"Darwin Day" Topic

To page 19 and have a look….

So far, so good.

As I was saying: religion and evolution are not even related. Science is a relative late-comer to the questions answering game. But it is the most reliable, efficient and non corruptable methodology ever discovered for getting answers. Science does not ponder the metaphysical (although scientists do and will continue to do so).

Well that sold the display problem, but not my posting problems.

I think that both sides of the issue, both the religious and the anti-theistic saw the implications. Evolution removed mankind from the central position into which he had been placed by the western religion. If mankind arose naturally with out the two contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis then what else was false n the Bible? Biblical literalism was already under treat from geology, calling into question the age of the Earth, but this was much more personal because of the statements about man being made in God's image. So for the last 150 years we have been having this fight.

Next question, can we spread this out to 1,000+ posts?

"…our unique sapience…"

As far as I know (which is only about this far: | | ) mankind has no unique characteristics -wisdom or whatever- do we? Everything is just a matter of degree. To say other species don't have intelligence (or wisdom or awareness or …?) is like saying we don't have speed because we're not as fast as a cheetah. Rating what we're good at as higher (or more "special") than other qualities is chauvenistic and arbitrary, and has no real objective basis.

-just trying to do my share at getting to 1000… ; )

Anyway: I thought the objective was to make it a full year to the next anniversary?

We're going to make it too.

Biologically we are alike; but mentally we are not. It isn't just a matter of degree: there is NO MISSING LINK between the development of our brains and the rest of the animal kingdoms' brains. We don't think like they do, or rather, nothing else thinks like we do. Some very smart cats can have so-called "human-level intelligence", but they do not think like humans: they have no imagination for tomorrow, make no plans, do no abstract thinking whatsoever. No other animal alters the environment or makes anything to that end. There aren't even any degrees of lesser abstract thinking: the only species that is asserted to have ever possessed on a developmental level the kind of thinking that homo sapiens does, is the so-called "homo antecessor" link : but asserting its intermediate (and extinct for at least 800K years) level of intelligence does not prove it. Our level of thinking is so different that it is alien to the rest of the planet's species….

Cat's are bad exampel, it's a predator tho cats and dogs are realtivly smart animals, they are not nearly as smart as others, if you are going to discuss animals that are close to humans you have to talk about great apes, elephants and Cetacea's

There are also a number of bird spices that use tool.

There are also examples of chimps grieving the loss of a member of their troop.

We know from sign language that the other great apes kinda think like middle old children, which mean the have some understanding of death and can think into the future.

And quite frankly we have no ide how close an elephant or whale thinks like us, becasue their language is so diffrent.
But diffrent dosn't mean they can't think the same way we do til a certain extent, I have already said elephants morn and have death rituales, elephants also have the second longest childhood(after us) they basicly have to learn everything from it's flock, nothing is instinct.

I used cats because I last heard Rocky say that of one of his cats from the past.

Even dolphins are reputed to possess very high, possibly the highest intelligence, after humans.

Grieving and using tools is only an apparent similarity; no animals MAKE tools or carry them around for later use. Grieving is an emotion, not a thought process: all higher order animals possess emotions….

Grieving is an emotion, not a thought process: all higher order animals possess emotions….

Could you expand this idea please?

A "death ritual". Okay. Here's this empirical, first-person observance that I had of carpenter ants in the Rocky Mountains back in the first week of July 1982.

