Human Evolution

[AV1611VET]

So you would like me to start believing that grasshoppers have just 4 legs?

It's a start.

 

[Gene2memE]

Not ever scientist accepts the evolution story.

Sure, and there are scientists out there who don't accept the general theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the efficacy of vaccines, universal gravitation, plate tectonics or the heliocentric model. There's probably not a major model or theory in the entirety of the sciences that you can't dig out some "scientist" who opposes it.

We generally dismiss their opinions though, usually because they are fringe beliefs not supported (or poorly supported at best) by the evidence.

The fact that you like their rejection of evolution doesn't make that rejection more valid.
Also, rejection of evolution doesn't do a jot or tittle to make creation a more viable alternative.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It's a start.

...and next I need to believe that pi= 3.0?

 

[Bradskii]

Hominids were getting ever bigger heads, and needed a solution to get babies down the birth canal. To try to write this of as a hypothetical problem only in my own mind is just plain silly.

I can see @SelfSim's point. You are nominating the problem as humans having ever larger heads, so we needed a solution to allow an easier birth. I'm pretty certain that a distant ancestor of ours gave birth as easily as most mammals do now. But if you have kids and were present at the birth, you'll see that whatever changes have been made over evolutionary time can hardly be called a solution.

If the baby has a tendency to die during childbirth then evolution will select against the genetic make-up of the mother. Obviously, as the genes don't get passed on. But if it survives, then any pain the mother goes through during the process is completely irrelevant. Evolution wasn't (and didn't) 'look for a solution' to maternal discomfort. If the birth canal is just big enough so that enough babies (and mothers) survive, then nothing will change.

That said, if men had to give birth, then we'd be extinct in a few generations. There's be no way I would go through what my wife did. And I still can't get my head around that she was willing to do it more than once. Oxytocin may help, as she's flooded with the stuff when in labour and it significantly increases when a woman (of fertile age) is around babies. So the solution you suggest, which is no solution at all, might be shelved and one involving oxytocin might be substituted. As survival of the species would almost certainly have required multiple births, and if the woman decided 'Hey, I ain't doing that again', then we wouldn't be here.

So the 'solution' wasn't build a better birth canal so it's less painful, it was 'the hell with the pain she suffered, we'll just make sure she kinda forgets it for the next time'.

 

[Bradskii]

The fact that you like their rejection of evolution doesn't make that rejection more valid.
Also, rejection of evolution doesn't do a jot or tittle to make creation a more viable alternative.

Indeed. I know of quite a few creation stories (Native American, Roman, Greek, Aborigine, Hindu etc) and as far as supernatural ones go, the Christian version stands up quite well.

Now as the scientific versions go, I only know of the one. At least if we just go back to the Big Bang (what happened 'before' that might always be a mystery). So that's Number One of the natural versions.

Now if you want to reject the Aborigine supernatural version, then that would mean that you need another to replace it. And let's say that the Christian one does that. And trumps all the others as well. So that's Number One of the supernatural versions.

And as you say, rejecting the scientific winner doesn't make any of the supernatural versions any more correct (it would be like saying Chelsea aren't the best football team in the world, therefore the New York Yankees are). It just means that you need a better scientific version to replace it.

I'm keen to know what that is likely to be.

 

[SelfSim]

SelfSim, are you just bluffing? You say you are a Humanist, but you post some really bizarre stuff. And I've seen you do this on another thread. Are you really a Humanist, or are you just pretending?
..
Can you show me a couple examples of posts where you actually posted anything positive about the Humanism you claim to be part of?

Hmm .. fascinating.

Note to self: I'm not sure, but it seems I may have uncovered someone who actually believes in Humanism(?)
For me, Humanism is nothing more than a conclusion inferred from abundant objective testing.
Believing in it, would make it a religion .. (no thanks .. not for me).

No, of course I won't add a note on my site saying that evolution is just "a solution" that those who believe in evolution claim. Evolution is real. It leads to real solutions to problems that animals have in the struggle for existence.

And for some reason you add the strawman argument that I said evolution "seeks" and "sees". I said neither of those. So why do you attack my writings for saying that?

Not so much of 'an attack' .. more like a rigourous enquiry.

