What made us live in a house?

[Willtor]

Not true. When an evolutionist is cornered, this is a common defense.

Not quite. The only people I hear who say that evolution is not this are creationists. Seriously, that's what evolution is. That's what I'm defending. If there is something more, it isn't evolution -- except possibly as creationists define it.

Evolution DID go toward a direction. For TE people, this should not be a surprise.

Evolution does not measure what you are trying to measure. The only sense in which something is "more evolved" than something else is temporal. It isn't a value statement. I certainly _do_ make value judgments but not in the context of the theory of evolution. That isn't an appropriate place for them. That's the place of religion. Let God tell us about value and ethics and fellowship and His image. Don't try to glean it from natural processes.

So, according to you, which gene or chromosome made us start to build houses? The search should significantly be narrowed since we only have 3%(?) difference on DNA from chimps.

Metherion has responded to this.

 

[juvenissun]

Because they don't need to. Not all species are pressured by natural selection in the same way, juvie. Snow monkeys don't build nests because they get by fine without them. Likewise, we aren't pressured to swim, so we haven't evolved webbed fingers and toes.
You keep pushing this weird idea that natural selection mandates that all creatures live and behave the same way. I don't know where you get your ideas from, but they certainly don't stem from evolutionary theory.

No. My argument is pretty evolutional.

We build houses. Then there SHOULD BE some type of shelters built by apes before we started it. That is what the evolution theory said. If environment does not change dramatically, then the evolutional change will not change dramatically.

You may argue that house building is a social/cultural feature. But it should be part of the evolutional change, rather than a totally separated matter.

 

[juvenissun]

Do we know how long gorillas have been building nests? But even if they have been building the same kind of nests millions of years, why should they change? The nests work, they are easy to make if you know how, and they are fresh every night. Why change?

As for stupid, as a creationist do you think all the animals God created are really stupid because they can't build houses and cars?


Why do you think something went wrong? Do you think evolution means gorillas have to increase their cranial capacity and intelligence like we did so they can build more complicated houses? Where does evolution say that will happen?

If gorillas did not change the quality/structure of their nest with time, then why did we? Why most people like to move from a small house to a large house? I guess gorillas do not have such a desire. Then why should we have it? Which gene triggers our desire of improvement? And why did that gene evolve in such a way?

Animals are stupid, because they are doing the same thing for millions of years and it never occurred to them that they can improve their technique a little bit.

 

[juvenissun]

Not quite. The only people I hear who say that evolution is not this are creationists. Seriously, that's what evolution is. That's what I'm defending. If there is something more, it isn't evolution -- except possibly as creationists define it.

Evolution does not measure what you are trying to measure. The only sense in which something is "more evolved" than something else is temporal. It isn't a value statement. I certainly _do_ make value judgments but not in the context of the theory of evolution. That isn't an appropriate place for them. That's the place of religion. Let God tell us about value and ethics and fellowship and His image. Don't try to glean it from natural processes.

Metherion has responded to this.

I don't want to get into this debate in this thread. When we look at the process of evolution on the scale of genetics, it seems to be random. But when we see the alleged evolutional history as presented by the life tree, it is obviously NOT random.

 

[juvenissun]

There isn't a gene for house building.

One of the main differences between humans and the rest of the great apes is 'hard' instincts. I don't remember the proper term. Pretty much, humans have only 3 hardwired instincts at birth: grasp, suckle, cry. The third might be something similar instead, like scream versus cry, i don't remember. Everything else is learned.

Does a baby instinctively try and build a house? No. It is a learned behavior. Is there a gene responsible for houses? Nope, it's all society and culture at this point.

Those are two of the huge things that separate us from the rest of the great apes. We have more learned behaviors versus hardwired, and an immensely larger and more diverse culture.


You can keep telling this lie till you are blue in the face. Doesn't make it true.

There is no 'direction'. There is 'what reproduces most effectively in the current environment?'. Humanity came along with our few hardwired instincts and teaching everything that could be then improved INSTEAD of hardwired everything, and now look at us. I'd call that an advantage.

Metherion

Which one of the three is not there for apes? Does a new born chimp cry?

Interesting. And thanks.

 

[Mallon]

We build houses. Then there SHOULD BE some type of shelters built by apes before we started it. That is what the evolution theory said.

No. It's not. You're being thick.

 

[metherion]

Which one of the three is not there for apes? Does a new born chimp cry?

Nope. The rest of the great apes have MORE. So does just about every other animal.

It's a hallmark of humanity that we have fewer. I mean, cats don't need to be taught to stick their paw in water and flip out a fish. Even a housecat who has never been around a fishbowl will hunt fish like that when you get one. They also cover their poop. Rabbits instinctually know how to build burrows, as do ants with their tunnels and bees with their nests.

But humans, humans need instructions, architectural school, theory, degrees, boards of approval, etc etc etc. Over time, built-in instincts have been traded for freedom to learn things. What might has caused this? Pffff, I dunno. TOTALLY not my field . But it remains the case nonetheless.

Metherion

 

[Willtor]

I don't want to get into this debate in this thread. When we look at the process of evolution on the scale of genetics, it seems to be random. But when we see the alleged evolutional history as presented by the life tree, it is obviously NOT random.

This is the essence of the debate. If you don't know what evolution is, how can we possibly answer your questions in a way that you _will_ understand? Evolution has a random element to it, but the much larger factor is natural selection -- which is not random at all. Where do you get your information on evolutionary theory?

 

[juvenissun]

No. It's not. You're being thick.

Why not?

 

[juvenissun]

Nope. The rest of the great apes have MORE. So does just about every other animal.

It's a hallmark of humanity that we have fewer. I mean, cats don't need to be taught to stick their paw in water and flip out a fish. Even a housecat who has never been around a fishbowl will hunt fish like that when you get one. They also cover their poop. Rabbits instinctually know how to build burrows, as do ants with their tunnels and bees with their nests.

But humans, humans need instructions, architectural school, theory, degrees, boards of approval, etc etc etc. Over time, built-in instincts have been traded for freedom to learn things. What might has caused this? Pffff, I dunno. TOTALLY not my field . But it remains the case nonetheless.

Metherion

So we are born with fewer instinct capabilities. What would evolution say about this fact(?) ?

By the way, is "thinking" a biological process? If so, what has evolution said about the evolution of thinking capability? The only thing I can think of is the brain/body(?) volume ratio. Is that a good index among existed animals? Basically, I guess animals do not think at all. They can not think. They only react. This includes dolphine, elephant, chimp etc. How does a zoologist prove an animal is really thinking?

 

[juvenissun]

This is the essence of the debate. If you don't know what evolution is, how can we possibly answer your questions in a way that you _will_ understand? Evolution has a random element to it, but the much larger factor is natural selection -- which is not random at all. Where do you get your information on evolutionary theory?

OK, this may side track the issue. But, why not?

So, the natural selection is not random, but is controlled by something. Would that "something" change with time? What is the pattern of its change?

 

[Mallon]

Why not?

I already told you why not. Natural selection does not act on all species in the same way.

 

[Willtor]

OK, this may side track the issue. But, why not?

So, the natural selection is not random, but is controlled by something. Would that "something" change with time? What is the pattern of its change?

Natural selection is not merely about which creatures live and which ones die. I mean, if I am immune to many forms of childhood cancer, I can still get hit by a car -- and the genes that gave me immunity didn't really help very much. Natural selection is about the survivability of an allele with respect to environmental pressures. So now consider my awesome cancer immunity gene in the context of a population: suppose a tenth of the population has this immunity and the other 90% does not. The car accidents are statistical noise because (on average) for each person who dies in a car accident in the group with the spiffy allele, nine people in the other group will do so, too. This accounts for random factors. At this point, we can measure the survivability of the group with the allele against the survivability of the group without. All other factors being equal*, after some generations the beneficial allele will be present in most of the population.

Natural selection is not random because it deals with statistical trends and not with individuals. You may have heard some of the TEs, here, say that evolution is about populations (or "individuals don't evolve"). This is why. The randomness is statistical noise. Randomness is present in the formation of new alleles (genes being copied wrong from one generation to the next), but once an allele is in the population, statistics come into play with increasing force. Evolutionary scientists primarily ask questions about this second part: e.g., what environmental pressures led to the proliferation of this or that allele; and why did this other allele die out?

* - now, all other factors are rarely equal. There are a lot of complexities. But that's what researchers are for.

 

[metherion]

So we are born with fewer instinct capabilities. What would evolution say about this fact(?) ?

That for it to survive and propagate it must not have been an impediment to survival. It was either no difference either way that somehow spread or a benefit. Most likely a benefit, seeing as how humanity works nowadays. Lol.

By the way, is "thinking" a biological process?

What do you mean? I mean, what we consider ‘higher’ thought generally requires certain cortexes in the brain to be active. If they have not developed... no higher thought.

If so, what has evolution said about the evolution of thinking capability?

Nothing really. It happened. It apparently was a benefit in the environment of our ancestors. It survived and propagated. Now humans have it.

The only thing I can think of is the brain/body(?) volume ratio. Is that a good index among existed animals?

No, it is not. There are other factors. They include the cortexes of the brain, the surface area of the brain (one reason human brains are wrinkly), and a few others that escape me right now.

Basically, I guess animals do not think at all. They can not think. They only react. This includes dolphine, elephant, chimp etc. How does a zoologist prove an animal is really thinking?

Well, I’m afraid I can’t help you there. Tho I will say... given the way a lot of them act it’s hard to think everything is instinctual. But a zoologist I am not. Sorry.

