Man-ape chasm of differences

_{Caspian
November 24, 2022

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery, writes:

Sumatran_Orangutan_at_the_Toronto_Zoo (1).jpg — *Image credit: John Vetterli (originally posted to Flickr as Sumatran Orangutan) [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.*

Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals.

Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,,
It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference.

We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm.,,, Systems of taxonomy that emphasize physical and genetic similarities and ignore the fact that human beings are partly immaterial beings who are capable of abstract thought and contemplation of moral law and eternity are pitifully inadequate to describe man.
The assertion that man is an ape is self-refuting. We could not express such a concept, misguided as it is, if we were apes and not men.
See full article at Evolution News.

Thanks to “bornagain77” for referencing this article.

Comments

KF, I notice that your admonitions about the tone of a person’s comments are only applied to those who you have disagreements with. That tells us much; none to your credit. Have you ever bothered to read Relatd’s comment. They are second only to the dearly departed ET in their level of abusive insult.Sir Giles_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

SG, a crude ad hominem targetting Relatd, that tells us much; none to your credit. KFkairosfocus_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

PM1, I draw your attention to Walker and Davies, just above. KFkairosfocus_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Relatd, you here see a case in point why I use the otherwise clumsy phrase, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. Objectors here routinely fail -- or outright refuse -- to recognise that due to the need for multiple, well matched, properly organised and coupled parts to achieve function, most of the configuration space of possibilities is taken up by non functional gibberish, leading to fine tuning and operating points clustering in narrow zones, i.e. islands of function. Text vs gibberish vs stuck keys is a simple example they refuse to acknowledge, telling us much about them as they have to compose text to object. Of course, configuration spaces are actually cut down phase spaces, and that reveals the root of this point, statistical thermodynamics. KF PS, just for fun, Walker and Davies make much the same point:
In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics [--> aka, statistical thermodynamics], we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [--> given "enough time and search resources"] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system [--> butterfly effect] the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense. We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).
[--> or, there may not be "enough" time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 - 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 - 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]
Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [--> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ --> notice, the "loading"] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). ["The “Hard Problem” of Life," June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]
kairosfocus_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

PM1, strawman. We both know the logic of defeasible inference to the best causal explanation and what it takes to defeat it. Just your own objections repeatedly show what intelligently directed configuration can and does do, and in our observation on trillions of cases only this factor. We can readily recognise that a heavy object routinely falls when unsupported by mechanical necessity, here, gravity. If said object is a die with eight corners and twelve edges, by the butterfly effect it effectively settles to an uppermost face at random, showing chance by a common process; quantum processes seem to follow chance patterns directly. A string of such dice can be intelligently arranged per a code to express a message and it is maximally implausible that such beyond 500 - 1,000 bits worth would be by chance. Where, actually, a coin is a two sided die with one effective edge and a similar butterfly effect. Going beyond, examining aspects of a great many phenomena, it has been found highly relevant and powerful to recognise lawlike necessities producing low contingency reliable outcomes on similar initial conditions; we call such, laws of physics . . . of which there are literally thousands. Under other circumstances, similar initial conditions routinely produce highly contingent outcomes, often fitting distributions of many types such as bells, J or reverse J, U, bimodal, flat, flicker noise, pink noise etc. Thirdly, we readily observe intelligently directed configurations that do not fit such patterns and are often associated with functional patterns of performance. All three factors are commonly operating in many cases and per aspect studies help us distinguish. Indeed, just in telecommunications, a key metric, signal to noise ratio relies on ability to distinguish such patterns, and of course so does SETI. Where, it is almost certain that you are suppressing your knowledge of statistical hypothesis testing which is another case in point. KFkairosfocus_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

SG, strawman projections and doubling down on the already adequately answered: >>) By that argument, mountain formation and the Big Bang are insupportable.>> 1: Not at all, maybe first, you don't know that I live about ten miles, line of sight from where a mountain has been destroyed, rebuilt and destroyed, then rebuilt, over the past 30 years. 2: The observable expansion of the cosmos allows direct projection back to a singularity. 3: The actually observed capability of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity to generate FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits is directly nil and for quite evident search challenge reasons; meanwhile there is an observed causal factor that routinely creates it, you just did in your objection -- intelligently directed configuration. >>2) And what observations does ID have of the designer>> 4: There is no THE designer observed, we have observed designers and characteristic products of intelligently directed configuration, such as FSCO/I. 5: This shows that designs and designers are possible and have known capability beyond blind forces. 6: Where, to cut off another predictable strawman, we exemplify designers, we do not exhaust them, and we have a particularly strong sign in the molecular nanotech of the cell, coded algorithms thus language and goal directed stepwise processes. 7: Attempts to obfuscate this in objections here and in the penumbra around UD, only show how far objectors are willing to go to keep up their objections. >> implementing new body plans?>> 8: You full well know how inference to the best empirically anchored explanation works on Newton's rules, let us for record note again to you from Sir Charles Lyell, as has been pointed out in your presence many times:
PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY: BEING AN INQUIRY HOW FAR THE FORMER CHANGES OF THE EARTH’S SURFACE ARE REFERABLE TO CAUSES NOW IN OPERATION. [--> appeal to Newton's Rules, in the title of the work] BY CHARLES LYELL, Esq, F.R.S. PRESIDENT OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON . . . JOHN MURRAY , , , 1835 [--> later, publisher of Origin]
9: We notice, in body plans, certain key features that are integral to the structure, especially, FSCO/I. We know separately that this is a strong and reliable sign -- trillions of observed cases, no exceptions -- of intelligently directed configuration as key causal factor. 10: Thus on reasonable like causes like, we may infer readily to the causal factor of the remote past, on what we have observed. 11: Of course, such an abductive inference is readily defeasible in principle, simply show another observed factor with the capability. It is obvious that the rhetorical expedients we are seeing are being put up because you do not have such an alternative. >> New species?>> 12: The same answer. >>3) Why dies ID have a different burden of proof than evolution?>> 13: False, you full well know the Newton Rule standard as cited from Lyell, and that one factor has met it but not the one you obviously favour. KFkairosfocus_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Relatd: Cut the crap, OK? I’m a working book editor
Given the number of spelling, grammatical and other errors I see in recently published books, I am not surprised.Sir Giles_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac1 @243,
I would say that my understanding of nature (and hence of “naturalism”) involves my own personal experiences as an outdoor enthusiast and amateur natural historian . . .
Let me recommend a book that I believe you would enjoy: Earthly Pleasures : Tales from a Biologist's Garden by Roger B. Swain However, let me observe that the more one learns about the stunning complexity in nature, the less credible one finds Darwin’s theory.
Querius: Maybe we should remind them of the severe limit on the speed of evolution, which is known as . . . wait, let’s see whether JVL or Alan Fox know this one. LOL
Since JVL and Alan Fox don’t know the answer to this question, maybe you can enlighten them. (smile) -QQuerius_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Relatd @242,
I’m a working book editor. Out of 100 manuscripts, I might – might – see one that is worth publishing.
My highest respect goes to talented editors! This is a very challenging profession. In my experience, the insights, clarity, and expertise that editors provide, especially in their developmental and copy edits, are amazing! Keep up your invaluable work! -QQuerius_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Sir Giles @235,
And just as night follows day, much, much more will be said. And, equally predictable, the arguments will not be found to be compelling by anyone knowledgeable in the science. But by all means, keep tilting at those windmills.
Thank you for the excellent generic trollbot response! This one is going into my growing collection. -QQuerius_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

@241
My guess is that your idea of Nature just happens to make your beliefs about Evolution possible. Right?
I would say that my understanding of nature (and hence of "naturalism") involves my own personal experiences as an outdoor enthusiast and amateur natural historian, plus my eclectic reading history that would need to include, amongst my most important influences, David Abrams , Murray Bookchin , John Dewey , Hans Jonas, and Terrence Deacon.PyrrhoManiac1_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

SG at 238, Cut the crap, OK? I'm a working book editor. Out of 100 manuscripts, I might - might - see one that is worth publishing. Evolution has no intelligence, no brain. Supposedly, the submissions I see were created by people who do. But most are incapable of stringing words together in an interesting, functional way. And you expect people to believe EVOLUTION can do better?relatd_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

PM1, My guess is that your idea of Nature just happens to make your beliefs about Evolution possible. Right? Andrewasauber_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

"to posit a designer to do what nature itself cannot" PM1, And you know what nature can and can't do? Did you make a list of what nature can and can't do? Andrewasauber_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

@238
And no evolutionary biologist would disagree with you. Sing evolutionary theory does not propose that blind, unguided chance is responsible for the diversity of life, ID’s opposition to evolution is based on a false premise.
I agree that ID's opposition to evolution is based on a false premise, but I don't think this correctly identifies what that false premise is. As I understand Dembski, the initial idea was to just stipulate that "design" was required wherever "chance" and "necessity" were insufficient. In other words, the premise is to take an Epicurean metaphysics of nature (or rather, a crude and simplified version of Epicureanism) as what nature must be like in the absence of intelligence. With that as the conceptual background, it became almost trivial to argue that therefore the intervention of an intelligent being is required to do anything beyond 17th-century billiard-ball physics. In other words, the error in ID is not to neglect how selection winnows biological novelty into adaptations but to begin with a fundamentally mistaken conception of what nature itself really is, since it is only against that background that it seems necessary to posit a designer to do what nature itself cannot.PyrrhoManiac1_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Relatd: Blind, unguided chance had no ability to create such things. That is the ID position.
And no evolutionary biologist would disagree with you. Sing evolutionary theory does not propose that blind, unguided chance is responsible for the diversity of life, ID’s opposition to evolution is based on a false premise.Sir Giles_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

SG at 236, Your only apparent mission here is to trash ID and to use useless arguments for that position. The highly complex biological engineering found in living things is not being ignored by scientists. Blind, unguided chance had no ability to create such things. That is the ID position.relatd_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

KF: Any hypothesised different architecture needs to be warranted on actual observation of same in action, and that is simply not there
1) By that argument, mountain formation and the Big Bang are insupportable. 2) And what observations does ID have of the designer implementing new body plans? New species? 3) Why dies ID have a different burden of proof than evolution?Sir Giles_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

KF: More can be said,
And just as night follows day, much, much more will be said. And, equally predictable, the arguments will not be found to be compelling by anyone knowledgeable in the science. But by all means, keep tilting at those windmills.Sir Giles_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

AF, 1: as you full well know, function including reproductive function [implying a highly complex von Neumann kinematic self replicator] with metabolising automata having encapsulation and smart gating must be present for differential reproductive success to be possible for cell based life . . . what hides behind "selection". 2: Any hypothesised different architecture needs to be warranted on actual observation of same in action, and that is simply not there. 3: With cells on the table, blind chance variations and differential reproductive success directly fit blind chance and/or necessity -- as you full well know, noting too that differential reproductive success is in significant part highly chance influenced. 4: The net result of such would at best be local hill climbing, unable to span a good valley within an island of fine tuned function, much less an intervening sea of non function. 5: That is likely why some objectors pretend that it is dubious for complex configuration based function to require correct, properly oriented, matched and correctly coupled parts (sharply restricting effective configurations in the space of possibilities). 6: All this shows is, refusal to acknowledge the logic of process, even while typing out sentences that are sharply constrained to be functional English rather than at random gibberish 9ieblore6okve or stuck key repetition hhhhhhhhhhhhhh. More can be said, KFkairosfocus_{November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

Asauber @226
Says the guy who spends all his active hours at UD spamming Evolution.
Indeed! Pumping out comment after comment mostly without any content, but filled instead of examples of the genetic fallacy and pointless ad hominem attacks. And then, we get anointed with other dribbles and drools that Darwinism is not random since selection isn’t, while forgetting that mutations, purportedly (and incorrectly) are the source of all genomic change, which are indeed RANDOM, although some regions are conserved more than others. Maybe we should remind them of the severe limit on the speed of evolution, which is known as . . . wait, let’s see whether JVL or Alan Fox know this one. LOL And finally, I’d like to nominate Martin_r for the Peace & Patience Prize! -QQuerius_{November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

There are limits.
Indeed. Inbreeding is a terminal problem in small populations. Loss of genetic diversity leads to extinction.Alan Fox_{November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Those who breed dogs can cause certain health problems with their selective breeding. https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/pets/dogs/puppy/pedigreedogs/health There are limits.relatd_{November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Sal Cordova held to that idea. Haven't come across Sal in a while and I can't recall the detailsAlan Fox_{November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox ever heard of Old Earth Creationists ?martin_r_{November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

What did you think ???
About Creationism? Of the 6,000 year old Earth type? I can't imagine how anyone can stare down all the contrary evidence and maintain such a belief.Alan Fox_{November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox, in any case, I will have a closer look at some articles on Phenotypic plasticity ... It looks like I will have lots of fun ... I already learned, that "organisms are equipped with a capacity to produce multiple phenotypes in response to environmental change" ... and that there is "a developmental program that allows the organisms to sense environmental cues in early stages of life to better adapt" .... good stuff :)))))))))martin_r_{November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

"I guess he has his own agenda." Says the guy who spends all his active hours at UD spamming Evolution. Andrewasauber_{November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox, That is correct. I am an engineer and a Creationist. What did you think ???martin_r_{November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Martin_r clearly hasn’t bothered or hasn’t grasped simple concepts.
Martin_r has mentioned he is a Creationist. I guess he has his own agenda.Alan Fox_{November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply