Human Intelligence

[qs]you wrongly imply that the modern scientific community cannot come to ANY agreement on the origin of species. Wrong - there is almost total agreement by the scientific community that evolution DOES explain the origin of species./qs
Absolutely not the case. The "agreement" that you're talking about is that evolution explains variations. Which brings us back to micro and macro evolution, which few on this forum want to recognize even though evolutionists elsewhere freely admit are reasonable terms. A little horse evolving into a big horse is explained by your version of evolution. A frog turning into a human is not. It obvious has now been stated, thank you. And it will never explain more than that, to Darwin's frustration.But, how do you decide where to start? Identify for me the "origin" of the horse. Then, whatever your answer might be, identify the origin of that. And so on. Do you stop when you get to an amphibian? Of course not, that wouldn't be the ulimate origin. But where do you stop? It is unavoidable. The evolution that you're talking about is only part of the big picture. You can't discard 1000 pieces from a 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle, then claim that those 1000 pieces aren't part of the puzzle. ??? Abiogensis is the equivalent to spontaneous generation, no matter how much you want to argue terms. Are we really willing to stoop that low in this discussion? Had you used the terms archegenesis or archebiosis, you wouldn't have stuck out like such a red flag as you do now. I was starting to think I was debating some knowledgable folks here. Anyone can proclaim victory. In the greatest naval battle in history, the battle of Jutland in 1914, both German and U.K. proclaimed victory. The arab-israeli war of 1973, also saw both parties proclaiming victory. An old movie (I believe from the 50s?) titled "a bridge too far" is about a disastrous military campaign that needlessly cost the lives are far too many of our boys, and got nobody anywhere. Despite the disaster, general Montgomery (I think it was) publicly proclaimed the operation a 90% success!
Simply the act of "proclaiming" something doesn't make it true.I your case, you say evolution to be "one of the greatest success stories in scientific history" but that's nothing more that another proclamation. But since we've shut the door on rational debate, and opened the flood gates for dogmatic proclamations, let me join in:
A few of the greatest things that evolution has succeeded in achieving is Hitler's "mein kampf" and the subsequent attempt at Jewish genocide. Next is the justification of killing babies before they're born. And perhaps most brutally, the success of distorting and confusing simple issues to point that countless youths and college kids lost faith in their creator and have been reduced to being content with saying "duh, Idunno where it all started".
To declare evolution as something "good" or "great" is like declaring Hitler was a great man because he built the German autobahn. Excuse me while I vomit.The damage that Darwin has caused by rebelling against God is beyond our means of measure.

You find the text for Hitler's Mein Kampf here. Please point out the parts of it based on evolution. While you're at it please explain why if it is based on evolution there are masses of references to god, and the divine will but none to Evolution (actually there's one, but it isn't refering to ToE), Darwin or Natural Selection.

If you wish to review Mein Kampf please open another thread.

---

What goes? The Nose Knows!

So, you insist on ignoring the obvious, I guess. Let me just give you a hint: The keys words that inspired Hitler's vision were "Savages", "lowest savages", "Negro", and "favored races". Hitler's crown jewel, of course, was the idea of favored races. I thought I spelled this out, but maybe I used too many words. Purely a sales tactic. Oh my goodness; if you couldn't see through that on you own, you would have been just as vulnerable as the Germans were back in Hitler's time. Hitler was con man. Certainly you don't think he believed in God, do you?[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-05-2004]

I haven't followed your postings closely, but Syamsu was exiled (since reprieved) to the "Free For All" forum, for messages and reasonings like this one.You seem to be very much headed for such an exile (at the minimum).Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

I apologize for my share in this. Mild topic drift is often inherent in forums, but this topic begain drifting wildly after the what was written in post #44, including the link about "fossil sorting for simple" (sic) that was providedprovided.Again, my apologies for engaging that writer.

Getting back on course, I was thinking that human intelligence could be traced back by looking at human tool use. Language would also be a very defining factor, however this is not preserved in the fossil record and poorly preserved in human artifacts.For instance, the first use of stone tools for scraping meat off of carcasses, changes in weapon use, and even perhaps in metal use. Any thoughts?

Greetings Skeptick,

quote:

---

Absolutely not the case. The "agreement" that you're talking about is that evolution explains variations. Which brings us back to micro and macro evolution, which few on this forum want to recognize even though evolutionists elsewhere freely admit are reasonable terms.