We were cutting firewood with chainsaws and dragging the logs back to camp behind ATVs. My cousin cut off the stump end of a barkless fallen tree which had landed across another downed tree, thus elevating the stump end. He sawed through it and moved on. I was walking around the cut off part a few minutes later, when I noticed something shiny and black and about the size of a dinner plate on the side of the log moving. As I crouched over the black shifting patch, I saw that it was a "close order" crowd of carpenter ants. They were massed on the side of the log at a point directly "below" the sun. My attention was drawn by the attitude of all the ants to the center of the mob: because every ant was facing the center. At the center was an ant being held by four other ants by the feelers and back legs. As I watched, a fifth ant climbed on top of the pinned ant and there was a brief pause: suddenly the entire watching group of carpenter ants turned away and walked off, leaving the six ants that had been in the center. As soon as the mob was away (I'd estimate less than half a minute after the crowd broke up), the ant on top turned 180 and chewed the thorax through, letting the abdomen fall to the ground; then turned back 180 and chewed the head off: the two ants holding the feelers let the head fall to the ground, followed by the two ants holding the rear legs letting go, and the rest of the body fell to the ground. Then the five "executioners" went off separately to other "business".

I was dumbfounded, to say the least. I've never heard anything from anyone to beat it. So, talk about similarities to human beings: you can find half a dozen implied ones right there. But nobody would claim that ant intelligence is remotely akin to human….

Even humans don't grieve as a thought process: it just IS. We had a pair of grey kittens when I was a boy, a brother and sister. One of them had it's leg broken by accident (little brother playing "lion tamer" with a stick) and had to be put down, and the other cat stopped eating. It just lay around until we had to shoot it. By then it was too weak to move. That's grieving, actively overcoming the instinct to survive….

Hi

i have had cats that responded to casual things spoken in front of them. And it is observed that cats sometimes form packs and lay traps for larger predators like dogs!

Oh, and beaver make dams to mod the environment.

Apes will sometimes by chance find a tool that works for them and carry it for a while, usually something long that gets termites to climb out of mounds.

No animal goes as far as to actually make raw materials into a tool for later use. But to my mind, this early ostio/donto/keratic tool development is merely the direction Australopithecus took during their divergence from the other african apes. It predates the "big brain" but post dates upright walking.

Rocky

Biologically we are alike; but mentally we are not. It isn't just a matter of degree: there is NO MISSING LINK between the development of our brains and the rest of the animal kingdoms' brains.

Doug, that's not because we are intrinsically unique. Rather the fact that we killed off (directly or indirectly) our nearest intelligent competitors. So it was a matter of degree after all.

Right now we are the only species that has a language. Many species communicate with each other but none have developed language. But that is also a matter of degree. Genius chimps have been taught vocabularies of a few hundred words and can make simple sentences from them. Many skulls of extinct hominids show indents that MAY indicate Broca's Areas which MAY indicate language capabilities.

I still think your initial assessment is dead wrong. In fact when you study neurological embryology and development (like I had to do) you will appreciate that our brains develop exactly like those of our fellow simpler creatures.

If you are arguing for some "special creation" or proof that we are made in the image of a Creator (and the rest of life is not) then you have yet to provide a convincing argument. What is your point?

Ralph

I fail to see in mankind anything more an a particularly clever ape when set against the rest of our fellow lifeforms.

Doug, that's not because we are intrinsically unique. Rather the fact that we killed off (directly or indirectly) our nearest intelligent competitors. So it was a matter of degree after all.

Surely this is an assertion only. It can't be tested for truth, and the "record" is so slight that no evidence of homo sapiens exterminating homo antecessor exists.

Many skulls of extinct hominids show indents…

No no no. Those are obviously the result of "Mo" pounding "Grok" on the skull and shouting "Don't you understand!"

…you will appreciate that our brains develop exactly like those of our fellow simpler creatures.

I've never questioned the biological likeness between all animal development. The brain itself is merely biological. The similarity makes the vast differences in our thinking and how that manifests all the more odd and so far impossible to explain. If there is just this similarity in development, then some other species should show degrees between the mass of what we call "animal intelligence" and our own intelligence: there is this enormous "gulf" between the smartest of the smart animals and an average to somewhat dull human being. You and Rocky ascribe this higher evolved IQ to our ancestors "deciding" to walk on two legs. To me this is a facile argument. So we'll disagree (no surprise).

I fail to see in mankind anything more an a particularly clever ape when set against the rest of our fellow lifeforms.

That "failure" would be exacerbated by the stupidity and myopic selfishness of so much of our species. But the "authorities" that first advanced the notion that homo sapiens is just another mammal wanted an excuse to "misbehave". No "God", no rules-maker, no comeupance: do whatever you want and do it smart and get away with it, 'cause nothing is waiting for you on the other side of death….

How about those "smart" "religious" carpenter ants?…

Another creationist agrument crushed

YouTube link

Doug, that's not because we are intrinsically unique. Rather the fact that we killed off (directly or indirectly) our nearest intelligent competitors. So it was a matter of degree after all.

Surely this is an assertion only. It can't be tested for truth, and the "record" is so slight that no evidence of homo sapiens exterminating homo antecessor exists.

This doesn't imply extermination or antecessor. Neanderthals died out due to our direct or indirect affects on their lifestyle. We were co-inhabitants. We survived, they succumbed. They were not our antecedents.

Many skulls of extinct hominids show indents…

No no no. Those are obviously the result of "Mo" pounding "Grok" on the skull and shouting "Don't you understand!"

Hmmm……that's amusing. However, the indents showing Broca's Area are on the inside of the skull.

…you will appreciate that our brains develop exactly like those of our fellow simpler creatures.

I've never questioned the biological likeness between all animal development. The brain itself is merely biological. The similarity makes the vast differences in our thinking and how that manifests all the more odd and so far impossible to explain.

Not if you read developmental biology.

If there is just this similarity in development, then some other species should show degrees between the mass of what we call "animal intelligence" and our own intelligence:

Homo Habilis. Homo Neaderthalis. Doug, they existed, now they are all dead.

You and Rocky ascribe this higher evolved IQ to our ancestors "deciding" to walk on two legs. To me this is a facile argument. So we'll disagree (no surprise).

Well the increase in IQ is due to the outgrowth of our cortex and the depth and number of invaginations within that cortex. That all started to expand once we became upright, so Rocky and I are correct (also no surprise).

I fail to see in mankind anything more an a particularly clever ape when set against the rest of our fellow lifeforms.

That "failure" would be exacerbated by the stupidity and myopic selfishness of so much of our species.

Read gweirda's comments above. He hits the nail on the head.

How about those "smart" "religious" carpenter ants?…

Ya…….how 'bout them?

Again, what is the point of all this?

Ralph

However, the indents showing Broca's Area are on the inside of the skull.

And it's the back side of the wall that blows out and goes down when a trebuchet hits the front side of a wall :)

Doug, they existed, now they are all dead.

Doesn't that seem odd to you? ALL DEAD? If the "intermediate" IQ species all died out, why didn't the less capable of adaptation with less IQ also die out? Why all one way and not the other? There should be evolved IQ's on a par with homo sapiens that survived a different way; but there isn't.

The point of all this is that similarities to us in the animal "kingdom" do not indicate an evolutionary process of our unique mental powers. There is no connection to beaver dams or beehives seen in our invention of tools that change our environment; animals only make what their genetic memories tell them to: we constantly adapt our skills and increase them as well. Maybe we really did originate in another galaxy….

And it's the back side of the wall that blows out and goes down when a trebuchet hits the front side of a wall :)

Then it wouldn't be an indent on the inside wall. You must watch more CSI.

Doesn't that seem odd to you?

No. But neither does the white man killing off most of the indigenous natives in North America seem odd. Sad, but not odd. As Homo Sapiens, we either killed them (the neanderthals) directly, or adapted to the environment much better than they, so they died a slower death of attrition.

ALL DEAD?

Yes, unless you have something else in mind. Susquatch?

There should be evolved IQ's on a par with homo sapiens that survived a different way; but there isn't.

No. Seeing that few animals actually show intelligence (mostly those closely related to us) shows that a high IQ is not the only successful trait for "Darwinian" fitness. The best adapted, longest lived, and most robust life forms on Earth are clearly not intelligent. Until we have a longer spell upon this planet the jury is still out on how effective intelligence is for survival. I fear we won't be around long enough.

