Scientists are worried cos the use of animal parts in human beings could produce virus. In some cases marrow transplant was made using baboons and applying this to humans. You know tissues of pigs have been using in the treatment of people who had severe burn damage and it's discussed the use of transgenic animal DNA into humans. The breeding among different species was forbidden in Leviticus for very good reasons. I use AIDS and SARS as an examples of genetic manipulation that actually can wiped out mankind. Yet I don't wanna keep on talking this issue even if you agree or disagree or solicite more info, it's off the main topic.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creation - Evolution Continuum
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
This thread is inspired by an article in the current issue (Vol.10, No.4, 2004) of Skeptic Magazine.
Many - if not most - Americans think of the creation vs. evolution argument as a matter of choosing one of two sides of the fence. In fact, though, there are many positions one can take. Below is a brief summary adapted from the Skeptic article.
Where do you fit on the continuum?
Flat Earthers
This is the most extreme biblical literalist position. Flat Earthers believe the bible says the Earth is flat, and therefore it must be, despite all evidence to the contrary. They also believe in the literal truth of the Genesis story, along with the literal truth of rest of the bible.
Geocentrists
People with this view accept that the Earth is spherical, but hold that the Earth is the centre of the universe. They reject virtually all of modern physics, chemistry and biology, and, like flat-earthers, believe in the literal truth of the bible.
Young-earth Creationists
These people generally accept a sun-centred solar system, but reject most of modern physics, chemistry, geology concerning the age of the Earth and biology. According to their view, the Earth was created by God 6000 to 10000 years ago, along with all modern lifeforms. They believe that the Noah flood story is literally true, along with the Genesis story.
Old-earth Creationists
These people accept modern geology and the conclusion that Earth is billions of years old. They believe that God was intimately involved in the creation of all life on Earth, although precisely what form that involvement took is debateable. They believe that lifeforms can change over time, but God guides changes. They generally reject the theory of descent with modification.
Day-Age Creationists
These people are old-earth creationists who believe in a mostly literal reading of the bible. However, day-age creationists say that each "day" of creation in the bible actually corresponds to a much longer period of time - perhaps millions of years. Thus, plants appeared millions of years before animals, and humans came even later.
Progressive Creationists
Progressive creationists accept scientific estimates of the age of the Earth, and much other modern science besides. However, only some parts of modern biology are accepted. PCs believe that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially. They do not believe that later kinds of animals are descended from earlier ones - each kind is a separate creation by God. They allow for changes to occur "within a kind", although "kind" is defined somewhat inconsistently. Thus, the created cat "kind" could have changed gradually to produce lions, tigers and house cats. Thus, PCs accept a kind of "microevolution", but draw the line at major changes.
Intelligent Design (ID) Creationists
ID Creationists hold that some biological features of plants and animals are "irreducibly complex", and so could not have evolved by means of Darwinian evolution. ID allows for some microevolution, but supporters deny that mutation and natural selection are sufficient in themselves to explain the evolution of one "kind" of life from another (e.g. they cannot explain the evolution of humans from apes).
Evolutionary creationists
ECs believe that God uses the process of scientific Darwinian evolution to bring about his plan. Thus, ECs accept all of modern science and can be considered "evolutionists". Their position is distinguished from theistic evolution mainly on theological grounds - it tends to be held by more conservative and evangelical Christians.
Theistic evolutionists
Again, TEs believe that God creates via the process of evolution as described by Darwin. God intervenes at critical times in the process of evolution, giving life appropriate "nudges" in the right direction. This is particular relevant in the evolution of human beings. This is the official position held by the Catholic Church, as stated explicitly by Pope John Paul II.
Neutral evolutionists
NEs hold a non-religious view of the development of life on Earth. They believe that religion and science are separate domains, and that religion and God are not required to explain the development of life on Earth; science is sufficient for a complete explanation. They do not express a view on whether God exists or guides evolution, because this is not relevant to the question at hand.
Materialistic Evolutionists
Believers in ME also hold a non-religious view of the development of life on Earth. They differ from NEs in that they propose in addition that the laws of nature are all that exists; they assert that supernatural forces such as God do not exist.
Many - if not most - Americans think of the creation vs. evolution argument as a matter of choosing one of two sides of the fence. In fact, though, there are many positions one can take. Below is a brief summary adapted from the Skeptic article.
Where do you fit on the continuum?
Flat Earthers
This is the most extreme biblical literalist position. Flat Earthers believe the bible says the Earth is flat, and therefore it must be, despite all evidence to the contrary. They also believe in the literal truth of the Genesis story, along with the literal truth of rest of the bible.
Geocentrists
People with this view accept that the Earth is spherical, but hold that the Earth is the centre of the universe. They reject virtually all of modern physics, chemistry and biology, and, like flat-earthers, believe in the literal truth of the bible.
Young-earth Creationists
These people generally accept a sun-centred solar system, but reject most of modern physics, chemistry, geology concerning the age of the Earth and biology. According to their view, the Earth was created by God 6000 to 10000 years ago, along with all modern lifeforms. They believe that the Noah flood story is literally true, along with the Genesis story.
Old-earth Creationists
These people accept modern geology and the conclusion that Earth is billions of years old. They believe that God was intimately involved in the creation of all life on Earth, although precisely what form that involvement took is debateable. They believe that lifeforms can change over time, but God guides changes. They generally reject the theory of descent with modification.
