Evolutionists and Bird Poop
Himself
have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
Therefore, according to the evolutionist mantra, other lineages could
have given rise to intelligent and even civilized beings - it was just
a matter of chance that it was monkey-like creatures that lucked out.
According to deluded evolutionist "logic" other creatures such as
birds could have been the ones to develop language, technology and
civilization. They conveniently leave out of their just-so story the
fact that birds excrete both urine and feces through a single passage:
the cloaca - an unfortunate anatomical fact that means all members of
the class Aves are incontinent. If you don't believe me, just look at
the rocks of your nearest seabird rookery or at the bottom of your
parakeet cage.
These same evolutionists claim they are able to make predictions based
on their "theory." Well, how about this one? If an avian civilization
is discovered, I predict that the newspaper industry will be highly
prosperous. They're going to need a LOT of newspapers. Any future
ambassedors to avian civilizations had best watch where they sit. To
evolutionists, this sort of speculation will probably seem more
reasonable than the simple assumption that human beings were designed
to develop civilization.
John Harshman
> Evolutionists claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
> Therefore, according to the evolutionist mantra, other lineages could
> have given rise to intelligent and even civilized beings - it was just
> a matter of chance that it was monkey-like creatures that lucked out.
No, chance and necessity. Or, if you prefer, contingency. The long
series of evolutionary events leading to intelligence is a wandering and
twisted path. Some of it may turn on chance. But most turns on local
events at particular times and places, each of which may have been
deterministic.
> According to deluded evolutionist "logic" other creatures such as
> birds could have been the ones to develop language, technology and
> civilization. They conveniently leave out of their just-so story the
> fact that birds excrete both urine and feces through a single passage:
> the cloaca - an unfortunate anatomical fact that means all members of
> the class Aves are incontinent. If you don't believe me, just look at
> the rocks of your nearest seabird rookery or at the bottom of your
> parakeet cage.
I'm not sure of the relevance here. "Incontinent" is a silly claim to
make just because they have cloacas. And, apparently, because they don't
use flush toilets. Whatever could that have to do with the evolution of
intelligence?
> These same evolutionists claim they are able to make predictions based
> on their "theory." Well, how about this one? If an avian civilization
> is discovered, I predict that the newspaper industry will be highly
> prosperous. They're going to need a LOT of newspapers. Any future
> ambassedors to avian civilizations had best watch where they sit. To
> evolutionists, this sort of speculation will probably seem more
> reasonable than the simple assumption that human beings were designed
> to develop civilization.
I don't think we're going to be finding any avian civilizations, so your
prediction was a pretty safe one, unlikely ever to be tested.
Can this guy possibly intend the bird poop thing as a serious argument?
I really can't tell.
Caranx latus
It is so hard to distinguish creationist argument from satire of
creationist argument.
Ernest Major
<jhar...@pacbell.net> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
Robert Camp
> Evolutionists claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
> Therefore, according to the evolutionist mantra, other lineages could
> have given rise to intelligent and even civilized beings - it was just
> a matter of chance that it was monkey-like creatures that lucked out.
>
> According to deluded evolutionist "logic" other creatures such as
> birds could have been the ones to develop language, technology and
> civilization. They conveniently leave out of their just-so story the
> fact that birds excrete both urine and feces through a single passage:
> the cloaca - an unfortunate anatomical fact that means all members of
> the class Aves are incontinent. If you don't believe me, just look at
> the rocks of your nearest seabird rookery or at the bottom of your
> parakeet cage.
Ah, so this is why, as we humans get old, we start to, um, lose it, in
multiple ways. Who knew these functions were connected? Wonder if this
means I should be reading more, or less when on the hopper?
IAAH
I would as well, but then I remember the arguments
that Cameron and Comfort have brought to the table.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
-Bertrand Russell
bpuharic
>Evolutionists claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
>have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
>also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
>Therefore, according to the evolutionist mantra, other lineages could
>have given rise to intelligent and even civilized beings - it was just
>a matter of chance that it was monkey-like creatures that lucked out.
>
good parody of a creationist argument. wonder if the creationists
will be able to see the humor, given their whole argument is birdcage
lining
VoiceOfReason
It's obvious. You're evolving into a bird.
r norman
Since penguins are the best birds this explains why, on an excursion
to the Antarctic, the ship's crew has to hose off your boots before
they let you back on board. You spend all day traipsing through
penguin poop. It also explains why they tell you never to stand
directly behind a penguin at a distance of closer than ten feet.
The satire doesn't work unless you are already familiar with the
incredibly stupid argument we have seen here on using a sewage channel
for pleasure.
Dana Tweedy
> Evolutionists claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
> Therefore, according to the evolutionist mantra, other lineages could
> have given rise to intelligent and even civilized beings - it was just
> a matter of chance that it was monkey-like creatures that lucked out.
Actually, there's little to indicate that other "linages" would have
produced intelligent life at all. Intelligent life is not the goal of
evolution, and there's no real indication that if evolution were replayed,
any branch of the tree of life would have produced intelligent life.
>
> According to deluded evolutionist "logic" other creatures such as
> birds could have been the ones to develop language, technology and
> civilization.
Maybe, maybe not. Birds don't have forearms useful for grasping, so
development of technology would most likely have been difficult. Some
whale species have intelligence comparable to humans, but they haven't
invented technology, written languages, or civilization, at least as we know
it.
> They conveniently leave out of their just-so story the
> fact that birds excrete both urine and feces through a single passage:
> the cloaca - an unfortunate anatomical fact that means all members of
> the class Aves are incontinent.
What does that have to do with civilzation, or technology?
>If you don't believe me, just look at
> the rocks of your nearest seabird rookery or at the bottom of your
> parakeet cage.
Few species have developed indoor plumbing. What's your point?
>
> These same evolutionists claim they are able to make predictions based
> on their "theory." Well, how about this one? If an avian civilization
> is discovered, I predict that the newspaper industry will be highly
> prosperous.
Why? For millions of years, humans excreted their wastes, yet didn't
require newspapers.
> They're going to need a LOT of newspapers. Any future
> ambassedors to avian civilizations had best watch where they sit. To
> evolutionists, this sort of speculation will probably seem more
> reasonable than the simple assumption that human beings were designed
> to develop civilization.
Ok, I call "Loki". Whoever it is, take a bow.
DJT
Robert Camp
Well...as long as it's a penguin.
John Harshman
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:26:12 -0800, Himself <Him...@net.net> wrote:
>
>> Evolutionists claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
>> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
>> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
>> Therefore, according to the evolutionist mantra, other lineages could
>> have given rise to intelligent and even civilized beings - it was just
>> a matter of chance that it was monkey-like creatures that lucked out.
