The human brain and evolution?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Even that can be disputed. It is much clearer to simply say "those that perpetuate themselves survive, those that do not, do not.".
Once we use words like 'goal', 'success' etc we are bringing in a value system that is not really there.

If I drop a ball bearing and a feather from the same height, the ball bearing will reach the ground first. The item ...[text shortened]... ople mistakenly using it to justify a moral system (such as radical Eugenics).

This is one reason why the theory of evolution is false because intelligence
is needed to formulate a goal. This testifies of creationism I am sure. But
you might be better off discussing this on the science forum where there
may be some scientist that will back up your theory of evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is one reason why the theory of evolution is false because intelligence
is needed to formulate a goal.

Actually the Theory of Evolution explains that intelligence is not required because the process works without a goal, just as objects fall under gravity without a goal.

This testifies of creationism I am sure.
Creationists often make the error of assuming without proof that the current state of affairs is a goal and that to achieve that goal, intelligence is therefore required.

The OP of this thread makes that exact error. The poster assumes that Humans are the goal of evolution and then fails to understand why our brains are not better in every way than those of apes. What he does not realise is that he is actually arguing for evolution and against creationism.

Evolution does not expect perfection and does not require that perfection ever be achieved. Creationism on the other hand leaves questions whenever anything short of perfection is observed. If the human brain (or any other biological fact) seems to be imperfect and we can spot that imperfection and possibly suggest an improvement the the question must be asked why would an intelligent creator with the intelligence to create life as we know it fail to see that improvement. We then conclude one of four things:
1. No such improvement is actually possible either it is logically impossible or we mistakenly think it is an improvement when it isn't.
2. The creator did not intend to create perfection.
3. The creator is not responsible for the imperfection ie it was made imperfect after creation. This is the most popular Christian solution.
4. We were not created and some other process is responsible.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[b]"Different species are genetically different enough that cannot reproduce with each other naturally"

This is not necessarily so. In fact it's pretty difficult to come up with a straightforward definition of the word 'species'.[/b]

Fair point.

I suppose it is quite a loose definition by today's standards because it is so gradual. A bit like saying exactly at what point Homo sapiens came about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually the Theory of Evolution explains that intelligence is not required because the process works without a goal, just as objects fall under gravity without a goal.

[b]This testifies of creationism I am sure.
Creationists often make the error of assuming without proof that the current state of affairs is a goal and that to achieve that goal, i ...[text shortened]... most popular Christian solution.
4. We were not created and some other process is responsible.[/b]

You make the mistake of assuming the creator is finish and has no
intention of tweaking his creations. Do not we, as intellignt creatures,
make things that we improve on at a later time? I refuse to assume
that God does not have a goal in mind to be reached in the future.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You make the mistake of assuming the creator is finish and has no
intention of tweaking his creations.

Well then it is reasonable to ask the question as to why there is a delay. Humans improve on their work over time because they are unable to get it perfect the first time. God presumably has no such restrictions.

Originally posted by galveston75
http://hubpages.com/hub/Oldest_living_thing

http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM



This is the cool part of it


Manny

Trees are 3000 to 5000 years old

Originally posted by twhitehead
Even that can be disputed. It is much clearer to simply say "those that perpetuate themselves survive, those that do not, do not.".
Once we use words like 'goal', 'success' etc we are bringing in a value system that is not really there.

If I drop a ball bearing and a feather from the same height, the ball bearing will reach the ground first. The item ...[text shortened]... ople mistakenly using it to justify a moral system (such as radical Eugenics).

I take that as being implicitly understood -- which is why I added that no member of a species is consciously thinking of ways to achieve the goal of survival of the species as a whole. However, simply put, the outcome of the natural selection process is to remove the weaker members of a species and retain the stronger members, which has as one of its "accidental" consequences an increased probability of survival for the species as a whole. In light of this process, the day-to-day "goal" of a species is to live to see another day.

I think I can improve on your scenario of the ball bearing vs. the feather. If 1000 small marbles are poured into a container of 100,000 golf balls, and the container is then subjected to continuous mechanical agitation, the law of gravity in conjunction with other factors will "favor" the marbles coming to settle on the bottom of the container, beneath all the golf balls. One could say the "goal" of the marbles is to work themselves toward the bottom over time, and everyone would understand that the word "goal" here does not imply consciousness, a value system, or anything else other than the natural outcome of a stochastic process.

If we deny ourselves use of common language to explain a simple process, we'll find it much more difficult to get our point across to a wider audience. People often want to know what the "goal" of a species is (evidencing the wish for a value system), or will claim that the "goal" of evolution is to produce humans (evidencing anthropocentric egoism). A reasonable interpretation of a "goal" can often be rendered to satisfy these lines of inquiry. Thus, the "goal" of a species is to be equated with the practical outcome of evolutionary mechanisms: survival of the species. Done.

Delving below the species level and arriving at the gene level, we could adopt the Dawkins viewpoint and say the "goal" of a gene is perpetuation of the gene. However, I don't think it's quite right to say the "goal" of a species is perpetuation of a gene, because an organism is made up of thousands of genes and not every development at the level of the organism will be good for all of that organism's genes.

I think saying "those that perpetuate themselves survive, those that do not, do not" is far less clear, simply because it's tautological.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Basically the goal of any species is to perpetuate itself.

Dawkins would disagree. Species is a man made classification system created so we can categorise the biological kingdom.

It is the goal of any 'gene' to perpetuate itself.[/b]

That may be, if you want to focus strictly on genes. However it suffices to zoom in no closer than the species level, I think, to gain an understanding of what the natural selection process is ultimately doing. And I would add that a "species" is probably the least arbitrary classification, with all other classifications (genus, order, family, phylum, etc.) being to some degree manifestly arbitrary. By definition different species cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Thus the genes of one species have no access to or means of interacting with genes of another species. A species, then, is a hermetically sealed "gene package," which means the survival of a gene is entirely contingent upon the survival of a species.

Mind you, I've not read "The Selfish Gene," and I suppose there could be some interesting interactions between species that ultimately conspire to perpetuate a genetic trait they share in common. However, entertaining these interesting phenomena, if they indeed exist, would not help to clarify the situation for those on this forum who think evolution as a whole is bunk because they don't understand how it works at even the most basic level.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then it is reasonable to ask the question as to why there is a delay. Humans improve on their work over time because they are unable to get it perfect the first time. God presumably has no such restrictions.

It takes time for people to be born and live their lifes. But maybe we are
wrong in presuming. Perhaps we have become too impatient.

Originally posted by Soothfast
I think saying "those that perpetuate themselves survive, those that do not, do not" is far less clear, simply because it's tautological.

I was careless here, for (p --> q) & (~p --> ~q) is not technically a tautology. But it is logically equivalent to p <--> q, which is to say: "A species perpetuates itself if and only if it survives."

I'll never be admitted into the Vulcan Science Academy, I reckon. 😉

Originally posted by Soothfast
I was careless here, for (p --> q) & (~p --> ~q) is not technically a tautology. But it is logically equivalent to p <--> q, which is to say: "A species perpetuates itself if and only if it survives."

I'll never be admitted into the Vulcan Science Academy, I reckon. 😉

This is not the science forum so you can cut the (p --> q) & (~p --> ~q)
crap and just say what you mean.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is not the science forum so you can cut the (p --> q) & (~p --> ~q)
crap and just say what you mean.

Logic should never be divorced from Spirituality, grasshopper, or you shall surely lose your way...

*cue the distant flute*

Originally posted by Soothfast
Logic should never be divorced from Spirituality, grasshopper, or you shall surely lose your way...

*cue the distant flute*

Indeed should we just throw our brains away? I think not 🙂



Manny

Nobody suggests to throw away logic and our brains...
But logic will only take you so far... it is only with faith that one can come close to God.