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.

If we cannot scientifically replicate evolution without an intellect playing a heavy hand why should I believe that an intellect wasn't necessary in the establishment of the evolutionary system indentified by Darwin?

I understand your point. You are saying that the evolutionary system identified by Darwin is a special case because at the time it was established, there doesn't appear to have been an intellect. However the point I am trying to make is that it appears(to me at least) that intellect is fundamental in the establishment of evolutionary systems and from that we can infer that an intellect must have been involved in the evolutionary system indentified by Darwin. We can't observe that intellect directly but we can infer its existence given that it seems to be a necessary requirement. It like we can't observe dark matter but we can infer its existence because it is a requirement necessary to make our observations conform with physical laws we assume to be true.

Okay. So as to your claim,

What are you claiming the fossil record says?

The hypothesis that modern behavior (performing rituals, using symbols, systematically collecting things, etc.) arose over hundreds of thousands of years of sociocultural evolution is better supported than the theory that there was a great leap forward separating the intellect of modern **** sapiens from earlier ancestors ("behavioral modernity"). For your consideration:

A discovery in 2007 showing evidence of symbolic behavior in Africa 164,000 years ago:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-rfe101207.php
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Point_Man

"The hypothesis that there were skeletally modern-looking humans whose behavioral capacities differed significantly from our own is not supported by uniformitarian principles (explanations of the past based on studies of the present), by evolutionary theory or by archaeological evidence."
http://www.americanscientist.org/iss...int/issue.aspx

Abstract from a paper published in Current Anthropology (2011) rejecting behavioral modernity. "[Behavioral modernity] is qualitative, essentialist, and a historical artifact of the European origins of Paleolithic research." You might have to fix the link if 2p2 censors it.
http://www.mendeley.com/research/***...-****-sapiens/

Article commenting on the aforementioned paper:
http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropol...ral-modernity/

I look forward to reading this when I have the time (perhaps over the weekend).

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for an interpretation of lawdude's statement. Even if I grant that humans from 200,000 years ago are very close to humans today in terms of intellect, it only takes a slight modification of my statement to raise the same challenge:

I can bump that up to maybe a million or so before the question loses some weight. I still don't understand what the claim is trying to say and what it's standing against.

We understand more about the structure of the universe a microsecond after its beginning then we do about the capabilities of humans who lived 100,000 years ago. The archeological evidence suggest that there was a sudden explosion in modern behavior that people who accept the continuity theory as fact have to hand wave away.

You should cite something, too.

When viewed in conjunction with the archeological records (tools, burial, etc.), and genetic information, that the evolution of intellect and rationality, as Stu understands those terms, was gradual.

In addition to Aaron's call for cites, a couple of other things:

1. "Behavior" is not the same as intellect or rationality. Even if someone were able to prove the hypothesis of behavioral modernity, it wouldn't necessarily establish anything other than a period of great cultural advance.

The real question is, "if you took someone from the premodern era and transplanted that person into modern society, would that person be able to interact within our modern societies or would that person be essentially the functional equivalent of a member of a different species?"

And we have a hint as to the answer to that question in that there still exist behaviorally premodern societies on earth, and their members CAN integrate within modern societies.

2. Your first sentence is very weird. We know a heck of a lot about the behaviors of our ancestors. We know what tools they used and approximately when they were developed. We know their burial rituals. We know when various forms of agriculture and domestication of animals and settlement-building occurred. You imply we know next to nothing but we know far more than that.

3. Even if we accepted all of your premises, it still leaves you with tremendous problems with respect to any claim that humans are special. The very fact of human evolution is a challenge to that. The fact that our gene pool evolved so slowly and through a series of isolated changes, and we are not genetically very different from the animals that you claim are not created in God's image and are within our dominion is a challenge to that. The fact that we are nothing more than primates and thus share so many common typological characteristics with animals which you claim are not created in God's image is a challenge to that. The fact that many humans themselves never develop the intellect and rationality that you contend are the key to showing we are created in God's image is a challenge to that.

All these things militate against the Christian story, because the Christian story was made up by ignorant Bronze Age peoples who just looked around and figured humans were different and superior from all the animals. People who don't know any better and don't use scientific techniques are often going to come up with idiotic explanations of why things are the way they are, and this is what happened.

