Philosophy Discussion Forums

ape wrote:So where are the living intermediates of which there shd also be endless?

In biology, we usually talk about different species inhabiting different ecological niches. That is, the rabbit eats grass, the coyote eats the rabbit; competitors for the same niche don't last long in a limited system. So if bobcats are introduced, and they're better at hunting than the coyotes, there will be less food for the coyotes; if the coyotes are weak enough, they will either go extinct or have to move out of the system.

Similarly, intelligent, two-legged primates inhabit a niche; there is only so much food and shelter for us. So, when we started to grow bigger brains than our relatives, we were much more successful, and pushed them to extinction or mated with them until there was nothing left. Conversely, we are far enough from our closest living relatives--I think chimpanzees--that we don't compete for a niche.

We know this happened specifically with Neanderthals, who lived at the same time as modern man; they are now extinct.

Juice wrote:Alun-I distinctly said that there is no "empirical" evidence that "modern" man evolved. Commonality of genes is not empirical evidence.

I didn't even cite genetic commonality. I cited the fossil record. Do you think that doesn't count either?

Juice wrote:Man is so much more than the sum of his parts which currently cannot be explained by evolution alone given the fact that man is exponentially superior to his nearest genetic equivalent.

Living genetic equivalent? You mean chimpanzees? Again, we know a ton of hominids existed in between our first appearance and the time of our common ancestor with chimpanzees. I have enough posts to link now so look:

All of those are human relatives with fossil evidence from archaeologyinfo.com. Relative to earlier hominids, Homo erectus had "An increase in brain size (erectus approximately 900 cc., sapiens approximately 1350 cc.)." Neanderthals had an even larger brain size. However, we know that Neanderthals were developed in different regions than us; they had pretty good tools, but no art, for example.

There is now consideration that Neanderthal did not go extinct and was more modern man like to create a full distinction.

The problem for anthropologist is not defining the fossil record but in defining man since man fits into a category all his own hence the "sapiens". Bipedalism a sapiens does not make.

Juice wrote:There is now consideration that Neanderthal did not go extinct and was more modern man like to create a full distinction.

Consideration by whom and to what extent? Can you provide a link to research, evidence, or at least a fuller explanation?

Juice wrote:The problem for anthropologist is not defining the fossil record but in defining man since man fits into a category all his own hence the "sapiens". Bipedalism a sapiens does not make.

Bipedal, social, and tool using are some basic factors. I do admit there is semantic difficulty in describing a speciation event. However, I don't think that has anything to do with the topic. How does the difficulty in defining humans make it any less evident that we evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees?

Alun-In the course of my work I do a lot of research, unfortuinately you are going to have to trust me on the Neanderthal. It is just one of the many theories concerning the advent of man.

I tried to be as nonjudgmental when I originally responded to the OP. It was you who incited me to further elaborate.

As you admit there is "semantic difficulty" therefore, as I originally suggested among other reasons, the reason for continued debate.

Alun wrote: In biology, we usually talk about different species inhabiting different ecological niches. That is, the rabbit eats grass, the coyote eats the rabbit; competitors for the same niche don't last long in a limited system. So if bobcats are introduced, and they're better at hunting than the coyotes, there will be less food for the coyotes; if the coyotes are weak enough, they will either go extinct or have to move out of the system.

Similarly, intelligent, two-legged primates inhabit a niche; there is only so much food and shelter for us. So, when we started to grow bigger brains than our relatives, we were much more successful, and pushed them to extinction or mated with them until there was nothing left. Conversely, we are far enough from our closest living relatives--I think chimpanzees--that we don't compete for a niche.

We know this happened specifically with Neanderthals, who lived at the same time as modern man; they are now extinct.

Thanx, Alun.

So what say you to this:
"To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip, leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public....
So put not your trust in reconstructions."
EARNST A. HOOTEN, Harvard, UP FROM THE APE.

Alun wrote:...Again, we know a ton of hominids existed in between our first appearance and the time of our common ancestor with chimpanzees. I have enough posts to link now so look:

And to this:
"His Lordship's [LORD SOLLY ZUCKERMAN] scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. 'They are just bloody apes', he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.. Zuckerman had become extremely powerful in British science, being an adviser to the government up to the highest level...,while at Oxford and then Birmingham universities, he had vigorously pursued a metrical and statistical approach to studying the anatomy of fossil hominids....it was on this basis that he underpinned his lifelong rejection of the australopithecines as human ancestors."
Roger Lewin, BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987.

Earnest A. Hooten wrote that in 1931... I daresay our knowledge of how muscles attach to skulls has changed since then. Nevertheless, the face of a Neanderthal is hardly what matters. They controlled fire; do you think chimps can do that? They buried their dead.

australopithecines walked on two legs; they weren't much smarter than humans, but I am surprised Lord Zuckerman thought they were unimportant. Their discovery helped scientists determine that bipedalism evolved before brain power.

By the time Hooten made his remark human anatomy had been studied for more that 340 years. Muscles being the most obvious, after skin, had been the first mapping of human anatomical structures even done by Ancient Persians and Egyptians, I dare say.

I'm not going to argue about facial reconstruction other than to again state that it's irrelevant.

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑January 29th, 2008, 3:23 pm
I'm putting this in the philosophy of religion section because I find that usually the only people who try to deny evolution are very religious, which appears to be the motivation behind their desire to deny evolution.

My question is how can anyone deny evolution?

The Atheists had been desperate to come up
with a materialistic-atheistic alternative to God creating all Life.

Darwinian Evolution is NOT a scientific theory for a simple
reason that it is NOT experimentally testable.

Small genetic variations among populations of the Finches (birds)
is NOT a scientific evidence of Darwinian Evolution of species.

So, what is Darwinian Evolution, really ?

Darwinian Evolution is a Religion of the Atheists
and of the Scientific Materialists.

DOES GOD EXIST ???

I remain an Agnostic in respect to this issue.

However, there have been more than enough of scientific evidence
in support of the scientific theory of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

The idea that a single living cell could be naturally
evolved via RANDOM mutations into Homo sapiens
over a mere 4 billion years is much worse than a non starter.
It is a step backward, a counter-evolution,
or a de-evolution, of human intelligence.

Alun wrote: ↑July 12th, 2009, 6:17 pm

ape wrote:So where are the living intermediates of which there shd also be endless?

In biology, we usually talk about different species inhabiting different ecological niches. That is, the rabbit eats grass, the coyote eats the rabbit; competitors for the same niche don't last long in a limited system. So if bobcats are introduced, and they're better at hunting than the coyotes, there will be less food for the coyotes; if the coyotes are weak enough, they will either go extinct or have to move out of the system.

Similarly, intelligent, two-legged primates inhabit a niche; there is only so much food and shelter for us. So, when we started to grow bigger brains than our relatives, we were much more successful, and pushed them to extinction or mated with them until there was nothing left. Conversely, we are far enough from our closest living relatives--I think chimpanzees--that we don't compete for a niche.

We know this happened specifically with Neanderthals, who lived at the same time as modern man; they are now extinct.

Juice wrote:Alun-I distinctly said that there is no "empirical" evidence that "modern" man evolved. Commonality of genes is not empirical evidence.

I didn't even cite genetic commonality. I cited the fossil record. Do you think that doesn't count either?

Juice wrote:Man is so much more than the sum of his parts which currently cannot be explained by evolution alone given the fact that man is exponentially superior to his nearest genetic equivalent.

Living genetic equivalent? You mean chimpanzees? Again, we know a ton of hominids existed in between our first appearance and the time of our common ancestor with chimpanzees. All of those are human relatives with fossil evidence. Relative to earlier hominids, Homo erectus had "An increase in brain size (erectus approximately 900 cc., sapiens approximately 1350 cc.)." Neanderthals had an even larger brain size. However, we know that Neanderthals were developed in different regions than us; they had pretty good tools, but no art, for example.

Darwinian EVOLUTION was experimentally FALSIFIED : viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19198

Evolution by natural selection is viewed by autocrats as a means of divesting them of power which depended on a supernatural deity.
Religious doctrines are on a scale ranging from extremely autocratic to extremely liberal. Roughly speaking the more autocratic the doctrines the more the high head ones of the political establishment make and enforce doctrines . Certain of the more liberal religious doctrines can and do accept , de-mystify, and to an extent glorify evolution by natural selection.

Belinda wrote: ↑March 4th, 2024, 8:08 am Evolution by natural selection is viewed by autocrats as a means of divesting them of power which depended on a supernatural deity.
Religious doctrines are on a scale ranging from extremely autocratic to extremely liberal. Roughly speaking the more autocratic the doctrines the more the high head ones of the political establishment make and enforce doctrines . Certain of the more liberal religious doctrines can and do accept , de-mystify, and to an extent glorify evolution by natural selection.

That hasn't been my experience. Theocracies at this time tend to have an extremely low modern science working knowledge among their citizenry such that science can be safely ignored and left unaddressed.

LuckyR wrote: ↑March 4th, 2024, 1:55 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑March 4th, 2024, 8:08 am Evolution by natural selection is viewed by autocrats as a means of divesting them of power which depended on a supernatural deity.
Religious doctrines are on a scale ranging from extremely autocratic to extremely liberal. Roughly speaking the more autocratic the doctrines the more the high head ones of the political establishment make and enforce doctrines . Certain of the more liberal religious doctrines can and do accept , de-mystify, and to an extent glorify evolution by natural selection.

That hasn't been my experience. Theocracies at this time tend to have an extremely low modern science working knowledge among their citizenry such that science can be safely ignored and left unaddressed.

But ignorance of science is deliberately engineered by the theocratic state that needs to restrict scientific knowledge all the better for the religious doctrine to serve political compliance. Autocrats want their servants to be easy to train, but they don't want them to be educated.

Belinda wrote: ↑March 4th, 2024, 6:48 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑March 4th, 2024, 1:55 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑March 4th, 2024, 8:08 am Evolution by natural selection is viewed by autocrats as a means of divesting them of power which depended on a supernatural deity.
Religious doctrines are on a scale ranging from extremely autocratic to extremely liberal. Roughly speaking the more autocratic the doctrines the more the high head ones of the political establishment make and enforce doctrines . Certain of the more liberal religious doctrines can and do accept , de-mystify, and to an extent glorify evolution by natural selection.

That hasn't been my experience. Theocracies at this time tend to have an extremely low modern science working knowledge among their citizenry such that science can be safely ignored and left unaddressed.

But ignorance of science is deliberately engineered by the theocratic state that needs to restrict scientific knowledge all the better for the religious doctrine to serve political compliance. Autocrats want their servants to be easy to train, but they don't want them to be educated.

We're saying the same thing using different wording. It's a chicken and egg thing. Are those who live in theocratic countries ignorant of science because it's suppressed by the government (which it is) or are theocratic leaders able to flourish where there is preexisting ignorance in general and of science specifically (which they are)?

The path of least resistance towards certainty and security, belief requires little energy in the way of cognitive demands. For those embraced fully in the struggle for existence, it is the only affordable option to staring into the void. Its simplicity is like rote learning untroubled by doubt as a communal endeavor. Prepped in childhood with the childish version of God with old St Nick, it encourages a mindlessness continuum in the way of a comforting delusion. Besides, it beats reading all of them hard books.