The phenomenon and the explanation

[Eloy Craft]

Dead animals stop moving? Is that your "evidence"?

No. Live animals stop moving.

 

[Shemjaza]

Plenty of signs for the existence of the soul
Apparently Aristotle and Plato were mistaken about them.
Yeah those things stopped and what made them move is gone.


When you discover the chemical combination that can feel anger you may have a point.

We can't demonstrate chemicals that feel anyting... but we can certainly trigger feelings in humans with chemicals.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I guess being inhumane is impossible. Here's why it is.
No other animal is a moral agent. That's why no other animal is self determined.
No other animal seeks out and is able to apprehend truth, justice and freedom.
Why? No other animal has free will.
All those things require powers of the soul only humans have. Powers of an intellect.

Obviously, for the most part, we can only judge from behaviour, but all the primates show moral agency, self-determination, and awareness of truth & falsehood, justice, and freedom. They are not as refined and elaborated as the human forms, but clearly recognisable. But most social mammals, and some birds (some parrots, & corvids) show at least some of those features in more simplified forms.

For example, rats appear to show self-determination, altruism, empathy, and understand freedom - they will attempt free a caged rat (even a stranger) and will share their food. I'd be surprised if they didn't have elementary forms of the other capacities.

If you can usefully distinguish between human free will (you might want to give a clear definition) and animal behaviours (consider the altruistic rat), I'd be interested to hear it.

The sensitive powers in other animals obey the law of survival. Those powers are controllable by us and are in a perfect world completely obedient to our will. Many Eastern religions practice that control. Control only possible if one has something above the sensitive powers. We do. Intellect.

Other animals have varying types and degrees of intellect too.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think the model is accurate. I Don't agree with his view of the embryonic human soul and delayed hominization.

You didn't say what counts as a defect in a soul/person that makes them imperfect.

 

[Ophiolite]

Plenty of signs for the existence of the soul
Apparently Aristotle and Plato were mistaken about them.
Yeah those things stopped and what made them move is gone.

We have perfectly sound and detailed physical explanations that account for respiration, circulation, neuron activity and muscle activity. There is no evidence whatsoever that the cessation of these is connected with a soul.

When you discover the chemical combination that can feel anger you may have a point.

How about despair? When I had my first stroke it was in a region of the brain that effects emotions. During the early phases of convalesence I would suddenly experience instances of deep depression, not because I was worried about this blow to my health, or my job, but because something happened in that part of the brain. I could be in the middle of enjoying a meal, having a pleasant conversation when, wham! Mind numbing despair. The only thing that got me through such episodes was the realisation that these were physical artifacts of the stroke and would pass in a minute or an hour.

That's an anecdote. I don't pay much attention to anecdotes myself, but if you search the literature you will find ample evidence that emotions can be triggered by activating specific parts of the brain, or by administering appropriate drugs. I'm confident there is one for anger, but I suspect that if I presented you the evidence for it you would find a reason to reject it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I guess being inhumane is impossible. Here's why it is.
No other animal is a moral agent. That's why no other animal is self determined.
No other animal seeks out and is able to apprehend truth, justice and freedom.
Why? No other animal has free will.
All those things require powers of the soul only humans have. Powers of an intellect.


The sensitive powers in other animals obey the law of survival. Those powers are controllable by us and are in a perfect world completely obedient to our will. Many Eastern religions practice that control. Control only possible if one has something above the sensitive powers. We do. Intellect.

Have you ever seen an animal get revenge for revenge's own sake?

 

[Shemjaza]

Have you ever seen an animal get revenge for revenge's own sake?

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

 

[Mark Quayle]

No other animal is a moral agent. That's why no other animal is self determined.
No other animal seeks out and is able to apprehend truth, justice and freedom.
Why? No other animal has free will.

Have you ever seen an animal get revenge for revenge's own sake?

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

I once had a sweet little collie, runt of the litter, and not very bright. I also had a cat that hated that collie, though the collie had never done anything to her. They were both near me one day, and so of course the cat decided she wanted to be pet and given attention, since there was danger the collie might want that too. So the cat came purring and rubbing up against me and I pet her awhile. After a bit, I called the dog over and started to pet her, to which the cat reacted by scratching the dog's face, with great effect. The dog yelped, and I grabbed the cat and swatted her rear end, while the dog trotted off and climbed a 2 or 3 foot high pile of sand, sat down and scratched an itch. As soon as I put the cat down, she took off like a high powered rifle shot and never even bothering to climb the sand pile launched herself and hit that dog square in the chest, knocking her over and down the other side.

That was the cat's sense of justice.

 

[Phred]

This is as absurd as saying that if I can show that A Midsummer Night's Dream and Troilus and Cressida are fiction, I no longer have to believe that Julius Caesar, Mark Antony and Cleopatra, and King Henry V were real people. Would any sane person imagine that the fact that Elijah wasn't carried up to heaven in a fiery chariot (2 Kings 2:11) is enough to disprove Christianity?

Well now. There's a little bit of fact you stumbled across. So does that mean that since novels like James Bond take place in real locations like London he's a real person? It goes both ways. And yet I hear constantly that since archeologists have found some of the locations in the Bible that means it's true.

Just because Pontius Pilate was a real Roman person does that mean that everything that happened in the Gospels is true?

 

[Ophiolite]

Well now. There's a little bit of fact you stumbled across. So does that mean that since novels like James Bond take place in real locations like London he's a real person? It goes both ways. And yet I hear constantly that since archeologists have found some of the locations in the Bible that means it's true.

Just because Pontius Pilate was a real Roman person does that mean that everything that happened in the Gospels is true?

History seems to have protocols for assessing facts that differ from those of science. My impression is that they are becoming more rigorous, but a historian would probably challenge that, arguing they have long been rigorous, but they rely upon reports that were written by humans who might just (shock, horror!) have ulterior motives for what they were writing.

 

[tas8831]

Good thing you were around to show me the Cosmological Argument is illogical after all these years! So what one does isn't hypothesizing, in order to investigate the question of the existence of 'first cause'?

But 'first cause' is not what is illogical —it is the defenses given for it, or the definitions, that may be illogical.

Cool assertions.
Doesn't matter though, since your presuppositions are unprovable.

 

[tas8831]

So how do you explain this change? What biology can you put forth that does not rely on any of your inflammatory and unsupported aspersions?

Within species, there is change, but monkey is monkey, fly is fly, moth is moth.

There are over 300 species of monkey. Which was the original Kind?

Ha! Actually, I should say, "I don't believe there is no evolution —I just fail to believe in evolution (as it is generally presented today (I say as opposed to saying Darwinian Evolution since that is inflammatory)"

I don't really care what you believe, especially since you seem quite incapable of providing even a single bit of support for anything you claim to believe. All you present are assertions.

I ask you to explain the changes according to your bible worldview, and you merely assert 'a monkey is a monkey'.

That empty pap may pass as an explanation in your church, but even on a simple discussion forum, it smack of ignorance.

 

[tas8831]

Well now. There's a little bit of fact you stumbled across. So does that mean that since novels like James Bond take place in real locations like London he's a real person? It goes both ways. And yet I hear constantly that since archeologists have found some of the locations in the Bible that means it's true.

Just because Pontius Pilate was a real Roman person does that mean that everything that happened in the Gospels is true?

It is funny - a while back, this sort of topic came up and someone (might have been me, I can't remember) asked for archaeological evidence that bible tales were real, historically speaking. The context made it clear that the question was referring to the 'magic' stuff, but a creationist replied with a link to a biblical archaeology report (which, of course, had an exceptionally hyperbolic title) outlining how a pottery shard with the name 'David' could sort of be made out on it had been found. This was presented as 'proof' that King David existed, and thus, all the bible tales were real.

And yet, as you ask, the notion that maybe the Iliad told of real events since Troy and many of the other places and even some people were discovered to have been real was dismissed out of hand as absurd.

 

[tas8831]

Ah, yes, the famous, "I can wait"!

Ah, yes, the infamous 'you can wait all you want, I can't address anything you asked me to despite my claiming to be able to, so I'm just going to play games.'