>>
>
> good parody
How can you tell?
bpuharic
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>bpuharic wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:26:12 -0800, Himself <Him...@net.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Evolutionists claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
>>> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
>>> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
>>> Therefore, according to the evolutionist mantra, other lineages could
>>> have given rise to intelligent and even civilized beings - it was just
>>> a matter of chance that it was monkey-like creatures that lucked out.
>>>
>>
>> good parody
>
>How can you tell?
>
actually it was the bird cage lining that tipped me off...no
creationist is that clever.
VoiceOfReason
heekster
Do you really guano?
Desertphile
wrote:
> Evolutionists (sic) claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
First you say it's directed; then you say it isn't. Make up your
mind, silly.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Himself
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:26:12 -0800, Himself <Him...@net.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Evolutionists (sic) claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
>> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
>> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
>
>First you say it's directed; then you say it isn't. Make up your
>mind, silly.
Well, as an evolutionist, you're the one who presumably is making
these sorts of contradictory claims. Is the process supposed to be
directed or not? Through random mutation and natural selection,
bacterial populations can adapt to lack of an initially vital nutrient
in their environment. Is this process directed toward the goal of
adaptation to a new environment? Is human language capacity an
adaptation that was initially directed toward the development of
civilization? What is the source of overall direction? If no overall
direction exists, you're left with millions of years of happy
coincidences stacked one upon another. It's more parsimonious to
assume that we're designed to create civilization.
John Harshman
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:14:11 -0700, Desertphile
> <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:26:12 -0800, Himself <Him...@net.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Evolutionists (sic) claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
>>> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
>>> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
>> First you say it's directed; then you say it isn't. Make up your
>> mind, silly.
>
> Well, as an evolutionist, you're the one who presumably is making
> these sorts of contradictory claims. Is the process supposed to be
> directed or not? Through random mutation and natural selection,
> bacterial populations can adapt to lack of an initially vital nutrient
> in their environment. Is this process directed toward the goal of
> adaptation to a new environment?
Depends on what you mean by "directed". But I would say it wasn't. Is a
river directed to the sea?
> Is human language capacity an
> adaptation that was initially directed toward the development of
> civilization?
That's even less defensible. It implies that selection can see the
future, rather than just responding to the current environment.
> What is the source of overall direction? If no overall
> direction exists, you're left with millions of years of happy
> coincidences stacked one upon another.
That's a false dichotomy. There are many possibilities between
intelligent direction and chance, natural selection being among them.
> It's more parsimonious to
> assume that we're designed to create civilization.
Why? Who would have designed us, and when? Is there any evidence for the
existence of this entity/entities, or of the design?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<f8734442-946c-45d9...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
Possibly the smelliest...
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Friar Broccoli
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:14:11 -0700, Desertphile
>
> >On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:26:12 -0800, Himself <Hims...@net.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >> Evolutionists (sic) claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
> >> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
> >> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
>
> >First you say it's directed; then you say it isn't. Make up your
> >mind, silly.
.
> Well, as an evolutionist, you're the one who presumably is making
> these sorts of contradictory claims. Is the process supposed to be
> directed or not? Through random mutation and natural selection,
> bacterial populations can adapt to lack of an initially vital nutrient
> in their environment. Is this process directed toward the goal of
> adaptation to a new environment? Is human language capacity an
> adaptation that was initially directed toward the development of
> civilization? What is the source of overall direction? If no overall
> direction exists, you're left with millions of years of happy
> coincidences stacked one upon another.
The driving "force" (which was presumably provided by God to
generate the evolutionary process) is *replication* and NOTHING
else at all (apart from the physical material/matter need as
the copying/replicating material - which God has also
provided). Forms/organisms that replicate themselves will
produce more forms, those forms that do it best will produce
the most copies which will in turn produce the most copies and
so on. Those forms that can produce the most copies of
themselves are the "fittest".
> It's more parsimonious to
> assume that we're designed to create civilization.
Organized into social groups we can protect and provide for
ourselves better than we can working alone. Thus civilization
helps us replicate better than we could as non cooperating
individuals.
Himself
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Himself wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:14:11 -0700, Desertphile
>> <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:26:12 -0800, Himself <Him...@net.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Evolutionists (sic) claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
>>>> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
>>>> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
>>> First you say it's directed; then you say it isn't. Make up your
>>> mind, silly.
>>
>> Well, as an evolutionist, you're the one who presumably is making
>> these sorts of contradictory claims. Is the process supposed to be
>> directed or not? Through random mutation and natural selection,
>> bacterial populations can adapt to lack of an initially vital nutrient
>> in their environment. Is this process directed toward the goal of
>> adaptation to a new environment?
>
>Depends on what you mean by "directed". But I would say it wasn't. Is a
>river directed to the sea?
Rivers are directed down slope. The sea is down slope.
>> Is human language capacity an
>> adaptation that was initially directed toward the development of
>> civilization?
>
>That's even less defensible. It implies that selection can see the
>future, rather than just responding to the current environment.
So you're assuming that some factor or set of factors in the ancestral
hominid environment favored the development of those same capacities
and behavioral dispositions that today enable us to create
continent-spanning civilizations. What's your just-so story?
>> What is the source of overall direction? If no overall
>> direction exists, you're left with millions of years of happy
>> coincidences stacked one upon another.
>
>That's a false dichotomy. There are many possibilities between
>intelligent direction and chance, natural selection being among them.
You're making a claim that natural selection can provide some kind of
overall directionality rather than merely adaptation to local habitat.
That seems an iffy claim.
>> It's more parsimonious to
>> assume that we're designed to create civilization.
>
>Why? Who would have designed us, and when? Is there any evidence for the
>existence of this entity/entities, or of the design?
Is there any evidence that natural selection has provided an overall
directionality that doesn't involve billions of major unconnected
coincidences?
Himself
It just happened that small bands of hunter-gatherers possessed
exaptions that would allow them to develop and coordinate huge
civilizations encompassing many millions of individuals? That's an
interesting just-so story.
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> Organized into social groups we can protect and provide for
>> ourselves better than we can working alone. Thus civilization
>> helps us replicate better than we could as non cooperating
>> individuals.
>
> It just happened that small bands of hunter-gatherers possessed
> exaptions that would allow them to develop and coordinate huge
> civilizations encompassing many millions of individuals? That's an
> interesting just-so story.
Why would the skills of hunter gatherers be incompatible with later
development of a civilization?
DJT`
Himself
I didn't say they would be. I asked why we should expect adaptations
to the ancestral environment to be *sufficient.*
>
>DJT`
>
Dana Tweedy
Again, why wouldn't they be?
DJT
>
>>
>> DJT`
Himself
<redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
Natural selection is said to be a process of adaptation to existing
habitat conditions. What conditions existed, tens of thousands of
years ago, that demanded such abilities?