The point of all this is that similarities to us in the animal "kingdom" do not indicate an evolutionary process of our unique mental powers.

To me it shows an exact evolutionary process. Each brain looks the same during fetal development. They progress from reptile, to fish, to mammal to ape. The so-called "unique mental powers" are the product of the geometric growth afforded to our cerebral cortex and it's convolutions and invaginations. It is a geometric growth instead of a continuous linear growth.

There is no connection to beaver dams or beehives seen in our invention of tools that change our environment;….

Ummm…….I would guess that the Hoover Dam is a direct result of us observing the work of the lowly but industrious beaver. We look, we copy, we adapt. That does not make us different than other animals, just more so.

Maybe we really did originate in another galaxy….

Maybe some of us.

Look, if the Peregrine Falcon (fastest animal alive)suddenly found itself in a world without other falcons, eagles, ospreys, etc. due to some hypothetical mass die off, it would be even more unusually fast compared to the other living things. Does that make it from outer space too?

Ralph

"Read gweirda's comments above. He hits the nail on the head."

I'm going to copy/save this and insert it into the discussion next time I start something in the aircombat forums… ; )

"The best adapted, longest lived, and most robust life forms on Earth are clearly not intelligent."

Agreed. It could be argued that the nc/creator-god is all for bacteria, since things seem to be set up best for them (and they are the dominant lifeform). Heck, considering their reproductive method, the case could be made that the first bacteria is still alive, correct?

Our intelligence is just a fall into the gutter (to use Gould's "drunk walking home" story) that is to be expected --without being common-- in an evolutionary arena that has a solid wall on the "simple" side. I was intrigued by the idea that I encountered recently (which means it's probably been around for a long while…) that pointed to a gene that made for a smaller, less-powerful jaw --making room in the skull for brain growth. --dunno if I got that correct, but that's what makes science neat: you can screw up and it will be checked/corrected!

Work has kept me from seeing the latest Nova series --I'm hoping it's rebroadcast in full sometime in the future.

ps- Ralph: keep your "if we survive" depressing stuff to yourself…or you're going to have to answer to my wife about "Who drank all the vodka?" ; )

Nova shows are available online:

link

link

part 3 available next week

ps- Ralph: keep your "if we survive" depressing stuff to yourself…or you're going to have to answer to my wife about "Who drank all the vodka?" ; )

Oops…….sorry.

Ralph

Part 3 would be of interest to Doug and our discussions.

"* Posted 11.02.09
* NOVA

Last Human Standing: Many human species once shared the globe. Why do we alone remain? Premiers on air and online November 17, 2009."

Ralph

138RAF – thanks for the links/info.

I guess I'm showing my age (-nicer than saying "ignorance"…?) by not thinking of computer-viewing.

Then it wouldn't be an indent on the inside wall. You must watch more CSI.

Oh, yeah… Hmm, I guess you're right.

It is a geometric growth instead of a continuous linear growth.

Do we arrive at geometric based on the time we've been around, compared to how much more developed (intelligence-wise), compared to other animal brains and how long they've been around (evolving)?

I'm not sure what the significance of geometric growth compared to linear is, in the first place.

…due to some hypothetical mass die off, …

Good point. But of course I don't accept that flight is remotely comparable to intelligence as a unique trait. We can fly faster than any bird!…

Hi

The short version, Doug, is that ca 4,000,000 years ago, there were several species in africa that were similar. Chimp sized brain, but upright walking. One of these developed larger brains, the others didn't and died out.

And the change is geometric. Our brains aren't larger But much larger. There are two physical issues you can do right now. Feel the back of your skull and notice how your spine enters the skull. This ANGLE is predicated that you walk upright. Now go check your cat.

That wss the big skull first change (remembering the center foot bone change in shape that I mentioned a few pages ago.)

Now, you might look at one of your kids, or several. Notice how the skull is missing other mammal attributes you see on chimps…and your cat. At the base of the skull, you have a sudden bulge that makes room for the idea that as your brain grew, it started overlapping the basic brain that all mammels share that run the basic function.

It is even a different COLOR.

But I digress. Still with the kid and the cat, check out how the face is differnt. Right behind the eyes on every mammel and all apes, there is a curve IN the center that makes room for big muscles to pas under the zygomatic arch, the cheek bones, to go up to the top of the head. Follwoing up that muscle to the top of the skull, there is a crest of bone. All this is to allow mammels to have powerful jaw bite for processing food.

Humans have tiny jaws and muscles, the the skull doesn't curve IN, but out making room for more and more brain. So, we use tools and heat to process our food rather than just masticating like others.

We have made amazing changes chasing that brain down.

Another issue oddly is HOW it works. The change to a long childhood has a number of issues. But again, the real limit is that the brain in a skull must pass through the mons veneris for the kid to get born. So, we are born helpless and the brain and skull unfinished just to get born with that big skull.

The others just drop the young out and they are quickly mobile. We have these incomplete failures that we carry around for more than a year. Lots of costs for that big brain.

Our early ancestors were one of many, but our direction was different. Most chimp types failed, some didn't, the upright walkers didn't prove out very well except for the ONE that added the big brain.

Rocky

I'm not sure what the significance of geometric growth compared to linear is, in the first place.

It's faster.

But of course I don't accept that flight is remotely comparable to intelligence as a unique trait.

Flight and intelligence are not remotely comparable, they are exactly comparable. Neither attributes are unique, they are all a matter of degree as Gweirda says. We just happen to have the most smarts and the peregrine has the most airspeed.

We can fly faster than any bird!…

uh….no.

We can build machines that sail through the air, with us in them, at great speeds. We CANNOT fly. Now that is an example of not being remotely comparable.

Why is it important for you to think of yourself as uniquely advantaged or separated and isolated from the other lifeforms on this planet? Is this leading to some pleading for some form of "special creation"?

Ralph

Humans have tiny jaws and muscles, the the skull doesn't curve IN, but out making room for more and more brain. So, we use tools and heat to process our food rather than just masticating like others.

Humans have a greater incidence of partial anodontia than other higher mammals. And the genes for the anodontia are increasing in the human population, as if it were being selected for. This means that more and more humans are being born without the full complement of 32 adult teeth. In the distant future we could have only 20 teeth. Anodontia seems to affect 12 teeth: 4 lateral incisors, 4 second bicuspids, and 4 third molars (wisdom teeth). Apparently our brain case is slowly encroaching upon other less important things in the head, like the mouth.

Another issue oddly is HOW it works. The change to a long childhood has a number of issues. But again, the real limit is that the brain in a skull must pass through the mons veneris for the kid to get born. So, we are born helpless and the brain and skull unfinished just to get born with that big skull.

Actually, that doesn't even work anymore. Still not enough room. Humans need the action of a neurotransmitter, Oxytocin, to relax the pubic symphysis, so that the pubic bones can separate and increase the size of the birth canal. Our heads are incompletely formed, as Rocky said, so the fontanelles can collapse or even overlap during birth.

All for those big heads.

Ralph

You two say all of this as if someTHING decided to go the most difficult, long-term risky path to adaptation. Or are you suggesting that evolution is sometimes very fast? Because I can't see how immediate danger to mere survival could allow for the "luxury" of doing it the hard way. Evolution must answer the immediate needs: it is mindless and can only respond to pressures to adapt: and I can't see a plausible scenario that would allow a "chimp" to stand up in the first place, and develop that big brain and slow maturation process in the second place: too many casualties! The experiment would be exterminated before the changes could be completed -- unless it all happened very, very fast. Sounds like a case for "outside" tampering to me….

Evolution must answer the immediate needs: it is mindless and can only respond to pressures to adapt

A bit of an over-statement, and a fairly important one in understanding some parts of the mechanism. Remember that its "Evolutions by random mutation and natural selection". Random mutations will survive in the population if they are neutral, or even slightly negative. Theres also the effects of single and multi copy genes – a change thats present in single copy can be positive even when strongly negative in two copies. Sickle cell is the normal example of this

Hi

Doug, you are correct. The bits don't always result in immediate success. Or as it is famously called "survival of the fittest".

In the case of apes. 6 to 7 million years ago there were an unknown number, at least 12 so far, of chimp LIKE apes in central africa. The arborial versions suffered with regular climate change and all but one died out.

similarly, with climate change, a half dozen or more of these chimp sized apes became ground apes. On the ground, upright posture works for apes. I find it ironic that you LOVE long walks without realizing how unique that is in the world. Out of a half dozen or more upright ground ape experiments, ONE worked out.

So, you end up with a group of upright walkers trying out the bigger brain adaptions…and most of them failed. We end up with a couple, then, with Neanderthal, two, then one.

So, you are right, these are bad ideas that had one success. What you are doing is reasoning backwards, you see modern man as a success and want somehow to make it all easy, which would have us with LOTS of upright ground apes with big brains.

Again, back to the cat your daughters have.

At about the same time the great apes had a lot of chimp sized species that tried and failed with different design problems….cats and dogs and all such predators had a common ancestor. The split with these ground based large predators involved something simple. High stamina pack hunters, and sprinter solo hunters. In fact there were a lot of failure before you end up with dogs/wolves versus various cats, versus heyena. All went on different failed but similar directions until they ended up with a few nich successors.

Rocky

Therein lies the fundamental fault of the opposition to evolution: I can't understand = my human fallibilty = the default acceptance of a human-based world-view.

And the fundamental JOB of educators (i.e. those who promote themselves as knowledgeable) is to SHOW how objections raised are fallacious. Instead of addressing a plausible scenario as to how/why evolution would actually bother to go the hard, dangerous stoopid path toward homo sapiens, I get this….

I figure acceptance of things that kill people is not kosher, and therefore not okay.

The first "chimp" who saw those nice nuts growing up in that overhanging shrub, and decided to stand because there wasn't anything growing that would support his weight, found out that he could reach said-nuts. "That worked out well", s/he thought. Next time s/he stretched a tad higher and longer, straining to reach the nuts that were harder to get to. Maybe s/he even got another "chimp" to stand on all fours so that the reacher could stand on its back and reach higher still. So far so good. The next time, a saber-tooth sneaking through the grass saw the upright outline of the "chimp", exposing a vertical juicy profile to attack. Oops! End of that experiment. I don't see how the first step to going bipedal could have occurred in a hostile environment; and given a non hostile environment (was there EVER such a thing?), evolution wouldn't have been involved in making any changes in the first place: no pressures to adapt, when there's no threat to survival, i.e. no NEED to adapt….

"Evolutions by random mutation and natural selection".

So what you (and Rocky) are saying here is that evolution is just happening without a cause much of the time. "Life" mutates even when the "design" is going along swimmingly: Nature just fiddles because it gets bored or what?

I thought that mutations without pressure deadended; they breed themselves out or perish.

Nobody is claiming that evolution happens fast, so I reckon we have to look at HOW it is possible to believe that any "experiment" could have resulted in such a unique, unlikely creature as homo sapiens: talk about LUCKY! "Lucky Lucy", she didn't get jumped by those ferocious jungle kitties: her children were all born to remain bipedal, because it worked for Mom; and the grandkiddies were actually pretty swift at mastering weapons, starting with throwing rocks. And all of this took how long, to result in a big head and kidlets that required carrying out of danger for the first half dozen years of their lives?…

I thought that mutations without pressure deadended; they breed themselves out or perish.

Why would they?

My wife's family has a 'mutation'- the 2nd and 3rd toes join a few mm further up, like their feet have decided to build a conservatory!

It appears a fairly dominant gene because her genetic dad has it, as does her full brother, his daughters and paternal half sister. My kids have it, as does my stepson. I believe we have even had her uncles take off shoes and socks at family gatherings! Her maternal half sister (oddly enough born on the same day as her half brother, and although they share a sister they are not related!) does NOT have it.

That extra bit of foot gives no advantage or disadvantage- it does not hinder them in any way, yet it survives. Even without modern healthcare there is no evolutionary pressure on itso there is no reason for the bearer not to breed- and that is all that matters with natural selection: can you survive long enough to breed, and can you find a mate. Traits that militate against these are bred out. Traits that do not stop these continue, no matter how little use they are.

…and that is all that matters with natural selection: can you survive long enough to breed, and can you find a mate. Traits that militate against these are bred out. Traits that do not stop these continue, no matter how little use they are.

Exactly the problem with coming up with a scenario allowing homo sapiens to happen. If Evolution happens slowly then the tree apes were dead meat once they had to live on the ground. No time to stand errect, develop hands, feet, bigger brain, weapons. No matter how many times it occurred it would not have enough time to work before predators killed them all off.

a viable hypothesis

Nope – sorry – thats a speculation, since its not even theoretically testable.

More to the point, in a drastic change of environment all species are equally disadvantaged, so if the forests did disappear suddenly the predators would be equally disadvantaged and your "all get eaten" scenario doesnt happen. And if the change isn't (in evolution terms) sudden its even easier – all you need is an intermediate form that can find a niche where its neutral (not even advantaged) and you're up and running.

To speculate wildly, an ape better fitted for long walks could migrate between patches of forest in a partly-forested environment. There'd be a spectrum of advantage-disadvantge between cross-country travel and good tree climbing. There would also be some advantage to better memory, ability to navigate, adaption to new environment etc.

Hi

That it happened is fact. That the drive was "god did it" cannot be demonstrated but suggested without proof.

Actually, as our friend's wife's family, most modern mutations are observed and traced to often specific villiages in europe, as one example.

Look at Small pox. By random mutation, any disease only affects SOME of the population. A certain large percentage, though benign mutuation, are natually immune. So, first time the disease shows up and kills half the population, the natural survivors have more surviivng kids. As time goes on, smaller and smaller percentages of the population are vulnerable, until….

When the government innoculated me as a kid, i was already immune and didn't have the "natural" reaction. The military being the military, they kept innoculating me until finally a doc signed off on my "natuaral immunity"…from mutation.

Or Caffeine. I dont respond, and my oldest got the gene and doesn't respond, but the others do. Advantage, disadvantage? Well you and Bill being mormons who do NOT use things with Caffeine, you will never know. And?

Your description of upright walking from reaching for the high fruit is called "Lamarkianism". And is incorrect.

Some apes of a given group have the small mutation in the center bone of the foot that makes upright walking more comfortable than it is for the others. Is able to walk further for game, survives famine better, and leads to the half dozen small upright capable apes.

the change isn't in kind, but degree.

Rocky

More to the point, in a drastic change of environment all species are equally disadvantaged, so if the forests did disappear suddenly the predators would be equally disadvantaged and your "all get eaten" scenario doesnt happen.

No drastic prehistoric change to the environment that I have every heard of eliminated early hominid predators! Even given that a remote section of the planet DID lose its large predators, allowing the ground apes there to survive: gone is the threat to survival, ergo the "pressure" to adapt to survive: the ground apes remain static.

The social groups are the cart, not the horse.

…the change isn't in kind, but degree.

And back around to the beginning we come: our sapience is a different KIND of thinking altogether. You say that the earlier developments to it died out, leaving only us. And I say that that is speculation as well. Given the size of the universe both physically and space-time-wise, and given our evident genetic memory of gods in the heavens, and the slowness of evolution (compounding the unlikelihood of such evolved "deadend" qualities that make up ourselves even getting past the starting-up stage), the "outside intervention" hypothesis remains an open question. There is nothing impractical about it. If true that would answer all the difficult questions and clear up all the dichotomy: so the very concept of an outside genetic engineer is in fact a hypothesis because it proposes an answer to our existence on this planet: the hypothesis does not get refuted by any evidence on this planet, i.e. there is nothing on the face of it to make it untenable….

"…our sapience is a different KIND of thinking altogether."

How so? Behaviorally (and to a slightly lesser extent: genetically) we share pretty much everything that is taken as "human" with the rest of life on this planet --to a degree, not kind.

link is, perhaps, a good place to start in examining this idea --Sagan/Duyan are a bit more accessible than someone like link ?

ps -FWIW, I had/have asked Bill to wipeout my earlier, snarky post, but he's either: a)too busy with the move, b)doesn't think it's bad enough to deserve action, or c)thinks I should live with the shame/evidence of having written something so stupid… It was not intended as a personal attack --though by effect it obviously was, so: apologies to any/all (especially Doug) who were offended/harmed by my rudeness.

ergo the genetic engineer in their genetic memory became "God"; and looking around at all the natural phenomena produced "the gods" responsible for each phenomenon.

At the risk of sounding sarcastic, and I don't mean to Doug, are you saying that from 'goddidit' we now have unknown genetic engineers manipulation or 'littlegreenmendidit.'

Is it not possible to either abiogenesis or envisage change over time accounting without the intervention of a deus ex machina?

hmmm…to post for no other reason than to start the 20th page, or be mature…?

There's your answer. ; )

I recomend this video
YouTube link

It's details the exact "diffrences" between humans and other animals, and the diffrence isn't much

Next target only 47 posts away.

At the risk of sounding sarcastic, and I don't mean to Doug, are you saying that from 'goddidit' we now have unknown genetic engineers manipulation or 'littlegreenmendidit.'

Haha. Why not something really advanced? In all the universe surely there is something that fits that discription.

Is it not possible to either abiogenesis or envisage change over time accounting without the intervention of a deus ex machina?

"Possible" isn't a good word. For an idea to be seriously considered it should reasonably answer a problem/question. And for me the biggie question is how could evolution select for something so unreasonable as homo sapiens; at any step along the way the vicious environment would have put paid to any "experiment" with going upright, so that later the brain could get bigger, so that offspring had to be carried around for the first half dozen years everytime danger reared its ugly snout. Too much danger, not enough time! So that's a big question mark at the end of, "Given enough tries, evolution eventually wound up with the hairless biped with the big head."

There is no deus ex machina; just evidence for outside intervention by an advanced agency. It could be "God", but is more likely to be a species of intelligent life far advanced beyond anything on this earth….

…apologies to any/all (especially Doug) who were offended/harmed by my rudeness.

It wasn't rude, imho; simply dismissive and erroneous. I addressed the content of your comment in that light. (we don't need no stinkin' intrusions from the way-too-busy-already-Bill -- unless of course he wants to weigh in on the discussion….)

There is no deus ex machina; just evidence for outside intervention by an advanced agency. It could be "God", but is more likely to be a species of intelligent life far advanced beyond anything on this earth….

but then you hit the 'Turtles all the way down' problem.

Well, we can't examine more turtles than we have on hand, can we? Nevertheless, we see our own "turtles" in the stack; and it's a BIG stack. It is silly to assume that in the midst of all that "stack", that our special little turtles evolved all by their lonesome, without anyone else in the stack either noticing or even being responsible. it is silly because the evidence on earth doesn't support an abiogenesis or random evolution to the big-headed, hairless biped. Outside agency is more likely, given the size and age of the universe….

Hi

Doug, the short version is that you don't understand what we and the rest of the science world keep explaining and end up with: "I don't understand therefor this is proof of outside agency".

So, since you dismiss all the evidence and explanation of natural selection, you are back to "god did it" even if he is an alien.

rocky