ok so im getting tired of constantly quoting you so that i can specify what im responding to and we are starting to get really long paragraphs so im going to try to start over and only quote things that i fell contribute something new to the argument.
@daxx
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.
@belthus
im not saying that theory of evolution is completely
wrong. on the contrary it matches the observed facts in the animal kingdom quite nicely. what i am saying is that evolution doesn't explain
human intelligence. and i gave a perfectly syllogistic argument (although i'll admit that it wasn't formatted in a comprehensible manner) in my original post.......however, for you i will reiterate and take you through the argument step-by-step.
actually i was planning on doing this anyway because you guys keep bringing up points that were part of my initial argument, taking them out of context, and trying to disprove me with them. so here goes.
word definitions (these are words that i will be using that are rather ambiguous so i am going to define what i mean when i use them).
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.
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
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).
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
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).
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
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).
premises
1. in order for intelligence to evolve it would have to have been a genetic mutation.
2. human being are physically (not counting intelligence) the least adapted creature on the planet.
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)
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)
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).
5. there is no evidence to support that there is another intelligent species on the planet, so how did humans get intelligence?
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.
Even if no religion exist the fact is that it gives something humankind to be good for, to be happy for, to embrace and love one another through, and that sounds pretty goddamned intelligent to me.
Yeah, I know what you mean. The word "LOVE" is what all religions are all about.
im just throwing this out because the comment is a direct insult to any true Christians. people like the people in those pictures belong to a very deluded group of people known as "religious extremists" they are not any better than the Muslims that destroyed the American world trade center.
true Christianity is not about doing that. those kind of actions are not commanded or even condoned by the bible.
