I didn't introduce these terms, but merely quoted them from your post, so the real mystery here is what you meant by them. Specifically, you stated that "The advances of "intellect and rationality" on the time scales of the "fossil record" have actually been very sudden" and that "The advances in the last 100,000 years or so are extremely dramatic." The definition implicit in your assertion would seem to have something to do with technological advancement (which has been dramatic in the last 100,000 years) rather than advancement in cognitive ability (which has not been dramatic, given what we know about genetic similarities between us and prehistoric Homo sapiens).

I'm surprised you find the claim controversial at all, given that we are the same species today that we were 100,000 years ago. The evidence being that we are physically and genetically nearly identical to early Homo sapiens. If you could time travel you could breed with humans 100,000 years in the past. Why would you suppose your intellect is vastly superior? Again, I am rejecting the definition of intellect implied by your post (ie. that it is synonymous with technological advancement) and using the conventional meaning of the word (cognitive ability, mental capacity, ability to learn, etc.)

The claim can easily be pushed back as far as the late transitional period between **** erectus and Homo sapiens (roughly 300,000 years ago). However I wouldn't be surprised if other proto-human ancestors could integrate with a modern human society to a degree similar to a modern mentally-disabled human.

Your right in that you can tell a lot by analysing cranial cavities but you can't tell everything. The only way to see some structural differences is with an MRI of the brain. All we can say given the fossil record is that modern humans share a very similiar brain structure with prehistoric humans. We are in no position to claim that there are no significant differences in brain structure. We simply do not have any prehistoric brains that we could dissect.

There is a term used in anthropology called Behavioral modernity . About 50,000 years ago there was such a significant and sudden change in behavior of human beings that a term had to be coined to mark the event. There are two schools of thought concerning modern human behavior. The Continuity Hypothesis and the Great Leap Forward hypothesis.

Because I have the ability to speak a language and think in a language. We are not sure the folks who lived 100,000 years ago could do the same.

Wow, didn't expect this many replies in such short of a time. Anyway, RLK, what have I said that makes you think I don't understand evolution? I accidently said we evolved from monkeys in a previous thread, but what I meant is we share a common ancestor with monkeys and that animal was much more monkey looking than human looking.

Anyway, let's get some scientific facts out there because I think they matter in this discussion. Here's the story of Earth:

13.7 billion years ago the universe was formed. We are not sure if it was natural or not. 4.54 billion years ago the Earth and Moon was formed. Again, we are not quite sure if it was natural or not but alot of physicists probably believe it was natural. The first lifeforms on Earth were single celled prokaryotes and showed up ~3.7 billion years ago. Fish evolved around half a billion years ago. At one point, a lobe finned fish attempted to crawl onto land. Once a small, reproductively isolated group of fish were on land, natural selection favored anything that increases survival on land (lungs, limbs, vertebral articulations, ect). 250 million years ago to 65 million years ago reptiles dominated. 65 million years ago to now, mammals dominated. The time humans have existed on Earth, if you pretend all of life on Earth is one calandar year, would be equivalent to the last second on the last day of December before midnight. For most of the time, life on Earth has only been microscopic simple organisms. Around 95-99% of species have gone extinct before humans arrived on the scene. Once life on land evolves, species diverge quickly in what is known as the cambrian explosion. This makes perfect sense, because on land it's easier to become reproductively isolated. For example, a mountain range can form between one population, splitting it into two populations. Or a river could form, splitting a population. They evolve, become reproductively isolated, and now you have two populations. Or, by chance, an organism can find it's way onto an island and evolve since it's reproductively isolated. Once there's alot of species, there's suddenly a lot more ways for a creature to die so there's far more selection pressures. A mouse has selection pressures now due to starvation, heat, cold, hawks, parasites, snakes, ect. If, on the other hand, you have just a large population of one bacteria, then there's little selection pressures since there is no selection pressure due to the living environment.

I'm saying these facts because I think they matter. This is basic evolutionary theory and I assumed you all know all this stuff but I'm just saying it anyway to make sure we're all on the same page.

Now ask yourself, does this story make more sense if evolution occurred naturally or supernaturally (guided by an intelligent mind somehow)? I think it makes more sense if it occurred naturally. One major reason is the fact that 95%+ of species went extinct before humans arrived. Theistic evolutionists, why would God guide evolution and then let virtually all of his creation go extinct?

Also, theistic evolutionists, let's assume evolution occurred almost all by natural selection and the remaining part of it occurred by genetic drift. Please, specifically, explain what exactly God does. Does he physically stick his hands in and move creatures? Does he physically insert genes and mutations? Does he control natural disasters? ALso, where's your proof? We have this perfectly rational natural explanation here that not only needs no supernatural guidance, but IMO it also doesn't make sense if there were supernatural guidance.

doesn't work because what if humanity is to live another 500,000 years and future mutations will matter as well? and the ending result is important and the mutations required to be there depend on GOD'S guidance meaning there is no free will at this moment because he is guiding everything to reach that ending point.

I am not sure how well you understand evolution. I do not object to atheism. My problem with you in general is that your scientific education is just beginning and any understanding that you do have will become more refined and robust as you continue that education. You have made many very rudimentary errors already, not meant to be a massive criticism, I only point that out to try to induce some caution on your part about overestimating your own depth of knowledge. But what is ludicrous is to even begin to hold the opinion that your depth of understanding is deeper and more profound than a PhD scientist who is in fact recognized to be particularly accomplished in his field. That is laughable.

Now concerning the question about evolution, it is very clear that a simple physical model is sufficient to account for our observations. At least after life begins, the origin of life is somewhat more problematic, but let's leave that alone. I also would agree that given the above, the proper "scientific" theory is that evolution is random since science uses the principle of Occam's Razor, ie. the simplest explanation should be adopted until it fails. Understand that is a formalism for theory. Any competent scientist will tell you that it does not produce truth. Truth is ultimately unattainable because there is always the possibility of an experiment that undoes your theory. Thus evolution does not disprove God, it only states that the properties of living creatures do not require God.