Which is just plain bizarre. Hominids were getting ever bigger heads, and needed a solution to get babies down the birth canal. To try to write this of as a hypothetical problem only in my own mind is just plain silly.
...
This is a misrepresentation of computer programming. Programmers write programs that can be used by other people to solve problems that those real people need to solve.

There ya go .. so you're sayin' its people needing to solve problems they've posed, after all(?)
Same applies for your bigger heads 'problem'.

You continued to deny that it would be a problem for a hominid to have a baby with an adult-sized human head, which is just plain silly.
...
The rest of us were not debating the basics of evolution. We were discussing the best way to word statements about the evolutionary process that we all agreed on. But somehow you jumped into this healthy debate between skeptics with a frontal attack on evolution itself while pretending to take one side of the argument.

I don't have any issues with science's mainstream theory of Biological Evolution.
I might defer to @Bradskii's very nice illustrative post #124 (along with my genuine 'thumbs up' on how he addressed the issue. Thank you @Bradskii ).

I have seen you use this same tactic on another thread also (A thread about "Nothing"). What is going on here?

Its science going on there .. (and here).

Evolving a hominid with a big brain is not a superficial problem. It took hundreds of thousands of years. Adaptions included not just a larger brain, but adaptions to brain structure; adaptions to delay growth of the skull until after birth; and many adaptions that allowed hominids to become fearsome hunters that could supply all the protein needed by those big brains.

And the evidence strongly indicates that it actually happened.

Survival of the fittest is not a well, err, uh, out of date concept. When you come here and tell us that survival of the fittest has been superseded, while making not a single argument for evolutionary science or humanism, I am left scratching my head. What are you doing here?

See critiquing the phrase 'Survival of the Fittest' here:

While the phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used to mean "natural selection", it is avoided by modern biologists, because the phrase can be misleading. For example, survival is only one aspect of selection, and not always the most important. Another problem is that the word "fit" is frequently confused with a state of physical fitness. In the evolutionary meaning "fitness" is the rate of reproductive output among a class of genetic variants.

Is that an apology, or a passive aggressive attempt to get in one last dig? You apologize for condemning my simplicity, for I must be writing nothing but simplicity? In context of what you have said in total, I'm not sure how to interpret this.

Twas my attempt at an honest & respectful withdrawl .. (a diffferent tack for me when I'm busy doing other things in real life).
The theme of 'survival of the fittest' may not have been deliberate in your OP story, but you seem to argue that it is(?)
Ultimately, my position is that 'survival of the fittest' is necessary, but not always sufficient for the survival of the species.

Anyway, if you really are here as a Humanist, then please show us a few posts where you actually posted something in favor of humanism, rather than this drivel.

Science is not 'drivel', my friend. The trick is to distinguish Humanism as a belief, from the fingerprints left behind after application of the scientific method. Cheers.

 

[Pardon Maoi]

We don't need a research paper ..... we know what the two main world views are as they are debated unceasingly.

Evolution isn't a worldview. It is a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

 

[SelfSim]

Evolution isn't a worldview. It is a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

Evolution is just as much a scientific principle as it is a scientific theory. Ie: wherever an error prone self replicating entity is observably dependent on a resource constrained environment, we also expect to see the principles of variation, inheritance and selection over time.

 

[Shemjaza]

Data has been and is being gathered. Data gathered has to be interpreted ... the interpretations of the data gathered varies.

The point is that interpretations of scientific evidence can be explained and justified. This isn't a matter of a personal aesthetic reaction to a conclusion.

I understand the evolution theories require the physical .... creation does not require it ... because of that difference that does not neither confirm or deny either. Both are reasonable/plausible possibilities.

The Creation idea may not require anything physical to exist... but the physical world does exist and typically that is not in doubt.

A spiritual world could exist, but that would not invalidate the physical evidence for evolution.

In addition spiritual explanations for events do not produce hard evidence or testable models so that's a significant disadvantage in demonstrating whether it's true.

Nothing in science is ever 100%, but evolution has been very successful in conforming to the evidence found and as a method for understanding biology and geology.

We have learned we live in an extraordinary complex and vast universe.

There can, and are a lot of "details" that are argued, however real basically without those details is ..... it just happened some how (and the theories vary) or it was designed by a supernatural intelligent entity.

The ability to split possibilities into two categories doesn't make each equally likely.

Intelligent Design

God uses no preexisting material to create the universe. God's act of creation causes matter, space, time, and even the very laws which govern the universe to exist.

God does not need the material to create.

So the divide in the beliefs will continue and always be debated.

That's the belief and I agree that there will probably always be disagreements... but that doesn't mean the justifications are reasonable.

If you accept a Creationist model it is in spite of scientific evidence, it doesn't become scientific evidence simply because it disagrees with scientific theories.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If the baby has a tendency to die during childbirth then evolution will select against the genetic make-up of the mother. Obviously, as the genes don't get passed on. But if it survives, then any pain the mother goes through during the process is completely irrelevant. Evolution wasn't (and didn't) 'look for a solution' to maternal discomfort. If the birth canal is just big enough so that enough babies (and mothers) survive, then nothing will change.

Yes, I agree. Perhaps I haven't been expressing myself well, but this is what I have been trying to say. If the baby and mother are at high risk of death during childbirth, then that evolutionary path is probably a failure.

This is the conundrum that early hominids had gotten themselves into. They had gotten to the point where the survival benefit of larger adult brainpower kept selecting for larger heads. But the need for babies to survive the trauma of birth limited the size of the skull at birth.

This is where mutation and natural selection took over. Some of the random mutations led to braincases that expanded significantly after birth. Natural selection strongly selected these changes, for they solved both problems. Babies survived birth, and they grew up to become adults with large brains.

My main source for this, and most of the content of the OP, is the PBS documentary, Becoming Human . In part 2 it says,

So as humans evolved from apes, childhood was extended. But what advantage could be gained by having helpless children around to feed and care for, who take so long to grow up?

The mystery of prolonged childhood is at the heart of human evolution. It may be related to brain size. We humans have the biggest brains in the animal kingdom in relation to our body size. They are so big that most of our brain growth has to happen outside the womb or our heads would never get through the birth canal.

A long, slow childhood gives our brains time to grow after birth and time to learn everything we need to function in our complex human societies. That's the advantage of prolonged childhood, for us at least. (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/becoming-human-part-2/)


​

 

[SelfSim]

A spiritual world could exist, but that would not invalidate the physical evidence for evolution.

One could also justifiably say that a 'spiritual world', which can be shown as contradicting the laws of Physics, could only be said to exist, by way of believing that it does.

Which is a rather curious claim, IMO ..

 

[Shemjaza]

One could also justifiably say that a 'spiritual world', which can be shown as contradicting the laws of Physics, could only be said to exist, by way of believing that it does.

Which is a rather curious claim, IMO ..

Typically spiritual seems to be a different substance to the matter and energy of the physical universe, but does apparently exist outside the imagination and thoughts of believers.

The concept is typically unfalisiable and undemonstratable so I prefer to not engage on arguing whether it exists or not.

 

[SelfSim]

Typically spiritual seems to be a different substance to the matter and energy of the physical universe, but does apparently exist outside the imagination and thoughts of believers.

I wonder whether such spirits evolve? If not, they must still be very primitive, I'd guess(?)

The concept is typically unfalisiable and undemonstratable ...

(Which is pretty consistent with the operation definition of a belief).

 

[doubtingmerle]

For what it is worth, IF God exists, all truth comes from him, all reality comes from and depends on him, including math and logic, fact (the principle —not just 'facts'), even existence itself and all non-falsifiables like art, beauty etc. and all goodness and justice. If not, there is no God. There could be super-human beings, perhaps —'gods', as such— but not THE GOD.

If one disallows "could not be otherwise" by way of being a non-argument for the existence of God, they must disallow it for the existence of anything else.

Anyhow, as far as I can see, you have not shown what causes nature, unless you limit 'nature' to what we see present day. To me the whole matter is nature, right down to first cause, if you deny his implicating himself into the results of his causation. All you've done is kick the can down the road.

You seem to be asking several different questions here. I will address them one at a time.

1. What caused the physical causes that caused the universe and its physics?

I address this in the section, What caused the cause of the Big Bang at Is There a God? - The Mind Set Free . I admit that this section was weak, so I have now updated it to better address this question. Spoiler alert: We don't know.

2. What caused the basic nature of quantities and basic logic?

These principles simply are and could not be otherwise. See The Ontology of Logic • Richard Carrier .

3. What caused the verbal systems that describe mathematical laws, physical laws, logical laws, etc.?

These are simply human constructions to express what reality is about. Reality exists. People use languages and systems of words to communicate with other people. People want to describe reality. Therefore, they event languages and systems of words to express thoughts about reality. These systems include mathematics, logic, and sciences.

None of this requires God.

 

[Estrid]

Sure, and there are scientists out there who don't accept the general theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the efficacy of vaccines, universal gravitation, plate tectonics or the heliocentric model. There's probably not a major model or theory in the entirety of the sciences that you can't dig out some "scientist" who opposes it.

We generally dismiss their opinions though, usually because they are fringe beliefs not supported (or poorly supported at best) by the evidence.

The fact that you like their rejection of evolution doesn't make that rejection more valid.
Also, rejection of evolution doesn't do a jot or tittle to make creation a more viable alternative.

There's preachers who don't believe in God!
That disproves god of at the very least casts doubt
most grave upon the theory of his existence.

Right?

As soon as someone disproves the theory of
evolution we will take their disbelief seriously.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You seem to be asking several different questions here. I will address them one at a time.

1. What caused the physical causes that caused the universe and its physics?

I address this in the section, What caused the cause of the Big Bang at Is There a God? - The Mind Set Free . I admit that this section was weak, so I have now updated it to better address this question. Spoiler alert: We don't know.

2. What caused the basic nature of quantities and basic logic?

These principles simply are and could not be otherwise. See The Ontology of Logic • Richard Carrier .

3. What caused the verbal systems that describe mathematical laws, physical laws, logical laws, etc.?

These are simply human constructions to express what reality is about. Reality exists. People use languages and systems of words to communicate with other people. People want to describe reality. Therefore, they event languages and systems of words to express thoughts about reality. These systems include mathematics, logic, and sciences.

None of this requires God.

So, "It just is", like magic. And they want to know why I say First Cause is with Intent!

 

[AV1611VET]

There's preachers who don't believe in God!

Are their names O'Neal?

Romans 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

 

[eleos1954]

Evolution isn't a worldview. It is a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

explanations in and of themselves are not necessarily true, nor necessarily false, explanations are used to clarify whatever is being discussed.

Definition of worldview

: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint (ie evolution or intelligent design) - two different specific standpoints.

What is meant by world view?

A worldview is a collection of attitudes, values, stories and expectations about the world around us, which inform our every thought and action. Worldview is expressed in ethics, religion, philosophy, scientific beliefs and so on

There are many worldviews .... evolutionism or intelligent design are a couple of them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

explanations in and of themselves are not necessarily true, nor necessarily false, explanations are used to clarify whatever is being discussed.

Definition of worldview

: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint (ie evolution or intelligent design) - two different specific standpoints.

What is meant by world view?

A worldview is a collection of attitudes, values, stories and expectations about the world around us, which inform our every thought and action. Worldview is expressed in ethics, religion, philosophy, scientific beliefs and so on

There are many worldviews .... evolutionism or intelligent design are a couple of them.

The theory of evolution isn't a world view though. It's just an explanation of a fact of biological science.

 

[Estrid]

explanations in and of themselves are not necessarily true, nor necessarily false, explanations are used to clarify whatever is being discussed.

Definition of worldview

: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint (ie evolution or intelligent design) - two different specific standpoints.

What is meant by world view?

A worldview is a collection of attitudes, values, stories and expectations about the world around us, which inform our every thought and action. Worldview is expressed in ethics, religion, philosophy, scientific beliefs and so on

There are many worldviews .... evolutionism or intelligent design are a couple of them.

If there is such a thing as evolutionism, or victims
of such an affliction. Which I doubt.

It would be like plate tectonicism, or maybe
gravitism.

ID is religion.
That is a way of looking at the basic
nature of reality.

ToE explains how one very small aspect
of how the underlying principles of nature
act under certain conditions.

Two very different things.