You draw the whole universe being amenable to investigation as an example of what I was talking about? I am talking about specific examples, such as hypothesizing that all creatures descended from a common ancestor, since we see "transitory" forms, (and that, in spite of the fact that we have no way to know if they were transitory or not —this smacks of confirmation bias).

That is not a presupposition.

Do you not even know what words mean?

And thanks for unwittingly admitting that you yet again ignored my evidence - here it is for the 4th time for you specifically, with a challenge:

The phenomenon and the explanation

Show me the confirmation bias.circular reasoning

I have consistently admitted to —even claimed— bias on my part, even to the point of confirmation bias in my assessing of evidences.

So you claim to be able to approach this topic without prejudice?

C'mon, give me the evidence, without unproven foundational presuppositions....

Show me this whole stack of cards is not theory built upon theory built upon theory, built upon guesses.

I have, you keep ignoring it.

Almost as if you either 1. cannot comprehend the science being presented or 2. are afraid to address it, knowing that you would have to do so dishonestly in order to prop up your unsupported claims.


You also quite laughably cannot admit that you do not understand how presuppositions work.

 

[tas8831]

A shame that @Mark Quayle could not/would not address any of this in any substantive way. Even more of a shame that he keeps ignoring that which he claims - like so many creationists - is all about bias and such. Typical, really.

=======
Clearly - you ignored it both [added in edit: all three] times I posted it for you - the first time, you merely omitted it from your reply. No, you just ignored it - which I guess you feel you must do in order to keep believing your inflammatory and unsupported charges of circular reasoning and the like. Third time a charm?

-------

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it.

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "



Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."​

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.



As you like to pretend you understand all this, I eagerly await your analysis in which you point out the confirmation bias, circular reasoning, etc. that you pretend all actual science is based on.
But I will not be holding my breath. All hat, no cattle?

 

[Eloy Craft]

We can't demonstrate chemicals that feel anyting... but we can certainly trigger feelings in humans with chemicals.

Then sentience is required.

 

[Shemjaza]

I once had a sweet little collie, runt of the litter, and not very bright. I also had a cat that hated that collie, though the collie had never done anything to her. They were both near me one day, and so of course the cat decided she wanted to be pet and given attention, since there was danger the collie might want that too. So the cat came purring and rubbing up against me and I pet her awhile. After a bit, I called the dog over and started to pet her, to which the cat reacted by scratching the dog's face, with great effect. The dog yelped, and I grabbed the cat and swatted her rear end, while the dog trotted off and climbed a 2 or 3 foot high pile of sand, sat down and scratched an itch. As soon as I put the cat down, she took off like a high powered rifle shot and never even bothering to climb the sand pile launched herself and hit that dog square in the chest, knocking her over and down the other side.

That was the cat's sense of justice.

That seems to be a story demonstrating that animals have intellect and emotions, if different or sometimes less sophisticated than humans.

Then sentience is required.

If sentience can be heavily modified and controlled by base physical changes like chemicals, sickness and organ damage/repair... why isn't it reasonable to just assume it's a product of those kinds of processes.

 

[Astrophile]

Well now. There's a little bit of fact you stumbled across. So does that mean that since novels like James Bond take place in real locations like London he's a real person? It goes both ways. And yet I hear constantly that since archeologists have found some of the locations in the Bible that means it's true.

Just because Pontius Pilate was a real Roman person does that mean that everything that happened in the Gospels is true?

As you say, the argument cuts both ways. It is just as absurd to say that the fact that some parts of the Bible are history is enough to prove that the whole of it is true as it is to say "All I have to do is find one thing wrong in the Bible and it is enough" to prove that the whole of it is false.

 

[Phred]

As you say, the argument cuts both ways. It is just as absurd to say that the fact that some parts of the Bible are history is enough to prove that the whole of it is true as it is to say "All I have to do is find one thing wrong in the Bible and it is enough" to prove that the whole of it is false.

Well, I would agree with you except for the folks that claim the Bible is inerrant.

One mistake and that whole house of cards falls down.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Have you ever seen an animal get revenge for revenge's own sake?

No. Have you?