What I don't understand is why it's such an important project to save these outdated, disproven beliefs rather than start afresh with only those things that can be established through observation, testing, and human reason.

Why? Janabis doesn't deny behavior modernity. He is merely suggesting there is archeological evidence that leads him to believe the continuity theory is true and the Great Leap Forward theory is false. I just think his evidence is a bit scant to conclude one is factual and the other is not.

My own personal opinion is that this question will not be settled by digging in the dirt but rather by looking in the microscope. To settle the question of when did modern humans actually arrive one must answer the question of when did humans develope the capability of language. Its not just intellect and free that make us human but rather those qualities combined with an ability to formulate rational statements and from them draw conclusions them. Thats is why I have maintained in this thread that intellect, free will and the ability to reason are the characteristics which have the likeness of God. I don't think our interior monologue has much to with brain size but rather how that brain is organized.

Communication and vocalizations are one thing but language adds an entirely different set of capabilities. Imagine how much you would be handicapped if your interior monologue was silenced. Would you be any smarter than an ape?

I need further clarification:

1) How do you interpret Stu's understanding of the terms "intellect and rationality"?
2) How do the archaeological records and genetic information speak to "intellect and rationality" according to appropriate scientific fields?

I'm struggling because it feels like you're committing an error by conflating terms. You're trying to say that certain scientific fields make a claim about "intellect and rationality" but you're using those scientific conclusions to make a claim about "intellect and rationality, as Stu understands those terms."

Nobody disputes behavior modernity. Its pretty much accepted as fact. What is in dispute is why it took place. Those who support the continuity theory dismiss it with explainations like the populations of humans reached a critical mass which facilitated the free flow of ideas, culture etc. Others, The Great Leap Forward theorists, suggest it was the result of a major genetic mutation or as a result of a biological reorganization of the brain that led to the emergence of modern human natural languages.

We do not know if humans who lived more than 100,000 years ago could even carry on a conversation. Google the origin of language...there isn't anything conclusive which suggest when humans became capable of it. I doubt you could find evidence of agriculture or the domestication of animals from digs older than 50,000 years.

I am not implying we know next to nothing, but rather pointing out that the task of knowing this history of our own developement is much more complex and difficult task then knowing the developement of our universe.

You should give anthropologists more respect then cosmologists. The job of an anthropologist is much much much harder.

Two things...

First an error you make...and something many atheists make is you anthropromize God. To say that evolution is too slow a process for God is outright silly. Its like saying that a deamon who has been counting whole numbers for eternity counted a lot of numbers when he counted up to a googleplex of numbers. You simply could never identify a point where the deamon who has been counting whole numbers for enternity...counted only a googleplex of them. Nor could you claim it was a lot because in comparison to the infinite amount of numbers the deamon counted a googleplex is so small it can't even be distinguished.

Evolution as a process to create is essentially an instaneous process for an eternal being. The terms "Fast" and "Slow" are meaningless when you talk about the actions of an eternal being.

Second...I think all life shares a likeness with God....with some forms of life the likeness is much more robust that in others...but my beliefs are much different then your typical christian.

Why are you making such a sharp distinction between the "intellect" and the reality which it supposedly acts upon? Aren't you in danger of just replicating the Christian metaphysics in a secular language here? What if the "intellect" you try to think about is "ingrained" in reality itself? In that case, nothing would be guiding evolution, and evolution would just be a conceptual name given to the inner necessity of reality unfolding itself. As far as I understand, this is pretty much how the modern scientists view evolution, i.e the necessary interaction of genes and their environment (note, both are "within" reality: In other words, the reality is unfolding without any need for "guidance" at all).

One could argue for a "theistic evolution", I guess, but in that case one would seriously need to redefine "Theos" in such a way that it would lose all of its traditional meanings. Maybe you are willing to do just that. In that case, I am willing to hear.

Cheers

When it comes right down too it. I don't make a distinction between God and reality. They are one in the same. Reality is eternal and emergent complex....the same can be said for God.

What is the consequence of an emergent complex reality? Something which could fits the discription of God.