Don't worry about the triple post, it's cool. Better to keep this in a single thread.
im not saying that the evidence doesn't matter, im saying that you can't prove the evidence exists and therefore it shouldn't enter into such a debate as this.
That's an... odd argument. I can look at plenty of peer reviewed journals to find the evidence I'm looking for. Are you seriously claiming that we should ignore those pieces of evidence that are published on a regular basis by reputable sources? If that's your standard for evidence, I'm surprised you're a Creationist because actual published scientific evidence for that is little to non-existent. Hell, I'm surprised you're a Christian (assuming you are one given that you describe yourself as a creationist) given the lack of evidence for most supernatural things that happened in the Bible.
The evidence absolutely should matter when making arguments on this topic. When you use irreducible complexity, for example, the only way to refute that claim is with evidence to the contrary. Similarly with a lot of the other points you are raising - because you are factually incorrect, the only way to make a counterpoint is to present conflicting evidence. Otherwise it's just assertion. Sure, we're then just shifting the assertion to the point where we're claiming that the evidence exists, but if you're that paranoid that the whole thing is a giant conspiracy made up by scientists, I don't understand why you're trying to debate the subject. To be fair, I give you more credit than that; I just don't understand how you can disregard large amounts of reputable, authoritative, and useful evidence.
Hope you don't mind if I take these, Belthus. Sillyking, I hope you don't mind if I break this down point by point so we can take a closer look at your premises and conclusions:
and i gave a perfectly syllogistic argument (although i'll
intelligent: the ability to think, learn and make choices not based off of instinct or emotion or operant/classical conditioning).
physical: referring specifically to the body without brain
mutation: a random mistake made in the replication of a gene during reproduction that results in a change in the offspring
beneficial: does not decrease a creatures chance of survival, for example in times of great pressure like if environments, change then beneficial would be something that actually improves the species whereas in a static environment beneficial would be anything that doesn't actually hinder the creature.
Some interesting definitions there. I think you might be giving too much credit to humans with your definition of intelligence (and again I think the word you're really looking for is sapience), but the rest seem fair enough. Personally I wouldn't define a beneficial mutation as one that does not alter survivability, but I understand the angle you're coming at that term from.
theory of evolution (as i understand it correct me if im wrong)
1. as a species reproduces, occasionally mistakes are made in the replication of the gene, these are called mutations. these occur once every few thousand years
Depending on the specific species, it can be more (or possibly less) frequent. Where exactly do you get the timespan of thousands of years, out of interest? Otherwise, that's more or less correct.
2. mutations change something about the make-up of an animal, this may include physical make-up, instinctual programming (what there instincts are, i don't think this is a technical term), or physiological make-up (how the body works to maintain itself).
Amongst others. Specifically, and I think this might be helpful in understanding the problem of intelligence, mutations can (on a physiological level) affect the brain and therefore the emergent property of intelligence.
3. if the mutation is beneficial (or at least doesn't hinder) then the gene is likely to survive and be passed on to offspring
Correct. Emphasis on "likely", of course.
4. if the mutation is destructive or hinders operation in anyway then the creature is more likely to die before it can reproduce the gene (or if it does reproduce then its offspring are likely to die, either way the gene is unlikely to survive the test of time).
Yep. Again, emphasis on "likely".
if the gene is propagated then eventually over time that gene gains in prevalence, and more and more creatures are born with it
5. eventually a creature with that gene will reproduce and there will be a mistake in the replication of the genome and another mutation will occur.
6. revisit steps 3 and 4
Yep.
7. over time and countless repetitions of this process, new species are created from the old ones.
(i know this is right, and this is one of the premises that i'm starting with).
Yes. There's an interesting debate about what mechanisms are most important in speciation. Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation), as always, has an interesting article.
premises
1. in order for intelligence to evolve it would have to have been a genetic mutation.
Correct. Of course, intelligence is not a binary operator. It is a linear pattern, with some creatures possessing more or less of it. Genetic mutations probably led to increased levels of intelligence when intelligence was selected for by the environment or some other factor.
2. human being are physically (not counting intelligence) the least adapted creature on the planet.
Almost certainly incorrect in using the superlative, but intelligence is a large part of the current population's survival strategy.
argument: when did intelligence occur?
1. in order for the mutation to occur we would have had to either devolve to our physical decadence, and as a result a mutation of intelligence becomes a stronger survival trait. (so like, we devolved a little bit, our brains evolved a little to make-up for it, and so on like that)
Possibly mutations were contemporaneous. Or in fact, it was one single mutation that led to both the physical handicaps and the improved intelligence itself. There were certainly tradeoffs involved.
2. or we would have had to gain a little intelligence and as a result the mutations that made us weaker are able to survive (see steps 3,4 of the evolution process)
This is, I think, where the problem arises. You are assuming a very simplistic linear progression of "first one, then the other" when in fact it is almost certainly more complicated than that. As I mentioned above, it's more likely that the mutations either occurred around the same time or there is no distinction between the mutations which caused relative physical handicap and improved mental capacity - that is, they are directly causational. There's no need for the species to be at a disadvantage for a while before improving, or the other way around.
3. if number one happened, natural selection would have killed the gene before we could mutate to become slightly more intelligent, after all mutations start with one creature and that gene has to survive thousands of years for the next successful mutation. (which would have to be a change in physical mental capacity)
4. if number 2 happened, then why did our ancestors die? because the slight increase in brain power occurred before the slight decrease in physical survivability the parent animal would have the increased brain power without the weaker body. because of this natural selection would kill the weaker of the two. or they would both survive. this would happen until (clear down the line,a few hundred thousand years later) when the last mutation occurred we'd still have the parent (with the same mental capacity) and the child (slightly weaker).
See above. This is what is known in logic as a false dilemma. There is another explanation, and that is that neither 1 nor 2 are true.
5. there is no evidence to support that there is another intelligent species on the planet, so how did humans get intelligence?
There are two problems with this statement. Firstly, your definition of intelligence represents it as a trait all of its own, which is either there or it is not. Intelligence in nature comes in degrees. It is a trait just like "chicken-ness", when we approach the problem of the chicken and the egg. Almost certainly, humans derived their intelligence from their slightly less intelligent ancestors.
The second issue is that intelligence as you have defined it is attributing something rather more special than is deserved to the human race. Sapience, as it is regularly defined, is not directly coded from our genome in the sense that there is a gene which you can turn on and off for sapience. Rather, it is an emergent property of the structure of the brain. All you need to achieve sapience is a complicated and robust neural structure; you don't need a specific mutation to achieve that, beyond ones that simply improve the physiological aspects of the brain.
and please explain exactly what you mean by "red queen effect" i looked it up but the definition was far to technical and it was late and i just really didn't understand what it meant, i understand the reference i just don't know what it has to do with evolution.
Sure thing. The Red Queen effect is a concept in evolutionary theory which states that you have to "keep running in order to stand still", as it were (referencing the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland). What it means is that species develop relative to their environment, and that matters more than the absolute measure of development. For a simplified example, the Red Queen effect dictates that lions and gazelles continue to run faster and faster, because each exerts a selective pressure on the other for improved speed. Therefore over time, the speed of the pair of species increases. That was what I was correcting for on the graph, because it would have made it much more complicated - but since it is an effect that we can take to be largely constant or at least independent of other factors, we can eliminate its effects in the graph without loss of generality in the argument. It doesn't really have much to do with the argument I was making, I was just pointing out that the argument is slightly more complicated than I presented it.
Unfortunately your misconceptions mostly stem from not having a full understanding of biology rather than evolutionary theory
what exactly don't you think i understand about biology?
Hopefully I've pointed out a few areas above.
Not strictly true. We have plenty going for us. We're excellent runners, as I pointed out, we can climb, we have binocular vision, and so on.
none of this contributes to survivability.
we can run for long distances but the predators that we'd be facing in africa (I.E. lions and tigers and bears 'oh my') are faster then us and (with the exception of bears perhaps) just as agile so we wouldn't escape by running
"we can climb?" so can tigers, panthers, bears, snakes, and well, the vast majority of dangers we would be facing in african jungles.
binocular vision: so we can see better than other animals, so what? how will that help if your being chased by a lioness?
Running is not for escaping from predators (though that might work in some situations). It's theorised that we used it to hunt. A better long distance runner is more survivable since he can better catch prey for food - humans are more than capable of chasing down gazelles/zebras/other similar animals, since we overheat less and are built for that kind of running. Climbing actually does help against many predators - you've noted a few examples of climbing predators, but they aren't the only ones we may have faced. Again, however the ability to climb also means that we can access more food. Binocular vision allows us to judge distances from potential food sources and predators.
Survivability doesn't just count defensive adaptations. You don't actually compete against things that predate on you, they just exert a selective pressure. We're pretty well adapted for obtaining food, and on top of this our intelligence gives us many other advantages. The average human animal is not well adapted for physical survival if it only had a lion's level of intelligence, but it doesn't operate under that evolutionary strategy.
The brain and its makeup is clearly derived from various genetic properties, and has clearly evolved if you look back through the fossil record. Intelligence and "free will" (which probably doesn't exist) are emergent properties of the brain, in the same way that a creature's running speed is an emergent property of its body plan and locomotive mechanism. It honestly is completely disingenuous to claim that there is "no evidence", because there is plenty.
ok but your aren't understanding my point. the brain could have evolved. except that (my point is) the brain does not create intelligence. this is actually a very controversial subject that has not yet been resolved. there are studies going on to determine how the brain creates decisions. scientists have been able to cause arms to move, or sensations to occur n parts of the body by stimulating parts of the brain, they have been unable to cause someone to decide something.
This isn't controversial at all. The brain is clearly the source of our intelligence. What else is? The heart? The gall bladder? There's no empirical evidence for anything like a soul, that's for certain. The studies that scientists are performing are very crude expeditions into the bleeding limits of our knowledge about the brain. We barely know what parts of the brain correspond to different functions, let alone how to stimulate emotions or decisions. But just because it's not possible to artificially stimulate these things now doesn't mean there is any controversy about where they come from. They're just not yet well understood enough to be artificially tampered with.
free will does exist. you literally can go and do whatever you want, literally, but then so can everybody else, so if you do something that other people don't like then they can arrest you as well. that is what society is. it is "everybody" conforming to a set of choices that are believed (by the society) to be best.
Prove free will exists. I will gladly make a bet with you on this one. Even the world's greatest thinkers have been unable to do so. The best guess is that the universe is relatively deterministic or at least based on some randomness, and that therefore everything in it (including the brain and the emergent property of consciousness and sapience) is dictated by the universe's laws.
the last part of that is the assertion that "Intelligence and "free will" (which probably doesn't exist) are emergent properties of the brain." which as i have explained has not been proven scientifically (again according to my psych teacher).
I don't particularly trust your psych teacher to be an expert in neuroscience. Psychology is at best a poorly understood area of thought, and at worst is nothing more than pseudoscience. That, and there aren't many alternative explanations which do not rely on non-scientific explanations like a "soul". Nevertheless it is not the point to "prove" that intelligence is seated in the brain, since this is a theory of mind. Just as other theories cannot be proved but can be supported, you must falsify the theory in order to get anywhere since the idea that intelligence arises from the brain is what we would in statistics call the null hypothesis.
The point is that we are not exclusively predators. We can get nutrition from other sources (scavenging, plants, and so on). Therefore comparing us to creatures which are exclusively predatory doesn't actually make sense.
i never compared us to other predators, i simply sated that we are the "weakest predators" in that if we were to fight any other land based predator on the planet without tools, we'd lose. and i simply was using this statement as an illustration of what i meant when i explained that (if we were created by evolution) we devolved physically at the same time that we evolved mentally.
We would probably lose in a direct fight with most large predators (there are many others that are smaller and weaker, of course), but that's not what we are built for. Our evolutionary strategy doesn't take us into conflict with specialised predators on their terms; it circumvents them. It is therefore somewhat of a
non sequitur. We have plenty of other adaptions which allow us to survive.
Humans didn't evolve to fit those evolutionary niches. They evolved (most probably) somewhere in Africa. The human body is actually quite well suited to the African climate.
but climate is not the only thing that contributes to natural selection. we also need to evolve to survive predators. and we are physically incapable of surviving the predators we'd be facing (without the ability to think). again this was a point that i made in order to illustrate how we had devolved physically at the same time that we evolved mentally. which is one of the premises to my argument, which i reiterated above. hopefully it is more coherent and understandable the way i formatted it this time.
I'm really not sure where you're going with this. Ultimately this is irrelevant to the discussion because you keep insisting on removing the modern human's greatest asset - the ability to think. No-one is making the point that should a human and a lion going toe-to-toe with the same brain capacity it would do well.You are underselling human physical traits, but this whole point is irrelevant to your argument because no-one is arguing against the idea that we are not adapted to compete on that basis.