Day-Age Creationists
These people are old-earth creationists who believe in a mostly literal reading of the bible. However, day-age creationists say that each "day" of creation in the bible actually corresponds to a much longer period of time - perhaps millions of years. Thus, plants appeared millions of years before animals, and humans came even later.
Progressive Creationists
Progressive creationists accept scientific estimates of the age of the Earth, and much other modern science besides. However, only some parts of modern biology are accepted. PCs believe that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially. They do not believe that later kinds of animals are descended from earlier ones - each kind is a separate creation by God. They allow for changes to occur "within a kind", although "kind" is defined somewhat inconsistently. Thus, the created cat "kind" could have changed gradually to produce lions, tigers and house cats. Thus, PCs accept a kind of "microevolution", but draw the line at major changes.
Intelligent Design (ID) Creationists
ID Creationists hold that some biological features of plants and animals are "irreducibly complex", and so could not have evolved by means of Darwinian evolution. ID allows for some microevolution, but supporters deny that mutation and natural selection are sufficient in themselves to explain the evolution of one "kind" of life from another (e.g. they cannot explain the evolution of humans from apes).
Evolutionary creationists
ECs believe that God uses the process of scientific Darwinian evolution to bring about his plan. Thus, ECs accept all of modern science and can be considered "evolutionists". Their position is distinguished from theistic evolution mainly on theological grounds - it tends to be held by more conservative and evangelical Christians.
Theistic evolutionists
Again, TEs believe that God creates via the process of evolution as described by Darwin. God intervenes at critical times in the process of evolution, giving life appropriate "nudges" in the right direction. This is particular relevant in the evolution of human beings. This is the official position held by the Catholic Church, as stated explicitly by Pope John Paul II.
Neutral evolutionists
NEs hold a non-religious view of the development of life on Earth. They believe that religion and science are separate domains, and that religion and God are not required to explain the development of life on Earth; science is sufficient for a complete explanation. They do not express a view on whether God exists or guides evolution, because this is not relevant to the question at hand.
Materialistic Evolutionists
Believers in ME also hold a non-religious view of the development of life on Earth. They differ from NEs in that they propose in addition that the laws of nature are all that exists; they assert that supernatural forces such as God do not exist.
Runt
Well-Known Member
I'm somewhere between a theistic evolutionist and a neutral evolutionist. Whereas Theistic evolutionists believe God "created" these laws and uses them, and Neutral evolutionists don't have God anywhere in that picture, I think God and the natural laws are one and the same, or rather that the natural laws are PART of God.
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
I guess being Taoist would put me between the Theistic and Neutral evolutionists. Even though the Tao is not god, it is the first cause of everything. However, I do not believe that the Tao is necessary for explaining the developing of life on earth, it is only necessary for explaining how to live in peace, balance, and simplicity.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
On a sidenote-- Q, I love Skeptic Magazine! I got a subscription for Christmas :lol: I read the same article, it was interesting.
Materialistic Evolutionist here.
Materialistic Evolutionist here.
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/11spec02.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut08.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut16.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc05.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc06.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc08.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc09.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/15sim01.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/15sim02.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist08.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist09.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist10.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc04.htm
It's interesting to read what scientists had to say about the issue rather than readers opinions only.
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut08.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut16.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc05.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc06.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc08.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc09.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/15sim01.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/15sim02.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist08.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist09.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist10.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc04.htm
It's interesting to read what scientists had to say about the issue rather than readers opinions only.
Q: everytime an evolutionist repeats 1000 times "it's a fact", "it's a fact", "it's a fact" is cos it's not a fact but a desperatly attempt to grab to that philosophy. In a similar theme in this forum you can see a 9 pages discussion on the subject. Please notice in that site you're saying the scientists statements are ignorant. The names of them are already mentioned as well as the references but I prefer you to read what I posted in the other similar issue....not jumping information ...but checking every single one of the items. And please, everytime you make a general statement like that of yours (typical in an evolutionist) write what is ignorance and why you think so. Because if I follow the same pattern I can say the only ignorant and narrow minded person here is an unknown amateur who can't even admit so much information doesn't have 1% of truth.
Rather than deciding for the rest what is a fact or not, you can start reading from right here:
www.religiousforums.com/parkweb/viewtopic.php?t=78&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60
www.religiousforums.com/parkweb/viewtopic.php?t=78&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60
But you know what amazes most, that this Q is someone who wrote something about the human brain and neuroscience ans still believes in evolution of the brain which is something not too many experts in specifically that field believe. Are you the one who already knows that soul is 100% immaterial and our body is 100% material in order to use that as dogma?
www.religiousforums.com/parkweb/viewtopic.php?t=181
Well, I think we're talking with a physicist wise man here cos even the brain experts are astonishing about the information decoded by the brain and conextions more than the atoms of the universe (if we believe some scientists). Nop, no brain evolution neither language evolution nor thinking evolution either!
www.religiousforums.com/parkweb/viewtopic.php?t=181
Well, I think we're talking with a physicist wise man here cos even the brain experts are astonishing about the information decoded by the brain and conextions more than the atoms of the universe (if we believe some scientists). Nop, no brain evolution neither language evolution nor thinking evolution either!
true blood
Active Member
What kind of evolution are you talking about Q were humans once river apps?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I'm Theistic evolution... mostly... how much 'god' nudges things I cant say.. but I don't think its much.
true blood... The river ape theroy is intresting but I'm not sold on it... Bonobo's live in seasonally flooded forest and don't show many of the same adaptations we were supposed to have gained from it. I'm more for the savana myself..
Perhaps the most important question is what makes us Human vs. what makes our predcessors not human?
wa:-do
true blood... The river ape theroy is intresting but I'm not sold on it... Bonobo's live in seasonally flooded forest and don't show many of the same adaptations we were supposed to have gained from it. I'm more for the savana myself..
Perhaps the most important question is what makes us Human vs. what makes our predcessors not human?
wa:-do
And please, everytime you make a general statement like that of yours (typical in an evolutionist) write what is ignorance and why you think so.
Sorry, but if Im not mistaken you offered no opinion yourself and instead merely posted a bunch of links what color is that pot, mr. kettle? (typical creationist)
But lets take a quote directly from the very first link you posted:
Complete ignorance, this guy has no idea what evolution is about, yet draws this conclusion based on ?
But you know what amazes most, that this Q is someone who wrote something about the human brain and neuroscience ans still believes in evolution of the brain which is something not too many experts in specifically that field believe.
Complete hogwash! No credible scientist believes the brain didnt evolve. Your grasping at straws.
What's a 'river apps?'
Sorry, but if Im not mistaken you offered no opinion yourself and instead merely posted a bunch of links what color is that pot, mr. kettle? (typical creationist)
But lets take a quote directly from the very first link you posted:
Complete ignorance, this guy has no idea what evolution is about, yet draws this conclusion based on ?
But you know what amazes most, that this Q is someone who wrote something about the human brain and neuroscience ans still believes in evolution of the brain which is something not too many experts in specifically that field believe.
Complete hogwash! No credible scientist believes the brain didnt evolve. Your grasping at straws.
What's a 'river apps?'
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Uh-oh. Here we go again..... :killme:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
but mr. spinkles... we have a whole new thread to follow on this one..
:lol:
wa:-do
:lol:
wa:-do
I didn't make a comment in this part, I quoted links. If you ignore all the information is up to you. Nobody convinces anyone. It's you the one who says evolution is a fact. Since that is science and not religion, that has to be proved. Is it a fact? Millions of people in different areas believe it's not. So specify what is fact in evolution or what you disagree. If the site is wrong perhaps you would be so kind to inform us what is evolution about?
First of all, Mr. Q, respect our QI and every time you dare to write something about the brain -as you did in this forum- you shall kneel in awe admiration as neurospecialists do all time they discover something new. Karl Pribram, neurophysiologist from Stanford University and physicist David Bohm, expert in quantum theory and its said he was Einsteins protégée , believe our memory is holographic and Michael Talbot in his Holographic Universe says the whole existence is a hologram built by the brain and compares the way laser beam reflects in the construction of an hologram with the neural impulse propelled at the end of the neuron. We all could have they say- the solid sensation because were part of the holodeck in the very sense like the flm The 13th Floor and Matrix. Cutting brain of mice it was discovered there were no areas with file memories but it was distributed trough the whole brain. The brain of epileptic people (who were aware) were electrically stimulated in temporal sides. They remembered astonishing details of their lives like complete conversation after many years, a face lost among hundreds of faces, the spider web they saw when they were kids. How can people believe in the evolution of an organ (or body or universe) they dont even comprehend too well. Its like destroying a watch to see how it works and then saying it evolved from itself. In harmony with that, Poland Professor of Theoretical Physics at Hebrew Univ of Jerusalem, Jacob D. Bekenstein, recipient of Rothschild Prize and John Wheeler, imagine a universe of 5 dimensions which an hologram. Imagine a 2D universe closed like a sphere. Brief burst of light issuing simultaneously & perpendicularly from all over one side, light emitted from the inner surface of a spherical shell.
In other times, evolutionists thought the size of the skull or brain would indicate more or less intelligence. Now the new generations who dont have the historical sense of their dogma theyre accepting, ignore those times and happily say NOW, intelligence has nothing to do with size. But I do remember all those days when it was discussed the bigger size of Neanderthal skull could mean he was smarter than us and in fact there was involution or evolution in reverse. Then they had to change the strategy. Yet the differences between the brain of man and woman (homo sapiens) are still discussed now. Now, they are saying redhead Scottish descent from Neanderthal because a specific gene.
Among more than million different animal species, its us the ones who have consciousness of life & death and universal law. That allow many scientists to believe in the anthropic principle of the universe. As Nobel Prize physicist, Steven Weinberg put it: the world is the way it is because in part, in other way there wouldnt be nobody to ask how is it the way it is. Or physicist Freeman Dyson when he wrote: when we consider the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that work together in our benefit, we have almost the impression that the universe shouldve known somehow that we were coming. If a stupid evolutionist believes evolutionist is the mother deaf-dumb-blind and without purpose of the universe and brain is because he is uninformed about real science. They shouldve payed attention who are the ones who know science for real, not only their Creationist enemies.
If someone wants to believe the frog transforms into a prince with the marvelous kiss of Chronus Time and Mother Evolution in this complicated universe .
Its us the ones who have consciousness among all plants and animals, otherwise I would be chatting by internet with a giant imbecile turtle in Galapagos (Am I talking with one ? No, I dont think so). Hence we are the freaks of evolution Perhaps Mr. Q wants to disagree in personal letter with those physicist including Nobel Prize winner. Would you Mr wise guy?
First of all, Mr. Q, respect our QI and every time you dare to write something about the brain -as you did in this forum- you shall kneel in awe admiration as neurospecialists do all time they discover something new. Karl Pribram, neurophysiologist from Stanford University and physicist David Bohm, expert in quantum theory and its said he was Einsteins protégée , believe our memory is holographic and Michael Talbot in his Holographic Universe says the whole existence is a hologram built by the brain and compares the way laser beam reflects in the construction of an hologram with the neural impulse propelled at the end of the neuron. We all could have they say- the solid sensation because were part of the holodeck in the very sense like the flm The 13th Floor and Matrix. Cutting brain of mice it was discovered there were no areas with file memories but it was distributed trough the whole brain. The brain of epileptic people (who were aware) were electrically stimulated in temporal sides. They remembered astonishing details of their lives like complete conversation after many years, a face lost among hundreds of faces, the spider web they saw when they were kids. How can people believe in the evolution of an organ (or body or universe) they dont even comprehend too well. Its like destroying a watch to see how it works and then saying it evolved from itself. In harmony with that, Poland Professor of Theoretical Physics at Hebrew Univ of Jerusalem, Jacob D. Bekenstein, recipient of Rothschild Prize and John Wheeler, imagine a universe of 5 dimensions which an hologram. Imagine a 2D universe closed like a sphere. Brief burst of light issuing simultaneously & perpendicularly from all over one side, light emitted from the inner surface of a spherical shell.
In other times, evolutionists thought the size of the skull or brain would indicate more or less intelligence. Now the new generations who dont have the historical sense of their dogma theyre accepting, ignore those times and happily say NOW, intelligence has nothing to do with size. But I do remember all those days when it was discussed the bigger size of Neanderthal skull could mean he was smarter than us and in fact there was involution or evolution in reverse. Then they had to change the strategy. Yet the differences between the brain of man and woman (homo sapiens) are still discussed now. Now, they are saying redhead Scottish descent from Neanderthal because a specific gene.
Among more than million different animal species, its us the ones who have consciousness of life & death and universal law. That allow many scientists to believe in the anthropic principle of the universe. As Nobel Prize physicist, Steven Weinberg put it: the world is the way it is because in part, in other way there wouldnt be nobody to ask how is it the way it is. Or physicist Freeman Dyson when he wrote: when we consider the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that work together in our benefit, we have almost the impression that the universe shouldve known somehow that we were coming. If a stupid evolutionist believes evolutionist is the mother deaf-dumb-blind and without purpose of the universe and brain is because he is uninformed about real science. They shouldve payed attention who are the ones who know science for real, not only their Creationist enemies.
If someone wants to believe the frog transforms into a prince with the marvelous kiss of Chronus Time and Mother Evolution in this complicated universe .
Its us the ones who have consciousness among all plants and animals, otherwise I would be chatting by internet with a giant imbecile turtle in Galapagos (Am I talking with one ? No, I dont think so). Hence we are the freaks of evolution Perhaps Mr. Q wants to disagree in personal letter with those physicist including Nobel Prize winner. Would you Mr wise guy?
Darwin might never have written Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859) had it not been for the arrival of a paper that shook him to the core - a paper from Alfred Russel Wallace, wherein was set out, in essentials, the very theory of evolution which Darwin had already devised, but had not taken the time to refine and publish. In a flash, Darwin took pen in hand, and hammered out the immortal book that would supersede Wallace's work. All of this, of course, is but a tiny chapter in the history of science - with which many readers are doubtless familiar. Why mention it here? Well, Eccles calls himself a Darwinian, but actually he's a Wallacean - and there's a difference, a big difference between the two views. As Eccles explains, "Wallace felt that human intelligence could only be explained by the direct intervention of Cosmic intelligence" (Eccles, 1989, p. 235). This was a notion Darwin couldn't stomach. Wallace outraged Darwin by publishing a paper on primitive people (with whom he lived most of his life) in which he declared:
Natural Selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but a little inferior to that of the average members of our learned societies (Eccles, 1989, p. 235).
The notion that the powers possessed by homo sapiens sapiens (HSS) were created not by mindless processes, but by the Almighty, is one Eccles is quite at home with. Indeed, this book, despite it's empirical-sounding title, is in many ways a prolegomenon to Christian eschatology.
A casual reading may leave readers with the impression that Eccles is a Darwinian; a careful reading discloses the affinity to Wallace. We don't have the space here to retell the story even synoptically, but we can convey its gist.
Eccles' starts spinning his narrative in the preface, where he informs us that he has "been able to unfold the fascinating story of hominid evolution of the human brain" (Eccles, 1989, xi). But we soon see that there are two separate stories. The first spans the evolution of the mammalian brain from the primates to the emergence of homo sapiens (HS). The second story starts after the first ends, that is, after the brain of HS had arrived; it's the story of how we became - to use Eccles' phrase - human persons: incorporeal creatures able to control, and have experience through, human bodies.
The first story is in many ways told from the point of view of a detective recounting a solved case. Understanding the brain is made possible by inference from clues - such as changes in posture and locomotion. For example, Eccles infers from the famous footprints found at the Laetoli beds in Northern Tanzania that Australopithecus (A) was erect and bipedal. He also goes on to speak of human-like relationships among A; this Eccles infers from hand-holding, which is in turn inferred from the fact that the footprints in question are side-by-side. That some of the footprints are superimposed one upon another implies, by Eccles' lights, that A was capable of both a fairly high level of concentration and fine motor control. Eccles makes similar types of inferences from such evidence throughout the book.
Eccles' evolutionary story includes his discussion of the development of fine motor control from early primates to HS in connection with expansion of motor cortical representation for the thumb and fingers. He tells us that it wasn't until these features of the brain evolved that tool-making could occur. The idea is that the raw physical ability was present, but there was inadequate brain power.
This raises the obvious question: Why did these features of the brain evolve? In seeking an answer to this question one grasps the gist of Eccles' narrative, and one begins to see that Eccles and Darwin are worlds apart.
Eccles' answer to the question is that periods of stasis are punctuated by periods of rapid evolutionary change (speciation events), but with saltations and the creation of "hopeful monsters."
In a sense, the new function arises by serendipity, but Eccles seems to hold that there is indeed a reason for these changes, at least when it comes to the brain. So first we have bodies able to walk erect in bipedal fashion, and then comes the neural machinery able to control such bodies.
AS I SAID BEFORE -n similar theme in this forum- THIS IS NOT THE CASE, GENETICS HAVE PROVED THERE'S ALREADY THE MODEL OF AN ORGAN INSERTED EVEN IN THE MOST "PRIMITIVE" CREATURES WHO DIDN'T HAVE NOT EVEN THE ORGANS. So the argument "And first we have a hand physically able to build tools, and then comes the neural machinery enabling the use of such a hand. And first we have mechanisms allowing for the production of an array of sounds, and then comes the neural stuff that can put these mechanisms to work in communicating" has been demonstrated to be a mistake. In all these cases, the prior mechanism comes in order to get ready for the subsequent neurological advance. The ultimate trick of this type is the core of Eccles' second story: the advent of dualist interactionism: the arrival of certain neural machinery in primates makes it possible, many years later, for persons, existing in the non-physical world of the mental, to interact with and control bodies. Such an exotic and teleological scheme certainly is Wallace's (Clements, 1983). As Eccles proudly confesses:
I believe that biological evolution is not simply chance and necessity. That could never have produced us with our values. I can sense with [Sherrington] that evolution may be the instrument of a Purpose, lifting it beyond chance and necessity at least in the transcendence that brought forth human creatures gifted with self-consciousness (Eccles, 1989, p. 116).
3. Dualist Interactionism
What is dualist interactionism (DI)? : there are minds, incorporeal entities, and they interact somehow with physical brains.
The materialist critics argue that insuperable difficulties are encountered by the hypothesis that immaterial mental events such as thinking can act in any way on material structures such a neurons of the cerebral cortex... Such a presumed action is alleged to be incompatible with the conservation laws of physics, in particular of the first law of thermodynamics (Eccles, 1989, p. 187).
How does Eccles address this problem? By turning to quantum physics, specifically to the work of Margenau (1984):
Following Margenau, the hypothesis is that mind-brain interaction is analogous to a probability field of quantum mechanics, which has neither mass nor energy yet can cause effective action at microsites. More specifically it is proposed that the mental concentration involved in intentions or planned thinking can cause neural events by a process analogous to the probability fields of quantum mechanics (Eccles, 1989, p. 189).
Such a scheme isn't likely to make any philosophical headway, for the simple reason that that to which Eccles appeals here (as physicists and philosophers of science can confirm) is as controversial as interactionism itself.
Arguments for Dualist Interactionism?
Eccles' book is shockingly short on argumentation; we imagine that Eccles himself would confess that argumentation (at least of the rigorous variety) isn't intended to be the book's strong suit. However, a charitable reading (an extremely charitable reading) yields three arguments that can be reconstructed from the text. They are:
"The Brain Replacement Argument." The basic idea here is that most of your body is inessential. That is, we can cut off your foot, and replace it with a prosthesis, or even just leave you without it (if we take care of the bleeding). We can do this for your nose, your eyeballs, your hair... in fact, we can clearly do it for everything beneath your chin. And we don't even need to stop when we reach your brain. As Eccles points out (Eccles, 1989, p. 219), removal of the cerebellum gravely incapacitates movement, but the person is not otherwise affected. So we can keep going at least until we get to parts of your neo-cortex. Once at this point, we note that the physical stuff in question can be replaced with other physical stuff as long as the new stuff operates similarly - so how can a mind, a person, as a genuine thing that persists through time (an ens per se, to use the Latin), be a particular physical thing (an ens successivum)?
YET IF THERE'S NO PURPOSE, THE EXISTENCE ALLOW US TO ENJOY HAVING CLOR VISION, TONGUE TO TASTE THOUSANDS OF FLAVORS, EARS TO LISTEN IN STEREOPHONIC SOUND. Everything could well be done by evolution in a dull gray way, only feeding with something valuable but with bitter taste of a cactus.
"The Argument from the Failure of Evolution to Explain X." The argument here flows from a disjunction to the effect that every X is either explained in natural terms by evolution, or in terms that invoke a realm beyond the physical. Eccles intends that X be instantiated to phenomenal consciousness and he maintains that such consciousness cannot be explained in exclusively natural termsIf we have P-consciousness (as it certainly seems we do), and evolution can't explain it, then we seem to be sliding toward Wallace rather than Darwin: we seem to be sliding toward an explanation that goes beyond nature toward theism. That means believing in God's own system.
Daraio finds some arguments weak, because he is inclined to believe that there are naturalistic, evolutionary explanations for personhood and consciousness, though he certainly concedes that no such explanations are in hand.
Einstein, as much as anyone, employed this type of thinking; as is well-known, he sought to "become," for example, objects travelling at great speed (Einstein, 1952).
Natural Selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but a little inferior to that of the average members of our learned societies (Eccles, 1989, p. 235).
The notion that the powers possessed by homo sapiens sapiens (HSS) were created not by mindless processes, but by the Almighty, is one Eccles is quite at home with. Indeed, this book, despite it's empirical-sounding title, is in many ways a prolegomenon to Christian eschatology.
A casual reading may leave readers with the impression that Eccles is a Darwinian; a careful reading discloses the affinity to Wallace. We don't have the space here to retell the story even synoptically, but we can convey its gist.
Eccles' starts spinning his narrative in the preface, where he informs us that he has "been able to unfold the fascinating story of hominid evolution of the human brain" (Eccles, 1989, xi). But we soon see that there are two separate stories. The first spans the evolution of the mammalian brain from the primates to the emergence of homo sapiens (HS). The second story starts after the first ends, that is, after the brain of HS had arrived; it's the story of how we became - to use Eccles' phrase - human persons: incorporeal creatures able to control, and have experience through, human bodies.
The first story is in many ways told from the point of view of a detective recounting a solved case. Understanding the brain is made possible by inference from clues - such as changes in posture and locomotion. For example, Eccles infers from the famous footprints found at the Laetoli beds in Northern Tanzania that Australopithecus (A) was erect and bipedal. He also goes on to speak of human-like relationships among A; this Eccles infers from hand-holding, which is in turn inferred from the fact that the footprints in question are side-by-side. That some of the footprints are superimposed one upon another implies, by Eccles' lights, that A was capable of both a fairly high level of concentration and fine motor control. Eccles makes similar types of inferences from such evidence throughout the book.
Eccles' evolutionary story includes his discussion of the development of fine motor control from early primates to HS in connection with expansion of motor cortical representation for the thumb and fingers. He tells us that it wasn't until these features of the brain evolved that tool-making could occur. The idea is that the raw physical ability was present, but there was inadequate brain power.
This raises the obvious question: Why did these features of the brain evolve? In seeking an answer to this question one grasps the gist of Eccles' narrative, and one begins to see that Eccles and Darwin are worlds apart.
Eccles' answer to the question is that periods of stasis are punctuated by periods of rapid evolutionary change (speciation events), but with saltations and the creation of "hopeful monsters."
In a sense, the new function arises by serendipity, but Eccles seems to hold that there is indeed a reason for these changes, at least when it comes to the brain. So first we have bodies able to walk erect in bipedal fashion, and then comes the neural machinery able to control such bodies.
AS I SAID BEFORE -n similar theme in this forum- THIS IS NOT THE CASE, GENETICS HAVE PROVED THERE'S ALREADY THE MODEL OF AN ORGAN INSERTED EVEN IN THE MOST "PRIMITIVE" CREATURES WHO DIDN'T HAVE NOT EVEN THE ORGANS. So the argument "And first we have a hand physically able to build tools, and then comes the neural machinery enabling the use of such a hand. And first we have mechanisms allowing for the production of an array of sounds, and then comes the neural stuff that can put these mechanisms to work in communicating" has been demonstrated to be a mistake. In all these cases, the prior mechanism comes in order to get ready for the subsequent neurological advance. The ultimate trick of this type is the core of Eccles' second story: the advent of dualist interactionism: the arrival of certain neural machinery in primates makes it possible, many years later, for persons, existing in the non-physical world of the mental, to interact with and control bodies. Such an exotic and teleological scheme certainly is Wallace's (Clements, 1983). As Eccles proudly confesses:
I believe that biological evolution is not simply chance and necessity. That could never have produced us with our values. I can sense with [Sherrington] that evolution may be the instrument of a Purpose, lifting it beyond chance and necessity at least in the transcendence that brought forth human creatures gifted with self-consciousness (Eccles, 1989, p. 116).
3. Dualist Interactionism
What is dualist interactionism (DI)? : there are minds, incorporeal entities, and they interact somehow with physical brains.
The materialist critics argue that insuperable difficulties are encountered by the hypothesis that immaterial mental events such as thinking can act in any way on material structures such a neurons of the cerebral cortex... Such a presumed action is alleged to be incompatible with the conservation laws of physics, in particular of the first law of thermodynamics (Eccles, 1989, p. 187).
How does Eccles address this problem? By turning to quantum physics, specifically to the work of Margenau (1984):
Following Margenau, the hypothesis is that mind-brain interaction is analogous to a probability field of quantum mechanics, which has neither mass nor energy yet can cause effective action at microsites. More specifically it is proposed that the mental concentration involved in intentions or planned thinking can cause neural events by a process analogous to the probability fields of quantum mechanics (Eccles, 1989, p. 189).
Such a scheme isn't likely to make any philosophical headway, for the simple reason that that to which Eccles appeals here (as physicists and philosophers of science can confirm) is as controversial as interactionism itself.
Arguments for Dualist Interactionism?
Eccles' book is shockingly short on argumentation; we imagine that Eccles himself would confess that argumentation (at least of the rigorous variety) isn't intended to be the book's strong suit. However, a charitable reading (an extremely charitable reading) yields three arguments that can be reconstructed from the text. They are:
"The Brain Replacement Argument." The basic idea here is that most of your body is inessential. That is, we can cut off your foot, and replace it with a prosthesis, or even just leave you without it (if we take care of the bleeding). We can do this for your nose, your eyeballs, your hair... in fact, we can clearly do it for everything beneath your chin. And we don't even need to stop when we reach your brain. As Eccles points out (Eccles, 1989, p. 219), removal of the cerebellum gravely incapacitates movement, but the person is not otherwise affected. So we can keep going at least until we get to parts of your neo-cortex. Once at this point, we note that the physical stuff in question can be replaced with other physical stuff as long as the new stuff operates similarly - so how can a mind, a person, as a genuine thing that persists through time (an ens per se, to use the Latin), be a particular physical thing (an ens successivum)?
YET IF THERE'S NO PURPOSE, THE EXISTENCE ALLOW US TO ENJOY HAVING CLOR VISION, TONGUE TO TASTE THOUSANDS OF FLAVORS, EARS TO LISTEN IN STEREOPHONIC SOUND. Everything could well be done by evolution in a dull gray way, only feeding with something valuable but with bitter taste of a cactus.
"The Argument from the Failure of Evolution to Explain X." The argument here flows from a disjunction to the effect that every X is either explained in natural terms by evolution, or in terms that invoke a realm beyond the physical. Eccles intends that X be instantiated to phenomenal consciousness and he maintains that such consciousness cannot be explained in exclusively natural termsIf we have P-consciousness (as it certainly seems we do), and evolution can't explain it, then we seem to be sliding toward Wallace rather than Darwin: we seem to be sliding toward an explanation that goes beyond nature toward theism. That means believing in God's own system.
Daraio finds some arguments weak, because he is inclined to believe that there are naturalistic, evolutionary explanations for personhood and consciousness, though he certainly concedes that no such explanations are in hand.
Einstein, as much as anyone, employed this type of thinking; as is well-known, he sought to "become," for example, objects travelling at great speed (Einstein, 1952).
As I said first they say the size of the bigger skull doesn't mean the Neanderthal was more intelligent than us, now they go back to square one using the same old leftover argument, that we owe superior intelligence to weak jaw muscles and the growing of human brain:
www.nature.com/nsu/040322/040322-9.html
Something about the mind in the past, a mental leap earlier than they thought:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3310233.stm
www.nature.com/nsu/020729/020729-2.html
Getting back to the past:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html
Yet, the studies of Rebecca Cann can even diminush the Eve history to 20.000 years old if she had just a single "Adam" partner.
It's interesting that the Bible suggests (as I have explained also quoting from Jewsih myths) there was a sexual intercourse between Samael -Satan and Eve and there was an opening of the "eye" (melatonine linked to longevity) which helps us to understand the secret of eternal life present in the worms:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3209515.stm
Notice that in mammals to inhibite insuline it's necessary the removal of REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. Hence human beings became intelligent but lost longevity gradually and perhaps we have to send our archeologists and historians and biologists or paleonthologist to the Iran or Irak zone of the Biblical Eden (though I have my doubts 99% of the people may accept of Eden in Mesopotamia cos I believe it deserves a better explantion and searching in the Amazon jungle for reasons I don't care to explain right here).
More news about the gene Tre2:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2772241.stm
www.nature.com/nsu/040322/040322-9.html
Something about the mind in the past, a mental leap earlier than they thought:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3310233.stm
www.nature.com/nsu/020729/020729-2.html
Getting back to the past:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html
Yet, the studies of Rebecca Cann can even diminush the Eve history to 20.000 years old if she had just a single "Adam" partner.
It's interesting that the Bible suggests (as I have explained also quoting from Jewsih myths) there was a sexual intercourse between Samael -Satan and Eve and there was an opening of the "eye" (melatonine linked to longevity) which helps us to understand the secret of eternal life present in the worms:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3209515.stm
Notice that in mammals to inhibite insuline it's necessary the removal of REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. Hence human beings became intelligent but lost longevity gradually and perhaps we have to send our archeologists and historians and biologists or paleonthologist to the Iran or Irak zone of the Biblical Eden (though I have my doubts 99% of the people may accept of Eden in Mesopotamia cos I believe it deserves a better explantion and searching in the Amazon jungle for reasons I don't care to explain right here).
More news about the gene Tre2:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2772241.stm
I didn't make a comment in this part, I quoted links. If you ignore all the information is up to you.
Yes you didnt make a comment yet were perfectly willing to berate me for not commenting, mr. kettle.
I couldnt ignore it because I was laughing so hard. Btw - thanks for the comedy.
It's you the one who says evolution is a fact. Since that is science and not religion, that has to be proved.
So, the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution and the mountains of evidence pouring in every day in favor of evolution are not proof?
Is it a fact? Millions of people in different areas believe it's not.
Who are those millions of people in different areas? Would they happen to be bible-thumping creationists by any chance or are they simply ignorant to the facts?
If the site is wrong perhaps you would be so kind to inform us what is evolution about?
Dont you know? You seem to be providing plenty of nonsensical debate in opposition to evolution. I would have expected you to do your homework before tackling the subject. However, Im not surprised you dont know anything about evolution, especially if all you read are those crank sites.
First of all, Mr. Q, respect our QI and every time you dare to write something about the brain -as you did in this forum- you shall kneel in awe admiration as neurospecialists do all time they discover something new.
Respect is earned. Why do they kneel? It must be hard on the knees.
Michael Talbot in his Holographic Universe says the whole existence is a hologram built by the brain
So what? This has nothing to do with evolution.
We all could have they say- the solid sensation because were part of the holodeck in the very sense like the flm The 13th Floor and Matrix.
Hollywood movies and reality are two different things, try and make the distinction if you can.
How can people believe in the evolution of an organ (or body or universe) they dont even comprehend too well.
They, like you, need to take the time to comprehend evolution before accepting their beliefs.
In other times, evolutionists thought the size of the skull or brain would indicate more or less intelligence
What other times? What evolutionists? Please cite your references.
Then they had to change the strategy.
Sorry, I dont recall and change in strategies. Please cite your sources. NO crank sites please.
Now, they are saying redhead Scottish descent from Neanderthal because a specific gene.
Is that supposed to explain why Scots are so cheap? Cite sources please.
Among more than million different animal species
Actually, its closer to ten million and thought to be closer to twenty million. New species are discovered all the time.
its us the ones who have consciousness of life & death and universal law. That allow many scientists to believe in the anthropic principle of the universe.
Scientists dont believe in the anthropic principle, thats pure nonsense. Kooks and cranks might believe in it.
As Nobel Prize physicist, Steven Weinberg put it: the world is the way it is because in part, in other way there wouldnt be nobody to ask how is it the way it is. Or physicist Freeman Dyson when he wrote: when we consider the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that work together in our benefit, we have almost the impression that the universe shouldve known somehow that we were coming.
Anecdotes are not evidence of anything; they are merely anecdotes and mean nothing when it comes to arguing your position.
If a stupid evolutionist believes evolutionist is the mother deaf-dumb-blind and without purpose of the universe and brain is because he is uninformed about real science.
Why makes you think there is a purpose? What do you consider real science?
Its us the ones who have consciousness among all plants and animals
So, does that mean animals are unconscious?
Youre argument is typical and seriously flawed because you cant fathom the concept that intelligence evolved in humans. Intelligence is not the outcome of evolution; it is only one particular branch of evolution and may or may not happen again.
Hence we are the freaks of evolution
In a way, yes.
Perhaps Mr. Q wants to disagree in personal letter with those physicist including Nobel Prize winner. Would you Mr wise guy?
Argument from authority is a fallacy and does not hold up in debate.
And besides, am I supposed to respond to anecdotes? Give me a break.
Your arguments are incredibly weak and void of content. I don't think you understand evolution at all.
Yes you didnt make a comment yet were perfectly willing to berate me for not commenting, mr. kettle.
I couldnt ignore it because I was laughing so hard. Btw - thanks for the comedy.
It's you the one who says evolution is a fact. Since that is science and not religion, that has to be proved.
So, the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution and the mountains of evidence pouring in every day in favor of evolution are not proof?
Is it a fact? Millions of people in different areas believe it's not.
Who are those millions of people in different areas? Would they happen to be bible-thumping creationists by any chance or are they simply ignorant to the facts?
If the site is wrong perhaps you would be so kind to inform us what is evolution about?
Dont you know? You seem to be providing plenty of nonsensical debate in opposition to evolution. I would have expected you to do your homework before tackling the subject. However, Im not surprised you dont know anything about evolution, especially if all you read are those crank sites.
First of all, Mr. Q, respect our QI and every time you dare to write something about the brain -as you did in this forum- you shall kneel in awe admiration as neurospecialists do all time they discover something new.
Respect is earned. Why do they kneel? It must be hard on the knees.
Michael Talbot in his Holographic Universe says the whole existence is a hologram built by the brain
So what? This has nothing to do with evolution.
We all could have they say- the solid sensation because were part of the holodeck in the very sense like the flm The 13th Floor and Matrix.
Hollywood movies and reality are two different things, try and make the distinction if you can.
How can people believe in the evolution of an organ (or body or universe) they dont even comprehend too well.
They, like you, need to take the time to comprehend evolution before accepting their beliefs.
In other times, evolutionists thought the size of the skull or brain would indicate more or less intelligence
What other times? What evolutionists? Please cite your references.
Then they had to change the strategy.
Sorry, I dont recall and change in strategies. Please cite your sources. NO crank sites please.
Now, they are saying redhead Scottish descent from Neanderthal because a specific gene.
Is that supposed to explain why Scots are so cheap? Cite sources please.
Among more than million different animal species
Actually, its closer to ten million and thought to be closer to twenty million. New species are discovered all the time.
its us the ones who have consciousness of life & death and universal law. That allow many scientists to believe in the anthropic principle of the universe.
Scientists dont believe in the anthropic principle, thats pure nonsense. Kooks and cranks might believe in it.
As Nobel Prize physicist, Steven Weinberg put it: the world is the way it is because in part, in other way there wouldnt be nobody to ask how is it the way it is. Or physicist Freeman Dyson when he wrote: when we consider the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that work together in our benefit, we have almost the impression that the universe shouldve known somehow that we were coming.
Anecdotes are not evidence of anything; they are merely anecdotes and mean nothing when it comes to arguing your position.
If a stupid evolutionist believes evolutionist is the mother deaf-dumb-blind and without purpose of the universe and brain is because he is uninformed about real science.
Why makes you think there is a purpose? What do you consider real science?
Its us the ones who have consciousness among all plants and animals
So, does that mean animals are unconscious?
Youre argument is typical and seriously flawed because you cant fathom the concept that intelligence evolved in humans. Intelligence is not the outcome of evolution; it is only one particular branch of evolution and may or may not happen again.
Hence we are the freaks of evolution
In a way, yes.
Perhaps Mr. Q wants to disagree in personal letter with those physicist including Nobel Prize winner. Would you Mr wise guy?
Argument from authority is a fallacy and does not hold up in debate.
And besides, am I supposed to respond to anecdotes? Give me a break.
Your arguments are incredibly weak and void of content. I don't think you understand evolution at all.