Metherion

 

[metherion]

Oh! I just had an idea of how to explain why I think animals think.

If animals only acted on instinct, they would always react the same way no matter what. It would be instinctual. But you have animals with personalities. Take cats. Friendly cats, cantankerous cats, loud cats, quiet cats, etc. If they couldn't think at all, wouldn't they all act the same? Or at least, the same towards certain people who always act the same way?

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

Basically, I guess animals do not think at all. They can not think. They only react. This includes dolphine, elephant, chimp etc. How does a zoologist prove an animal is really thinking?

That is a really good question and the suggested answers are really controversial. A lot of them centre around the ability of apes (like Kanzi the bonobo and Koko the gorilla) to express themselves in human language. (They don't speak but they do use conventional signs of some sort to convey their thoughts.)

So the controversy is over whether they "really" understand what they are doing and what is being said to them. Kanzi--who learned to communicate with humans without being specifically taught to do so---is really impressive. The researchers who work with him (Sue Savage Wambaugh, et al) are convinced that Kanzi really understands and uses language at least as well as a human child of about 3 years of age. But she is having a hard time convincing some of her colleagues.

Their book "Apes, Language and the Human Mind" covers the whole controversy quite extensively.

 

[gluadys]

OK, this may side track the issue. But, why not?

So, the natural selection is not random, but is controlled by something. Would that "something" change with time? What is the pattern of its change?

Yes, of course. Natural selection is controlled by the environment the species lives in and the environment changes over time.

But it is difficult to detect a pattern in environmental change, especially when you remember that other species, and even other organisms in one's own species are part of one's "environment". And at a gene level, other genes are part of the environment of a specific gene.


On a large-scale some environments (deep-sea) have changed little over time, but one can also have drastic and sudden changes (asteroid hits earth significantly affecting climate for several years) or drastic changes that occur more slowly (build-up of oxygen in the atmosphere by photosynthesizing bacteria). Co-evolution occurs because other species are also part of the environment of any one species: so changes in flowers evoke evolutionary changes in pollinating insects and vice versa as each adapts to the other.

Now go back to Willtor's post: as a species encounters a new environment--either because the environment changes or because it moves into a new one--an allele that was rare in the species may turn out to confer a benefit in the newer environment and so become more plentiful in the species. This is not a random process.

 

[Assyrian]

If gorillas did not change the quality/structure of their nest with time, then why did we?

We lost our fur coats and moved out of nice warm central Africa, we also have much larger brains and can think up new ways to build more and more complicated forms of shelter.

Why most people like to move from a small house to a large house?

More room for all our junk. Impress the neighbours. More comfort.

I guess gorillas do not have such a desire.

Neither would we if we had to build a new house every evening.

Then why should we have it?

We want somewhere for our microwaves, computers, furniture, TVs, clothes, crockery, cutlery, carpets and toilet paper where we can use them in comfort and safety. Can you think of any reason this might not apply to gorillas?

Which gene triggers our desire of improvement? And why did that gene evolve in such a way?

It is probably the result of all the genes that gave us larger brains, as well as the genes that lost us our fur.

Animals are stupid, because they are doing the same thing for millions of years and it never occurred to them that they can improve their technique a little bit.

You think it is just a matter of gorillas thinking up new building techniques? I though you were claiming building techniques had to evolve? You don't think animals plan how they can evolve do you?

 

[juvenissun]

I already told you why not. Natural selection does not act on all species in the same way.

So?

What did it do to human so we start to build houses?

 

[juvenissun]

Natural selection is not merely about which creatures live and which ones die. I mean, if I am immune to many forms of childhood cancer, I can still get hit by a car -- and the genes that gave me immunity didn't really help very much. Natural selection is about the survivability of an allele with respect to environmental pressures. So now consider my awesome cancer immunity gene in the context of a population: suppose a tenth of the population has this immunity and the other 90% does not. The car accidents are statistical noise because (on average) for each person who dies in a car accident in the group with the spiffy allele, nine people in the other group will do so, too. This accounts for random factors. At this point, we can measure the survivability of the group with the allele against the survivability of the group without. All other factors being equal*, after some generations the beneficial allele will be present in most of the population.

Natural selection is not random because it deals with statistical trends and not with individuals. You may have heard some of the TEs, here, say that evolution is about populations (or "individuals don't evolve"). This is why. The randomness is statistical noise. Randomness is present in the formation of new alleles (genes being copied wrong from one generation to the next), but once an allele is in the population, statistics come into play with increasing force. Evolutionary scientists primarily ask questions about this second part: e.g., what environmental pressures led to the proliferation of this or that allele; and why did this other allele die out?

* - now, all other factors are rarely equal. There are a lot of complexities. But that's what researchers are for.

So environment is in control of the natural selection, right?

If you say yes, you may have big trouble.