Evolution is a basic, biological process

I agree that one must be careful re surveys and who conducts them. I have not collected all that I've seen re evolution (perhaps I should have) but the large pecentage of people who apparently either don't beleive in evolution or have severe reservations has been consistent for several years and over several survey groups.Soplar

I forgot an important point re the Modern Biology is Unintelligible Without Evolution discussion.The evolutionary process began with single celled animals and then progressed to increasingly complex multi-celled animals, culminating with humans. In view of this, it is reasonable to hypothesize that some traits belonging to some of the earlier and simpler animals might still exist (be conserved) in humans. If this were true, then one could study the simpler animals and learn about humans.Of course, this hypothesis is true and the use of simpler animals is precisely what is now done throughout modern biology. Model organisms such as microscopic nematode worms, fruit flies, African claw-toed frogs, and the mouse, or to give them their official names, Caenorhabditis elegans, Drosophila melanogaster and Xenopus laevis and Murinae mus, are the basis of numerous studies. An obvious advantage of the fly is the short life cycle.RegardsSoplar

I'm sorry, you don't seem to understand. "What are minds" and "what is the evolutionary origin of mind" aren't the same question. The evolutionary origin of mind seems very simple to me. What, exactly, is a mind? Fuck if I know.

and the conflict between them is another argument against design.

from Page not found - People For the American Way Note that this fits with the 20%-60%-20% pattern found in many areas, where 20% are advocates of change for the positive, 60% are at different levels of indifferent, and 20% resist change no matter what it is.and from Comparing Christian beliefs in U.S. with those of other countries I have more of this on another board (On Netscape Community Boards) and this should properly be addressed in a new thread.hope this helps.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Crshfrog, how could the evolution of mind be simple and unproblematic if we don't know what the hell it is?

Hi Soplar. Basically yes, apart from a really minor quibble to point out that there are metazoans which reproduce through parthenogenesis, etc, that make them essentially clonal just like single-celled organisms. Beyond that, I'm not an evo-devo or molbio specialist, so I have no real comment on the rest. My background is ecology, and my actual work in the field has been mostly in tropical conservation, biodiversity, and protected area management - meaning I tend to look at (and pull my examples/arguments from) the "macro" level when dealing with evolutionary topics. Heck, I didn't even understand the bit about A&M physics. You're talking to a guy whose ideal of science is playing frisbee on a tropical beach while waiting for the Olive Ridley arrivada so we could continue our nesting behavior study... This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-04-2005 09:54 AM

We don't know what gravity is, but we're able to calculate it's effects with amazing accuracy.What something is and where it comes from are two separate questions. But we're getting off topic.

Hmm,I guess this one you'll need to clarify: I don't want to bash away here, because I suspect my disagreement is due to your shorthand version rather than a fundamental error. The way you have written this seems to indicate evolution implies a linear progression over time from simple to complex, with humans being the apex evolutionary endstate. Perhaps you might wish to either clarify for the readers or rewrite this a bit. I'm pretty sure I know what you meant, but there are a lot of folks on this board who might not - especially your target audience.

In the last of my general responses (response 54) I included the following statement Admittedly, we haven't explored all aspects of this electrochemical activity, but we are making great strides in measuring it, e.g' with Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI). Numerous tests have been reported in the literature re the use of FMRI to examine the activity in the brain when a person is thinking certain thoughts or doing certain tasks.There was a time, of course, when the "mind" was something very mysterious, but so were a lot of other things such as the function of the heart which we now pretty well understand. In response to the rather old question "can the mind understand itself", the answer is yes.Soplar

Right on!Soplar

Thanks RAZDThere is a bit more diversity in the surveys than I realized. Thanks for providing the background.As someone pointed out, the results of a survey are often determined by how the question is posed and which group was polled. E.g., I would guess that those polled where 83% say Darwin's theory belongs in the science class are among the more affluent and educated members of society.As I'm sure you are aware, thhere is considerable data indicating a widening gap between those who understand complex concepts such as biology and those who don't. The recent flap about the Cox inhibitors is a perfect example. I doubt that the average person has a clue about these medicines - why they were developed or how they work, but the average person, in concert with his/her physician, has to make a decision re the use of them (of course if Pfizer caves and removes Celebrex, the decison will be made for them) I never take a medication that I don't understand well enough to have confidence in it, but I suspect I'm one of the lucky few.But we stray from the topic of evolution vs creationsism -- suffice to say, there are still a large number who support creationism and my efforts are directed toward an attempt at educating some of them.Soplar

Hi QuetzalI agree this a bit succinct - I will expand it a bit to clarify and make it more intelligable to my target audience.This kind of feedback really helps as it's difficult to evaluate ones writings (seemed clear to me )Soplar

Good analogy, Crashfrog. The more I think about it the more I like it.Someone might assert that the mind does not really "exist" (in some sense), and someone might also say that gravity does not really "exist" in the sense of being a mysterious force emanating from a physical body, rather that it is not a "force" at all but a curve in space-time.Also, one might say we have a personal experience of gravity all the time if we choose to pay attention, and we also have a personal experience of mentality, without understanding either.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-04-2005 13:24 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-04-2005 13:25 AM

Who is the very question, the SELF. 'What' is the sum of all matter that makes up the body and over time adapted a sense of SELF that separates the world from you.
You have to have a brain to have an illusion. The mind is the illusion. The mind is IMO the function of the brain, much like a calculation is the function of a calculator.
If you damage the calculator then you damage the ability of the calculator to perform that function. Same as the brain. If you are rendered "brain" dead due to an accident, then where is this mind you are refering to? If I corrupt the calculator then the data is corrupted. If I corrupt the brain, does the mind as well become corrupt? Where is the mind during the embryo stage of human development? Can you not see the mind does not exist at all it is a word used to describe the sum total of all your brains input and output. A word not a entity and not something that exist outside of your brain. If your brain dies so goes this thing your brain imagines is you. No brain, no illusion. No illusion, no mind. Just my own opinion.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche