. They’re a different species, and we treat them as such. As for land, a lot of effort goes into ensuring that chimps (and many other animals) have suitable habitats.

 

Evolution does not suggest that humans will evolve into “superhumansâ€ÂÂ. Evolutionary change is caused by mutation and adaptation to an ever-changing environment, not a race to become more powerful.

 

Fitness, in an evolutionary context, does not refer to physical strength. If refers to an organism’s reproductive success. If an animal is fit, it means that it can produce many offspring which survive to the age of reproduction. In other words, it can successfully pass on its genes.

 

No, that’s the power-hungry nature of certain corrupt governments and dictators. Although they may use a warped version of the evolutionary theory to justify their actions, that is not what evolution is about. There are just as many examples of how religion has been used for murder and discrimination, and we both know that’s not a fair representation of what religion is really about.

66726[/snapback]

All your rhetoric would make us the Supreme Beings on planet earth. Our intelligence trumps "it" all. You allude to right and wrong through use of words like corrupt, warped, murder, and discrimination. Evolution does not lay claim to causing any sort of ideas like right or wrong--survival of the species is it's only rule. Evolution justifies anything to survive to be able to reproduce.

 

My question is where did you get the idea to infer that evolution could be misused? What mutation caused that? Have you been eating of that tree which your were commanded not to have. Are you taking to yourself the knowledge of good and evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All your rhetoric would make us the Supreme Beings on planet earth. Our intelligence trumps "it" all.

66727[/snapback]

In terms of becoming powerful, intelligence does seem like the most influential factor. We’re certainly the most powerful animals on the planet. But in my opinion, superiority is more than just power and I would disagree that we are superior to all other life. Our survival is dependent on many other organisms, from nitrogen fixing bacteria to photosynthesizing plants.

My question is where did you get the idea to infer that evolution could be misused? What mutation caused that? Have you been eating of that tree which your were commanded not to have. Are you taking to yourself the knowledge of good and evil?

66727[/snapback]

Are you referring to the evolution of morality? I think there’s good evidence to suggest that social relationships are often an important aspect of survival, in humans and other animals as well. I would argue that morality is an evolved behaviour.

 

That’s slightly off topic though. I wasn’t trying to demonstrate my ability to tell right from wrong. My point is that the ideas behind evolution can be misinterpreted, in the same way that people misinterpret religious teachings and use them to justify their actions. Crous insinuates that discrimination and genocide are “the evolution wayâ€ÂÂ, which is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of becoming powerful, intelligence does seem like the most influential factor. We’re certainly the most powerful animals on the planet. But in my opinion, superiority is more than just power and I would disagree that we are superior to all other life. Our survival is dependent on many other organisms, from nitrogen fixing bacteria to photosynthesizing plants.

So what we will do is take away any form of intelligence from you and see what happens--I would surmise you would die.

 

Are you referring to the evolution of morality? I think there’s good evidence to suggest that social relationships are often an important aspect of survival, in humans and other animals as well. I would argue that morality is an evolved behaviour.

Go there and you open pandora's box and must also hold evolution responsible for evolving the idea of God and creationism

 

That’s slightly off topic though. I wasn’t trying to demonstrate my ability to tell right from wrong. My point is that the ideas behind evolution can be misinterpreted, in the same way that people misinterpret religious teachings and use them to justify their actions. Crous insinuates that discrimination and genocide are “the evolution wayâ€ÂÂ, which is not the case.

66738[/snapback]

What do you mean by misinterpreted? Evolution, according to evo scientists and atheists, has no moral implications. Survival to reproduce and live is all "it' claims.

 

I would conclude, similarly to you, that if evolution is the cause then it has to take the responsibility for everything, religion, God, atheism, evolution, creationism, morality and/ or the lack there of. Then, I suppose it gave us a choice to believe whatever we want. Right?

 

I can't detect that evolution has any power over your or my thinking process. It is a straw man argument. We couldn't disagree if we didn't have the ability to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chimpanzees can’t vote because they can’t read. Or write. Or speak a human language. Humans are more intelligent than chimps and partake in cultural activities such as politics, but that doesn’t mean chimps are “lesser animalsâ€ÂÂ. They’re a different species, and we treat them as such. As for land, a lot of effort goes into ensuring that chimps (and many other animals) have suitable habitats.

Is it murder to kill a chimpanzee? It is murder to kill a human. Does a chimpanzee has a choice live humans do? I know people here in Africa that cannot read or write a baby cannot speak. At this point this people compare to your definition have no writes. I do realize that not what you mean. But how decide the definitions in the world where “evolution†is the moral compass.

 

Evolution does not suggest that humans will evolve into “superhumansâ€ÂÂ. Evolutionary change is caused by mutation and adaptation to an ever-changing environment, not a race to become more powerful.

I think you are missing the point. Let me explain. I do understand evolution. The “superhuman†is the next step of humans, the point where this “superhuman†think\know they are betters that the normal human in whatever sense. The point where they make definitions like you just did to justify their superior attitude.

 

Fitness, in an evolutionary context, does not refer to physical strength. If refers to an organism’s reproductive success. If an animal is fit, it means that it can produce many offspring which survive to the age of reproduction. In other words, it can successfully pass on its genes.

Still you are missing the point. Stop quoting small part of the piece rather try to understand the meaning behind it whole piece.

 

 

No, that’s the power-hungry nature of certain corrupt governments and dictators. Although they may use a warped version of the evolutionary theory to justify their actions, that is not what evolution is about. There are just as many examples of how religion has been used for murder and discrimination, and we both know that’s not a fair representation of what religion is really about.

66726[/snapback]

This governments and dictators are the ones that make the decisions. The thing is that these people don’t use evolution as there guideline for their oppression. Evolution is just there excuse for their superior attitude. At this point they are not superior to other humans, but that happens (in the future) if these types of people evolve into something different than the normal human. Will there decisions be immoral if they start treating normal humans as we do other animals. Some people in the past and present think they are more superior to others. Some point in our past (humans or even the human’s forefathers) someone made the decision that they are superior to the chimpanzee. That is the way of nature (evolution). When is that point and how decide that point and definitions?

 

Are we not already at that point? We have we not decided when a human is a human and when it’s just a bunch of cells. Do we not already discriminate against race? Is it not just natural to de racist?

For Christians these answers are easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of becoming powerful, intelligence does seem like the most influential factor. We’re certainly the most powerful animals on the planet. But in my opinion, superiority is more than just power and I would disagree that we are superior to all other life. Our survival is dependent on many other organisms, from nitrogen fixing bacteria to photosynthesizing plants.

66738[/snapback]

Hmmmm, sounds like a pretty good argument for design.

 

Anyway, you are correct; superiority is more than just power. But vast superiority is the fact that absolutely NO other creature on this planet has the knowledge, skills and abilities of mankind. And mankind can duplicate, and far exceed the knowledge, skills and abilities of most any other creature on this planet. Plus, NO other creature can take an idea and design build and manufacture on a mass scale, machines to vastly outperform these other creatures. And mankind can make the facilities to mass manufacture these machines.

 

Man can also write a sonnet, a poem, a novel, a technical manual, or a technical chart, and publish it for all mankind to learn from. Man can also design and build musical instruments to play music he designed, to please the rest of mankind.

 

I could go on and on, but suffice it to say; absolutely no other creature that we know of, can even put a dent into these facts.

 

Further, it seems ludacris, illogical, and a bit shallow, to think that after supposed “millions†or “billions’ of years of supposed evolution, that mankind is the ONLY creature to evolve to such a “superior†state!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what we will do is take away any form of intelligence from you and see what happens--I would surmise you would die.

66742[/snapback]

I’m not sure what your point is. Yes, I would die if all my intelligence was taken away and I was left to survive on my own. But there are animals that can survive without a brain, so it’s not impossible in all cases. I already agreed with you that humans are highly intelligent, and very powerful as a result. But I disagree that we are “superior†to everything else for that reason.

Go there and you open pandora's box and must also hold evolution responsible for evolving the idea of God and creationism

66742[/snapback]

I’ve always accepted that. I could talk for hours about the reason why humans gravitate towards religious beliefs, from an evolutionary perspective. I find it very interesting.

What do you mean by misinterpreted? Evolution, according to evo scientists and atheists, has no moral implications. Survival to reproduce and live is all "it' claims.

66742[/snapback]

That’s exactly my point. Evolution as a theory does not make any claims about the value of life, or the superiority of races/species relative to one another. Evolution simply states that if an organism is “fit†(ie. effective at reproducing) its genes have a better chance of remaining in the population.

If people choose to form their own opinions on topics like abortion and genocide, that has nothing to do with “the evolution way†that Crous refers to.

I would conclude, similarly to you, that if evolution is the cause then it has to take the responsibility for everything, religion, God, atheism, evolution, creationism, morality and/ or the lack there of. Then, I suppose it gave us a choice to believe whatever we want. Right?

 

I can't detect that evolution has any power over your or my thinking process. It is a straw man argument. We couldn't disagree if we didn't have the ability to do so.

66742[/snapback]

You seem to imply that evolution is some sort of invisible force which is “responsible†for things, and has “power†over things. You’re personifying it to say that it “gave us a choiceâ€ÂÂ. Evolution describes a process which is based entirely on genetic and environmental factors, not a guided or conscious process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it murder to kill a chimpanzee? It is murder to kill a human. Does a chimpanzee has a choice live humans do? I know people here in Africa that cannot read or write a baby cannot speak. At this point this people compare to your definition have no writes. I do realize that not what you mean. But how decide the definitions in the world where “evolution†is the moral compass.

66743[/snapback]

Evolution is not a moral compass; it makes no claims about morality whatsoever. It’s a scientific theory, not a philosophical one. It says nothing about the relative “worth†of races or species. If someone chooses to rank living things according to how much value their life has, that’s fine but that has nothing to do with evolution.

I think you are missing the point. Let me explain. I do understand evolution. The “superhuman†is the next step of humans, the point where this “superhuman†think\know they are betters that the normal human in whatever sense. The point where they make definitions like you just did to justify their superior attitude.

66743[/snapback]

If speciation were to happen within the human population, the initial change would be so subtle that I doubt anyone would try to claim they are superior. But even if they did, what does that have to do with the validity of evolution?

Still you are missing the point. Stop quoting small part of the piece rather try to understand the meaning behind it whole piece.

66743[/snapback]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to take anything out of context. It just seemed like you were using “fitness†as a synonym for “powerâ€ÂÂ, and I wanted to clarify that there is a big difference.

This governments and dictators are the ones that make the decisions. The thing is that these people don’t use evolution as there guideline for their oppression. Evolution is just there excuse for their superior attitude. At this point they are not superior to other humans, but that happens (in the future) if these types of people evolve into something different than the normal human. Will there decisions be immoral if they start treating normal humans as we do other animals. Some people in the past and present think they are more superior to others. Some point in our past (humans or even the human’s forefathers) someone made the decision that they are superior to the chimpanzee. That is the way of nature (evolution). When is that point and how decide that point and definitions?

66743[/snapback]

Like I said, evolution makes no claims about superiority. Deciding that humans are superior to chimpanzees is not the way of evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution.

I’m not sure how we should define what animals are superior to others. I personally don’t think there’s much of a point in doing so, unless you’re faced with a situation in which you actually have to choose to save one life over another (which is a situation most of us never have, and never will, be faced with). The point is that such definitions wouldn’t come from evolution, because no where in the theory does it say anything about the value of one life over another.

Are we not already at that point? We have we not decided when a human is a human and when it’s just a bunch of cells. Do we not already discriminate against race? Is it not just natural to de racist?

For Christians these answers are easy.

66743[/snapback]

Are you suggesting that for evolutionists, it’s natural to be racist? Obviously that’s not the case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, sounds like a pretty good argument for design.

 

Anyway, you are correct; superiority is more than just power. But vast superiority is the fact that absolutely NO other creature on this planet has the knowledge, skills and abilities of mankind. And mankind can duplicate, and far exceed the knowledge, skills and abilities of most any other creature on this planet. Plus, NO other creature can take an idea and design build and manufacture on a mass scale, machines to vastly outperform these other creatures. And mankind can make the facilities to mass manufacture these machines.

 

Man can also write a sonnet, a poem, a novel, a technical manual, or a technical chart, and publish it for all mankind to learn from. Man can also design and build musical instruments to play music he designed, to please the rest of mankind.

 

I could go on and on, but suffice it to say; absolutely no other creature that we know of, can even put a dent into these facts.

 

Further, it seems ludacris, illogical, and a bit shallow, to think that after supposed “millions†or “billions’ of years of supposed evolution, that mankind is the ONLY creature to evolve to such a “superior†state!

66747[/snapback]

Actually, that seems perfectly logical to me. Becoming as intelligent as we are would not have occurred in one single event, but rather would require many subsequent changes over a long time span. Furthermore, these changes would need to happen in a specific order. To me, that suggests our intelligence and the culture we’ve developed along with it has a very low probability of happening twice on the same planet. That would be like two next door neighbors winning the lottery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, that seems perfectly logical to me. Becoming as intelligent as we are would not have occurred in one single event, but rather would require many subsequent changes over a long time span. Furthermore, these changes would need to happen in a specific order. To me, that suggests our intelligence and the culture we’ve developed along with it has a very low probability of happening twice on the same planet. That would be like two next door neighbors winning the lottery.

66784[/snapback]

Your analogy is flawed at its premise. According to the supposed evolutionary model, the strong outperform the weak. With a supposed billion (plus) years, and millions of life forms, there should have been many-many variances of intellectual developments from what we see as simple life form intelligence, to that which would be at least close to ours. But that is simply NOT the case, there is only us, and the “have not’sâ€ÂÂ!

 

It has nothing to do with the randomness of a lottery system, as lottery systems are designed to have only one or two winners! Are you suggesting life on this planet is designed to have only one winner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your analogy is flawed at its premise. According to the supposed evolutionary model, the strong outperform the weak.

66786[/snapback]

No, according to the evolution model the fit outperform the unfit. Strength is only one of many solutions.

With a supposed billion (plus) years, and millions of life forms, there should have been many-many variances of intellectual developments from what we see as simple life form intelligence, to that which would be at least close to ours. But that is simply NOT the case, there is only us, and the “have not’sâ€ÂÂ!

66786[/snapback]

Keep in mind that a specialist in any particular trait or behaviour faces an energy trade-off. Intelligence requires that a massive amount of energy is used for the development and maintenance of the brain. For the vast majority of animals, this trade-off would be lethal. Furthermore, intelligence is only useful if certain requirements are already in place. What use would it be if an animal had the mental capacity to make tools, but had hooves, paws, or fins and was unable to do so? The extra “brain power†would be nothing more than a waste of energy, and the animal would probably experience reduced fitness as a result.

 

For intelligence to be beneficial, it has to occur in the right place at the right time. In the case of humans, small and unlikely changes such as the formation of a language and the transition from small groups to larger societies created a snowball effect of technological advancement.

 

It has nothing to do with the randomness of a lottery system, as lottery systems are designed to have only one or two winners! Are you suggesting life on this planet is designed to have only one winner?

66786[/snapback]

No, I’m saying that as the probability of an event decreases, the amount of times you expect to see it occur also decreases. If you told 1000 people to flip a coin 10 times, it is expected that maybe one person will get 10 heads in a row. Although it’s entirely possible that two people could get 10 heads in a row, this would not be the predicted outcome. I can’t give you a numerical value for the evolution of intelligence, but I can estimate that it would be very low, and our planet simply does not have enough species to expect it to happen a second time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that a specialist in any particular trait or behaviour faces an energy trade-off. Intelligence requires that a massive amount of energy is used for the development and maintenance of the brain. For the vast majority of animals, this trade-off would be lethal. Furthermore, intelligence is only useful if certain requirements are already in place. What use would it be if an animal had the mental capacity to make tools, but had hooves, paws, or fins and was unable to do so? The extra “brain power†would be nothing more than a waste of energy, and the animal would probably experience reduced fitness as a result.

