"Intelligent " Design ( I D )

[swansont]

Imagine the animal ancestor of humans. If it were as week physically as we are' date=' but with much smaller mental abilities, it most certainly just couldn't survive the competition and would't exist at all. Then, if it were more strong and agile, like modern apes, then why it evolved into "weaker" creature? It's better to be smart AND physically strong then either one of the two, anyway.

[/quote']

 

 

You don't get features for free. Being physically strong has some "cost" to it; extra muscle mass require more food intake, for example. So if you have an ancestral line that started to develop more advanced intelligence, they could survive with less strength; lower nutrition equirements would then be an advantage that could be selected.

 

If you no longer need to regularly climb trees to escape predators (because e.g. you have weapons and fire), the strength and agility to do so become less of a requirement.

[Teotihuacan]

I think we overlook the serendipitous factor. That these "adaptations" may've been available, long before a need arose... and then the natural selection took place. Otherwise, various anamolous changes that may/or may not be folded in... depending upon extraneous factors, as to "utility".

 

I think I had the answer to the earlier question: >quot about vascular valves.

 

That somewhere along the line an organism with a circulatory system survived an aneurism. That healed, but left a flap of skin. Which, naturally fell toward the rate of flow. And could've resulted in entire "families" dieing prematurely of heart attacks over generations, untill some survived. And later had an advantage in a greater circuclatory system through walking.

 

Likewise, consider the 1,000's of years generations spend huddled bya afire, eating boiled square roots or anything else the children could find. less hair maent less burns. Likewise, sickly bodies.

 

All because abstract enough to percieve beyond immediate threat, and act upon the belief. To actually tolerate and manipulte fire, as the ultimate "claw".

 

The power to abstract, deep within a cave; when all the while yes, his family is starving. And to "see" the whole animal, to record his vision, to fulfill the destiny. He and/or his shaman. As we watch the Olympics we see our "best of generations" do the same thing.... visualise themselves, and ready - achieve.

 

[bascule]

Imagine the animal ancestor of humans. If it were as week physically as we are

 

You call us "week"... but there are innumerable animals that are weaker than we are.

 

but with much smaller mental abilities, it most certainly just couldn't survive the competition and would't exist at all.

 

Rats are smaller than us and have much "smaller" mental abilities.

Spiders are smaller than us and have much "smaller" mental abilities.

Sardines are smaller than us and have much "smaller" mental abilities.

etc. etc.

 

WHAT?

 

Then, if it were more strong and agile, like modern apes, then why it evolved into "weaker" creature?

 

The leap to bipedalism, and the impact of substantially larger cranial capacities coupled with the need to increase the size of the birth canal (with females remaining swift enough to evade predators) combinatorially took their toll. I'm not sure how if you rank the chimpanzee among "modern apes" that we would be considered the weaker creature. I expect I could kick a chimpanzee for quite some distance... but then I am 6'3"

 

It's better to be smart AND physically strong then either one of the two, anyway.

 

And men aren't? We're certainly the smartest creature on the planet, and our physique really isn't that bad relative to the entire animal kingdom as a whole. There are certainly a large number of species with a better physique, especially in their native environment, but I think that's greatly outweighed by the sheer number that could never pose a threat to your average human.

 

Well, Homo sapiens before the neolitic revolution. The animal bones processed with primitive tools of palaeolitic humans almost always also bear the marks of the large predator`s fangs, implying humans were scavengers (human bones with such marks are also abundant).

 

Okay, well, you have to start somewhere, especially if you're a savannah ape that has just been thrust into a new environment.

 

This corresponds to the technical impossibility of challenging large animals with primitive tools found on archaeological sites.

 

Kay kay. I wouldn't expect chimps to be able to do that either.

 

Not sure. Besides, Homo sapiens were anatomically formed 200-500,000 years ago, so 10,000 years is inappropriate anyway.

 

Inappropriate for what?

