the rapid brain growth hypothis and the evolutinarypeak etc

[HitchSlap]

thank you,
I have no problem with the wording,
some appear outraged I pointed out the "theory" part of the title given to the "theory of evolution".

shrug

: )

Outrage might be a bit of a stretch, more like pointing out your ignorance.

 

[HitchSlap]

im well read ...

Based on your argument from incredulity, this is not my opinion of you.

 

[: D]

I think the thread pretty much speaks for itself, just as I thought it would.

don't let me stop you adding anything or countering any information offered,
but of course you wont.

: (

 

[bhsmte]

don't let me stop you adding anything or countering any information offered,
but of course you wont.

: (

I told you at the outset, I don't play pigeon chess with biblical creationists in regards to evolution.

I also told you, there would be some who would engage you and the rest, is history.

 

[: D]

Based on your argument from incredulity, this is not my opinion of you.

that's just plain wrong (even in definition terms)
I believe the subject needs to be allowed to breath under freedom of expression,
opposing ideas compared and countered,

all I see is a desperate need by some to squash ANY debate or ANY questioning of certain theories,
at the same time as personal attacks on the individual whilst ignoring the information.

funny that even evolutionists with differing ideas and perspectives are using this approach on each other.

how enlightened.

: (
(oh btw what ever you do don't address the longest post on this page, that is v important)

 

[: D]

I told you at the outset, I don't play pigeon chess with biblical creationists in regards to evolution.

I also told you, there would be some who would engage you and the rest, is history.

thought so.

shame.

: (

 

[bhsmte]

thought so.

shame.

: (

I thought so, too.

 

[: D]

I thought so, too.

see ya

: )

 

[sfs]

so the theory of evolution is just a theory ?

The first 90 seconds of this seems appropriate here:

Yes, evolution is just a theory, in the same sense that the Earth is just a planet and Obama is just the president of the United States.

 

[HitchSlap]

I told you at the outset, I don't play pigeon chess with biblical creationists in regards to evolution.

I also told you, there would be some who would engage you and the rest, is history.

Just for the recor

that's just plain wrong (even in definition terms)
I believe the subject needs to be allowed to breath under freedom of expression,
opposing ideas compared and countered,

all I see is a desperate need by some to squash ANY debate or ANY questioning of certain theories,
at the same time as personal attacks on the individual whilst ignoring the information.

funny that even evolutionists with differing ideas and perspectives are using this approach on each other.

how enlightened.

: (
(oh btw what ever you do don't address the longest post on this page, that is v important)

You haven't demonstrated in the least you know the first thing of ToE. All you have done is regurgitate tired PRATTs... Pigeon chess.

 

[crjmurray]

Agreed. Maybe you should read a book on ToE before you pick this topic up again?

I was thinking just a basic primer on science would help since the OP doesn't understand what a theory is. Or how they work.

 

[: D]

Just for the recor
You haven't demonstrated in the least you know the first thing of ToE. All you have done is regurgitate tired PRATTs... Pigeon chess.

I was thinking just a basic primer on science would help since the OP doesn't understand what a theory is. Or how they work.

more abstract comedy gold from those who will do anything to avoid a direct response to this post...the rapid brain growth hypothis and the evolutinarypeak etc..

or in fact any post....

strange that.

: (

 

[crjmurray]

more abstract comedy gold from those who will do anything to avoid a direct response to this post...the rapid brain growth hypothis and the evolutinarypeak etc..

or in fact any post....

strange that.

: (

It's really not worth responding to if you don't understand the absolutely most rudimentary basics of science.

 

[: D]

It's really not worth responding to if you don't understand the absolutely most rudimentary basics of science.

XD

 

[crjmurray]

XD

And you clearly don't. Which is weird.

 

[: D]

And you clearly don't. Which is weird.

you appear to talk the talk (a lot)
but seem unable to walk the walk (ever).

which is really weird.

: )

 

[Atheos canadensis]

firstly thank you for a structured and thought out response,
I shall formulate a structured reply to better outline my reasoning.

regarding Mr Higgs,
I was not directly comparing the two theoretical approaches only highlighting Mr Higgs position as having to stand in the theoretical camp until physics allowed him to move into the proven fact camp.
I could have highlighted many thousands of other theories that have migrated from one camp to the other but felt Mr Higgs deserved a name check because most are familiar with his theory (although psychics is not my strong point either yet we have all heard of him).

back shortly.

: )

It seemed to me that you were attempting to justify your lack of evidence for neuroplasticity being indicative of a designer by implying that Higgs' ideas about the existence of the Higgs boson were similarly unevidenced. As I explained, this is not the case. The Higgs boson was mathematically predicted whereas neuroplasticity = designer is based in much more nebulous reasoning. Thus it is not appropriate to invoke this example (or, I suspect, most other examples from theoretical physics) to justify a lack of more robust support for your "theoretical hypothesis".

please ^ read on...

Here is my response.

(not sure on your point about pigeons)

Let's go over it again then, because it is really the same as the plane and car analogies. When a pigeon's foot is destroyed, it is still perfectly capable of hobbling around on its stump. Do you think that is because a designer has designed the distal end of the tarsometatarsus to be capable of being used as a stand-in (heh) for a foot?

I would argue no. This ability to walk on the distal end of the tarsometatarsus is the unavoidable consequence of the tarsometatarsus serving its regular function as part of the bird's limb. It is not a contingency because it is inextricably linked to the function of the leg - if the bird couldn't hobble on the stump then it couldn't walk even with the foot intact. If you don't understand this argument please ask for specific clarification.

This is a perfect example, if a car was to lose only one of its tyres then the cars weight would be supported but you certainly could not continue driving for any length of time without a complete mechanical failure.

The brains “contingency design” allows for the loss of tyres and is able to be driven for life with little hindrance (as supported by the highlighted cases).

Another good example, you are correct that intelligent design is utilised regarding safely making it down if a planes power is reduced, however its function is not optimal, nor is the malfunction ignored because functionality exists.

Both the above examples are effective for only a very short period and are in no way seen as long term solutions, neither would the above examples lead to a maintained or improved optimal performance as observed in brain performance.

Before continuing I just want your position to be clear. It seems to me that you agree with the following statement:

The ability of a car to continue driving despite lacking tires and the ability of a plane to glide without engines are not examples of contingency design.

Am I correct in thinking you agree with this? If no, please explain.

Also, you haven't directly addressed the argument I'm making. Do you agree with the argument that it is not a contingency design because it is an unavoidable result of the wheel's normal function? If not, please explain.

What we find are redundant systems (a plane that can glide if needs be, not needed 99% of the time but designed in regardless) that would allow alternate modes of operation in the event of the failure of one or more key psychological or biological systems.

Do you mean to say that neuroplasticity is "not needed 99% of the time but designed in regardless"?

“neural plasticity” accepts it is possible for the brain to rewire itself but cannot explain how the information is held if certain parts of the brain are missing or damaged,

Certain parts of the brain are allocated for speech and the understanding of speech, if this part of the brain is damaged we must assume the understanding and application of speech is held elsewhere outside the allocated region (an applied contingency).

This seems like more of the same argument without any more support. You haven't really addressed the arguments I made regarding what can be considered contingency design so providing another example of something you think is a design contingency doesn't really get us anywhere.

At this point we need to expand a little, “neural plasticity” was not introduced by me into the discussion because it only deals with the organic manipulation of neurons and synaptic connections, not the decisions behind remapping, outsourced information and reallocation of function.

It should also be noted that secular psychologists split themselves into two opposing camps, which are derived from a further two opposing evolutionary camps.

The first opposing camps are divided by evolutionary mechanics, one claims rapid evolution after an extinction to fill the biological or ecological void, the other claims evolution is a gradual progression regardless of environmentally void niches (strangely they both work very hard to debunk each other’s work and conclusions),

Similarly evolutionary psychologists split themselves into two camps, the biological (genetics, hormones, cells etc) and the environmental (stimulus, response, reward etc), however both opposing camps are reductionists.

Humans demonstrate a combination of extremely efficient and economical organization alongside and incredible potential for functional flexibility on the other, in other words the two opposing camps cannot agree on a driving force. The biological reductionists argue human brain evolution is biological and the environmental reductionists argue brain evolution is learnt.

the problem secular psychology has is that as time and understanding increase neither have the tools to explain it.

Case studies on morality also highlight the problems with secular understanding within the two camps.

Professor Paul Bloom of Yale studied morality expressed by babies ,” fundamental questions of philosophy and psychology, including how biological evolution and cultural experience conspire to shape human nature” …”From Sigmund Freud to Jean Piaget to Lawrence Kohlberg, psychologists have long argued that we begin life as amoral animals. One important task of society, particularly of parents, is to turn babies into civilized beings — social creatures who can experience empathy, guilt and shame; who can override selfish impulses in the name of higher principles; and who will respond with outrage to unfairness and injustice. Many parents and educators would endorse a view of infants and toddlers close to that of a recent Onion headline: “New Study Reveals Most Children Unrepentant Sociopaths.” If children enter the world already equipped with moral notions, why is it that we have to work so hard to humanize them?”

Interesting to note the evolutionary model has humans starting as “amoral animals”,

“A growing body of evidence, though, suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life.”…..this is suggesting morality is not learnt as environmental psychologists would argue and the biological psychologists cannot explain it,

“Many developmental psychologists will tell you that the ignorance of human babies extends well into childhood. For many years the conventional view was that young humans take a surprisingly long time to learn basic facts about the physical world (like that objects continue to exist once they are out of sight) and basic facts about people (like that they have beliefs and desires and goals) — let alone how long it takes them to learn about morality.

I am admittedly biased, but I think one of the great discoveries in modern psychology is that this view of babies is mistaken.”

The multiple experiments showed babies, without learnt understanding are born moralistic…”In the end, we found that 6- and 10-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual. This wasn’t a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy.”…

“All of this research, taken together, supports a general picture of baby morality. It’s even possible, as a thought experiment, to ask what it would be like to see the world in the moral terms that a baby does. Babies probably have no conscious access to moral notions, no idea why certain acts are good or bad. They respond on a gut level”

“What do these findings about babies’ moral notions tell us about adult morality? Some scholars think that the very existence of an innate moral sense has profound implications. In 1869, Alfred Russel Wallace, who along with Darwin discovered natural selection, wrote that certain human capacities — including “the higher moral faculties” — are richer than what you could expect from a product of biological evolution. He concluded that some sort of godly force must intervene to create these capacities. (Darwin was horrified at this suggestion, writing to Wallace, “I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child.”)”

“A few years ago, in his book “What’s So Great About Christianity,” the social and cultural critic Dinesh D’Souza revived this argument. He conceded that evolution can explain our niceness in instances like kindness to kin, where the niceness has a clear genetic payoff, but he drew the line at “high altruism,” acts of entirely disinterested kindness. For D’Souza, “there is no Darwinian rationale” for why you would give up your seat for an old lady on a bus, an act of nice-guyness that does nothing for your genes. And what about those who donate blood to strangers or sacrifice their lives for a worthy cause? D’Souza reasoned that these stirrings of conscience are best explained not by evolution or psychology but by “the voice of God within our souls.”

“The general argument that critics like Wallace and D’Souza put forward, however, still needs to be taken seriously. The morality of contemporary humans really does outstrip what evolution could possibly have endowed us with; moral actions are often of a sort that have no plausible relation to our reproductive success and don’t appear to be accidental by products of evolved adaptations.”

“The biologist Richard Dawkins was right, then, when he said at the start of his book “The Selfish Gene,” “Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly toward a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature.”

So even rock stars of the ToE admit nature is in essence cruel, amoral and unforgiving. Yet humans are made with an inbuilt moral compass that is not learnt, and science currently rejects the idea of directly passed on thoughts and ideas through biology to future generations.

: )

Your basic point with this seems to be that morality is an innate, non-evolvable trait and must therefore require a designer. I disagree. But the evolution of morality is a pretty expansive topic that belongs in a thread of its own. Furthermore, I don't really understand how morality fits in with the concept of biological contingency designs.

This all makes, in my opinion, decent reasoning for a designer who has programmed in a high level of mostly redundant contingencies and a high altruism directly opposed to the ideas of the ToE.

I don't think you've really established that the brain has redundant contingencies in place. Recall that the processes involved in neural plasticity are pretty similar to regular developmental processes. They aren't a failsafe, they're part of the regular activity of the brain.

NOTE: You are quite new to the forum and are, as I was when I joined, unaware of the various formatting codes that can be used to make things clearer. For instance instead of putting quotation marks around segments of my post, you could have written [ quote] Blah blah blah[/quote] (minus the space after that first bracket). That way my words would appear in easily discernible little boxes. It's up to you of course, but I find it makes things easier and is also more aesthetically appealing.

 

[: D]

[ quote]
NOTE: You are quite new to the forum and are, as I was when I joined, unaware of the various formatting codes that can be used to make things clearer. For instance instead of putting quotation marks around segments of my post, you could have written [ quote] Blah blah blah[/quote] (minus the space after that first bracket). That way my words would appear in easily discernible little boxes. It's up to you of course, but I find it makes things easier and is also more aesthetically appealing.
[/quote]

ta. im more of a dusty book person. I will attempt it.

[ quote] Let's go over it again then, because it is really the same as the plane and car analogies. When a pigeon's foot is destroyed, it is still perfectly capable of hobbling around on its stump. Do you think that is because a designer has designed the distal end of the tarsometatarsus to be capable of being used as a stand-in (heh) for a foot?

I would argue no. This ability to walk on the distal end of the tarsometatarsus is the unavoidable consequence of the tarsometatarsus serving its regular function as part of the bird's limb. It is not a contingency because it is inextricably linked to the function of the leg - if the bird couldn't hobble on the stump then it couldn't walk even with the foot intact. If you don't understand this argument please ask for specific clarification.[/quote]

we agree being able to walk on a stump is a by product of the adjoined limbs strength.

[ quote]Before continuing I just want your position to be clear. It seems to me that you agree with the following statement:

The ability of a car to continue driving despite lacking tires and the ability of a plane to glide without engines are not examples of contingency design.

Am I correct in thinking you agree with this? If no, please explain.

Also, you haven't directly addressed the argument I'm making. Do you agree with the argument that it is not a contingency design because it is an unavoidable result of the wheel's normal function? If not, please explain
[/quote]

cars driving on rims without a need for new tyres would be an example of contingency design if indeed cars were designed that way,
however cars are not designed to drive with or without tyres,
just with.
sure the rim can take the weight of the car and you could thrash it around for a bit,
but it would result in a quick failure in function.

this is not an example of contingency design because cars have no contingency for any extended use without tyres.
comparing this to the human brain is not valid because the malfunctioned brain, once it has reshaped and reassigned information, does not show a rapid decline (like the rims) but strengthens over time, and continues to improve (the exact opposite of the rims).

same for the plane example.


[ quote] Do you mean to say that neuroplasticity is "not needed 99% of the time but designed in regardless"? [/quote]

not quite, a plane could be over designed to cater for every eventuality but because it is not needed "99%" of the time the financial cost is balanced against a percentage of disaster probability.
the percentage of humans requiring a radical rewiring of the brain is so small as to not effect total numbers,
I suggested, in evolution terms, that the over design is disproportionate to an immediate need.


[ quote]This seems like more of the same argument without any more support. You haven't really addressed the arguments I made regarding what can be considered contingency design so providing another example of something you think is a design contingency doesn't really get us anywhere. [/quote]

the organic matter is different from the information held within,
if the areas of the brain dealing with speech are removed or damaged (the left hemisphere) then we would assume the information for speech is also lost,
however this is not what happens,
this shows, in my opinion, an over design (this concept like many concepts of the brain are not fully understood),
but we must assume the information is duplicated and stored multiple times in every area of the brain so as to allow function regardless of what areas are affected (within reason).
memory should get a mention here but it would only cloud the waters.


[ quote]Your basic point with this seems to be that morality is an innate, non-evolvable trait and must therefore require a designer. I disagree. But the evolution of morality is a pretty expansive topic that belongs in a thread of its own. Furthermore, I don't really understand how morality fits in with the concept of biological contingency designs. [/quote]

I think innate morality is a good example of contingency or over design,
a complex addition at birth that serves no immediate survival purpose,
an unnecessary luxury of over design.
it has no survival benefit for a helpless baby,
we are told humans started as "amoral animals",
are we then to believe that morals suddenly appeared within our undeveloped minds by accident ?
biology and nature do not operate on a moralistic level,
I believe the obvious conclusion is something more than a random chemical soup had a hand in it.

hopefully the quote thing will work.

: )
edit : (

 

[Gene2memE]

Atheos canadensis:

Full marks for the efforts, but I don't think you're going to get anywhere with this one.

 

[SkyWriting]

Around 2 million years ago it is suggested early humans began the progression from ape to human, this hypothesis is supposedly supported by a rapid (in evolutionary terms) increase in body and brain size due to environmental challenges. If we are to be generous the “rapid” brain development was achieved in around a million years, is it reasonable to suggest the necessary brain development for survival was rapid enough to prevent extinction? Or that the intermediate physical changes (where the creature is neither adapted to standing straight nor walking on all fours and still with a stunted brain) would have lessened the chances of survival considering the many hunting animals that had already achieved an evolutionary peak?

It was the use of fire that included cooking food.
Cooked food is easier to chew, digest, and store.

Our brain uses so many calories that raw food
consumption would use up over 16 hours of the day.

So our brains had the ability to grow to present size
due to cooked food.

Happy Thanksgiving!