66790[/snapback]

That's funny. My husband and I were just discussing this. Dolphins are extremely intelligent and have used tools... so why don't they have hands yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's funny. My husband and I were just discussing this. Dolphins are extremely intelligent and have used tools... so why don't they have hands yet?

66791[/snapback]

No one is suggesting that hands could evolve in response to tool use. Hands are an adaptation for climbing trees, and facilitate the diet of fruit and nuts that generally comes with an arboreal lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's funny. My husband and I were just discussing this. Dolphins are extremely intelligent and have used tools... so why don't they have hands yet?

66791[/snapback]

People are always trying to find better and more improved ways of swimming and staying under water. Drownings continue as they always have - one must wonder why the human being hasn't evolved flippers and the ability to breath under water B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is suggesting that hands could evolve in response to tool use. Hands are an adaptation for climbing trees, and facilitate the diet of fruit and nuts that generally comes with an arboreal lifestyle.

66794[/snapback]

Cats have always climbed trees. Yet, they have not adapted to this by evolving hands. Birds have not evolved hands by consuming fruit or nuts or other hard foods. Each creature is equipped already with their own particular design that allows them to perform these tasks. There is no evidence any creature has ever "evolved" over time to be able to do these things.

 

Just as no human being has evolved a different body plan to swim as well as the fish, despite our efforts and persistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cats have always climbed trees.  Yet, they have not adapted to this by evolving hands.  Birds have not evolved hands by consuming fruit or nuts or other hard foods.  Each creature is equipped already with their own particular design that allows them to perform these tasks.  There is no evidence any creature has ever "evolved" over time to be able to do these things.

 

Just as no human being has evolved a different body plan to swim as well as the fish, despite our efforts and persistance.

66797[/snapback]

I never said that hands were the only solution for living in trees. But even from the perspective of intelligent design, it’s clear that human-like hands are most common in tree dwelling animals. Monkeys are the obvious example, but there are also koalas, possums, lemurs, and even reptiles and amphibians with digits similar to our own.

 

Humans haven’t evolved to swim effectively because it’s not a matter of survival for us. Drowning does occur, but not with a frequency great enough to threaten the survival of our species. Evolution acts on populations, not individuals. There is no human population whose reproductive success over the long term depends on their ability to swim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that hands were the only solution for living in trees. But even from the perspective of intelligent design, it’s clear that human-like hands are most common in tree dwelling animals. Monkeys are the obvious example, but there are also koalas, possums, lemurs, and even reptiles and amphibians with digits similar to our own.

 

Humans haven’t evolved to swim effectively because it’s not a matter of survival for us. Drowning does occur, but not with a frequency great enough to threaten the survival of our species. Evolution acts on populations, not individuals. There is no human population whose reproductive success over the long term depends on their ability to swim.

66800[/snapback]

Though I typically wouldn't want to defent the evolutionary point of view, I must remain honest with myself and what I know.

As a proper representation of the TOE Isabella is correct on that matter. Most likely if the TOE were true than if a certain secluded population of humans were in an enviornment that was slowly being invaded by water those that were less fit for aquatic survival would die and those more fit would pass on their genes.

Than where creationists draw the line at adaptation evolutionists go on in the hopes that mutations will occur that are not only not fatal but beneficial to the situation endangering the population.

Nevertheless, as humans, in well funded populations of humans (as in not third world countries), we have the technology to surpass most effects of 'natural selection'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I typically wouldn't want to defent the evolutionary point of view, I must remain honest with myself and what I know.

As a proper representation of the TOE Isabella is correct on that matter.  Most likely if the TOE were true than if a certain secluded population of humans were in an enviornment that was slowly being invaded by water those that were less fit for aquatic survival would die and those more fit would pass on their genes.

Than where creationists draw the line at adaptation evolutionists go on in the hopes that mutations will occur that are not only not fatal but beneficial to the situation endangering the population.