---

Yes, variation is part of the ToE - variations arise (e.g. through mutations), then through natural selection beneficial variations increase and detrimemtal variations are weeded out.Over long periods of time these variations, acted upon by natural selection, lead to new species.Micro and macro evolution are heavily loaded terms which is why some people try to avoid them. Macro evolution is just micro evolution over longer periods. Unfortunately some people think there is a fundamental difference bettwen the two, which is not correct.In practice micro-evolution has come to mean evolution that creationists and their ilk can believe in, while macro-evolution has come to mean evolution that they don't believe in.

quote:

---

A little horse evolving into a big horse is explained by your version of evolution. A frog turning into a human is not.

---

That is not correct.
My "version of evolution" (i.e. the actual modern ToE) covers the whole gamut from the first living thing up to modern life forms - any textbook will confirm that.I think what you mean to sat is that YOU don't believe it - which is an entirely different thing.

quote:

---

It obvious has now been stated, thank you. And it will never explain more than that, to Darwin's frustration.

---

This statement is so confused (not to mention the faulty grammar and spelling) that its hard to grasp what you mean.To recap -
Evolution covers how life changed and grew over time - from the first living thing, to modern life. Evolution does NOT cover the very first origins of life, nor did I claim otherwise, not do textbooks or scholars who study evolution.But, some uninformed people DO think that evolution covers the very first origin of life - a little bit of study should erase that misconception.Abiogenesis covers how life FIRST started (and it is not as well understood as evolution.)

quote:

---

But, how do you decide where to start? Identify for me the "origin" of the horse. Then, whatever your answer might be, identify the origin of that. And so on. Do you stop when you get to an amphibian? Of course not, that wouldn't be the ulimate origin.

---

The evolutionary sequence leading to the modern horse is well understood - although I do not know it by heart myself. With a little bit of study you could follow the evolution of the horse back to very early times.Your point is not at all clear - of course it is true that not every detail of every species that lead to the horse is known - but the general picture is well known, and many of the recent steps are very well known indeed (e.g. the development of the horses foot from earlier species is well mapped out.)

quote:

---

But where do you stop? It is unavoidable. The evolution that you're talking about is only part of the big picture.

---

I am not at all sure what you mean.
There is no "stop". The sequence of evolution of e.g. the horse leads back to the first living thing, even if we do not know EVERY detail of every step.What is unavoidable? That life started somewhere?
Yes, we know that - this very first origin is referred to as "abiogenesis" although its mechanism is not fully understood yet.Big picture? What do you mean?
If you want to see the big picture you can follow the evolution of the horse back through many species over billions of years - on this very site I have seen the sequence expressed in some detail.

quote:

---

You can't discard 1000 pieces from a 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle, then claim that those 1000 pieces aren't part of the puzzle.

---

What does this mean? Do you mean that we don't know every step of every species' evolution? Yes, that is true - but so what? What exactly are you arguing?

quote:

---

Abiogensis is the equivalent to spontaneous generation, no matter how much you want to argue terms.

---

No it isn't - in fact this is basic high-school biology.
Spontaneous generation refers to a primitive theory, long discarded, that argued complex life forms (e.g. maggots) could even now arise spontaneously from dead matter (e.g. rotting meat.)Abiogenesis covers how the very FIRST, most basic living replicators arose from the primordial soup.They are not the same thing at all - this statement shows fundamental ignorance of the most basic concepts - I urge you to actually study these subjects to avoid making crude errors like this.

quote:

---

Are we really willing to stoop that low in this discussion? Had you used the terms archegenesis or archebiosis, you wouldn't have stuck out like such a red flag as you do now. I was starting to think I was debating some knowledgable folks here.

---

Hmmm...
You show fundamental ignorance of basic concepts and terms, and you accuse me of stooping low? Many of the people on this site are very knowledgeable indeed and spend considerable time and effort educating readers here (thanks guys :-) and you make bizarre attacks like above?You, sir,
are an uninformed, ignorant, opinionated buffoon.

quote:

---

I your case, you say evolution to be "one of the greatest success stories in scientific history" but that's nothing more that another proclamation.

---

Ignorant nonsense, the evidence is overwhelming.

quote:

---

But since we've shut the door on rational debate, and opened the flood gates for dogmatic proclamations,

---

Complete and utter rubbish - the level of debate here is quite rational (not counting ignorant fools like you.) Many posters here give considerable detailed information backing up their statements.You however, proclaim the most childish claptrap without any evidence at all.

quote:

---

A few of the greatest things that evolution has succeeded in achieving is Hitler's "mein kampf" and the subsequent attempt at Jewish genocide.

---

Absolute nonsense not supported by any evidence.

quote:

---

Next is the justification of killing babies before they're born.

---

Complete and utter rubbish, and nothing to do with evolution.

quote:

---

And perhaps most brutally, the success of distorting and confusing simple issues to point that countless youths and college kids lost faith in their creator and have been reduced to being content with saying "duh, Idunno where it all started".

---

Bulldust.

quote:

---

To declare evolution as something "good" or "great" is like declaring Hitler was a great man because he built the German autobahn. Excuse me while I vomit.

---

You compare evolution to Hitler?
You are a raving lunatic.Iasion

Iasion,
The points you mention have been debated enough; you said you piece, and I mine. We could go back and forth forever, like the Germans and the British still debating over who won the Naval battle of Jutland back in 1914.Instead, I'll just hit a couple items that I just can't resist: Incorrect. I was already familiar with your definitions above. You simply fell for the coverup. Abiogensis is just the new name for spontaneous generation coined because the old term would bring back memories of embarrassing days. If you study the two terms, you'll find no fundemental difference. Spontaneous generation's prime example, as you pointed out, was life springing up from rotting (non-living) meat. Abiogensis deals with life springing up from (non-living) rocks or rock broth. Instead of maggots from non-life, we now deal with microbes from non-life. How did you fail to see through this coverup? The foundation was the same; only the name was changed to protect the guilty. Do you believe everything as it's dished out to you, simply because you admire the source? ...said the democrat to the republican... (the two could never agree on much.)
It all depends on who you listen to. As I said, you are the one who fell for the coverup of term-swapping. And you claim to be knowledgable? Tell me, roughly HOW MANY billions of years? No. Is that all you got out of that? More specifically, in post #64 I said: Those terms are all found in Origin of Species. Hitler wanted to elimiate a couple of non-favored races to make more room for his "super race". Super race, favored race. You know, the big mutated lion rises up to kill the "at-the-moment" regular sized lion and steals his wife and belongings. Where do YOU think Hitler found support to justify his genocidal quest? As I pointed out in a previous post, you certainly do stoop low. Thanks for providing proof of that. Excellent debating skills that you possess, yes. Where did you learn them?Ned, I know you're the politeness officer in charge here, but please don't ask Iasion to offer any apologies. It's truly alright. People should express their character if they feel so inclined. No sense in giving anyone a false impression.

Thanks for getting us back on track.I think our intelligence was given to us by our creator all at once. Knowledge, of course had to develop and increase, but that's off topic. He could have given the same level of intelligence to animals, but man was the crown jewel of creation; created in the creator's own image. He wanted us to be special and precious, like a child in the arms of a proud father. That's why man is not just "slightly" more intelligent than animals; rather by leaps and bounds. It's not just intelligence itself, but our level of consciousness that must be included; but I believe MrHambre (?) already pointed out in another post that we don't really understand human consciousness, and I fully agree with that. But that's what this topic started with (post #1), I guess.[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-06-2004]

If I may pose the question, what do you think human conciousness is? When do we gain it? (Are we born with it?)Would it change your mind to learn than human and chimpanzee babies experiences roughly identical skill progression right up to age 3, when the human baby begins to learn language?What's the fundamental difference between them and us? I mean, I may be able to run better than you but that's not proof that I'm the only one with legs.

No, it wouldn't. I did a study and subsequent presentation in one of my psychology classes about 26 years ago. The two participants that you mention begin to part ways once the human participant begins to learn language. At least in the tests that were conducted. (see more on this, further down in this post). But language isn't the only thing that is strikingly different between the two. By the time the human reaches, what some call, "the age of accountability", the two original participants are so far apart you just can't compare them anymore. Not so much intelligence, as "consciousness." If the two were comparable, why don't we try hiring chimps as factory workers? Ok, I'll back down on that one, maybe it's too absurd. Please note that I use the word intellingence, because human consiousness is a word that too many evolutionists seem to avoid, not sure why. So, I'm glad that you actually used the word "consciousness", because that's what this is about.
To your question: God gave us the breath of life, which I believe is quite different from what he gave to animals. He gave us a living spirit. The ability to reason, to be rational, along with so much more that is simply axiomatic and can't be reduced to mathematical terms. As for animals, to ensure survival, he gave them (human coined term) "instinct." Each animal has certain areas of, let's say, expertise. I'll use a simplified example: My kids raised some wild turkeys a while back (legaly, I assure you; we lived in Michigan at the time where wild turkey chicks can be commercially bought) just for fun. (Please don't confuse wild turkeys with domestic turkeys.) Now, these wild turkeys are some incredibly brilliant birds. But only in certain areas of expertise, that is. They are BRILLIANT when it comes to finding food, evading capture (we had dogs on the property, as well as fox, racoon, and coyote, etc), and just plain surviving. Memories of observing some of the amazingly skillful tactics they used in outsmarting their pursuers still cracks a smile on my face. Note that when these birds were still chicks, we had them outside during the day (inside a wire fence) but indeed had to keep them in the shed overnight to prevent their demise by morning. Shortly before dark, they would be put into the shed. However, as they approached, what I perceived as, adulthood, something changed. On day as darkness approached, they flew up into the trees! Now who told them they need to roost in trees overnight? We taught them to sleep on the floor of a manmade building. It seems that, as they developed, something that we can't reduce to mathematical terms, happened as well. I've also watched wild rabbits effortlessly outsmart dogs as well; very entertaining! Rabbits don't use trial and error much when it comes to outsmartering their pursuers, because their margin for error is zero. Unlike Mario, they can't just start over after a decisive loss. But let's take that to another thread. But as for those turkeys, they were "smart" in the areas that I mentioned but, my goodness, were they ever DUMB when it came to everything else! (sidenote: These turkeys did NOT have parents on-site to provide them any training.)But let's go where I think you were trying to take me:
Chimps are very "intelligent". God made the animals and brought them before Adam. In my opinion, it was as if God were offering Adam some sort of companionship in the "flesh" with whom he could have a daily relationship (I'm NOT talking about reproductive capabilities; the relationship you have with your wife is 90% or so of "other"). You can have a relationship with the family dog; the dog impatiently waits for you to come home, sits on your lap, fetch your slippers, loves and admires you, etc., but this relationship would never even show up on the charts that could be used to measure the meaningful relationship you have with your wife. God continued making animals in a way (I think, anyway) that looked to Adam like they were more and more "like" him, leading up to perhaps apes. But yet, none were really "like" him. Even when God created the chimps/apes, though they had an awkward appearance that seemed to resemble Adam, and were even created to seem quite intelligent, they still couldn't satisfy Adam in the department of "meaningful relationship" which is referred to in the book as "...a help, meet for him..."
Once Adam was convinced that he was "alone" in that department, God performed history's very first general anaesthetic and took a rib of Adam and presented to him that which he could not ever have conjured up in his wildest imagination; Eve. Notice that God didn't create Eve from dirt or "the ground", like the animals. God used a part of Adam himself. God didn't take a bone from his foot or his head, rather a bone that was close to his heart, signifying that Adam should always keep his wife close to his heart, loving, protecting, and cherishing her. And, most importantly, she was alive with a spirit like his own. That was my Valetine's day commercial, thank you for tuning in (my wife does read these posts )And now back to our regular programming:To the last part of your question, I have to refer to a child's "age of accountability". I don't fully understand it, but yet it exists and it's even recognized by the courts (i.e. the term "juvenile") and does indeed exist, even though we can't necessarily explain it. (I believe MrHambre stated that another post that we don't understand human consciousness, and I agree). The spirit is there at birth, but yet encased in a shell of flesh that is bound by the laws of physical development. We could probably debate endlessly on that subject, like most any other.

I am curious what you are terming as "instinct"? Would you be refering to an innate behavior? I just wish to clarify your position on what you consider to be "instinct".God at no time gave humans any "instinct"? So, to be clear, are you saying that god gave us a living spirit, which included the ability to reason and be rational, et cetera, but he gave animals "instinct". So the reason a dog or cat or whatever cute animal, when placed on a large pane of glass covering a drop off, scrambles to a more secure and less transparant platform is because of the instinct that god gave them?

Well, as I'm sure you already know, the term instinct is man-made and is much debated and extremely abstract. It's used broadly in both the animal world, as well for humans. The terms "business instinct", "fitness instinct", and there's even a book by Steve (or James?) Pinket (?) on "language instinct", and in the movie "twister" (I believe) we heard the reference to "weather" instinct, and there are so many others. The application of those terms and the general use of the root term "instinct" can be hotly debated until kingdom come.I think the reason for that hot debate is because of our tendency to reduce things down to mathematical (as I stated) or literal or other terms. The true reality of an observation can easily get lost in the translation, or in the mental process of reduction to chosen terms. I use "mathematical terms" quite loosely as an example, and I apologize for that and am open to a better choice of terms if offered. But I use it because, in my experience, I depend extensively on the expertise of industrial engineers to plan the industrial operations that I'm responsible for. My team can seldom take an engineering plan "as is" without first doing a "reality check" simply because the engineering plan relies on first reducing operational observations to mathematical (and other) terms in order to fit the information into, let's say, a spreadsheet. The frustration of the engineers lies in the fact that not everything can be reduced to the required terms, so they have to make "assumptions" that sometimes hit or miss the mark. Sometimes they follow "reduction" process and other times a "conversion" process. An example of a conversion process would be converting an employee's 40 hours of recorded worked time into a paycheck; a simple and objective process where nothing gets lost except the chunk that uncle Sam takes. But when an engineer attempts to take the "actual" work performed by a worker and reduce it to a number that represents productivity or efficiency, it becomes more much more difficult due to abstract and subjective dynamics such, for example, "discretionary effort" of the worker. A supervisor can observe two employees working, and know just by looking which employee is more productive, but an engineer will suffer nightmares when trying to reduce discretionary effort into terms compatible with a spreadsheet. To do this, he must make some "assumptions" for his variables. Sometimes these assumptions work great initially, but somewhere during the planning and execution process, they tend to outlive their uselfulness and begin to poison the later stages of an operational plan; sometimes these assumptions require modification, replacement, or simple elimination.So, sorry for all the wind; but back to your question(s): God did give us several somewhat identifiable, or what can indeed be called, "instincts" like the ferociousness (ferocity?) that a human mother can demonstrate if someone threatens harm to her baby (I already feel sorry for the guy who tries to conduct a controlled test on that one). Of course, this is my opinion and is wide open to debate, just as anything else I say.But I really wasn't intending to go that deep with the word instinct. Trying to say that instinct does or doesn't exist, is like an engineer telling a supervisor that a hard working employee and a lazy employee are really the same in productivity terms, only because the engineer has failed in his attempt to reduce discretionary effort to mathemactical terms. The so-called discretionary effort still has a significant impact on overall productivity and efficiency, nonetheless.
If we want to discuss instincts, we'll eventually wind up discussing terms like "talent" and even the hotly debated "sixth sense" that many claim to have observed. None of this was really my point in my post.
My point was, animals and people are different in spirit. Animals indeed have instincts far and above what humans have. Evolution has offered an explanation for this, and you already know what that is so I won't repeat it. But we possess a spirit that is not present in animals. Our behavior is different, emotions, ability to love and hate, etc. just doesn't exist in animals the way it does in humans. In another thread, (I believe the "Saddam is captured" topic (about 130+ posts) someone listed a string of video tapes that were found that recorded dozens of horrifying torture scenes that makes me shudder to even think of. You don't find animals torturing other animals to death for sheer entertainment and enjoyment the way humans do. It leads me back to the fact that these people have joined up with the enemy and do their boss' (Satan's) bidding because he hates the creature (man) who was created in the image of the God.As to your more specific question: No. I think there are more dynamics at work than meet the eye on in that example. Experience, for example would be more at work than anything that could be identified as instinct (and I formulated that sentence so as not to engage those who are staunch supporters of instinct models). By experience, I mean that the cute (?) animal probably fell off of something in the past, and got hurt in some way (even if they just bumped their nose on the ground) and eventually learned the effects of gravity. A puppy who has never experienced heights, for example, (and we've had many of those in our house during my life) will fearlessly "step" into the open air the first time he tries to propel himself from your bed or other elevated platform. After a sore nose or two, the puppy invariably learns not to step out into the open air because air can't support paws like it can wings. Some creatures learn faster than others, of course, but they do eventually learn. To your example, my experience with puppies (on beds and elevated platforms) leads me to believe an inexperienced puppy would not even so much as flinch when marched onto your large pane of glass simply because I don't believe it possesses an inborn ability to protect against that.
But then, there was the guy who said the puppy doesn't flinch because his eyesight isn't fully developed yet and can't see the danger well enough.
(sigh....)But if you'd like to debate perceived "inborn patterns of behavior that are characteristic of a species" (main definition of the word, as you know), you could start a thread on that and we can discuss further. You probably would need to start with a concrete definition of the word "instinct" and how the word is used in daily communications in our culture in order to keep everyone on the same page.

But how? That's the question I'm asking. What can we do that, fundamentally, the chimps are unable to do? Circular argument. You've answered the question "what's the difference between the consciousness of humans and apes?" with "consciousness."Right, now we're back to the beginning. What is consciousness? Because it's even cheaper to replace them with robots? So what the hell is it? Right, they're not human, and they can't talk. I think we covered that a while ago. You still haven't answered the question. To the contrary, it seems pretty simple to me - there's a level of maturity and experience required to have a reasonable expectation of understanding the consequences of actions. You'll notice that, despite your "age of accountability", there are some people that, no matter how old, are not accountable to their actions - the insane, or the developmentally disabled. Not a big mystery to me, I guess.We're free to debate consciousness forever, probably, but I don't think you (or anybody) can use the existence of human consciousness as an argument against evolution if you can't even explain what human consciousness is. I guess that's the point I've been trying to make.