On the failure to find God's fingerprints ...

[Autodidact]

Actually, my thread is about emergence. Thanks for playing.

How fortuitous! I wonder what caused those particular mutations?

Sorry, missed the part about abiogenesis. I thought your thread was about evolution. Maybe you can show me where you raised the issue of abiogenesis previously?

 

[YmirGF]

I'm not especially bright, Jay, but to my primitive thinking, I would assume that the emergence of bipedalism probably came about because of climate change and subsequent food gathering opportunities. If memory serves correctly, of course.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The question, however, is not the relative advantages of bipedalism but, rather, how it came to be an option in the first place. To select for a trait it must first exist within the population. So, what caused the advent of bipedalism?

Since I realize that the answers here haven't really addressed Jay's original question directly, I'll try:

Generally, the advent of bipedalism was apparently caused by two factors:

- random mutation in near-bipedal organisms
- natural selection that led to the success of near-bipedal organisms

Or (and realizing that this is so vague as to be construed as evasive)...

- physiology that allowed for bipedal behaviour
- the adoption of bipedal behaviour

For specific cases, I'm not sure. It seems that bipedalism has arisen many times in the history of life. I don't know that the causes of each specific case are known in detail, but my instinct is that there is probably no one single cause at the root of all of them.

 

[Storm]

Is or was any other animal exclusively bipedal, or is this trait unique to humans?

 

[Autodidact]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is or was any other animal exclusively bipedal, or is this trait unique to humans?

Exclusively bipedal? I can think of a few, like ostriches.

There are many species that are predominantly bipedal: kangaroos & wallabies, kangaroo mice (not related to the kangaroo, obviously), springhares, and I believe some lizards.

On top of this, there are many that are occasionally bipedal.

 

[painted wolf]

no lizard is predominantly bipedal...not today at any rate. (a few extinct lineages toyed with it, even crocs.)
A few can run for short distances on hind legs, but thats about it.

All birds are bipedal.

Bipedalism arose twice in apes, once in hominids.
Kangaroos, wallabies and kangaroo mice are actually only bipedal while traveling at high speed. Otherwise they stay on four feet to feed.

So why did humans and not chimps develop this way?
Ultimately as a question of philosophy its a lot harder to answer than scientifically.

wa:do

 

[Storm]

Well, that question was major brain fart. Sorry, guys.

 

[kmkemp]

Well if you can't define it, how can you talk about it? Jayhawker says that God = no different from random. Yell at him if you don't like it.

Sure you can.

But that is all beside the point. You're using your knowledge (specifically, your experiences with natural processes) and calling a set of results (or distribution) that is commonplace to be defined as random chance. You used the analogy of flipping a coin, for example. So, my question is this: why do you say that random chance isn't caused by God? What evidence is there for that? The only point to be made here is that it's an endless cycle. If you believe you haven't perceived God, then you can only conclude that your perception might be lacking and not necessarily his existence or his possibly very active role in nature.

 

[Autodidact]

Sure you can.

But that is all beside the point. You're using your knowledge (specifically, your experiences with natural processes) and calling a set of results (or distribution) that is commonplace to be defined as random chance. You used the analogy of flipping a coin, for example. So, my question is this: why do you say that random chance isn't caused by God? What evidence is there for that? The only point to be made here is that it's an endless cycle. If you believe you haven't perceived God, then you can only conclude that your perception might be lacking and not necessarily his existence or his possibly very active role in nature.

O.K., I can buy that. A God way way way behind the whole shebang, a great God beyond our comprehension, who set the whole enchilada rolling, who decreed that e should = mc squared and pi should equal r squared, the God who declared that the total amount of mass/energy in the universe never changes, I can buy the possibility of that God. However, such a God
--is utterly unknowable to us, and anyone who tells me they know anything about It is mistaken or lying,
--has no direct impact on my life,
--is most certainly NOT the God of the Bible or the Koran,
--may as well not exist, for all practical purposes,
--is basically the God of Deism, which I have no trouble accepting. Not that it matters.

In fact, this is the only sort of God that I can see any persuasive argument for, a God a million miles beyond anything we can conceive, who is to us as a solar system is to an electron in an atom on earth. That sort of God seems quite possible to me. Another way to put this is that the universe is far beyond our comprehension, and in that realm, that enormous realm beyond our knowledge, lies the possibility of some kind of creative force even further beyond the potential of our imagination. I'll buy that.

 

[painted wolf]

Or god is so a part of creation as to be inseparable from it... thus the process of Evolution is just an extension of the act of creation.

The universe isn't done being made just yet... its still growing and evolving.

wa:do

 

[kmkemp]

O.K., I can buy that. A God way way way behind the whole shebang, a great God beyond our comprehension, who set the whole enchilada rolling, who decreed that e should = mc squared and pi should equal r squared, the God who declared that the total amount of mass/energy in the universe never changes, I can buy the possibility of that God. However, such a God
--is utterly unknowable to us, and anyone who tells me they know anything about It is mistaken or lying,
--has no direct impact on my life,
--is most certainly NOT the God of the Bible or the Koran,
--may as well not exist, for all practical purposes,
--is basically the God of Deism, which I have no trouble accepting. Not that it matters.

In fact, this is the only sort of God that I can see any persuasive argument for, a God a million miles beyond anything we can conceive, who is to us as a solar system is to an electron in an atom on earth. That sort of God seems quite possible to me. Another way to put this is that the universe is far beyond our comprehension, and in that realm, that enormous realm beyond our knowledge, lies the possibility of some kind of creative force even further beyond the potential of our imagination. I'll buy that.

Well, I was'nt really making a point of trying to persuade you of a specific concept of God, but just pointing out what I thought was a flaw in reasoning. Nonetheless, the Bible IS just a compilation of books written by men about a particular God. It's hardly a theological discussion so I would hesitate to make a claim like that. Still, I'll buy that the bible taken as literal truth is not consistent with that conception.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure you can.

But that is all beside the point. You're using your knowledge (specifically, your experiences with natural processes) and calling a set of results (or distribution) that is commonplace to be defined as random chance. You used the analogy of flipping a coin, for example. So, my question is this: why do you say that random chance isn't caused by God? What evidence is there for that?

Are you actually putting forward as a hypothesis the idea that God intentionally, specifically chooses the outcome of every seemingly random event (e.g. coin flips) and purposely arranges their outcomes so that they match the distributions and probabilities that we'd expect if they had been actually random and not deliberate?

Is there also an elephant* in the trunk of my car?

*lightweight (so I don't notice it while driving) and shy (so it hides whenever I approach my trunk), of course.

 

[painted wolf]

not necessarily, god could just give the occasional nudge now and again. To keep things going in the general direction desired.

Perhaps god has good enough timing to know when to make these nudges so they look like random chance. (it is god we are talking about here.)

wa:do

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ever weed a garden?

 

[Yerda]

Preternatural intervention is unfalsifiable

Is it then nonsense?

What is the question?

Is an unfalsifiable proposition meaningless?

 

[Yerda]

Sounds good to me. What test(s) might we run to distinguish between "just lucky" and an act of intervention?

Going back to this, if by chance you (or others) don't mind; I don't believe there is a way of determining whether intervention has occurred. If that is accurate, does it not suggest that the rejection of intervention is a matter of logical necessity?

In other words, if a proposition seemingly concerning the empirical world is unfalsifiable (or verifiable if you prefer the positivist flavour) by empirical methods is it literally meaningful?

If so, what meaning does it convey and how fruitful is the outcome of discussing potential answers?

If not, does the question of whether bipedalism arose by "luck" or "intervention" become gibberish?

 

[Scuba Pete]

If not, does the question of whether bipedalism arose by "luck" or "intervention" become gibberish?

The question is fine and noble. Unfortunately, most of the answers are self serving and obtuse. That is THEY are gibberish.

 

[Yerda]

The question is fine and noble. Unfortunately, most of the answers are self serving and obtuse. That is THEY are gibberish.

Does that include my own response?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Does that include my own response?

Quite possibly. You'll have to be the ultimate judge of that.