 

The savannah apes from which we descended probably had a really hard time. Evolution looked for a way to go, and a move to bipedalism and improved tool use, coupled with improved intelligence, was the best thing it could find to do with the chimpanzee-like design in order to survive in the new environment.

 

But that doesn't change the fact that 11,000 years ago, we were taking on mammoths.

 

Why not, if the more agile and sensitive hunter will get the most food and will not suffer from hunger?

 

Mutualism. If you're the more agile and sensitive hunter, and you've just downed a large beast, what do you do? You can eat your fill, then leave the rest of the carcass to rot, or you can bring it back to your commrades. Not only will they feel indebted to you because you're feeding them, and may therefore help you if you ever need it in the future, but hey, it may just impress the ladies enough to get you laid. Altruism became genetically fixed in humans, because if we all help each other out, it betters the survival chances for everyone. But in the process the weaker individuals are still getting along, leeching off of the strong. So their genes are not selected out in the same manner as they would be if they were entirely self-dependent. You have to realize that one of the consequences of mutualistic societies is that weak/undesirable people can still get together and f*ck with each other, so their genes don't get selected out...

[Chupacabra]

Rats are smaller than us and have much "smaller" mental abilities.

 

Rats have an excellent sense of smell, can hide into small holes, can digest various foods etc. etc., in addition to it, they are pretty smart. Are there many environments on Earth you could survive in for a long time (even together with a dozen of companions) having no tools and clothes?

 

 

I expect I could kick a chimpanzee for quite some distance... but then I am 6'3"

 

You shouldn't try.

 

Okay, well, you have to start somewhere, especially if you're a savannah ape that has just been thrust into a new environment. The savannah apes from which we descended probably had a really hard time.

 

There are many large monkeys like baboons that are well adapted and thrive in savannah and even semi-desert environments.

 

Mutualism. If you're the more agile and sensitive hunter, and you've just downed a large beast, what do you do? You can eat your fill, then leave the rest of the carcass to rot, or you can bring it back to your commrades. Not only will they feel indebted to you because you're feeding them, and may therefore help you if you ever need it in the future, but hey, it may just impress the ladies enough to get you laid. Altruism became genetically fixed in humans, because if we all help each other out, it betters the survival chances for everyone. But in the process the weaker individuals are still getting along, leeching off of the strong. So their genes are not selected out in the same manner as they would be if they were entirely self-dependent. You have to realize that one of the consequences of mutualistic societies is that weak/undesirable people can still get together and f*ck with each other, so their genes don't get selected out...

 

NS works by the law of chances. Even in our society the more successful and physically strong individual has a better chance to find a mate. What you've described could at best decelerate NS, but not reverse it direction.

[AzurePhoenix]

I expect I could kick a chimpanzee for quite some distance... but then I am 6'3"

Chimps are quite powerful, it wouldn't matter if you were seven feet tall. A chimp doesn't weigh much less than a man (in the 150 range) and is several times stronger. Their arboreal nature and brutally violent nature in part requires a particularly well developed musculature, something that we haven't needed in over a million years.

 

---edit---

 

Of course, we're talking a true wild chimp with a more natural temperment. I have no idea how one of the baby-like movie chimps would fare.

 

There are many large monkeys like baboons that are well adapted and thrive in savannah and even semi-desert environments.

Very true, but our ancestors specifically weren't suited for such a habitat, they had been adapted to a thick, forest environment.

[Chupacabra]

[

So if you have an ancestral line that started to develop more advanced intelligence' date=' they could survive with less strength; lower nutrition equirements would then be an advantage that could be selected.

If you no longer need to regularly climb trees to escape predators (because e.g. you have weapons and fire), the strength and agility to do so become less of a requirement.[/quote]

 

Evolution looked for a way to go, and a move to bipedalism and improved tool use, coupled with improved intelligence, was the best thing it could find to do with the chimpanzee-like design in order to survive in the new environment.

 

That' s only your guesses. It might be correct, it might be not. Had the scientists really shown (preferably by a quantitative model) that ape-like creatures who get into a certain environment would inevitably evolve into the ones resembling modern humans, than, yes, natural selection theory of human origin should be reckoned credible. Now, imagine humans weighted half a ton, or had grown horns or extra head, NS proponents could as well conjure up some "explanation" according to natural selection theory. It means just that NS theory of human origin is not falsifiable, being really not a theory but a scientific "guess", not in fact much better than ID "theory". (Here i'm not challenging the facts that NS actually works in many cases among animals, of that human bodies evolved from animal ancestors by whatever means).

[swansont]

That' s only your guesses. It might be correct, it might be not. Had the scientists really shown (preferably by a quantitative model) that ape-like creatures who get into a certain environment would inevitably evolve into the ones resembling modern humans, than, yes, natural selection theory of human origin should be reckoned credible. Now, imagine humans weighted half a ton, or had grown horns or extra head, NS proponents could as well conjure up some "explanation" according to natural selection theory. It means just that NS theory of human origin is not falsifiable, being really not a theory but a scientific "guess", not in fact much better than ID "theory". (Here i'm not challenging the facts that NS actually works in many cases among animals, of that human bodies evolved from animal ancestors by whatever means).

 

Bollocks. One can't predict the weather with the level of accuracy you are requesting; the complexity of the modeling is too great. But by your argument, weather prediction is unscientific.

[AzurePhoenix]

Not to mention that the very idea of evolution renders prediction useless. Can we make models outlining forms that might be effective? Sure. But that's not how it always works. Lucky-shot mutations accumulate, and this random process guiudes it, and more likely than not, the adapted form will have a few surprises. Human ancestors could easily have taken a myriad of unrecognizable forms beside our own.

[Chupacabra]

Bollocks. One can't predict the weather with the level of accuracy you are requesting; the complexity of the modeling is too great. But by your argument, weather prediction is unscientific.

 

I don`t request any large level of accuracy, just the legitimate general description of the cause and effect chain leading from apes to humans. Scientists are not even sure about the sequence of apperance of features like bipedalism, toolmaking, language etc. let alone the real causes of transformations. The only thing they have is a set of dubious guesses.

 

Not to mention that the very idea of evolution renders prediction useless. Can we make models outlining forms that might be effective? Sure. But that's not how it always works. Lucky-shot mutations accumulate, and this random process guiudes it, and more likely than not, the adapted form will have a few surprises. Human ancestors could easily have taken a myriad of unrecognizable forms beside our own.

 

Very true. Arboreal "chimps" could well evolve into baboon-like apes adapted to savannah and not into us humans. Still we are here. Should we then avoid thinking of some other "laws' that could explain our origin, apart from NS?

[AzurePhoenix]

Yes, we're here; very perceptive. What of it?

[Aardvark]

Consciousness and intelligence are quite different things and shouldn`t be equated. In fact, most decisions we make in our life are unconscious (for those rejecting free will, in fact, all the decisions).

 

Well, intelligence and consciousness are different things, but they are linked. It would be difficult to conceive of consciousness developing without intelligence. Yes, most decisions are largely unconcious, but consciousness remains an important factor. (i don't see any conflict between consciousness and free will)

 

 

The only thing exclusive for humans is the abstract thinking, but this didn`t influence significantly survival chances of primal humans and thus couldn`t have evolved by natural selection.

 

You are confidently asserting as fact something that is, at best a hypothesis, i can imagine circumstances in which abstract thought would be a significant advantage. The ability to think in abstract terms would allow language and communication, the transmittion of information.

 

For instance an older member of a family group could tell younger members that in the last harsh drought forty years ago game was found near certain hidden waterholes in a certain place. That sort of information transmittion could mean the difference between extinction and survivial in the harsh pliestocene.

 

 

Yes, it doesn`t. But it certainly questions the overconfident claims that life and consciousness apperared by a pure chance owing to purely matherial processes, leaving no room for God, spirit, free will and afterlife. At best it`s only a hypothesis, not an evident fact.