Nevertheless, as humans, in well funded populations of humans (as in not third world countries), we have the technology to surpass most effects of 'natural selection'.

66802[/snapback]

If a hand is going to “evolve†from a foot-like mechanism, the associated muscles and ligaments must be modified accordingly to control the new function of the hand. More is involved than just one mutation. The mutations (modifications) need to be precise and supportive of the new function. Saying evolution did it is somewhat magical because evolution is non sentient.

 

Using a blind watch maker anaolgy to argue the construction of a new function that has to be perfectly coordinated is ridiculous, How many blind drivers do we know driving automobiles on our streets? More is needed than blind evolution to go from a reptile to a bird. But it's possible the evolutionists says. Yeah when the evolutionists gets in a car driven by a blind person and tells him to get on one of our freewyas let me know. Crash!

 

Moreover, a feedback loop is needed and code that will be accepted by the individual digits and its joints to adjust their position for the varying tasks that present themselves to the creature. Swinging through a tree would require different instructions than pealing a banana to eat it.

 

Software (instructions) needs to be present to run the new function and is never even mentioned. How did the software evolve concurrently with the “new†hardware to interface perfectly with the new function? If there is no software and code getting to the muscles and ligaments that control the hand, it will not function correctly.

 

Evos have no explanation for how the software to run the millions of different species that exist evolved into existence. Darwin could claim ignorance, but what is evolutions' excuse today? We have all observed people that have lost control of their extremities from damage to their spinal cord. The extremities are fully functional but the signals to operate the arm or leg do not make it through the usual nerve path to the particular limbs. No software-no function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a  hand is going to “evolve†from a foot-like mechanism, the associated muscles and ligaments must be modified accordingly to control the new function of the hand. More is involved than  just one mutation. The mutations (modifications) need to be precise and supportive of the new function. Saying evolution did it is somewhat  magical because evolution is non sentient. 

 

Using a blind watch maker anaolgy to argue the construction of a new function that has to be perfectly coordinated  is ridiculous, How many blind drivers do  we know driving automobiles on our streets? More is needed than blind evolution to go from a reptile to a bird. But it's possible the evolutionists says. Yeah when the evolutionists  gets  in a car driven  by a blind person and tells him to get on one of our freewyas let me know. Crash!

66809[/snapback]

My understanding of the blind watchmaker analogy is not that evolution is completely unguided, but rather that evolution lacks foresight. Mutation and environmental change are both random, however the resulting selective pressures these events place on a population is typically directional and therefore non-random.

 

Evolution is only blind in the sense that it does not plan ahead, which is a common misconception some creationists have.

 

 

Moreover, a feedback loop is needed and code that will be accepted by the individual digits and its joints to adjust their position for the varying tasks that present themselves to the creature.  Swinging through a tree would require different instructions  than pealing a banana to eat it. 

 

Software (instructions) needs to be present to  run the new function and is never even mentioned. How did the software evolve concurrently with the “new†hardware  to interface perfectly with the new function?  If there is no software and code getting to the muscles and ligaments that control the hand, it will not function correctly. 

 

Evos have no explanation for how the software to run the millions of different species that exist evolved into existence. Darwin could claim ignorance, but what is evolutions' excuse today?  We have all observed people that have lost control of their  extremities from damage to their spinal cord. The extremities are fully functional but the signals to operate the arm or  leg do not make it through the usual nerve path  to the particular limbs. No software-no function.

66809[/snapback]

You seem to be implying that tree-climbing hands evolved from a structure which lacked muscles and nerves. This would not have been the case. An animal living on the ground would probably have feet resembling paws, which means that motor pathways and muscles were already in place. Mutations would only need to fine-tune these pathways, and to me that’s not an unfathomable idea.

 

Within your own lifetime, you have developed motor pathways you were not born with. You learned to write, type, draw, and possibly how to play musical instruments and sports. Some people with deformed/amputated hands have learned to write with their feet. All of these require a “re-wiring†of your brain, so to speak. I’m not suggesting that learned motor skills can be passed on to future offspring (that would be Lamarckism), but my point is that hand use does not necessarily depend on dramatic physical changes in your nerves or muscles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding of the blind watchmaker analogy is not that evolution is completely unguided, but rather that evolution lacks foresight. Mutation and environmental change are both random, however the resulting selective pressures these events place on a population is typically directional and therefore non-random.

A watch maker even if he is blind is still intelligent making this abalogy false. I admitt that life has selective qyalities and as far as I can see that is what is making adaptive choices not imaginary evolution. Selection is a function of choices--a life charateristic, You better have some forsight if you are going to build a watch or who knows what you will throw together? A watchmaker sets out to build a watch. Once again Dawkins analogy is false! Evolution did not, according to evo scientists, set out evolve a bird from a reptile, it just happened.

Evolution is only blind in the sense that it does not plan ahead, which is a common misconception some creationists have.

I do not share that ignorance of what evolutionsts alleges. I know it is not claimed to think or plan. That's why it is so magical sounding to me. Presto chango! an evolution has accomplished the most complex of feats that even humans can

t do.

 

You seem to be implying that tree-climbing hands evolved from a structure which lacked muscles and nerves. This would not have been the case. An animal living on the ground would probably have feet resembling paws, which means that motor pathways and muscles were already in place. Mutations would only need to fine-tune these pathways, and to me that’s not an unfathomable idea.

 

Within your own lifetime, you have developed motor pathways you were not born with. You learned to write, type, draw, and possibly how to play musical instruments and sports. Some people with deformed/amputated hands have learned to write with their feet. All of these require a “re-wiring†of your brain, so to speak. I’m not suggesting that learned motor skills can be passed on to future offspring (that would be Lamarckism), but my point is that hand use does not necessarily depend on dramatic physical changes in your nerves or muscles.

66822[/snapback]

I did not imply that anything evolved. I think that is your position. You focused the argument as if the only purpose for hands “evolving†was to swing through trees. There are many uses for hands as you said in your current post.

 

I like your idea of fine tuning which indicates that “mutations†must be precision and specific to cause the subtle changes that allow the hand to be more multi-purpose than a paw. I don’t suggest you cut your fingers off to prove the point but tape them up and see how effective having them is. The point is many animals survive without hands. Lions, tigers and bears etc.

 

Over my and your lifetime we have learned much because we are way more intelligent than apes and chimps. Over the lifetime of an ape he has never learned how to play a piano or develop pathways to do such. I am sure your excuse would be that he has not evolved far enough. Why would he or any of the other animals have to evolve they seem to do quite well right now as they are.

 

Dogs seem to have stopped evolving at dog status. chimps at chimp status and all other animals seem frozen where they are or they wouldn't be called by their names. Where is their evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A watch maker even if he is blind is still intelligent making this abalogy false. I admitt that life has selective qyalities and as far as I can see that is what is making adaptive choices not imaginary evolution. Selection is a function of choices--a life charateristic, You better have some forsight if you are going to build a watch or who knows what you will throw together? A watchmaker sets out to build a watch. Once again Dawkins analogy is false! Evolution did not, according to evo scientists, set out evolve a bird from a reptile, it just happened.

66825[/snapback]

I think you’re reading too much into the analogy. Dawkins is actually referencing William Paley’s watchmaker analogy, which supports intelligent design. The point Dawkins is trying to make is that unlike a watchmaker, evolution has no foresight and in that sense is “blindâ€ÂÂ. So Dawkins is actually trying to point out how evolution is different from an intelligent watchmaker rather than trying to illustrate their similarities.

I did not imply that anything evolved. I think that is your position. You focused the argument as if the only purpose for hands “evolving†was to swing through trees. There are many uses for hands as you said in your current post.

66825[/snapback]

I never said that swinging through trees was the only purpose for hands. However, we were talking specifically about the evolution of human intelligence and tool use. The evolutionary viewpoint is that human ancestors had hands because they were adapted to an arboreal lifestyle.

I like your idea of fine tuning which indicates that “mutations†must be precision and specific to cause the subtle changes that allow the hand to be more multi-purpose than a paw. I don’t suggest you cut your fingers off to prove the point but tape them up and see how effective having them is. The point is many animals survive without hands. Lions, tigers and bears etc.

66825[/snapback]

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Yes, there are plenty of animals which lack human-like hands. If an animal does have hands, it’s probably for a good reason such as climbing trees or gathering food.

Over my and your lifetime we have learned much because we are way more intelligent than apes and chimps. Over the lifetime of an ape he has never learned how to play a piano or develop pathways to do such. I am sure your excuse would be that he has not evolved far enough. Why would he or any of the other animals have to evolve they seem to do quite well right now as they are.

66825[/snapback]

My point was not that humans are able to learn. You said that swinging through a tree and peeling a banana are two very different uses of a hand, and I’m arguing that they’re really notâ€â€Âthey just require the development of different motor pathways.

 

Also, I would never argue that chimps have not “evolved far enoughâ€ÂÂ, because that would imply evolution can plan ahead or is moving towards an ultimate goal... both of which are false.

Evolution happens in response to environmental change. If an animal is doing well in a stable habitat, chances are it won’t be faced with much selective pressure.

Dogs seem to have stopped evolving at dog status. chimps at chimp status and all other animals seem frozen where they are or they wouldn't be called by their names. Where is their evolution?

66825[/snapback]

What exactly is dog status? Are wolves dogs? I think we can both agree that they are. What about coyotes and foxes? Racoon dogs? Hyenas?

 

I don’t see any clear line where “dog status†begins and ends. Do you? And if so, where would you put it and for what reasons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Isabella

 

I think you’re reading too much into the analogy. Dawkins is actually referencing William Paley’s watchmaker analogy, which supports intelligent design. The point Dawkins is trying to make is that unlike a watchmaker, evolution has no foresight and in that sense is “blindâ€ÂÂ. So Dawkins is actually trying to point out how evolution is different from an intelligent watchmaker rather than trying to illustrate their similarities.

Obviously Dawkins posits the idea that complexity can come from randomness. It is a false analogy comparing it to Pauley’s analogy. We have not observed evolution creating complexityâ€â€Âremember it’s to slow to observe.

 

I never said that swinging through trees was the only purpose for hands. However, we were talking specifically about the evolution of human intelligence and tool use. The evolutionary viewpoint is that human ancestors had hands because they were adapted to an arboreal lifestyle.

And my argument is that hands are great for playing the piano, beating the drums sculpting etc. There is no connection that there evolution was “caused†by a “need†to survive by swinging through trees. Mike Summers @ Jan 13 2011, 05:17 PM)

 

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Yes, there are plenty of animals which lack human-like hands. If an animal does have hands, it’s probably for a good reason such as climbing trees or gathering food.

The point is you have no way of knowing what environmental factors were in the past that would influence for a prolonged time to cause food problems enough for an advantage for hands mutating into existence-- evolving. That is pure speculation. The evidence is that plenty of animals still exist with paws and they survive in similar environments. Today we observe animals migratin from areas when food gets scarce. That makes more sense than waiting who knows how many years for hands to evolve.

 

My point was not that humans are able to learn. You said that swinging through a tree and peeling a banana are two very different uses of a hand, and I’m arguing that they’re really notâ€â€Âthey just require the development of different motor pathways. 

It’s decidedly more than that simplistic answer.

Also, I would never argue that chimps have not “evolved far enoughâ€ÂÂ, because that would imply evolution can plan ahead or is moving towards an ultimate goal... both of which are false.

Evolution happens in response to environmental change. If an animal is doing well in a stable habitat, chances are it won’t be faced with much selective pressure.

Apparently we are “further’ along than they are. In fact we left them in the dust! They are stuck as chimps and we have evolved on. Isn't that how evo works?

 

What exactly is dog status? Are wolves dogs? I think we can both agree that they are. What about coyotes and foxes? Racoon dogs? Hyenas? I don’t see any clear line where “dog status†begins and ends. Do you? And if so, where would you put it and for what reasons?

Hmmmm1. Let me think... How about Elephant and giraffe. Is that far apart enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms