Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Are the Inner Workings of Mankind Really All Monkey Business?

David Cranford
January 14, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email


Since the article link and excerpt don’t contribute adequately to the purpose of this entry, I’ve decided to remove them.–Crandaddy

Are humans really descended from apes without any help from intelligent agency? Does RM+NS=skyscrapers and supercomputers? If the answer is yes, then evolutionary theorists appear to have a real whopper of a puzzle to figure out!!! Oh, wait…the descent of man sans any intelligent intervention is as well established as gravity. I temporarily forgot; my bad.

Comments
CD: Elephants have larger brains than humans, and they lack our mental abilities. The difference between the two species’ mental processes goes deeper than just brain size. What is special about the human brain and how did it evolve? Absolute brain size is not correlated with cognitive capacity; relative brain size is. Primate brains tend to be larger relative to body size. They also tend to have more cerebral cortex surface area. What is special about the human brain is its vast capacitiy for symbolic reason. How did it evolve? The only verifiable explanation we have is natural selection. GG: In other words, evolution explains how different characteristics are persisted through a population, but it does not explain why one particular characteristic occurs rather than another. CD: That’s true; it doesn’t explain why one particular characteristic occurs rather than another. But if the characteristic is beneficial to the organism, it has a specific function and, thus, an explanation is warranted. An explanation of *what* is warranted? Evolution explains that competition for survival selects for variations that work. Intelligence works. What else are you wanting to have explained? CD: If it looks designed, who’s to say that it wasn’t if unintelligent natural processes fail to offer a reasonably probable explanation for it? An explanation can be true whether it is probable or not. It only needs to be verifiable. Compare high energy physics. What could sound more outlandish? And yet we believe that quantum theory is true because the evidence supports it. CD: The human mind is still a big mystery to science. Modern science does not yet fully understand how it works, much less the fine details of how it developed. It’s evolution is certainly not as well-established as gravity! It looks (to me, at least) like it was designed by an intelligence. There's no way to establish scientifically what is "designed" and what isn't. "Looks designed to me!" is not scientifically verifiable. It is for this reason that biologists do not concern themselves with that question.Gary Glass
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
woctor, I never said "it must have been designed". I never called for science to stop looking for answers, either. Ockham's Razor doesn't exclude intelligent causes, you know.crandaddy
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
blipey, “Skyscrapers and supercomputers” is a figure of speach meant to designate uniquely human abilities. It seemed clear to me at the time; maybe its not. The sarcasm is intentional. It’s not directed at everyone who buys the wholesale evolutionary narrative, just those who say it’s as obvious as gravity, the roundness of the earth, etc. I’m not sure the book supports my point. If I could write the post over again, it would not include that particular article. Other creatures may display similar abilities in some respects, but I don’t think those abilities rival what humans are capable of doing. The issue is not just with external behaviors, but also with internal mental processes. I tried to imply that in my post, though it may not be as clear as I had originally thought. Gary, If you really didn’t understand what I was trying to say, then I retract my charge of taking potshots and apologize. There need not be animosity between us. My purpose in that section of the post was not to make an argument, It was to generate discussion. See my response to blipey above for the purpose of the sarcasm. In comment #17, you wrote: “Evolution provides a coherent explanation of how morphological characteristics such as a very big brain could come about, the environmental factors that are at work, etc. It is not meant to explain anything about what we do with that brain, i.e., mental abilities, such as reasoning, believing, and designing skyscrapers and supercomputers.” Elephants have larger brains than humans, and they lack our mental abilities. The difference between the two species’ mental processes goes deeper than just brain size. What is special about the human brain and how did it evolve? You also said this: “In other words, evolution explains how different characteristics are persisted through a population, but it does not explain why one particular characteristic occurs rather than another.” That's true; it doesn't explain why one particular characteristic occurs rather than another. But if the characteristic is beneficial to the organism, it has a specific function and, thus, an explanation is warranted. Here’s the thing, and I’ll let this serve as my response to comment #19: If it looks designed, who’s to say that it wasn’t if unintelligent natural processes fail to offer a reasonably probable explanation for it? The human mind is still a big mystery to science. Modern science does not yet fully understand how it works, much less the fine details of how it developed. It’s evolution is certainly not as well-established as gravity! It looks (to me, at least) like it was designed by an intelligence.crandaddy
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
What makes ID a "better" explanation? You seem to be saying ID better explains the "design" of DNA, but evolution isn't even about explaining the "design" of anything. It's about explaining speciation. If what you want to explain is the design of something, I certainly agree that invoking a deliberate intelligence at work makes good sense. Another point here is that "artificial interference" can explain everything. Why is the sky blue? It was painted that way. Why are humans smart? The maker made them that way. Why are books made of paper? The bookmaker made them out of paper. But, so what? Evolution is interested in the how of things, the mechanism, not who did it or why. Apples and oranges.Gary Glass
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Gary It's not the best account we have. It's the best account devoid of purpose. If one doesn't a priori exclude artificial interference then the best account is intelligent design. Cellular machinery is machinery. It appears to be designed. All machinery of similar complexity where the origin can be determined is designed. If it weren't for specific exclusion of design from the set of possible explanations then design would be the obvious default assumption for the most complex things like DNA and ribosomes. For simpler things like white fur instead of black on polar bears a natural explanation seems reasonable. It's not all or nothing. ID is an additional mechanism not the only mechanism.DaveScot
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
Let me clear an apparent inconsistency in my previous post. On the one hand I said: CD: The issue is whether or not unintelligent evolution can account for human cognitive faculties; GG: It’s the best account that we have. On the other hand I said: CD: How about the human capacity to hold beliefs and grasp such concepts as reason? GG: Biological evolution isn’t meant to explain human mental abilities either. It’s meant to explain speciation. Let me ammend and expand: Evolution is the best explanation we have for the differentation of species, one of which is homo sapiens. One of the most distinctive characteristics of homo sapiens is outstanding cognitive ability. Evolution provides a coherent explanation of how morphological characteristics such as a very big brain could come about, the environmental factors that are at work, etc. It is not meant to explain anything about what we do with that brain, i.e., mental abilities, such as reasoning, believing, and designing skyscrapers and supercomputers. It is obvious however that these abilities are the very abilities that make a big brain worth its biological cost. In other words, evolution explains how different characteristics are persisted through a population, but it does not explain why one particular characteristic occurs rather than another. I think this distinction is one that lies at the heart of many misunderstandings about evolution.Gary Glass
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
>The issue is whether or not unintelligent evolution can account for human cognitive faculties; It's the best account that we have. >the point is that I’m highly skeptical that it can. Why? >The reason I said that you were taking “pot shots” is because it seems obvious to me that I make these things clear in the portion I wrote at the end of the post, and you do not address them in your comment. It's not obvious to me. Which is what I plainly said: >The article cited is about a legal action in California, and says nothing substantive for or against evolution. I don’t understand the purpose of citing it here.... [Crandaddy]’s superficial remarks, ... do not illuminate the mystery. I don't see any reason for calling that a potshot other than to score irrelevant rhetorical points. Here's what you actually said: >Are humans really descended from apes without any help from intelligent agency? Does RM+NS=skyscrapers and supercomputers? If the answer is yes, then evolutionary theorists appear to have a real whopper of a puzzle to figure out!!! Oh, wait…the descent of man sans any intelligent intervention is as well established as gravity. I temporarily forgot; my bad. The first two sentences are questions. The 3rd is a conditional response. The last two are sarcastic remarks. This is neither clarity nor legitimate argumentation. >(See also my response to CommonSense in comment #3 for greater elucidation of my view.) Which is comprised of the following 3 sentences: >[1] Would you care to enlighten us as to how unintelligent evolution can explain all the technological marvels mankind has produced? Biological evolution isn't meant to explain human technology, it's meant to explain speciation. >[2] How about the human capacity to hold beliefs and grasp such concepts as reason? Biological evolution isn't meant to explain human mental abilities either. It's meant to explain speciation. >[3]While you’re at it, tell us why it is so blatantly obvious that intelligence is not necessary to explain these phenomena. I don't know that it isn't. Seems "blatantly obvious" to me that human intelligence is the explanation of the 1st and is largely defined by the 2nd. So that's the 3 sentences. Two questions and a request. I don't see how this constitutes taking a position about anything either.Gary Glass
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Crandaddy, As an observer, I don't really think it is that clear what your point was in this post. You say that evolution can't explain skyscrapers. Through the comments here, I now see what your point was. However, I think framing it in less sarcastic terms (even though sarcasm certainly does have its merits...) would have helped. It doesn't do much good if someone reads evolution = skyscrapers...they'll just assume the post isn't worth anything, which is not necessarily the case. However, I would ask for more clarification on this point. I am interested in how this particular book necessarily holds up your point. Evolution is obviously not a theory of concrete mixing. It is the human cognative process which you feel couldn't have evolved; fine. I also have read the above mentioned papers on bees and ants. It seems they, as well as many other animals, display similar, if not as somplicated behaviors. It may be arguable if this is the same as human cognative ability, but it seems plausible that they may be very similar. This source seems to say that evolution for animals is okay, but for humans it is not. If these behaviors of humans, bees, ants, apes, etc are related, how does this argument hold water?blipey
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT
Gary, The issue is whether or not unintelligent evolution can account for human cognitive faculties; the point is that I'm highly skeptical that it can. The reason I said that you were taking "pot shots" is because it seems obvious to me that I make these things clear in the portion I wrote at the end of the post, and you do not address them in your comment. (See also my response to CommonSense in comment #3 for greater elucidation of my view.) Understand, I don't blame you for finding fault with my post; I find fault with it, myself.crandaddy
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT
It is annoying to have to scroll to the bottom of the post to see who wrote it before reading it so that the right voice is in your head. Wordpress has a whole slough of themes that can be installed effortlessly. OR one could go in and edit the CSS style sheet and make the names either appear at the top, or at LEAST be bigger. Okay, so I guess Bill's position on Ape->Human is pretty nonspecific, biochemically speaking. I was also curious what other people's opinions in this blog were about that? DaveScot, I am a beekeeper and I've got to say, Honeybees are incredibly fascinating creatures. This last week on my show I was talking about two research papers that have come out on bees. The other one I noticed folks on this blog took notice of the LiveScience article on it that mentioned intelligent design. The http://www.sciencedaily.com article was more informative, which is usually the case for LiveScience. Anyway, one of the other papers I talked about was on the subject of ants, that leader ants of one species will 'teach' in a back-and-forth bidirectional fashion, recruit ants how to get the food source. It is done en-route to the food, so it is not the same kind of thing as with the bees, which tell them how to get there before leaving the hive. However, bee dances are not bi-directional, so the ants might actually be one-upping them in the heirarchy of communication. I don't think the researchers have been able to figure out whether there's any symbolic communication involved, that, like bees, would take years of clever experiments.Inoculated Mind
January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
>I’ll concede that the article is not the best complement to my point and that Dr. Baldev has some questionable credentials which I was unaware of at the time of posting. I found the article, read the excerpt, and was reminded of the point I made in the above post which neither of you has made any attempt to address. So instead of taking pot shots at my admittedly less-than-par journalism skills, why don’t you address the issue? 1. Potshots? 2. What point did you make? what issue did you raise? p.s. Apologies for referring to you as Dembski. I just assumed the writer was the man who's picture's in the banner. My bad.Gary Glass
January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
"This post makes me curious, does anyone here (including Bill) believe that a designing intelligence was necessary for the flagellum but not apes -> humans? Or does everyone agree that both required intervention?" Bill's personal beliefs on the subject: "My focus with evolution tends to be on the molecular side, so with regard to human origins, I’m still sorting out what I believe. I do know, however, what I don’t believe, that is, I don’t believe that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors by a gradual process of descent with modification. Thus I don’t see human consciousness and language ability gradually emerging as an ape-like ancestor gradually becomes more and more human. Thus I see these features of our humanity as well as the physical endowments needed for these features as emerging suddenly [ex nihilo]." Note that the quote was on his PERSONAL beliefs, not necessarily something the design detection of ID "requires". He's also had this to say: "ID is entirely compatible with a path-dependent form of evolution that is intelligently guided."Patrick
January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
Inoculated The thing that intrigues me most about bees is the honey bee's ability to use symbolic communication to give hivemates travel directions to blooms of flowers. AFAIK aside from humans these are the only critters known to use symbolic communication.DaveScot
January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
Gary and Boesman, I'll concede that the article is not the best complement to my point and that Dr. Baldev has some questionable credentials which I was unaware of at the time of posting. I found the article, read the excerpt, and was reminded of the point I made in the above post which neither of you has made any attempt to address. So instead of taking pot shots at my admittedly less-than-par journalism skills, why don't you address the issue? Inoculated Mind, That's an interesting article you provided. I think Dr. Amdam may be on to something. To answer your question, I'm quite suspicious of unintelligent evolution's ability to account for either the flagellum or the human mind. But I'm open-minded and willing to consider the possibilities. Show me the science! :)crandaddy
January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
There's recently been some good research out of Arizona State U. peering into how solitary bees came together and formed colonies, since folks are asking questions about how evolution can produce complex behaviors. I find social insects to be a really interesting group of organisms because of how they collectively make decisions, and the complexity of their colonies comes out of their interactions, not just the individual characteristics of the bees. Here's a link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060106134815.htm I would think that if evolution produced the current state of human behaviors without intelligent intervention then it still has a lot of work to do. This post makes me curious, does anyone here (including Bill) believe that a designing intelligence was necessary for the flagellum but not apes -> humans? Or does everyone agree that both required intervention?Inoculated Mind
January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
"When water was there in Mars, there was a definite life; small insects, reptiles and fishes were the natural life, fishes used to live in small, medium and big lakes. There were no seas or oceans on Mars, only lakes were available, where the river used to end their journey by dropping water, particularly in the big lakes." Dr. Baldev said. Interesting. http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=615Boesman
January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
1. Leaving aside the fact that training as a "cosmo theorist" (cosmologist?) is irrelevant to evaluating the theory of evolution, it appears that Dr. Baldev is actually trained as a metallurgist ( http://www.igcar.ernet.in/igc2004/balbio.htm ), which is no better a qualification, and is, apparently, something of a crank ( http://chris-cohen.blogspot.com/2004/07/stephen-hawking-stole-my-ideas-about.html ). 2. The article cited is about a legal action in California, and says nothing substantive for or against evolution. I don't understand the purpose of citing it here. 3. Mr Dembski's superficial remarks, >Are humans really descended from apes without any help from intelligent agency? Does RM+NS=skyscrapers and supercomputers? If the answer is yes, then evolutionary theorists appear to have a real whopper of a puzzle to figure out!!! Oh, wait…the descent of man sans any intelligent intervention is as well established as gravity. I temporarily forgot; my bad. do not illuminate the mystery. 4. Is there another forum where ID is discussed with real seriousness?Gary Glass
January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
It sure would seem that unintelligent evolution over-shot it's target a tad, with humans.Bombadill
January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
beat me to it, crandaddy. ;) I might just add altruism and the apparent hard-wired inclination to ponder/seek out why we are here.Bombadill
January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
CommonSense, Would you care to enlighten us as to how unintelligent evolution can explain all the technological marvels mankind has produced? How about the human capacity to hold beliefs and grasp such concepts as reason? While you're at it, tell us why it is so blatantly obvious that intelligence is not necessary to explain these phenomena.crandaddy
January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Human evolution is becoming more and more of an embarrasement for Darwinists.Usurper
January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Congratulations on finding yet another piece of mishmashed garble-dee-gook. I'm going to give the title "Man Never Descended from Species" a pass and hope that it's just a bad translation into English. If not, what the heck does that mean? Descended from species of what? when? how? huh? "Dr. Raj Baldev said, “There does exist a glaring controversy. Darwin’s principle is convincing to a certain extent that species sprung up by natural selection but there is a grave error so far the descent of human being is concerned." Well, I guess the Raeliens are right! If this is really the thesis of his book, it seems to me that he is arguing that humans are not animals and that we must somehow be separate from them in some material way. He says that the diversity of "animals" (I'm guessing he would not include the human in a definition of the word) can be explained by evolution, but somehow humans can't be. I would ask for evidence that humans are in someway materially different from the rest of the animals for this to be true. Otherwise, why not extrapolate what happened with every other animal as happening with us? Oh, right. I forgot; we were seeded by the Raeliens.CommonSense
January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply