IC All The Way Down, The Grand Human Evolutionary Discontinuity, And Probabilistic Resources

_{Gil Dodgen

November 26, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The more we learn the more it appears that almost everything of any significance in living systems is irreducibly complex. Multiple systems must almost always be simultaneously modified to proceed to the next island of function. Every software engineer knows this, and living things are fundamentally based on software.

Evolution in the fossil record is consistently characterized by major discontinuities — as my thesis about IC being a virtually universal rule at all levels, from the cell to human cognition and language, would suggest — and the discontinuity between humans and all other living things is the most profound of all. Morphological similarities are utterly swamped by the profound differences exhibited by human language, math, art, engineering, ethics, and much more.

Yes, chimps have been shown to use tools: They can pick up ants with a stick in order to eat them. But there is a big difference between this and designing and building a Cray supercomputer or an F-35 fighter aircraft. To the best of my knowledge our primitive simian ancestors did not advance beyond ant-stick technology.

I continue to be bewildered by the fact that proponents of human evolution by Darwinian mechanisms (i.e., random errors filtered by natural selection) don’t do some simple math to see that the probabilistic resources are hopelessly inadequate, even when the most optimistic assumptions are made.

Unrealistically and optimistically assume the following base-ten orders of magnitude: an average generation time of 10^1 years; an average population of 10^8; and a time frame of 10^7 years.

Do the math. With these probabilistic resources it is assumed by Darwinian theorists that their mechanism produced the most profound and stunning of all evolutionary discontinuities.

I believe that our ancient ancestors were just as smart as we are. They figured out, in their time and with what they had access to, how to make fire, bows and arrows, art, and much more. If I were to be transported back to those times, and be stripped of my current knowledge, I would probably be considered an idiot by the dudes who figured out fire and arrows.

Chimps are still picking up ants with sticks.

Something very profound happened, very suddenly, and Darwinian theory clearly does not explain it.

Comments

Mung (#51) Thank you for your email. You write:
How does Aquinas view the soul? IS it something "added by God" every time a human is conceived?
The short answer is: yes. Aquinas clearly states this in his Summa Theologica, Vol. I, question 90, articles 1-3. For example, in question 90, article 2, St. Thomas, writes: "The rational soul can be made only by creation," and in article 3 he adds that "it cannot be produced, save immediately by God." See http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP090.html#FPQ90OUTP1 . Nevertheless, Aquinas is not a Cartesian dualist. Unlike Descartes (and Augustine before him), Aquinas does not hold that man is a soul; rather, man is an animal who has a soul. The psychic life of man is one; everything I do, I do as an animal. The human soul, with its ability to reason, does not distinguish us from animals; it distinguishes us as animals. The unity of a human being's actions is actually deeper and stronger than that underlying the acts of a non-rational animal: rationality allows us to bring together our past, present and future acts, when we formulate plans. Whereas Descartes conceived of mind and body as two substances, Aquinas (in his mature works) insists that a human being is one substance. Moreover, he eschews the term "mind" - and when he does use it, he means "intellect." Nevertheless, there is a sense in which Aquinas might be called a small-d dualist: he maintains that the activity of the intellect cannot be identified with the activity of any bodily organ. Although I cannot think without my brain, nevertheless I do not think with my brain. Thinking itself is a non-bodily act, according to Aquinas. When Aquinas argues that thinking is an immaterial act, however, he is not claiming that there is a non-animal act engaged in by human beings. He is claiming, rather, that (at least in the case of human beings) not every act of an animal is a bodily act. For a very thoughtful exposition of the differences between Aquinas' mature thinking on the soul and Augustine's dualism (which influenced Descartes), I would recommend From Augustine's Mind to Aquinas' Soul by Fr. John O'Callaghan.vjtorley_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, The eye is another case of the dog ate the evidence since all the eyes were present in the Cambrian and nothing new has evolved since. While we may have no fossil evidence of the development of the eye during the Pre-Cambrian era, we certainly have molecular evidence, which is the basis of such sweeping statements as "the eye evolved only once". I agree with Dr Myers that what has happened since is "significant tweaking". Spiders get eight eyes instead of two. Mammals lost color vision, and some primates regained it. Some fish are bifocal. Insects can see UV (very useful out of the water, very useful with flowers, which are pretty recent). Significant tweaks such as these are more than "nothing new", but you've warned us previously not to take your emphatic statements too seriously. The important thing to ask is "Not much evolution - compared to what?" Vision is so useful that selection pressure for good vision is very strong. The single fact that good vision helps you survive explains its rapid development, its diversity, and its conservation. As someone once said, "In the country of the blind, the photosensitive pigment spotted bilaterian is king!"Nakashima_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Mr. Nakashima (#56) You wrote:
I’m pretty sure frogs can visually track the flies they catch with their tongues. This classic paper discusses frog motion detection.
Thank you very much for the paper. I finally tracked down the references I was looking for. From what I've read, mammals can "lead" moving prey they are attacking by anticipating their trajectories - an ability that depends on their visual cortex (Kavanau, 1997, p. 255). Pigeons also possess this ability (Wasserman, 2002, p. 180). Although some fish and amphibians can snap at moving prey with their projectile tongues, "there is no evidence that fish and amphibians... attacking moving prey can 'lead' them by anticipating trajectories" (Kavanau, 1997, p. 255). I hope that helps. References: (1) Kavanau, J. L. 1997. "Origin and Evolution of Sleep: Roles of Vision and Endothermy." In Brain Research Bulletin, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 245-264. (2) Wasserman E. 2002. "General Signs." In Bekoff M., Allen C. and Burghardt G. (eds). The Cognitive Animal. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT. Paperback edition, pages 175-182.vjtorley_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

Hazel has said the dog ate the evidence or else she would present something. From the Lund University Vision Group "http://www.lu.se/vision-group/research/research-projects/evolution-of-vertebrate-vision" Evolution of vertebrate vision Color vision and multifocal lenses seem to have evolved very early (at least 500 million years ago) since even the most basal extant vertebrates, i.e. the lampreys, have all four classes of vertebrate cone photopigment genes and multifocal lenses. Among the chordates, i.e. the group from which vertebrates have arisen, there is no extant form with well-developed eyes. There is, however, sensitivity to light in chordates. From Wikipedia Complex eyes appear to have first evolved within a few million years, in the rapid burst of evolution known as the Cambrian explosion. There is no evidence of eyes before the Cambrian, but a wide range of diversity is evident in the Middle Cambrian Burgess shale. From our extra special friend, PZ Myers A while back, I summarized a review of the evolution of eyes across the whole of the metazoa — it doesn't matter whether we're looking at flies or jellyfish or salmon or shrimp, when you get right down to the biochemistry and cell biology of photoreception, the common ancestry of the visual system is apparent. Vision evolved in the pre-Cambrian, and we have all inherited the same basic machinery — since then, we've mainly been elaborating, refining, and randomly varying the structures that add functionality to the eye. Now there's a new and wonderfully comprehensive review of the evolution of eyes in one specific lineage, the vertebrates. The message is that, once again, all the heavy lifting, the evolution of a muscled eyeball with a lens and retinal circuitry, was accomplished early, between 550 and 500 million years ago. Most of what biology has been doing since is tweaking — significant tweaking, I'm sure, but the differences between a lamprey eye and our eyes are in the details, not the overall structure. You notice nothing about any evolution since then. The best that PZ goes is some tweaking. Hey 500 million years is just a short time and in another 500 million more maybe we will see something else but we have to watch out for that dog or else he might eat the evidence.jerry_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

Jerry, how about you present some data on an eye of a creature in the Cambrian so where we know where to start. You say that "all the eyes were present in the Cambrian" - can you present some research to back up that statement? What kind of an eye, for instance, did Wiwaxia or Laggania have? And what do you mean by "new". Is color vision "new". Is the ability to see with the resolution of an owl "new." Surely you don't think these capabilities were present in the Cambrian, do you?hazel_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

Make that "epigenetic."Voice Coil_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

"That is a bizarre statement. The eyes of modern creatures are vastly different than those of Cambrian creatures – how one can say that “nothing new has evolved since” is beyond me." Maybe the bizarre statement is yours. Why don't you or others present what has happened in eye evolution since the Cambrian and how much of the change is compared to the original poofing of the various eyes into existence during the Cambrian. What new systems have developed and in which phyla did these systems develop and how do they compare to the systems that appeared during the Cambrian. The article that Nakashima referenced may be a good place to start with what the article actually says. Go for it and show everyone how bizarre we are. There are lots of articles on the evolution of the eye and Nakashima is probably out there searching for them right now. Form a team and skewer us with your research. Otherwise we will have to assume the dog ate it.jerry_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

Joseph cited experiments in which mouse Pax6 inserted into Drosophiliaprompted the growth of Drosophilia eyes. I remarked,
Not due to anything extragenetic, but rather due to the extraordinarily hierarchical relationship between highly conserved Pax genes and the more specific genetic instructions they activate “downstream.” In this experiment that downstream information was stored in the DNA of the recipient organism, activated by the highly conserved, transplanted Pax6.
Joseph's reply:
Many words that didn’t say one darn thing.
Actually, they do say exactly one darn thing (the number intended). The same darn thing reported in the Gehring paper:
In order to test this hypothesis we expressed the mouse Pax 6 gene ectopically in Drosophila and showed that the mouse homolog is capable of inducing ectopic compound eyes (Fig. 8). Of course, the induced eyes are Drosophila compound eyes, since we have only exchanged the master switch and the remaining 2000 genes required for eye morphogenesis come from Drosophila (p. 68)
Which has nothing to do with extragenetic transmission or activation of information, and is exactly consistent with the notion that these structures are specified in DNA, not elsewhere.Voice Coil_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

Jerry writes, "The eye is another case of the dog ate the evidence since all the eyes were present in the Cambrian and nothing new has evolved since." That is a bizarre statement. The eyes of modern creatures are vastly different than those of Cambrian creatures - how one can say that "nothing new has evolved since" is beyond me. That's what I get for dropping in to see what's up here - looks like not much has changed.hazel_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

The eye is another case of the dog ate the evidence since all the eyes were present in the Cambrian and nothing new has evolved since. All those pre Cambrian organisms which gave rise to all the phyla on the planet never left a trace behind let alone a clue as to how eyes appeared out of no where. This most complicated of organs just poofed into existence. What controls the precision and timing of the 2000 genes. Is it like those domino examples where someone had to set them up ahead of time and be placed at exactly the right spot so they could knock down the next one 2000 times. Oh, I forgot there was no one to set up the genes in the right place and it all just was a lucky lottery pick. Amazing stuff this Darwinism.jerry_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

Mr Vjtorley, (Scoff if you will, but I have read that mammals and birds – the only two classes of creatures generally considered to be sentient – differ from other animals in one important respect: they are capable of visually tracking moving objects. If memory serves me right, I think this is where I read about their visual tracking abilities: Kavanau, J. L. 1997. “Origin and Evolution of Sleep: Roles of Vision and Endothermy.” In Brain Research Bulletin, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 245-264. But I digress.) I'm pretty sure frogs can visually track the flies they catch with their tongues. This classic paper discusses frog motion detection.Nakashima_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Voice Coil:
If I modified a document that accompanied your computer, and you, after consulting the document, glued your drive to the side of your tower rather than installing it inside in the ordinary fashion, I would take that as evidence that the document I had modified contained the assembly instructions for your computer.
Actually if I was assembling a computer and saw that someone put to glue the hard drive on the outside of the tower I would write an ECO (engineering change order) to correct the stupidity. Along the way to implementing said ECO I would make sure you were terminated. Then I would have to conduct an investigation to see what else you messed up.Joseph_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, My point is no one knows where the information for “fruit fly eye” resides. In this paper on the unity of eye evolution, Walter Gehring seems to think it resides in a cascade of 2000 genes. Material, heritable, variable genes.Nakashima_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Joseph:
Heck I can take a hard drive and glue it on the side of my computer. Does that tell us how the computer came to be in the first place?
If I modified a document that accompanied your computer, and you, after consulting the document, glued your drive to the side of your tower rather than installing it inside in the ordinary fashion, I would take that as evidence that the document I had modified contained the assembly instructions for your computer. Knowing that the document contained the assembly instructions might help us learn how computers like your own came to be in the first place.Voice Coil_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Voice Coil:
Are you saying that something else, besides DNA, in the newly formed embryo of a human being (or chimpanzee) determines whether that embryo develops a human foot or chimp foot?
That appears to be the case. IOW it isn't just the DNA that determines what the organism will be. And the DNA may just be carrying out the instructions for building it. Do you understand what Denton said or not? (in the quote I provided) When scientists took a mouse PAX6 and inserted into an eye-less fruit fly embryo that embryo developed fruit fly eyes, not mouse eyes.
Not due to anything extragenetic, but rather due to the extraordinarily hierarchical relationship between highly conserved Pax genes and the more specific genetic instructions they activate “downstream.” In this experiment that downstream information was stored in the DNA of the recipient organism, activated by the highly conserved, transplanted Pax6.
Many words that didn't say one darn thing. My point is no one knows where the information for "fruit fly eye" resides.
In nature all these instructions are transmitted intergenerationally by means of DNA.
I understand the assertion yet experiments show that it isn't just the DNA that hold the information pertaining to form. And making fruit fly legs appear on different areas of a fruit fly does not help you in any way. It just shows was tinkering with the design can do. Heck I can take a hard drive and glue it on the side of my computer. Does that tell us how the computer came to be in the first place?Joseph_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

So at some point, as man evolved, God decided the brain was complex enough to create a soul each time a human was conceived?
Interestingly enough, modern science leads to Cartesian dualism. The question is, can Cartestian dualism be defended. How does Aquinas view the soul? IS it something "added by God" every time a human is conceived?Mung_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Joseph:
Do a little research to find out what else, besides DNA, is in a cell, especically a newly formed embryo.
Are you saying that something else, besides DNA, in the newly formed embryo of a human being (or chimpanzee) determines whether that embryo develops a human foot or chimp foot?
When scientists took a mouse PAX6 and inserted into an eye-less fruit fly embryo that embryo developed fruit fly eyes, not mouse eyes.
Not due to anything extragenetic, but rather due to the extraordinarily hierarchical relationship between highly conserved Pax genes and the more specific genetic instructions they activate "downstream." In this experiment that downstream information was stored in the DNA of the recipient organism, activated by the highly conserved, transplanted Pax6. In nature all these instructions are transmitted intergenerationally by means of DNA.Voice Coil_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Voice Coil, Do a little research to find out what else, besides DNA, is in a cell, especically a newly formed embryo. All of the information in any parent cell would be duplicated/ copied to the same structures in all subsequent daughter cells.
Is not information specifying where limbs and sense organs are placed on a body among the instructions (software) that result in the developmental unfolding of an organism?
Influencing development is not the same as determining its outcome. When scientists took a mouse PAX6 and inserted into an eye-less fruit fly embryo that embryo developed fruit fly eyes, not mouse eyes.Joseph_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
VC: That doesn’t exclude epigenetic transmission of information, which may convey additional information.
Epigenetic effects can only release existing information.
OK. By what means do you suppose that existing information is transmitted, if not via DNA and not via epigenetic effects? That is to say, if not by genetic transmission (via DNA) and not by means other than genetic transmission (epigenetic effects, which you state only release existing information)?
I am saying that the information that makes an organism what it is does not reside solely in the DNA.
Where does it reside? To again cite your example, by what means are the instructions that specify a human foot, rather than a chimpanzee foot, transmitted from human parent to human infant, if not by means of DNA nor epigenetic effects? Are you postulating an undiscovered epigenetic means of transmission that does more than only release existing information?
Making a fruit fly grow a fruit fly leg in another region on a fruit fly body just shows we can take existing things and alter their position on the same body plan.
Is not information specifying where limbs and sense organs are placed on a body among the instructions (software) that result in the developmental unfolding of an organism?Voice Coil_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

Voice Coil:
What I asked is whether it tests the assertion that instructions that specify the development of a organism’s body are conveyed by means of DNA. You said that assertion is untestable, but profound results such as this conclusively establish otherwise.
That you think the results are "profound" does not make them so. Making a fruit fly grow a fruit fly leg in another region on a fruit fly body just shows we can take existing things and alter their position on the same body plan. We still don't know what makes a fruit fly a fruit fly other than a fruit fly emerges from a fruit fly larvae.
That doesn’t exclude epigenetic transmission of information, which may convey additional information.
Epigenetic effects can only release existing information.
Are you arguing that the instructions that differentiate human and chimpanzee feet (e.g. the configuration of the great toe) are exclusively or primarily epigenetically transmitted?
I am saying that the information that makes an organism what it is does not reside solely in the DNA. Jonathan Wells talks about some experiments that one species' DNA was put into another's egg. Either nothing developed or it developed into whatever species the egg was from. (When I find the reference I will post it.)Joseph_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

#43 Vjtorley thanks. It is an eye-opener for me.Mark Frank_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
And again a fruit fly with a leg in the wrong place does not test the premise that a fruit fly can evolve into something other than a fruit fly.
What I asked is whether it tests the assertion that instructions that specify the development of a organism's body are conveyed by means of DNA. You said that assertion is untestable, but profound results such as this conclusively establish otherwise. That doesn't exclude epigenetic transmission of information, which may convey additional information.
There are other structures in a cell which are also very, very important for development.
Yes, but not so important for transgenerational transmission of information, particularly across multiple generations. As I understand it, almost all epigenetic processes are reset and variations are lost over one or a few generations, and do not account for, for example, the differences in the developmental unfolding of human versus chimpanzee feet that accrued over thousands of generations. Are you arguing that the instructions that differentiate human and chimpanzee feet (e.g. the configuration of the great toe) are exclusively or primarily epigenetically transmitted? It is worth noting that even if this were the case, to the extent that epigenetic information IS reliably transmitted over generations, it too may be subject to modification and selection. That leaves the logic of descent with modification intact. I don't see that it has any necessary bearing on the topic at hand, namely the purported existence of evolutionary discontinuities between human beings and their closest kin (chimps, bonobos, etc.) that could not have been attained by such a process, and hence reflect IC.Voice Coil_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Voice Coil:
If so, in your view, how are unique human characteristics (the structures required for bipedalism, to use your example) transmitted from human parent to human child, if not via DNA?
The instructions also get passed on. Also those instructions are not limited to the DNA. There are other structures in a cell which are also very, very important for development. The egg itself controls much of what goes on.
Numerous studies demonstrate that when DNA is is manipulated the body structures that result may be profoundly modified (e.g. legs growing where eyes were expected in the instance of homeobox genes in Drosophilia).
A fruit fly with a leg in the wrong place is still a fruit fly.
Are you saying that these interventions don’t test the hypothesis that the instructions for building bodies are contained in DNA?
What part of what Denton said- the quote I provided- don't you understand? And again a fruit fly with a leg in the wrong place does not test the premise that a fruit fly can evolve into something other than a fruit fly.
How else do you explain those results?
Just as Denton did in the quote I provided. Also geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti has a book out titled "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?" in which he explains the big differences are not due to genes (chapter X).Joseph_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank (#40) I don't mind you asking questions at all. Ask away. You write:
I think it is a consequence of your beliefs that at some point a very human like creature without a soul gave birth to a very similar creature with a soul.
That is probably correct. The first true human beings (i.e. creatures with rational souls) may well have looked very like - indeed, just like - their non-rational forebears. An alternative possibility is that the dawn of human intelligence coincided with the very sudden emergence (i.e. saltation) of a new species (Homo erectus for instance) whose members looked strikingly unlike their hominid parents in some way. In other words, God intervened in human evolution at the genetic level as well as the spiritual level. You also write:
Indeed there must have been communities where some individuals had souls and others did not. I wonder if the ones with souls behaved very differently from the ones without? If indeed the soul bearing individuals realised their parents lacked something vital?
At the very least, the ones with human souls must have originally had an immediate knowledge of God, if one takes the account in Genesis seriously. Their technology may not have been markedly more advanced than that of their non-human contemporaries, however. All I would insist on is that they must have possessed both the neural and spiritual wherewithal to come up with brilliant tool-making ideas in future generations, when there was a pressing need. And yes, they must have known that they were different in some way. My guess is that they could probably recognize each other, just from things like they way they held themselves while they walked, the spark of intelligence in their eyes, and an air of purposefulness or an aura of gravity which they could intuit in each other. Rational animals behave differently from non-rational ones. They're always up to something, good or bad, and they can engage in long-range projects, because they can plan ahead for the long term. That ability reflects in the way that rational creatures move, I think - and also the way they visually focus on things around them. In fact, I wouldn't mind betting that there's an observational test that could one day be devised by scientists to distinguish rational from non-rational animals, based solely on their eye and neck movements when paying attention to objects. (Scoff if you will, but I have read that mammals and birds - the only two classes of creatures generally considered to be sentient - differ from other animals in one important respect: they are capable of visually tracking moving objects. If memory serves me right, I think this is where I read about their visual tracking abilities: Kavanau, J. L. 1997. "Origin and Evolution of Sleep: Roles of Vision and Endothermy." In Brain Research Bulletin, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 245-264. But I digress.) Anyway, as I envisage it, there would have been some point at which those individuals possessing a rational soul were temporarily separated (by a Divine plan) from their non-rational kin, and put through a test of their willingness to serve God - a test they obviously failed. That was the Fall. After that event, humans would have no longer been able to talk directly to God. My guess is that that's precisely the way they originally wanted it to be: they basically told God to "turn off the radio," so He acceded to their wishes, and the heavens were silent. That was basically what the Fall was all about. In effect, the first humans said to God: "We don't want you! We don't need you! Leave us alone! We can figure it out for ourselves!" Successive generations of humans would have rapidly forgotten that there was a God who created the heavens and the earth, and religion would have descended into a barbarous travesty of what it once was. There may well have been a technological and linguistic backslide too, lasting hundreds of thousands of years. But we don't know.vjtorley_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

"Are you saying that these interventions don’t test the hypothesis that the instructions for building bodies are contained in DNA? How else do you explain those results?" Right now I believe there are large number of issues that are unanswered in gestation or the forming of the embryo. Certainly DNA sequences are part of it but whether they are all of it, is I believe is in real doubt. There does not seem to be any set of DNA instructions that specify what happens where at what time for every step along the way as there would be in a set of instructions that leads to the assembly of your new portable barbecue stove. Question have been asked here about this in the past and they are usually greeted by silence.jerry_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

DNA is just hardware that carries out the instructions (software) that are embedded on/in it.
As I understand this metaphor, chimpanzees and human beings differ because the instructions embedded in their DNA differ. The interspecies differences in those instructions (in that software, if you prefer) is transmitted by means of physical differences in DNA (e.g., different sequences of base-pairs). Are you intending something different when you say the above? If so, in your view, how are unique human characteristics (the structures required for bipedalism, to use your example) transmitted from human parent to human child, if not via DNA?
What I am saying is that there isn’t any way to test it.
Numerous studies demonstrate that when DNA is is manipulated the body structures that result may be profoundly modified (e.g. legs growing where eyes were expected in the instance of homeobox genes in Drosophilia). Are you saying that these interventions don't test the hypothesis that the instructions for building bodies are contained in DNA? How else do you explain those results?Voice Coil_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

#39 vjtorley I hope you don't mind this line of inquiry. It is not aggressive, just curious. I think it is a consequence of your beliefs that at some point a very human like creature without a soul gave birth to a very similar creature with a soul. Indeed there must have been communities where some individuals had souls and others did not. I wonder if the ones with souls behaved very differently from the ones without? If indeed the soul bearing individuals realised their parents lacked something vital?Mark Frank_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank (#38) The answer to your first question is: yes, that's right. Regarding your second question, I'm not sure what the complexity cutoff point is, as far as brains are concerned. I'd love to know exactly why a chimp's brain can't do the kinds of things that our brains can do. But off the top of my head, a brain would have to be capable of supporting things like automatic instant recall of past events; a representation of other minds; an ascription of beliefs and desires to other agents; a hierarchy of one's priorities as an agent; meta-cognition (here defined as an ability to critique and correct one's beliefs and desires); and a capacity for nth-level beliefs and desires, where n is at least 3 and probably no more than 5. (I don't think I've ever had a 5th order mental state, and even 4th-level states are pretty rare for me.) Now, a brain that can do all that is a pretty marvelous thing, and I don't believe that pop-science explanations like "pedomorphosis" can do the job of explaining how it arose. It's not that simple. We need to look at the genetic instructions for making a human brain before assessing the degree of difficulty of the transformation from say, Australopithecus to Homo erectus. I don't know whether this genetic transformation required any intelligent guidance, but I would guess that it probably did. In answer to your third question, I believe that each and every member of the human race gets an immaterial soul. Hence I believe that severely brain-damaged humans (e.g. so-called cretins) receive immaterial souls too. Thus if it were possible at some future date to repair their brains, I'd expect rationality to emerge. By contrast, I would not expect rationality to emerge if a chimp's brain was transformed by some step-by-step process into a human brain, by a skillful 22nd-century neurosurgeon. I'd still expect the super-chimp to be incapable of a certain level of abstraction that humans take for granted.vjtorley_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

#37 So at some point, as man evolved, God decided the brain was complex enough to create a soul each time a human was conceived? How complex and sophisticated can an organism be and not have a soul? For example, could it be that some of us actually don't have a soul but still function? Me for example?Mark Frank_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank (#21) I'm on my lunch break now, but in answer to your query: yes, I do hold the three beliefs you credit me with, and no, I do not think intelligence is inherited. Each human soul is created by God. However, our brains are certainly inherited. The human brain is the most complex thing in the universe, and it has a unique capacity to integrate the information that comes to us through the senses, in a way that gives us something to think about. A chimp's brain can't integrate information in the same way that a human brain can, so a rational soul would not be able to express itself properly through the medium of such a brain. That's my answer in a nutshell.vjtorley_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply