I mean, as you say paleontologists have had for years a great deal of evidence. But I still think that despite a lot of evdence and theories/hypotheses about the specific branching of primates there didn't seem to be that specific specimen that could just bring the whole thing together.
Even if the fossil evidence for an entirely watertight phylogeny of every single step in the development of humanity was found, (which is impossible, but that's neither here nor there) creationists still wouldn't buy it.
No amount of evidence will ever persuade someone who chooses to delude themself.
[quote:88639b958f]Even if the fossil evidence for an entirely watertight phylogeny of every single step in the development of humanity was found, (which is impossible, but that's neither here nor there) creationists still wouldn't buy it[/quote:88639b958f]
Just playing the devil's advocate here, but you're basically saying that those who don't believe the impossible are deluding themselves. Aren't you?
Surely the very point is that it's IMPOSSIBLE to amass the evidence for a watertight phylogeny of every single step in the development of humanity....that's why they don't believe it.
Of course, more often than one might think we have to make leaps of faith in all sorts of things which are probably true.
The wee missing link looks a groovy wee creature though, doesn't he?
Ryanego has got a point though. The more specimens discovered make it less a leap of faith and more an assumption made on logical congruity.
Surely there can only be so much evidence amassed before the idea of "a leap of faith" from one specimen to another becomes ridiculous, whether it's a matter of philosophical accuracy or not.
I'm not saying that Biblical Creationists will change their mind, or that this find has sewn everything up, but the more that is found suggests that more [b:49bcfd089d]will[/b:49bcfd089d] be found, and the evolutionary position will continue to become stronger and harder to ignore. Not that it isn't already immensely strong mind ya. Current dissent on the subject is still a matter of bafflement to me...
And yeah, I will call you Shirley...
I'm only saying, like most things, it's always ultimately a leap of faith in the fidelity of logical congruity. It's not one or the other....logical congruity is itself a leap of faith. Because NOTHING is certain, or totally wrapped up in understanding. There's always a wee leap of faith into the reliability of logical congruity, or some other leap.
Some people just don't make that leap of faith, they leap the other way. Ye ken. a leap of faith into something else.
Faith is the key.
You hear the diesels humming.
you don't need no ticket
you just praise the lord.
People get ready,
there's a train to Jordan
Picking up passengers coast to coast.
[quote:0cfb206430="Chi-Lite"]You're still leaping into faith in the reliability of evidence accrual, ya know leek. that's still quite a big oul leap hey[/quote:0cfb206430]
And the cynic in me was reading that article, and looking at the photo and thinking "That'd be so easy to fake." That it was kept secret for 2 years until it was sold doesn't help my cynicism.
"Well thats that then! We are just mutated animals. we live, we live. we die, we die. all the emotion in between (including the statisfaction [Sic] of a quest for knowledge) is just chemicals in the brain..."
Cooooorrect, pending fundamental philosophical analysis by other parties on the validity of knowledge as an aspect of human experience and the limitations of human understanding as discussed ad infinitum throughout other posts etc, etc,...
Maybe we should all start submitting papers for peer review every time a subject like this comes up... it would save a lot of time.
I don't ever claim that science is untrue, and i may struggle with the counter arguments.
But one truth remains.
Science does not work for real life. Its not enough.
Say a paedo rapes a young girl and we use science to talk about it.
A highly evolved male adult animal forcably mates with an adolescent female of the same evolved species, due to a hightened amount of testosterone and his neurotransmitters responsible for sexual desire being over sensitive.
Or say if another kid goes and guns down half his school, do we talk about his orbitofrontal cortex being unable to control the surge in blood flow to his amygdala?
haha, ok thats some very loose and most likely inaccurate and rushed google research... but you see my point hopefully!
[quote:8a26436a0d="clivemcl"]Science does not work for real life. Its not enough.[/quote:8a26436a0d]If you think by rejecting religion, you must automatically submit to life as governed by a physics textbook, you've wholly missed the point of the argument. Nowhere in "Real Life" does such a binary argument exist.