John Harshman
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:20:22 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Himself wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:14:11 -0700, Desertphile
>>> <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:26:12 -0800, Himself <Him...@net.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Evolutionists (sic) claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
>>>>> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
>>>>> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
>>>> First you say it's directed; then you say it isn't. Make up your
>>>> mind, silly.
>>> Well, as an evolutionist, you're the one who presumably is making
>>> these sorts of contradictory claims. Is the process supposed to be
>>> directed or not? Through random mutation and natural selection,
>>> bacterial populations can adapt to lack of an initially vital nutrient
>>> in their environment. Is this process directed toward the goal of
>>> adaptation to a new environment?
>> Depends on what you mean by "directed". But I would say it wasn't. Is a
>> river directed to the sea?
>
> Rivers are directed down slope. The sea is down slope.
In that sense, natural selection is directed, since populations move
toward adaptive peaks.
>>> Is human language capacity an
>>> adaptation that was initially directed toward the development of
>>> civilization?
>> That's even less defensible. It implies that selection can see the
>> future, rather than just responding to the current environment.
>
> So you're assuming that some factor or set of factors in the ancestral
> hominid environment favored the development of those same capacities
> and behavioral dispositions that today enable us to create
> continent-spanning civilizations. What's your just-so story?
Don't have one. I really don't know what caused us to become
intelligent. And we may never know.
>>> What is the source of overall direction? If no overall
>>> direction exists, you're left with millions of years of happy
>>> coincidences stacked one upon another.
>> That's a false dichotomy. There are many possibilities between
>> intelligent direction and chance, natural selection being among them.
>
> You're making a claim that natural selection can provide some kind of
> overall directionality rather than merely adaptation to local habitat.
> That seems an iffy claim.
I make no such claim. There clearly is no overall directionality, or
more than one species would be going that way. There is only local
adaption, which can sum to a direction, even a consistent direction in
some cases.
>>> It's more parsimonious to
>>> assume that we're designed to create civilization.
>> Why? Who would have designed us, and when? Is there any evidence for the
>> existence of this entity/entities, or of the design?
>
> Is there any evidence that natural selection has provided an overall
> directionality that doesn't involve billions of major unconnected
> coincidences?
No, though I would distinguish between contingency and chance. But you
didn't answer any of my questions.
By the way, are you a real creationist? There has been some question.
John Harshman
Dana Tweedy
The conditions that existed tens of thousands of years ago were fairly
similar to the conditions that exist now. The skill set that allowed
humans to make a living hunting and gathering also allows them to adapt to
the conditions found in living in "civlized" society. After all,
civilization is a human construct, and exists to fit human needs.
DJT
DJT
Himself
<redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
What specific survival needs were satisfied by the ability to
construct social systems vastly larger and more complex than any that
existed during the period when this ability was evolving?
Himself
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Is there an overall directionality from adaptive peak to adaptive
peak, or is this multi-billion year process merely a matter of
unrelated coincidences?
>>>> Is human language capacity an
>>>> adaptation that was initially directed toward the development of
>>>> civilization?
>>> That's even less defensible. It implies that selection can see the
>>> future, rather than just responding to the current environment.
>>
>> So you're assuming that some factor or set of factors in the ancestral
>> hominid environment favored the development of those same capacities
>> and behavioral dispositions that today enable us to create
>> continent-spanning civilizations. What's your just-so story?
>
>Don't have one. I really don't know what caused us to become
>intelligent. And we may never know.
Well, we do have an excretory system better suited to living in
cities, but Lord knows how that came about.
>>>> What is the source of overall direction? If no overall
>>>> direction exists, you're left with millions of years of happy
>>>> coincidences stacked one upon another.
>>> That's a false dichotomy. There are many possibilities between
>>> intelligent direction and chance, natural selection being among them.
>>
>> You're making a claim that natural selection can provide some kind of
>> overall directionality rather than merely adaptation to local habitat.
>> That seems an iffy claim.
>
>I make no such claim. There clearly is no overall directionality, or
>more than one species would be going that way. There is only local
>adaption, which can sum to a direction, even a consistent direction in
>some cases.
Do you have any idea how it is that consistent evolutionary trends can
develop? Is it just coincidence piled on coincidence?
>>>> It's more parsimonious to
>>>> assume that we're designed to create civilization.
>>> Why? Who would have designed us, and when? Is there any evidence for the
>>> existence of this entity/entities, or of the design?
>>
>> Is there any evidence that natural selection has provided an overall
>> directionality that doesn't involve billions of major unconnected
>> coincidences?
>
>No, though I would distinguish between contingency and chance. But you
>didn't answer any of my questions.
Neither of us answered the other's questions.
>By the way, are you a real creationist? There has been some question.
How could I prove that I'm a "real" creationist? What would my
qualifications be?
RAM
The honest answer is of course we don't know and maybe we will never
have a satisfactory scientific answer. But clearly the ability to
create relatively complex forms of social organization appears to
parallel the ability to deal with the survival complexities hunters
and gatherers face. Unless you have special knowledge that indicates
hunters and gathers have only simple easily learned survival skills
then it appears to be an otiose concern
Himself
It's spelled 'exaptation'? Let me write that down in my book.
Himself
wrote:
Could you enlarge upon the nature of the survival complexities that
brought about this social constructionist ability?
RAM
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:06:51 -0800 (PST), RAM <ramather...@gmail.com>
No. That is not the right question.
My contention is the survival abilities of hunters and gathers are
sufficient for the creation of relatively complex societies we see
today.
Himself
wrote:
>On Nov 25, 11:38 pm, Himself <Hims...@net.net> wrote:
And mine is that humans are designed to create civilization. I'm not
saying you're wrong, but we stand on an equally shaky scientific
footing.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Himself" <Him...@net.net> wrote in message
news:qhuqg5d8ft3paepou...@4ax.com...
> Evolutionists claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
> have given rise to intelligent and even civilized beings - it was just
> a matter of chance that it was monkey-like creatures that lucked out.
Interestingly - though your whole paragraph is nothing more than deranged
and moronic crap - the end statement is true.
Though, in your ignorance, you completely ignored the fact that evolution
does NOT stop here!
(snip and flush remaining crap).
Himself
I don't suppose you feel any need to explain how I have misstated any
evolutionary principle. Don't worry about it. With your belief in
cosmic luck, how could you possibly be wrong?
John Wilkins
<Him...@net.net> wrote:
Consider this: The most complex object, and the hardest to understand,
of which we know *in the universe*, is ourselves. Our brains are more
complex than any other object we know of, and so being able to
understand other people is cognitively the hardest thing you or I or
anyone will ever do (which is why autists have such trouble in the
world and why they can do other things so much better than we
ordinarily can - they have computational power to spare).
Now, if you lived in a society of slightly better than monkey-level
individuals, you would do better overall, and hence have more progeny,
if you were smarter, than if you were less than average smarts. This
means that the subsequent generations would have, as it were, a higher
bar. Any mutation that increases and fine tunes human brains for
dealing with other humans will be selectively favoured.
Iterate over 3 million years, and roughly 100,000 generations in
populations of around 20 million to several billion individuals.
Survival doesn't take more than any other animal has in the way of
brain power, but living with other smart individuals takes a *lot* of
brain power. So we are the end result of a "runaway selection process"
that has for a long time selected in favour of better brains, better
abilities to figure out people, to receive and transmit culture and
language.
The end result is that we are prefigured to make technological
societies to a degree. I think we tend to overestimate the degree of
this: rates of novel ideas are roughly constant at a few good ideas per
generation in a society of several million; what makes recent rates of
advance more rapid is largely the increased size of populations, and
hence cultural transmission.
The view I put here is sometimes called the "Machiavellian hypothesis",
because we are supposed to be adapted to sneaky behaviours, but I don't
like that name or argument. It's enough that if you can do well in
society, you will have more kids over the longer term.
This is not a priori reasoning, by the way. We know about things like
"working memory", "theory of mind" and so on empirically, through
anthropological and psychological investigation. I'd say it's on pretty
firm scientific grounds.
What do you have?
Himself
wrote:
I understand the claim you're making, but it seems insufficiently
supported by evidence. If intelligence were so valuable to foraging
apes, why did similar abilities not develop in other creatures who
engaged in social foraging behaviors?
>Iterate over 3 million years, and roughly 100,000 generations in
>populations of around 20 million to several billion individuals.
>Survival doesn't take more than any other animal has in the way of
>brain power, but living with other smart individuals takes a *lot* of
>brain power. So we are the end result of a "runaway selection process"
>that has for a long time selected in favour of better brains, better
>abilities to figure out people, to receive and transmit culture and
>language.
Do you have evidence that such vast ape populations existed?
>The end result is that we are prefigured to make technological
>societies to a degree. I think we tend to overestimate the degree of
>this: rates of novel ideas are roughly constant at a few good ideas per
>generation in a society of several million; what makes recent rates of
>advance more rapid is largely the increased size of populations, and
>hence cultural transmission.
This might be possible if populations were as large as you claim, but
the claim is completely unrealistic.
>The view I put here is sometimes called the "Machiavellian hypothesis",
>because we are supposed to be adapted to sneaky behaviours, but I don't
>like that name or argument. It's enough that if you can do well in
>society, you will have more kids over the longer term.
If chimpanzee-like creatures actually lived in societies, or even
populations, of 20 million individuals or larger, you might have a
point, but you're spinning an absurd just-so story.
>This is not a priori reasoning, by the way. We know about things like
>"working memory", "theory of mind" and so on empirically, through
>anthropological and psychological investigation. I'd say it's on pretty
>firm scientific grounds.
Apparently you think that the above paragraph consists of something
more than non-sequiturs. It would be interesting if you could connect
it to the discussion.
>What do you have?
An excretory system that is considerably less messy than a bird's?
Nic
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:29:29 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
>
> >On Nov 25, 9:01 pm, Himself <Hims...@net.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:14:11 -0700, Desertphile
>
> >> <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:26:12 -0800, Himself <Hims...@net.net>
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >> Evolutionists (sic) claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
> >> >> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
> >> >> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
>
> >> >First you say it's directed; then you say it isn't. Make up your
> >> >mind, silly.
>
>
Three points.
Firstly, have we succeeded in creating huge civilizations encompassing
many millions of individuals? I don't deny that they are huge and
civilised, but aren't they all false starts? Shouldn't the Roman
empire still be here it had been done properly? To rival other
evolutionary innovations, a structure should have a decent innings. A
thousand year Reich is, well, paltry.
Secondly, the Friar doesn't seem to be advancing a just-so story. He
appears to offering an explanation based on group selection, and
possibly based on selection which has happened subsequently to the
hunter-gatherer stage.
Thirdly, there is John Wilkins Machiavellian point elsethread.
I prefer my first point above. What looks so impressive in the
civilization department isn't as hard to do as it seems, and it hasn't
been done as well as it seems. I think Wilkins makes that point too
(autism). The other two points,,although they counter your immediate
objection, they do underline the 'direction' question. I mean if
mechanisms like group selection and runaway intraspecific competition
are on the table, then maybe there might be an overall trend in some
direction. Of course passive voice 'is directed' means little more
than 'has direction' - it's intransitive, so you may see it used by
people here without implying belief in any agency.
John Wilkins
<Him...@net.net> wrote:
They did, in their own way. Chimps are ideally adapted to understand
other chimps (and there has been a *lot* of research done on what
chimps know about others), bonobos their conspecifics, gorillas,
theirs, and even orangs, who live in relative isolation once they leave
their mothers, are able to understand each other.
Your problem is that you seem to think this was an expected outcome to
have a human kind of intelligence, but that's like asking why the
ability to read didn't evolve in other species. We have our own
abilities and adaptations, and they theirs, and it works out that we
can't brachiate, while they can't speak.
>
> >Iterate over 3 million years, and roughly 100,000 generations in
> >populations of around 20 million to several billion individuals.
> >Survival doesn't take more than any other animal has in the way of
> >brain power, but living with other smart individuals takes a *lot* of
> >brain power. So we are the end result of a "runaway selection process"
> >that has for a long time selected in favour of better brains, better
> >abilities to figure out people, to receive and transmit culture and
> >language.
>
> Do you have evidence that such vast ape populations existed?
Vast? Nearly all widespread mammalian species have much larger
populations than 20 million, and we presently have nearly 7 billion, in
case you haven't heard, so I am relying on observation as well as
argument by analogy.
>
> >The end result is that we are prefigured to make technological
> >societies to a degree. I think we tend to overestimate the degree of
> >this: rates of novel ideas are roughly constant at a few good ideas per
> >generation in a society of several million; what makes recent rates of
> >advance more rapid is largely the increased size of populations, and
> >hence cultural transmission.
>
> This might be possible if populations were as large as you claim, but
> the claim is completely unrealistic.
What reason do you have for saying that, apart from an argument from a
lack of imagination?
>
> >The view I put here is sometimes called the "Machiavellian hypothesis",
> >because we are supposed to be adapted to sneaky behaviours, but I don't
> >like that name or argument. It's enough that if you can do well in
> >society, you will have more kids over the longer term.
>
> If chimpanzee-like creatures actually lived in societies, or even
> populations, of 20 million individuals or larger, you might have a
> point, but you're spinning an absurd just-so story.
They do not need to live in *societies* that have several million
individuals, and in fact if they did, selection could not drive
adaptations of the kind I am suggesting, because it would be unlikely
that a population that large would have any selectively favoured allele
go to fixation. But there's a notion in biology called a
"metapopulation", which is the collection of all populations, whether
they are in contact or not, of a species. Each population can be
relatively small.
And it is not absurd or Just-So - don't throw terms around you do not
fully understand. There are good empirical reasons, largely to do with
a knowledge of population densities of foragers (low) and the known
distribution of hominid fossils. Moreover we have empirical data on the
working memory of primates and the size of the brain.
>
> >This is not a priori reasoning, by the way. We know about things like
> >"working memory", "theory of mind" and so on empirically, through
> >anthropological and psychological investigation. I'd say it's on pretty
> >firm scientific grounds.
>
> Apparently you think that the above paragraph consists of something
> more than non-sequiturs. It would be interesting if you could connect
> it to the discussion.
>
> >What do you have?
>
> An excretory system that is considerably less messy than a bird's?
>
OK, look, I have a working life, and right now I am in the midst of
moving cities to take up a new job. I have better things to do than
argue with someone whose only response is to sling terms like "non
sequitur" about while clearly neither understand those terms nor
showing any willingness to try to understand. Have a nice, ignorant,
prejudicial life. I am willing to discuss things in good faith, but not
when you are just playing games.
David Hare-Scott
> Evolutionists claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
> have given rise to intelligent and even civilized beings - it was just
> a matter of chance that it was monkey-like creatures that lucked out.
>
> birds could have been the ones to develop language, technology and
> civilization. They conveniently leave out of their just-so story the
> fact that birds excrete both urine and feces through a single passage:
> the cloaca - an unfortunate anatomical fact that means all members of
> the class Aves are incontinent. If you don't believe me, just look at
> the rocks of your nearest seabird rookery or at the bottom of your
> parakeet cage.
>
I am having a little trouble drawing the connection between intelligence and
bowel habits. Or are you equating "civilisation" with flush toilets and
intelligence with that? Please explain how the relationship works.
> These same evolutionists claim they are able to make predictions based
> on their "theory." Well, how about this one? If an avian civilization
> is discovered, I predict that the newspaper industry will be highly
> prosperous. They're going to need a LOT of newspapers. Any future
> ambassedors to avian civilizations had best watch where they sit.
Some humans have problems in this area, they wear nappies. Does this make
them stupid?
To
> evolutionists, this sort of speculation will probably seem more
> reasonable than the simple assumption that human beings were designed
> to develop civilization.
"Evolution is just too hard so it must have been design" is a common idea.
Those who follow that generally have no trouble going the next step to
"therefore my god was responsible for the whole shebang". It doesn't make
much sense but it's popular.
David
Rolf
Isn't the subject of Natural Selection a little more complex?
AFAIK, basically, it is all about differential reproductive success. We need
not examine all and every one of all the possible causes for that; the
result is what counts.
What drives evolution is just the sum of all the parameters involved:
reproductive success.
We know mutations happen. We know a great deal about the possible effects of
mutations, how they may accumulate in a population.
What's the problem?
Rolf
> Evolutionists claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
> Therefore, according to the evolutionist mantra, other lineages could
> have given rise to intelligent and even civilized beings - it was just
> a matter of chance that it was monkey-like creatures that lucked out.
>
intellignece and civilization.
Monkyes/apes were the ideal starting point: Already very capable in many
wayw, for legged animals living in the trees developiong into brachiators;
thus evolving their front legs to be usable as hands as well. Further on,
walking on the ground eventually evolving upright stance, bipedal gait,
allowing for more efficient use of upper/front limbs for many purposes. USe
of tools, learnign to make tools, making fire, wepaons, voila! on the way to
homo Sapiens Sapiens.
A minimum requirement the way I see it would have to be qudrupedalism.
I don't see any reason to speculate much about what happened, we know what
happened and understand how it could happen and have a lot of evidence in
support of that.
[snip]
I understand you do not want to believe science, but maybe it would be more
meaningful to address the facts? Speculation about hypothetical alternatives
is not of much value, is it? Might be useful for a science fiction writer
though...
Friar Broccoli
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:29:29 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
>
.
I note that Harshman didn't present the well known standard
account which should, I guess, be a warning for me, but I will
plow ahead anyhow ...
After we were forced or enticed out of the trees we were
relatively poorly adapted for moving quickly on the ground and
not well endowed in the claw and tooth departments either. That
meant work well as part of a group or become dog/cat food.
Once we had got that worked out, warfare (probably mostly driven
by groups of males competing/fighting for females or more
precisely the territory the females foraged in) would have
driven selection for better and better within group cooperation.
These "just-so stories" may not be correct - I don't know, but
they seem reasonable to me. Do you find them unreasonable? If
so why?
Friar Broccoli
On Nov 25, 9:56 pm, Himself <Hims...@net.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:29:29 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
>
.
I note that Harshman didn't present the well known standard
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:14:11 -0700, Desertphile
> <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:26:12 -0800, Himself <Him...@net.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Evolutionists (sic) claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
> >> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
> >> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
> >
> >First you say it's directed; then you say it isn't. Make up your
> >mind, silly.
> Well, as an evolutionist
I am not an evolutionist, you silly fool.
Now then. You wrote above in the first sentence that evolution is
directed, then in the second sentence that evolution is not
directed. And you expect people to take you seriously?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Dana Tweedy
The specific survival needs were ability to get along with other humans, and
to form cooperative bonds with those individuals. I would imagine that the
skills needed to plan a hunt together, and share the proceeds would also
carry over into establishing a civilization.
Again, the point is that civilization is not something imposed on humans
from an outside source. Humans themselves came up with it, largely to make
the business of getting enough food easier. Everything else that comes
with civilzation springs from that.
DJT
Steven L.
> Himself wrote:
>> Evolutionists claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
>> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
>> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
>> have given rise to intelligent and even civilized beings - it was just
>> a matter of chance that it was monkey-like creatures that lucked out.
>
> produced intelligent life at all. Intelligent life is not the goal of
> evolution, and there's no real indication that if evolution were replayed,
> any branch of the tree of life would have produced intelligent life.
Of course, intelligence is not the "goal"--there are no goals. But the
discovery of relatively high intelligence in elephants, whales, African
grey parrots, dolphins, octopi, and chimpanzees (combined with
hypothesized intelligence in Troodon, 65 million years ago) suggests
that it certainly is evolutionarily advantageous. Because it just keeps
popping up in such diverse species, some of which (like dolphins) don't
even have hands.
Once technology develops in ANY of these species, it becomes so
evolutionarily advantageous that a tool-using species can quickly become
the top predator in its world.
>> According to deluded evolutionist "logic" other creatures such as
>> birds could have been the ones to develop language, technology and
>> civilization.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Birds don't have forearms useful for grasping, so
> development of technology would most likely have been difficult. Some
> whale species have intelligence comparable to humans, but they haven't
> invented technology, written languages, or civilization, at least as we know
> it.
Archaeopteryx had claws; it was descended from dinosaurs. Some hoatzin
are still born with claws. The genes are there. Evolution toward
intelligence and tool-using could switch those genes back on. I can
certainly imagine a flightless bird with claws.
>> They conveniently leave out of their just-so story the
>> fact that birds excrete both urine and feces through a single passage:
>> the cloaca - an unfortunate anatomical fact that means all members of
>> the class Aves are incontinent.
>
> What does that have to do with civilzation, or technology?
The whole thing was a joke, of course.
But the idea of an intelligent tool-using species that is radically
different from genus Homo isn't a joke. It's certainly a possibility,
especially in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
> Few species have developed indoor plumbing. What's your point?
I can tell you from personal experience that the "indoor plumbing" of
the male Homo Sapiens is just awful. (I've had two prostate surgeries
already, because the urethra goes through the prostate.) Birds, if they
knew, would probably be contemptuous of this dumb arrangement.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
John Harshman
False dichotomy again. There is some directionality. From where you are
now, you can get to other places close to that. And from there you can
get to other places close to that. For example, greater intelligence is
more likely to be adaptive to a species that already occupies a niche in
which lots of intelligence is adaptive than to, say, a petunia. The
smartest group of any one era is fairly likely to give rise to a bit
smarter group in the next era (as well as groups that move in other
directions). And the diffusion of the tails of any distribution was much
discussed by Gould, particularly in the book Full House.
>>>>> Is human language capacity an
>>>>> adaptation that was initially directed toward the development of
>>>>> civilization?
>>>> That's even less defensible. It implies that selection can see the
>>>> future, rather than just responding to the current environment.
>>> So you're assuming that some factor or set of factors in the ancestral
>>> hominid environment favored the development of those same capacities
>>> and behavioral dispositions that today enable us to create
>>> continent-spanning civilizations. What's your just-so story?
>> Don't have one. I really don't know what caused us to become
>> intelligent. And we may never know.
>
> Well, we do have an excretory system better suited to living in
> cities, but Lord knows how that came about.
Nonsense. Birds do indeed have control over their excretion, in the same
way people do. They tend, for example, to void just before taking off.
Many baby birds excrete inside a mucous package, when the parent then
carries away and dumps far from the nest. And so on.
>>>>> What is the source of overall direction? If no overall
>>>>> direction exists, you're left with millions of years of happy
>>>>> coincidences stacked one upon another.
>>>> That's a false dichotomy. There are many possibilities between
>>>> intelligent direction and chance, natural selection being among them.
>>> You're making a claim that natural selection can provide some kind of
>>> overall directionality rather than merely adaptation to local habitat.
>>> That seems an iffy claim.
>> I make no such claim. There clearly is no overall directionality, or
>> more than one species would be going that way. There is only local
>> adaption, which can sum to a direction, even a consistent direction in
>> some cases.
>
> Do you have any idea how it is that consistent evolutionary trends can
> develop? Is it just coincidence piled on coincidence?
There are many ways such trends might develop. 1) gradual change in
environment tracked by populations; 2) opening of a new adaptive zone
invites refinement of the new adaptation; 3) humans impose a pattern on
data that, looked at objecively, more closely resembles a large number
of random walks, as with the horse story.
>>>>> It's more parsimonious to
>>>>> assume that we're designed to create civilization.
>>>> Why? Who would have designed us, and when? Is there any evidence for the
>>>> existence of this entity/entities, or of the design?
>>> Is there any evidence that natural selection has provided an overall
>>> directionality that doesn't involve billions of major unconnected
>>> coincidences?
>> No, though I would distinguish between contingency and chance. But you
>> didn't answer any of my questions.
>
> Neither of us answered the other's questions.
I at least tried. If you don't like the answers, ask for clarification.
But you haven't even tried to answer a single question so far. Why?
>> By the way, are you a real creationist? There has been some question.
>
> How could I prove that I'm a "real" creationist? What would my
> qualifications be?
Obviously you can't prove it. But I'm asking whether you are being
sincere in your claims here, or are just faking it for your own
amusement (i.e., you're a Loki). Why no answer? Now, obviously, you
could lie. But a clear answer is data.
Himself
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:01:21 -0800, Himself <Him...@net.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:14:11 -0700, Desertphile
>> <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:26:12 -0800, Himself <Him...@net.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Evolutionists (sic) claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
>> >> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
>> >> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
>> >
>> >First you say it's directed; then you say it isn't. Make up your
>> >mind, silly.
>
>> Well, as an evolutionist
>
>I am not an evolutionist, you silly fool.
>
>Now then. You wrote above in the first sentence that evolution is
>directed, then in the second sentence that evolution is not
>directed. And you expect people to take you seriously?
Of course I don't expect people to take me seriously. I am not joking.
If you were serious, you might understand.
Himself
It seems a reasonable explanation for bonobo-like behavior in apes. It
doesn't account for more complex human behaviors.
Friar Broccoli
.
.
> It seems a reasonable explanation for bonobo-like behavior in apes. It
> doesn't account for more complex human behaviors.
It is hard to argue with someone who just states his beliefs without
providing either supporting evidence or argument. Most disappointing.
I guess you really are a creationist.
Himself
wrote:
The members of *any* social species are able to understand each other.
It hasn't led to human-level intelligence.
>Your problem is that you seem to think this was an expected outcome to
>have a human kind of intelligence, but that's like asking why the
>ability to read didn't evolve in other species. We have our own
>abilities and adaptations, and they theirs, and it works out that we
>can't brachiate, while they can't speak.
Your problem is that you're not reading for comprehension. I have
clearly stated that no one has presented convincing evidence that
human-level intelligence should be considered an expected outcome, and
that - in the absence of such evidence - it seems probable that human
beings were designed to develop civilization. I hope you don't think
I'm being brusque here, but it's difficult to have a serious
conversation with someone who refuses to pay attention.
>> >Iterate over 3 million years, and roughly 100,000 generations in
>> >populations of around 20 million to several billion individuals.
>> >Survival doesn't take more than any other animal has in the way of
>> >brain power, but living with other smart individuals takes a *lot* of
>> >brain power. So we are the end result of a "runaway selection process"
>> >that has for a long time selected in favour of better brains, better
>> >abilities to figure out people, to receive and transmit culture and
>> >language.