Now, why would God allow evolution to look so random if He was actually behind it all. Well, assume for a moment that God does exist. If He does and He wanted us to know that He existed, He could make that happen. It does not. Therefore, some part of what we are doing here must require that we be unsure of His existence. Given that, He would have to make evolution look unguided so that it did not point to Him.

Is that totally illogical? I think not. Part of my education included psychology courses. One aspect of psychology experiments that was always interesting to me is that in most experimental designs, the tested subjects do not actually know what is being tested. They may think that for example that they are being given an IQ test, when actually they are being tested for how they react to some feature of the room they are in. If our existence does have some elements of a test, then it would be quite logical for us to have to be deceived about the nature of our existence for the test to work.

I am not saying this is all certainly true. I am only saying that it is a possible scenario consistent with the data.

As a final comment I would advise you not to fool yourself into thinking you have more understanding of what is going on around you than you do. You are still just starting out. Also, do not trust scientists too much. We make plenty of mistakes. Your fate is your own responsibility. Keep control of it.

Grunch:

Why? One always needs new Padawani for inspiration. <3

Uh, finite number of elements, known percentages of such elements, monte carlos...

Yeah, are you an idiot or something?

I'll requote what lawdude said first:

and now I'll quote myself:

I'm not entirely sure what lawdude is talking about, as my interpretation of the claim seems to imply that it's a false claim. There's an implicit request here for lawdude to clarify what he means by "intellect and rationality" because as I understand those terms, I do not see this to be correct.

I'm not sure if breeding is really the standard one applies when it comes to "intellect and rationality." Horses can breed with donkeys, so does this imply that the "intellect and rationality" of a horse and a donkey are the same? And is *that* the way you would measure the veracity of the claim?

I would suppose that our intellect has at least changed because the circumstances of living in the last 10000 years or so (development of cities, domesticated crops, etc.) are dramatically different than the circumstances of living 100,000 years ago. I would think that there are enough generations during that time period to change how the brain takes information in and so forth. I could be wrong, but I'll again wait for some sort of citation or something to do follow-up reading.

I didn't start the "intellect and rationality" thing. It was Stu's criterion for why we are made in God's image but our ancestors were not.

I just wanted to address this. This statement is nonsensical. I have seen others tout this before as if it has some sort of meaning. 100% of living organisms that died before humans are dead. For that matter 100% of all living organisms that are dead are dead! Why would God do this! Do you see how absurd of a statement that is? What difference does it make whether or not we classify a living organism/being as A or B? A species is a relatively arbitrary classification.

Your statement tries to give the impression that species going extinct is a bad things. Making it sound like the earth is not conducive to life. Which is obviously not the case. Often times it is only when one species goes extinct that another can arise.

Could you imagine what the earth would look like if all species that have ever existed still existed! Why God, why didn't you make life easier for us by keeping the Dinosaurs around?

So this explanation can fit a deistic God but definitely excludes any religious God out there who supposedly has shown himself to humans. What's the point of trying to make evolution hidden from obvious design if you show yourself and tell people you exist, it's contradictory. If that's the case than the theistic evolution should really be called a deistic evolution. But, how does this work with theistic views where God has shown himself to us , what's the point of hiding his design in random processes ?

When God created this universe He established a fitness paradigm from the beginning that would inevitably lead to an end product with the qualities that He desires. No need to tweak or insert genes or control natural disasters(although He could have).

Let me rephrase your question "Where is your proof evolution is supernatural?". Instead let it be "How do we know evolution(the evolution which Darwin identified) was not set up by an intellect?"

Here are the circumstances we are in. We have before us a multitude of systems which possess the quality that they evolve and we know virtually all of them were created by intellects save the one identified by Darwin(which is the subject of our question....we are trying to determine if it likely to be the product of intellect or not). It seems to be an artifact of evolving systems that they all have behind them an intellect playing a roll in their creation. At least that is the case in all the evolutionary systems whose orgins are completely known to us.

Now does this absolutely prove the evolutionary system Darwin identified had an intellect behind its creation? No...not anymore than observing the color of 1 billion swans and finding them all to white proves that the one swan whose color you can't observe is also white. However after observing 1 billion swans and finding them all to be white we can say that the one swan whose color we can't observe is also likely to be white.


Yoda...if you want to make a case that the evolutionary system identified by Darwin has no intellect behind its creation all you have to do is point to an evolutionary systems whose orgins are completely known which doesn't have intellect behind its creation.

Why should I accept your claim that the evolutionary system identified by Darwin has no intellect involved in its orgin when virtually all other evolutionary systems I look at do have intellect involved in their origins?

It doesn't work because of a hypothetical you're coming up with? Maybe your hypothetical just doesn't happen. Maybe God doesn't mind the continued evolution of humans. I don't think you're going to be able to find any internal inconsistency going this route.

Well, to be completely accurate, you said it once, I corrected you, and then you said it again in another thread. I'm surprised a bio major would get this wrong twice.

Because He wanted to, or doesn't care, or it was an available method, or... I don't see how this argument can carry any weight.

There is no proof, and I would never claim that there is. It's based on faith (shocking for a religious topic, right?). However, it's also not nonsensical. It is internally consistent, and you are not able to prove that it didn't happen (and no, I'm NOT saying "you can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore He exists," what I'm saying is that I accept that my beliefs here are faith based, but they are still possible and can not be proven wrong).

Well, in other cases, we can easily and clearly identify the source of the intellect. And it's certainly possible that evolution was completely unguided, so I don't see how your argument here has much strength.