[quote:43745e192a="fastfude"][quote:43745e192a="clivemcl"]Science does not work for real life. Its not enough.[/quote:43745e192a]If you think by rejecting religion, you must automatically submit to life as governed by a physics textbook, you've wholly missed the point of the argument. Nowhere in "Real Life" does such a binary argument exist.[/quote:43745e192a]
I actually never said i thought that. in fact I didnt mention religion...
I only said theres other stuff that science doesnt satisfy, VERY VERY important stuff.
I assume its not that bad to kill a animal, but kill an intelligent animal with an evolved body... well then all the other intelligent evolved animals will put you in a prison, or devise a way for a humane death execution.
Clearly thats absurd. My question is why. Everyone who believes the evolution arguement, still need to answer the question of WHY.
Some may answer that with religion, but i didnt say it, nor did i imply it was the only explanation my friend!
Why? there is no why? Evolution is the universe's greatest fluke. It all happened by chance, meaning that there [b:b63f41536e]is[/b:b63f41536e] no meaning..... to any of it.
We as highly 'intelligent' (using the word loosely) beings strive to find the meaning of everything, but unfortunately, there just isn't any!
Im afraid you completely miss the point i make mate. Or else you never read the posts properly.
Why not kill each other then? Why not rape? Why love? The suggestion that we are indeed a fluke and are merely sophisticated evolved animals does not answer why we belive certain things are right and others wrong.
I just wonder how a 'hardcore evolutionist' would answer the question 'why is it important for you to live if all you do is rot back to dirt after you are finished pumping blood round your flesh'
Archaeologists in a bit of desert in Syria have announced an exciting discovery of a "missing link" in the Christian Bible.
The Bible is held by religionists to be the "Word of God", and the earliest five books in the cannon are claimed to have been written down by famous Hebrew patriarch Moses, even the chapters before he was born, in 3056 BC.
However up until today, the earliest extant manuscripts of the Old Testament date from a mere 50 years before the birth of Christ, leading many people who are going to hell to scoff that the whole thing is just a load of made up nonsense, and there's no real proof God really wrote it at all.
The new manuscript, found rolled up in a bin in a hole in the ground, has been carbon dated to 1500BC, making it over a millenia older than anything else known to biblical scholars. "It appears to be written in joined up handwriting" said Dr Earnest Bism from the University of Utah, "in a primitive form of Hebrew. The are also a few Egyption hieroglyphs in places, and in one margin, someone has drawn a picture of a pen1s. The text consists of many chapters from the Books of Genesis and Leviticus, and also has a 'coming soon' section, announcing forthcoming prophecies that will be made by Isaih, which is claims 'are really gonna rock' and 'will kick Canaanite ass all the way back across the Jordan'."
Particularly interesting some some of the lists of laws in Leviticus, which Dr Bism claims "sheds a fascinating light on the evolution of Jewish law", which many verses crossed out and with new ones scribbled in their place. Examples include the ill-fated "Thou shalt not eat garlic, lest thine breath become an abomination unto the Lord", which apparently saw "garlic" amended to "onions", and then the whole law scrapped completely, with the marginal note "But it tastes nice!"
Skeptics have claimed that this so called missing link merely proves that the Bible was an arbitrarily made up historical document which the writers changed as they felt like it, but Dr Bism countered this view with the statement "God is not mocked. Now wise up!"
I just wonder how a 'hardcore evolutionist' would answer the question 'why is it important for you to live if all you do is rot back to dirt after you are finished pumping blood round your flesh'[/quote:36e25999a6]
Quite easily, but I 'aint got time. Next week hopefully...
I just wonder how a 'hardcore evolutionist' would answer the question 'why is it important for you to live if all you do is rot back to dirt after you are finished pumping blood round your flesh'[/quote:3ff7dd854e]
I foolishly read that aloud to my dog and now the godless little bastard refuses to eat. Thanks a lot, God-Boy Dog-Killer.
[quote:bff4b8b342="clivemcl"]I just wonder how a 'hardcore evolutionist' would answer the question 'why is it important for you to live if all you do is rot back to dirt after you are finished pumping blood round your flesh'[/quote:bff4b8b342]
As stated above, there is no bloody 'why'.
There is no reason whatsoever why whe should live our life, we make it up as we go along. Which drives some people to religion and some other to different things.
So really the problem does not exist. A 'hardcore evolutionist', or anyone at all for that matter, doesn't need or can reply to that question. Unless you take personal and subjective reasons made up by individuals as answers.
Why not kill each other then? Why not rape? Why love? The suggestion that we are indeed a fluke and are merely sophisticated evolved animals does not answer why we belive certain things are right and others wrong.[/quote:03b52e3d23]
Aye it does, it's all to do with the propagation of the species, sex being pleasurable and dying being painful, I'm pretty sure dogs, cats, birds, bacteria and fish (pretty much every organism except for that wee thing that jumps off cliffs) don't believe in God and they find plenty to live for.
We do kill each other even with our morals (whether religious or not) there's even a few wars on at the minute led by those who profess to be behaving morally. In general though, people only kill those of a different community posing a (perceived) threat to their existence so it still comes down to propagation of the species. The difference between us killing each other and animals just hurting each other boils down to our increased intelligence, we can plan revenge, so we have to eliminate any threat completely to avoid future attacks.
Why not rape?
Survival of the fittest, men will defend their women so they can have sex with them. I believe initially that when a man raped a woman (either partner or daughter of someone) the victim's man will exact revenge. If he is stronger the rapist ends up in a bad way, we just evolved a system of law and order over the years starting with the threat of death, going through the threat of ending up in hell and then being locked up...
We need a community to survive, millennia ago, human communities were just families who relied on each other to survive but that evolved into communities in villages and cities since agriculture took hold. Everyone needed everyone else, where would the farmer be without the person who made the tools, where would he be without the food from the farmer etc. It's like our body, if our communities evolved from small groups of individuals and is now moving towards a global community, why can't single cell organisms evolve to work together to form a body, think about it, all they need to do is find a common source of food, then grow together and over time, specialise individuals into the organisations we have in advanced organisms.
And anyway, I don't see how a belief in evolution and a belief in God are mutually exclusive.
"Why not kill each other then? Why not rape? Why love? The suggestion that we are indeed a fluke and are merely sophisticated evolved animals does not answer why we belive certain things are right and others wrong."
Well, there's this thing called social conditioning. It's rather new-fangled, but bear with me. It seems that, as children, and even as adults, such actions are actively discouraged, and strongly punished.
There's also the whacky notion of herd instincts, genetic imperatives toward altruism as a method to prolong life, that sort of thing.
Finally, I've always reckoned this argument reflects pretty badly on those making it rather than the intended "target".
Finally, I've always reckoned this argument reflects pretty badly on those making it rather than the intended "target".[/quote:4ab1f3a10e]
Well you're wrong. If it wasn't for religion to set us right and guide our morals, we'd all be like the Christian Brothers, raping 8 year old and whipping them into the middle of next week! It's only natural, but through God's love we can learn that there is a better way.
[quote:8fe6d1dfed="DontPetABurningDog"]Well, there's this thing called social conditioning. It's rather new-fangled, but bear with me. It seems that, as children, and even as adults, such actions are actively discouraged, and strongly punished.
There's also the whacky notion of herd instincts, genetic imperatives toward altruism as a method to prolong life, that sort of thing.
This is all very well, but how can we hold people responsible for their actions if its just a case of them not being socially conditioned properly?
And if we believe in this new "survival of the nicest" rather than "survival of the fittest" idea as the newest step on the genetic evolution ladder, then how can people be held accountable if their fault is not being altruistic due to their genetic evolution immaturity?
If a man held a gun to my head and said "why should i not pull the trigger?". What should I say?
"Because it would be painful!" (as someone else implied was the reason for not murdering :lol: )
"Because you are meant to be socially conditioned to know you shouldn't!"
"Because we are meant to be altruistic! We are supposed to do everything for the wellbeing of our species!"
or... my personal favourite...
"Because i've not finished doing things in life that make me feel good as a result of chemicals in my brain and neurotransmitters!"
Also, yet again can i clarify that I have not mentioned religion, I have not made reference to my religious beliefs, nobody has as far as i can remember.
The people who have decided to start talking about different issues regarding the failings of those who CLAIM to be religious, are either immature, on the wrong board, or intellictually unable to follow the philosophical nature of the discussion...
Ha, I'm not even gonna bother my hole this time. Must be a sign of growning maturity. See, I got these electrodes stuck in my eyes when I was picked up by the millicents, and since then I've been socially conditioned.
[quote:3ccf847e35]"Because we are meant to be altruistic! We are supposed to do everything for the wellbeing of our species!"[/quote:3ccf847e35]
That's not how it works. We don't do it for the good of our species. We do it for the benefit of our own selfish genes, it just so happens that altruism in many cases is the most effective way to do it, in terms of evolutionary costs versus benefits.
Although obviously now that we have this knowledge at our disposal, we can act upon it.
[quote:44168e3b53]Ah, brilliant. Selfish Genes, you've been gone too long!
Why should genes care about evolution.
Actually, no, don't answer that.
You're either being facetious, or you're missing the point. Of course they aren't literally selfish, and to anthropomorphise them so would be silly, it's just a metaphor for one mechanism, driven by the balance of probabilities, through which evolution can work. It doesn't require any "care".
Aye, I know, I was just commenting on the fact that that doesn't really have anything to do with anything. We can also go against our genes, and decide not to be altruistic. Or decide to be alttruistic in some wrong circumstances.
There's a will too, I'm just saying. Doesn't matter
[quote:6b8eb01e9c]That's not how it works. We don't do it for the good of our species. We do it for the benefit of our own selfish genes, it just so happens that altruism in many cases is the most effective way to do it, in terms of evolutionary costs versus benefits.
Although obviously now that we have this knowledge at our disposal, we can act upon it.[/quote:6b8eb01e9c]
That's precisely the point.
Fitness in terms of "survival of the fittest" refers only to the capacity of the species to survive - its "fitness" for the environmental and ecological circumstances in which it operates.
Human beings are ill equipped in physical terms compared to any other animals, even a 2 ft spider monkey could pull our arms off. Our survival is predicated upon our communality. We are bunged full of genetically hardwired and instinctive responses which reinforce a collective identity and collective survival before individual survival, coupled with the ability to communicate in complex and abstract terms.
This has been a hugely successful evolutionary strategy allowing mankind to thrive and become top dog in every habitable ecosystem on the planet.
Part of this success is also linked to the concept of compassion. It is often thought that compassion - as in helping or diverting resources to support those who cannot contribute is evolutionarily counter-productive. The weak should be allowed to die off and resources pushed towards the strong.
However compassion is just as functional a behaviour strategy, never mind the nonsensical concept of the Selfish Gene, as fight-or-flight or sexytime.
It breaks down into two levels
This is unique to homo sapiens. individuals are able to contribute on a purely intellectual level even if physically infirm, so the elderly especially are able to communicate their experiences and benefit everyone.
This only really explains why the physically infirm are looked after, not those with mental problems. It could be that the instinct is non-specific and just works on anyone. That makes sense since it clearly even applies to animals and even plants in some people!
2. Gene linking
On a molecular level traits which would normally be considered a disadvantage, leading to mental or physical disability are often linked to other advantageous genes that can protect against diseases, or simply maintain a diverse gene pool for long term adaptability and survival.
Examples of this are wide spread. Sickle Cell anaemia is a good example, where carriers of the gene are resistant to malaria, explaining its prevalence in those of African descent. There are loads more.
I think the evidence is very strong that compassion and altruism are not evolutionary oddities, but a key part explaining the proliferation of humanity across the globe.
Well, I don't agree at all. Reasoning is quite fundamental in how humans behave, because basically we are very deeply influenced in our behaviour by things such as morality/ethics, beliefs and all that sort of things, which are more often than not product of reasoning.
But not saying that science and philosophy are divorced. Quite the contrary, I just think that it's reductive to put everything down to science the same way as I think it's quite reductive to put everything down to philosophy.
Just think we should consider both and their respective implications in this sort of context.
Rationatlity and Intellectualism dictate the following things to me:
I should not smoke
I should not drink heavily, in the afternoon.
I should not play guitar so loud it hurts me
I should not spend hours on facebook/fastfude wasting my life
I should not watch Jeremy Kyle
I should exercise regularly
I should work on something constructive, and not play video games.
90% of the times I do the opposite of all these things, ergo, in my case, the intellectual is not a very good barometer of behaviour. I think that most philosophies are little more than post-event excuses for instinctive behaviour and reflex.
I trust my instincts to act in a broadly moral and altruistic way. I think everyone else is the same. Rationality is normally the enemy of the moral act as illustrated easily by the following simple scenario.
You are out at night alone and you see a man collapsed on the street.
Instinct tells you to help
Rationalisation tells you why to ignore that instinct (mental/dangerous/drunk etc.)
[quote:b00b52e178="tinpot anto"]90% of the times I do the opposite of all these things, ergo, in my case, the intellectual is not a very good barometer of behaviour.[/quote:b00b52e178]
In fact, precisely the opposite. The intellectual is a good barometer of behaviour PRECISELY because it tells you what you should and shouldn't do...whether you actually then do it or not is irrelevant to the barometering.
Like the barometer tells you there's low pressure omn the way, but you go out in your T shirt anyway. It's still a good barometer, ye ken?
[quote:b00b52e178]I think that most philosophies are little more than post-event excuses for instinctive behaviour and reflex.[/quote:b00b52e178]
No, they're pre-event accounts of what you SHOULD do. What is post-event is the fact that you haven't done it after all, even though you should have.
[quote:b00b52e178]You are out at night alone and you see a man collapsed on the street.
Instinct tells you to help
Rationalisation tells you why to ignore that instinct (mental/dangerous/drunk etc.)[/quote:b00b52e178]
Actually, i think it's the opposite. Reason tells you you should go and help, then instinct frightens you into not helping.
How can we prove it? Oh noess! the internetz can't solve this one!!
Well yes all the things my intellect tells me to do are still things that I should do, because they make sense and are sensible things to do.
I'm just pointing out that our behaviour is determined by something else the majority of the time - mostly phsychological needs and wants determined by the evolution of our mind over millions of years.
I definitely believe it's an INSTINCT to help, it's almost a reflex action, the first thing that comes into your head. In situations like this you can often find people instinctively moving to help - like Jackie kennedy scooping up JF's brain bits, despite any logical sense.
In a crisis instinct is all you have, and yes people will trample each other to get out of a burning building, but when it comes to the scenario I described then I think it is rationality that prevents the moral action being done.
Yeah but what does that matter, what matters really is that models of society that are based on the principle that everyone is out for themselves are completely contrary to human nature and ultimately lead to nothing but strife.
A good whack of socialism is what ya need.
Science and Darwin and God and Marx are all in agreement on this.
But don't know, whilst I do agree that people aren't inherently bad or greedy and that perhaps it is part of human nature to try and look out for our mates/family/partners, I can't ignore that at the same time humans are desire driven selfish bastards.
I can also choose to go on a killing spree, if I wanted, genes or not.
I don't, like. not right now anyway, I'm too hungry.[/quote:fd61c5f3bf]
Can you though? People say this a lot, but I don't think it's true. Do you make decisions to be altruistic, or are you made altruistic and the decisions are made for you?
People like to think they are moral and upstanding of their own volition, but I think it's more likely that you're just a slave to your physiological make up, social conditioning and circumstance.