>>
>> Do you have evidence that such vast ape populations existed?
>
>Vast? Nearly all widespread mammalian species have much larger
>populations than 20 million, and we presently have nearly 7 billion, in
>case you haven't heard, so I am relying on observation as well as
>argument by analogy.
Are you sure you're not generalizing from Norway rats to "nearly all
widespread mammalian species"? Some estimates place the aboriginal
population of American Bison at up to sixty million, but they were a
unique case - the only large browser on a vast prairie (they didn't
compete with pronghorns), with only one predator, the grizzly, being
powerful enough to kill an adult bison. Grasslands are one of the most
productive terrestrial biomes. If you know of some habitat resource
that could have supported equivalent or larger populations of apes, I
would be interested in hearing what it was. As for current human
population, do you really consider it a relevant indicator of ancient
ape populations?
>> >The end result is that we are prefigured to make technological
>> >societies to a degree. I think we tend to overestimate the degree of
>> >this: rates of novel ideas are roughly constant at a few good ideas per
>> >generation in a society of several million; what makes recent rates of
>> >advance more rapid is largely the increased size of populations, and
>> >hence cultural transmission.
>>
>> This might be possible if populations were as large as you claim, but
>> the claim is completely unrealistic.
>
>What reason do you have for saying that, apart from an argument from a
>lack of imagination?
You've made an assertion, but you've presented no evidence for the
existence of a very large and rich ecosystem that could have supported
such numbers.
>> >The view I put here is sometimes called the "Machiavellian hypothesis",
>> >because we are supposed to be adapted to sneaky behaviours, but I don't
>> >like that name or argument. It's enough that if you can do well in
>> >society, you will have more kids over the longer term.
>>
>> If chimpanzee-like creatures actually lived in societies, or even
>> populations, of 20 million individuals or larger, you might have a
>> point, but you're spinning an absurd just-so story.
>
>They do not need to live in *societies* that have several million
>individuals, and in fact if they did, selection could not drive
>adaptations of the kind I am suggesting, because it would be unlikely
>that a population that large would have any selectively favoured allele
>go to fixation. But there's a notion in biology called a
>"metapopulation", which is the collection of all populations, whether
>they are in contact or not, of a species. Each population can be
>relatively small.
Even if some vast, and un-evidenced meta-population existed, it's
irrelevant. Apes would have lived in small foraging groups as do many
other social species. *Something* was different about our ancestors,
you say, but you're not clear as to what that was.
>And it is not absurd or Just-So - don't throw terms around you do not
>fully understand. There are good empirical reasons, largely to do with
>a knowledge of population densities of foragers (low) and the known
>distribution of hominid fossils. Moreover we have empirical data on the
>working memory of primates and the size of the brain.
I will have to accept on faith your claim that apes existed in
populations reaching into the billions because I doubt that you're
going to support your assertions that good empirical evidence exists
to support your previous assertions. You are piling unsupported
assertion upon unsupported assertion. Your strategy is sometimes
referred to as "the Gish Gallop." It tends to impress sympathetic and
uncritical audiences. But you do spin a good story. As a fellow human,
I can appreciate that.
>> >This is not a priori reasoning, by the way. We know about things like
>> >"working memory", "theory of mind" and so on empirically, through
>> >anthropological and psychological investigation. I'd say it's on pretty
>> >firm scientific grounds.
>>
>> Apparently you think that the above paragraph consists of something
>> more than non-sequiturs. It would be interesting if you could connect
>> it to the discussion.
>>
>> >What do you have?
>>
>> An excretory system that is considerably less messy than a bird's?
>>
>OK, look, I have a working life, and right now I am in the midst of
>moving cities to take up a new job. I have better things to do than
>argue with someone whose only response is to sling terms like "non
>sequitur" about while clearly neither understand those terms nor
>showing any willingness to try to understand. Have a nice, ignorant,
>prejudicial life. I am willing to discuss things in good faith, but not
>when you are just playing games.
I realize that, because you have more important things to do, you're
not going to read this. You have decided upon the course of behavior
called 'shunning. Good choice. It can be effective sometimes in
situations like this. You could killfile me but it's not necessary as
I will leave on my own and you can go back to playing with your spayed
and safe pet creationists.
If you *were* reading this you might try to explain how the terms
*you* were slinging have relevance to the discussion or how they
follow from evidence or logical arguments that you previously had
made.
No doubt you feel your indignation is justified. My last remark was
on-topic but could have been construed, by someone who isn't paying
attention, as merely a weak attempt at humor. Talk.origins regulars
are probably not accustomed to people making jokes, puns, etc. on
their forum. My apologies if I have transgressed your customs or
mores.
It's just as well. Today is Thanksgiving day in the USA. I'm off to
give joyful thanks. If God is willing, perhaps I will resume this
discussion later with any who are interested. No hard feelings and may
you all be blessed with peace and understanding.
Robert Camp
> Himself wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:29:29 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
>> <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 25, 9:01 pm, Himself <Hims...@net.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:14:11 -0700, Desertphile
>>>>
>>>> <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:26:12 -0800, Himself <Hims...@net.net>
>>>>> wrote:
<snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's more parsimonious to
>>>> assume that we're designed to create civilization.
>>> Organized into social groups we can protect and provide for
>>> ourselves better than we can working alone. Thus civilization
>>> helps us replicate better than we could as non cooperating
>>> individuals.
>>
>> It just happened that small bands of hunter-gatherers possessed
>> exaptions that would allow them to develop and coordinate huge
>> civilizations encompassing many millions of individuals? That's an
>> interesting just-so story.
> A creationist who knows what an exaptation is? Now I'm suspicious.
The hugely sardonic (or incredibly ignorant, depending) reference to
the Gish Gallop in his response to Wilkins also strikes me as a point
in favor of suspicion. But then, I'm still having a hard time believing
anyone can be as credulous as adman, so I'm probably a poor judge.
RLC
Robert Camp
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:14:11 -0700, Desertphile
> <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:26:12 -0800, Himself <Him...@net.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Evolutionists (sic) claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
>>> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
>>> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
>>
>> First you say it's directed; then you say it isn't. Make up your
>> mind, silly.
>
> Well, as an evolutionist, you're the one who presumably is making
> these sorts of contradictory claims. Is the process supposed to be
> directed or not? Through random mutation and natural selection,
> bacterial populations can adapt to lack of an initially vital nutrient
> in their environment. Is this process directed toward the goal of
> adaptation to a new environment? Is human language capacity an
> adaptation that was initially directed toward the development of
> civilization? What is the source of overall direction? If no overall
> direction exists, you're left with millions of years of happy
> coincidences stacked one upon another. It's more parsimonious to
> assume that we're designed to create civilization.
I find this last bit to be an interesting assertion, one that I would
suggest you have given insufficient consideration. I'll interpret the
fact that you are using the concept of parsimony to mean that you feel
this is a conclusion one can achieve analytically. Can you please
explain, then, how one infers design of humans in ways that do not
involve positing multiple unproven assumptions?
RLC
Ernest Major
<Him...@net.net> writes
>Your problem is that you're not reading for comprehension. I have
>clearly stated that no one has presented convincing evidence that
>human-level intelligence should be considered an expected outcome, and
>that - in the absence of such evidence - it seems probable that human
>beings were designed to develop civilization. I hope you don't think
>I'm being brusque here, but it's difficult to have a serious
>conversation with someone who refuses to pay attention.
You are indulging in a couple of fallacies here. Firstly false dichotomy
- that human level intelligence is an expected outcome of evolution, or
that human beings were designed. Secondly (but related) that absence of
evidence for one position supports another position - that is only true
if there is reason to expect that the evidence would be available. I
think I see the lottery fallacy lurking in there as well.
--
alias Ernest Major
Robert Camp
Should be *unevidenced*, not unproven.
John Harshman
Yes, me too.
> But then, I'm still having a hard time believing
> anyone can be as credulous as adman, so I'm probably a poor judge.
I don't think adman necessarily believes the stuff he cuts and pastes. I
don't think he reads it at all, actually. I think he looks at just
enough to convince him that it either undercuts evolution or agrees in
some way with his ideas. And it doesn't take much reading to do that for
him.
Burkhard
I think you rather missed the point. John is saying that _no_ specific
feature is an "expected outcome". Human intelligences not different in
this sense from the ability of humming birds to flap there wings very
fast, or of sharks to replace their teeth. None of them is inevitable,
all coudl have been different or not evolve at all, and human level
intelligence is not an exception. So if you think your argument is
valid at all, it would be independent from intelligence - in fact, yor
argument is equivalent to saying that it is too unlikely that there is
something rather than nothing.
a>nd that - in the absence of such evidence - it seems probable that human
> beings were designed to develop civilization.
Why does this follow and where do you get your probability from? How
could yo refute someone who claims that gods have no interest at all to
create intelligent beings and that it woudl be extremely unlikely if one
had violated that consensus?
I hope you don't think
> I'm being brusque here, but it's difficult to have a serious
> conversation with someone who refuses to pay attention.
>
<SNIP>
>
Friar Broccoli
To me it looked like he has been (or has seen others acused of)
doing a Gish Gallop, so he tried to turn the argument back on an
evolutionist. He may not know who Gish is.
> > But then, I'm still having a hard time believing
> > anyone can be as credulous as adman, so I'm probably a poor judge.
>
> I don't think adman necessarily believes the stuff he cuts and pastes. I
> don't think he reads it at all, actually. I think he looks at just
> enough to convince him that it either undercuts evolution or agrees in
> some way with his ideas. And it doesn't take much reading to do that for
> him.
Your comment here seems reasonable to me.
His ability to freely associate unrelated ideas suggests to me that
he works in the arts or as a cook. I am leaning toward cook since
he is both confident and social, as well as being focused
on weird but harmless food fetishes.
Dana Tweedy
snip
>
>> Few species have developed indoor plumbing. What's your point?
>
> I can tell you from personal experience that the "indoor plumbing" of
> the male Homo Sapiens is just awful. (I've had two prostate surgeries
> already, because the urethra goes through the prostate.) Birds, if
> they knew, would probably be contemptuous of this dumb arrangement.
When I was talking about indoor plumbing here, I wasn't being metaphorical.
I really meant indoor plumbing, ie, bathroom fixtures themselves.
DJT
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:36:48 -0700, Desertphile
> <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:01:21 -0800, Himself <Him...@net.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:14:11 -0700, Desertphile
> >> <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:26:12 -0800, Himself <Him...@net.net>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Evolutionists (sic) claim that multifarious forms most cool and beautiful
> >> >> have arisen by random mutations filtered by natural selection. They
> >> >> also say that human beings are a product of this undirected process.
> >> >
> >> >First you say it's directed; then you say it isn't. Make up your
> >> >mind, silly.
> >> Well, as an evolutionist
> >I am not an evolutionist, you silly fool.
> >
> >Now then. You wrote above in the first sentence that evolution is
> >directed, then in the second sentence that evolution is not
> >directed. And you expect people to take you seriously?
> Of course I don't expect people to take me seriously. I am not joking.
Ah, it was a joke. Okay. Er, it wasn't all that humorous.
Desertphile
> Of course I don't expect people to take me seriously. I am not joking.
Desertphile
wrote:
Okay, I give up. How is Homo sapien behavior any more "complex"
than Pan paniscus behavior?
Walter Bushell
Himself <Him...@net.net> wrote:
> Your problem is that you're not reading for comprehension. I have
> clearly stated that no one has presented convincing evidence that
> human-level intelligence should be considered an expected outcome,
OK, so far.
>and
> that - in the absence of such evidence - it seems probable that human
> beings were designed to develop civilization.
And this is true because he himself has said so. I honestly don't know
how one would assign a probability to human level intelligence arising
as a result of pure chance vs. a creator. Either way, its personal
incredulity all the way down.
> I hope you don't think
> I'm being brusque here, but it's difficult to have a serious
> conversation with someone who refuses to pay attention.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:41:37 -0800, Himself <Him...@net.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:49:24 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
> > <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > >After we were forced or enticed out of the trees we were
> > >relatively poorly adapted for moving quickly on the ground and
> > >not well endowed in the claw and tooth departments either. That
> > >meant work well as part of a group or become dog/cat food.
> > >
> > >Once we had got that worked out, warfare (probably mostly driven
> > >by groups of males competing/fighting for females or more
> > >precisely the territory the females foraged in) would have
> > >driven selection for better and better within group cooperation.
> > >
> > >These "just-so stories" may not be correct - I don't know, but
> > >they seem reasonable to me. Do you find them unreasonable? If
> > >so why?
>
> > It seems a reasonable explanation for bonobo-like behavior in apes. It
> > doesn't account for more complex human behaviors.
>
> Okay, I give up. How is Homo sapien behavior any more "complex"
> than Pan paniscus behavior?
For example, no Pan paniscus provides medical attention to someone they
don't know who can't pay. Or sends money for the medical treatment in
response to an internet message.
Friar Broccoli
.
After additional reflection my favorite explanation is
now that we were talking to a guy preparing an article
for a religious publication, or the DI website or something
like that, and he was here to learn the standard arguments
so he could cover them.
OTOH my wife thinks I complicate things too much,
and when verification is possible she usually turns out
to be right.