Why Did Darwinism Emerge?

[Lock&Light]

The Greeks regarded it as precisely that.

And then they grew up. Christians and Muslims have still to do that.

 

[Lock&Light]

What, any other book?

Which books have not been written by humans?

 

[Lock&Light]

Anyway, how do you think I've done that?

By using a Bible-text as if it were evidence of anything.

 

[butchersapron]

Which books have not been written by humans?

None, but you're saying that you have problems then with all books ever written.

 

[Lock&Light]

None, but you're saying that you have problems then with all books ever written.

As you well know, only if they claim to know the mind of god.

 

[Dandred]

Imagine someone saying that about The Iliad.

You'd think they were pretty ignorant, right?

Well, the same rules apply I'm afraid.

Last time I checked Phil people weren't using the Iliad as a base for religious beliefs..........

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There is no need to do more than look around you to see the massive and unmistakeable gullf between human and animal life. That difference is facilitated by our unique possession of reason--and there can be no evolutionary or biological explanation for reason.

You are john Locke and I claim my five pounds.

This isn't an argument. It is an assertion, an article of faith. It is, ironically enough, a failure of reason, and it sums up the core problem with all your thinking. You're stuck in 17th century Europe, phil.[/quote]

 

[8ball]

I think we need a good definition of 'reason'. If it involves the ability to analyse and solve problems then I guess many species of birds, some rodents, cetaceans and the great apes aren't animals either.

Not that Phil has said anything otherwise, perhaps they aren't animals either in the Dwyerverse.

 

[William of Walworth]

That is the cry of Darwinists over the last 150 years. Nor is this surprising, since the idea originates with Darwin himself. And that is the most important reason why Darwinism ought in my view to be opposed.

With what?

 

[Gmart]

"The Naked Ape" isn't exactly an excellent text on which to base your argument. It's a partisan account by an anthropologist, and should be addressed as such.

It is a whole book describing humans in comparison with animals. The similarities are not proof per se, but any description of reality would have to include this and the fact that we bear live young and have fur among all the other things we do as animals should give us pause when considering our origins.

I'm not aware of anyone making such an argument.

The religious are frequently trying to argue that Man is somehow special in some way, which is why they find evolution so difficult to incorporate into their paradigm.

It's not "describing historical fact", it is representing the sum of our understanding at this time. With science, "facts" are always subject to revision.

That is true but evolution is all to do with history, and history is decided by evidence and the evidence is in and there in the fossil record and elsewhere. Of course Evolution could be disproved if you found 'rabbits in the Cambrian period' as Dawkins once put it - but you won't because the fossil record is consistent with the theory.

It is the same with any historical fact. Amy Winehouse was declared dead on 23 July 2011 - sure in principle one can remember that science is 'always subject to revision' as you say, but with respect it is not really relevant and even at 99.9999% certainty I am happy to accept the theory that Amy Winehouse is dead.

"Large brain", opposable thumbs, tool use. All explanations for our ability to manipulate our environments. Surely anyone with an ounce of curiosity is going to ask "why"? Just saying "it happened" in reference to evolution is as unsatisfying and as religiously-minded as all the canting priests and believers telling you not to question G-d's work.

Not really - from a scientific point of view it is proved as much as any other historical fact - it is not therefore the same as the step of faith that the religious take - they deliberately believe something without proof. I am not going to theorise as to the 'why' of evolution - you may as well argue about the 'why' of the big bang - our knowledge is limited but science gives us the most accurate view possible.

Such certainty. Such a lack of enquiry.

Such lack of faith, such desperation to disagree.

 

[phildwyer]

Note the past tense.

Well I don't regard the Bible as sacred either.

But to dismiss it as "bollocks," like Gentlegreen did, because its... er... old or something is just stupid.

As usual, the thread is moving faster than me. I'll catch up with everyone's questions eventually though.

 

[Gmart]

Well I don't regard the Bible as sacred either.

But to dismiss it as "bollocks," like Gentlegreen did, because its... er... old or something is just stupid.

As usual, the thread is moving faster than me. I'll catch up with everyone's questions eventually though.

It is fine as a set of moralistic stories - same as Aesop's fables - good for children.

 

[gentlegreen]

It is fine as a set of moralistic stories - same as Aesop's fables - good for children.

Yes - like if you want to get pregnant, have sex with your dad when he's sleeping.

 

[phildwyer]

Yes - like if you want to get pregnant, have sex with your dad when he's sleeping.

Are you familiar with the term "literalism?"

 

[gentlegreen]

Are you familiar with the term "literalism?"

The words "goose" and "gander" come to mind. Darwin's work is discredited because he was familiar with Adam Smith and Malthus. At least Darwin's work is scientific - with data.

 

[8ball]

With what?

Creationism leaflets delivered straight to the stock exchange.

That'll learn 'em.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well I don't regard the Bible as sacred either.

But to dismiss it as "bollocks," like Gentlegreen did, because its... er... old or something is just stupid.

As usual, the thread is moving faster than me. I'll catch up with everyone's questions eventually though.

Good to see you're finally admitting you're slow

 

[ViolentPanda]

It is a whole book describing humans in comparison with animals. The similarities are not proof per se, but any description of reality would have to include this and the fact that we bear live young and have fur among all the other things we do as animals should give us pause when considering our origins.

It's a perspective among many, a perspective that fond favour at the time of publishing.

The religious are frequently trying to argue that Man is somehow special in some way, which is why they find evolution so difficult to incorporate into their paradigm.

Religions are predicated on exclusivity. Go figure.

That is true but evolution is all to do with history, and history is decided by evidence and the evidence is in and there in the fossil record and elsewhere. Of course Evolution could be disproved if you found 'rabbits in the Cambrian period' as Dawkins once put it - but you won't because the fossil record is consistent with the theory.

Of course evolution is, in a general manner, "all to do with history". It's about an organism's reaction to environmentally-affecting historical events.

It is the same with any historical fact. Amy Winehouse was declared dead on 23 July 2011 - sure in principle one can remember that science is 'always subject to revision' as you say, but with respect it is not really relevant and even at 99.9999% certainty I am happy to accept the theory that Amy Winehouse is dead.

That's a spurious analogy and I suspect you know that it is.

Not really - from a scientific point of view it is proved as much as any other historical fact - it is not therefore the same as the step of faith that the religious take - they deliberately believe something without proof.

It's a "leap of faith", not a step, and the faithful don't tend to "deliberately believe". Instead they're the sum of the indoctrinating forces that play out in them.

I am not going to theorise as to the 'why' of evolution - you may as well argue about the 'why' of the big bang - our knowledge is limited but science gives us the most accurate view possible.

Such lack of faith, such desperation to disagree.

I see that you're trying to personalise my arguing with you.

Again.

And you say I'm desperate!

 

[Crispy]

There is no need to do more than look around you to see the massive and unmistakeable gullf between human and animal life. That difference is facilitated by our unique possession of reason--and there can be no evolutionary or biological explanation for reason.

Why on earth not? Given that humans exist with varying levels of reasoning ability from genius all the way down to barely functioning vegetables, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that less intelligent humans are perfectly capable of breeding and having offspring. If greater reasoning is evolutionarily desirable, and it is possible for the reasoning capacity of the human brain to increase over time, then that trait will be selected for.

You outing yourself as a God-botherer - more specifically a judaeo-xtian.

He's not and you haven't been paying attention if you think he is.

 

[phildwyer]

Why on earth not? Given that humans exist with varying levels of reasoning ability from genius all the way down to barely functioning vegetables, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that less intelligent humans are perfectly capable of breeding and having offspring. If greater reasoning is evolutionarily desirable, and it is possible for the reasoning capacity of the human brain to increase over time, then that trait will be selected for.

I meant the capacity for reason in general. But anyway, I doubt that greater reasoning, or any reasoning at all, is evolutionarily desirable.

And while I'm here, why would a creature evolve in such a way as to despise its own nature? Because human beings do despise our own nature: we are mortal, for instance, and yet that fact dismays us.

He's not and you haven't been paying attention if you think he is.

It never ceases to amaze me how, as soon as you even mention the Bible, people jump up and down in triumphalist glee, assuming that you've somehow "outed" yourself as a Christian.

Either that or they reel back in horror like Dracula faced with a crucifix. Toggle actually threatened to complain to the Mods once when I quoted a few Biblical verses.

Even if I were an atheist, I'd make it my business to know the Bible, seeing as its by far the most influential book in the history of the world like.

 

[Crispy]

And while I'm here, why would a creature evolve in such a way as to despise its own nature? Because human beings do despise our own nature: we are mortal, for instance, and yet that fact dismays us.

despair at our mortality is like male nipples. A by-product of our ability to plan for the future. We don't kill ourself out of despair for our mortality, therefore it is not selected against.

 

[8ball]

And while I'm here, why would a creature evolve in such a way as to despise its own nature? Because human beings do despise our own nature: we are mortal, for instance, and yet that fact dismays us.

To take a different view to Crispy:
For an animal capable of forward planning, I don't think a lack of distress at mortality would be an adaptive trait.

You get mutant humans who aren't distressed by physical pain, they don't tend to live that long (longer than the ones that don't feel pain at all, but it's still a disadvantage in terms of survival and consequently reproduction).

 

[Spud Murfy]

I meant the capacity for reason in general. But anyway, I doubt that greater reasoning, or any reasoning at all, is evolutionarily desirable.

And while I'm here, why would a creature evolve in such a way as to despise its own nature? Because human beings do despise our own nature: we are mortal, for instance, and yet that fact dismays us.

I don't think very many people worry about death when it seems far away.

 

[fogbat]

despair at our mortality is like male nipples. A by-product of our ability to plan for the future. We don't kill ourself out of despair for our mortality, therefore it is not selected against.

I do not think that is why males have nipples

 

[Gmart]

I see that you're trying to personalise my arguing with you.

Again.

And you say I'm desperate!

As usual you didn't really comment on the issue, or put forward your own views but I will comment on your personalisation of this discussion.

If you decide to guess at what is in other people's heads when you engage in such pithy remarks as:

Such certainty. Such a lack of enquiry.

Then that is you personalising the discussion and being insulting at the same time. Ironically such remarks could easily be thrown at yourself with as much evidence as you had.
But you know that of course - you are just unwilling to restrict yourself to straight rationalism and politeness, the same as Butcher's Apron and his similar inability to avoid abusive posts.
You should stick to rational discussion of the facts as you see them rather than drifting into personal abuse.

 

[Greebo]

I do not think that is why males have nipples

A couple of theories to explain that - probably neither is entirely correct:
1) sucking on a nipple, any nipple can be soothing to young mammals, even when they can't get nourishment or liquid.
2) some bits of what I'll call (for the sake of argument) the human template are activated earlier than other bits - the nipples begin growing a lot earlier (before 14 weeks) than differentiated sex organs ie testes/ovaries, clitoris/penis etc.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I meant the capacity for reason in general. But anyway, I doubt that greater reasoning, or any reasoning at all, is evolutionarily desirable..

One thing I'd agree with is that the theory of evolution is wrong to the extent that species are somehow getting better. What they are doing is changing both to suit changing times, and as a result of mutation.

As I've stated before, reason is simply our survival tool. It's desirable to the extent that the survival of any species is desirable.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

A couple of theories to explain that - probably neither is entirely correct:
1) sucking on a nipple, any nipple can be soothing to young mammals, even when they can't get nourishment or liquid.
2) some bits of what I'll call (for the sake of argument) the human template are activated earlier than other bits - the nipples begin growing a lot earlier (before 14 weeks) than differentiated sex organs ie testes/ovaries, clitoris/penis etc.

I think the reason we have nipples is that it's easier to have the members of a species to be fairly close to identical. It's good design, or to put it another way, it makes for simpler production.

Thus, we all get nipples, but as part of the sexual development, hormones etc cause breasts to grow on females but not males; women get clitorises, men penises etc. But the basic building blocks for everything are present in all members of the species.

 

[gentlegreen]

Apparently they've found some residual parthenogenesis in a marsupial :-

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1424724

 

[8ball]

Thus, we all get nipples, but as part of the sexual development, hormones etc cause breasts to grow on females but not males; women get clitorises, men penises etc. But the basic building blocks for everything are present in all members of the species.

Are you saying clitorises are not a directly selected adaptive trait you fucking monster?!!?!