tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post575893037151930740..comments2023-08-03T04:54:54.068-04:00Comments on Abacaxi Mamão: Moi, defender of science? [UPDATED]Abacaxi Mamaohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06604184268628243496noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post-55207383344893812872007-04-29T23:45:00.000-04:002007-04-29T23:45:00.000-04:00One other thing I thought of, though you basically...One other thing I thought of, though you basically said this already. P-Life might think that the fact that there are 14 theories for why humans started walking upright means that the whole thing is nonsense. It is true that we really don't know why humans started walking upright, according to evolutionary theory. But that is not a defect in the theory. It simply means we don't have enough data, and might never have enough data, to know what happened. It would be a defect in the theory only if we couldn't think of ANY explanation, consistent with evolutionary theory, for why humans started walking upright. Of course, in order for the theory to be accepted, there have to be other cases where the theory does make testable predictions, and there are. <BR/><BR/>A theory isn't required to make testable predictions about everything, any more than a purported Navi is required to make testable predictions about everything. But where it/he does make testable predictions, the predictions had better come true, or the theory is wrong. (Maybe not completely wrong, but it has to be modified, and if there is no core of reliable predictions that it makes consistently, no one will take it seriously.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post-16294796385832547982007-04-29T23:43:00.000-04:002007-04-29T23:43:00.000-04:00First of all, I think you did a good job explainin...First of all, I think you did a good job explaining evolution, and you didn't say anything that was very wrong, though I suspect you won't convince P-Life, any more than Natan Slifkin would. I do think that you could reasonably suggest to him that he read Natan Slifkin's "The Challenge of Creation" before continuing the debate further. He, in turn, might suggest that you read some anti-evolution book, like the one by Michael Behe, I think that's his name, which I guess you would then have to do, if you wanted to pursue this.<BR/><BR/>A few details in your post that weren't quite right--Cro-Magnons did have clothing, and almost surely had language as well, given their level of culture, and the fact their brains (judging from the shape of their skulls) seem to have been anatomically identical to modern humans' brains. Neanderthals had brains as big as Cro-Magnons/modern humans, even slightly bigger on average, but their cultural level was lower, and their culture didn't develop as fast, relative to the size of their population, so there was probably something different about their brains. Quite possibly they didn't have language, or their linguistic abilities were inferior. I think I have seen arguments that that was the case, based on the shape of the surface of their brains, which matched the shape of the interior of their skulls. I think they did have clothing, though. <BR/><BR/>The division between the lines that led to humans and to chimpanzees was not between larger and smaller brains, and there is no evidence that the ancestors of humans were more intelligent than the ancestors of chimpanzees, right after that division took place, or for some time afterward. Rather, the division was between walking fully upright all the time, and walking sometimes on all fours as chimpanzees do. Richard Dawkins (who P-Life probably wouldn't like reading, because he constantly throws in gratuitous attacks on religion, although he does explain evolution and natural selection very well) lists 14 different theories as to why it was advantageous for the human line to walk upright, in his book "The Ancestor's Tale." One possibility is that it freed up their hands to carry food, so the males could forage further and bring food back to the females who were stuck at home with the children. Another possibility is sexual selection, which doesn't require any objective advantage to walking upright initially, but only requires a temporary fad that was initiated by someone and caught on. (Read the book to understand for why it then continues to spread. Or I can explain it to you if you want.) In any case, once humans were walking upright, large brains might then have been more of an advantage than they were to chimpanzees, because, for example, they could then invent baskets and carry even more food from even further away. Large brains also have a big disadvantage, viz. more complications in giving birth, and babies necessarily being born in a less developed state (before their heads are too big to fit through the birth canal) and less able to survive infancy. (Carl Sagan points out, in one of his books, that difficulty in giving birth is one of the punishments given to Adam and Chava as a result of their eating the pri etz ha-daat.) So unless there were an advantage that outweighed these disadvantages, larger brains would not have evolved. That could explain why chimpanzees, which didn't walk upright, didn't evolve larger brains than they already had. The environment they were in (jungle, vs. savannah for humans) could also play a role, of course, as you pointed out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post-24902554780761378702007-04-28T23:38:00.000-04:002007-04-28T23:38:00.000-04:00“If He [God] did set up this program of evolution,...“If He [God] did set up this program of evolution, I would say that He did not have humans, per se, in mind. He may have designed evolution towards increasing complexity and even the development of cognition and intelligence that would eventually be capable of understanding the universe. The point is that I don’t think he had specifically humans as the goal. Perhaps in the next run it would be winged aardvarks that would reach that level and possibly come up with the idea of God. But the emergence of complexity would ensue nonetheless.”<BR/><BR/>Above is an excerpt from my post http://shmuzings.blogspot.com/2007/03/progress-notes-on-my-evolving-thoughts.html<BR/><BR/>Just another later thought I didn’t include on the post was if there is a personal God perhaps his role in the midst of true evolution would be- He’s the one who has the rock fall on the a certain creature and this gives another specials the upper hand in the natural selection process. Maybe He is the one who sends the UV ray that causes the mutation that gives one species a detrimental effect while another gets the mutation that will benefit its species. <BR/><BR/>So maybe there is some hope for R. Slifkin, that there can be evolution and yet there still be a God beyond an ultimate cause who is still part of the real world (He is certainly part of our mental world!)smoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16540322073693784985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post-80542992064743432432007-04-28T23:23:00.000-04:002007-04-28T23:23:00.000-04:00While I always knew the theory of evolution since ...While I always knew the theory of evolution since junior high, I never really UNDERSTOOD it to the point of it being the absolute best way to describe how life ‘evolved’ over time, that is until I read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. His style is extremely clear and convincing, Even if you want to overlook the agenda of proving there is no need for God to be involved, the scientific lessons he presents are fascinating. I think all you questions would be answered there (although you might need to read some of his other works, like The Selfish Gene to better understand why some qualities are more successfully selected).smoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16540322073693784985noreply@blogger.com