 

Darwinism doesn't claim that life and consciousness are the result of 'pure chance'. Also Darwinism does not deny God, spirit, free will or an afterlife. Darwinism simply makes no comment at all on those matters.

[Chupacabra]

Well, intelligence and consciousness are different things, but they are linked. It would be difficult to conceive of consciousness developing without intelligence.

 

Yes, but it`s not so difficult to conceive of intelligence without consciousness (artifical intelligence systems is an example)

 

i don't see any conflict between consciousness and free will

 

Surely, but there's a certaint conflict between the free will and the fully deterministic materialist worldview.

 

Darwinism doesn't claim that life and consciousness are the result of 'pure chance'. Also Darwinism does not deny God, spirit, free will or an afterlife. Darwinism simply makes no comment at all on those matters.

 

You are very correct here. The problem is with people (like Dawkins, f. i.) who derive from Darwinism far reaching metaphysical inferences.

[Aardvark]

Yes, but it`s not so difficult to conceive of intelligence without consciousness (artifical intelligence systems is an example)

 

It is possible to conceive of intelligence without consciousness, although a better word might be cleverness. However, it is not really possible for consciousness without intelligence. But this is a bit of a side issue.

 

I can see some possible evolutionary advantages to both intelligence and consciousness but that is still an open area for consideration.

 

Surely, but there's a certaint conflict between the free will and the fully deterministic materialist worldview.

 

Only if you believe that free will can only exist in defiance of the laws of physics. Otherwise there is no conflict.

 

 

You are very correct here. The problem is with people (like Dawkins, f. i.) who derive from Darwinism far reaching metaphysical inferences.

 

The problem is also people who incorrectly caricature Darwinism as being a 'fully deterministic materialist worldview' or being 'rely matherial processes, leaving no room for God, spirit, free will and afterlife'

 

People such as Darwkins may espouse a atheisitic viewpoint that some object to, but that does not mean, and even Darwkins does not state, that those views are implicit in Darwinism.

 

Darwinism makes no comment at all on the possible existence of God, the spirit or any metaphysical or religious matter. To attack or query it on those grounds is mistaken.

[Chupacabra]

Only if you believe that free will can only exist in defiance of the laws of physics. Otherwise there is no conflict.

 

Surely, the Indeterminacy principle is a well-established law of physics, and it agrees perfectly with the existence of free will. Yet it irritates people who champion the "Universe is a mechanical clockwork, the free will is a mere illusion" worldview.

 

People such as Darwkins may espouse a atheisitic viewpoint that some object to, but that does not mean, and even Darwkins does not state, that those views are implicit in Darwinism.

 

Who's Darwkins??? Do you mean "Darwin" or "Dawkins" or some crossbread of two?? He-he

[bascule]

Surely, but there's a certaint conflict between the free will and the fully deterministic materialist worldview.

 

There's only a conflict between the ludicrous idea of absolute metaphysical free will and materialism.

 

You should read about compatibilism, specifically Daniel Dennett's book Freedom Evolves

[bascule]

Chimps are quite powerful, it wouldn't matter if you were seven feet tall.

 

As I read more about chimps I realized how stupid my statement was, heh.

 

Interesting...

[AzurePhoenix]

Common mistake. Lots of people look at chimps and their rather short stature, and even worse, they look at the babyish ones that tv shows favor. Both are very deceptive.

[bascule]

I found a video of a 150lb chimp tearing a car door off of its hinges...

 

Yikes...

[Aardvark]

Surely, the Indeterminacy principle is a well-established law of physics, and it agrees perfectly with the existence of free will.

 

Which contradicts your earlier argument.

 

 

Yet it irritates people who champion the "Universe is a mechanical clockwork, the free will is a mere illusion" worldview.

 

No one here has championed such an argument, ever if they did it would have no relevance to Darwinsim anyway. You appear to be Strawmanning.

[bascule]

No one here has championed such an argument

 

In that respect his argument is a strawman.

 

ever if they did it would have no relevance to Darwinsim anyway.

 

And in that respect it's a red herring.

 

Two logical fallacies for the price of one!