Kevbo

Though as WinAce said, appearance is not the same thing as double-nested hierarchy, and also does not explain convergent evolution.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Doubting,
When you put it that way, yeah. But beauty and simplicity are two sides of the same coin. If we extrapolate this notion from that which is created to the creative process itself, the artist who executes his vision with the least number of brush strokes and the poet who says the most with the least number of words has been more beautifully creative.

Ditto for God. While it might be more satisfying to us as creatures to imagine that God made a major production out of creating us, it reflects better on Him if He did it with the least number of brush strokes, so to speak. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

hyzer

Well, the fewest brush strokes would be . . . . . . creating the process of evolution and then letting it go . . . . . . which brings us (back) to Theistic evolution.

Doubting Didymus

Problem: We're not just a simple lot to create, we're a copy of already created species. One of the things in our DNA that we share with apes is some of the exact same genetic errors. God didn't just copy an ape genome to get to us, he didn't even bother to iron out the genetic flaws. (in fact, he seems to have given us some of our very own, that the apes had right to start with).

Another problem with a copied, but seperately created genome is the prescence of endoviral insertions. Sometimes viruses can insert a length of their own dna code into an individuals genome, and this gets inherited in every generation. Here's the rub: Our viral insertions are exactly the same as ape viral insertions. No problem for an evolutionary outlook: the viruses stuck themselves in there BEFORE apes and humans diverged, so we both inherit the same thing. What is the excuse for their presence if we are a separate creation? At what point in history did both apes and humans manage to inherit the same viral phylogeny?

Albert Cipriani

Dear Doubting,
I understand the issue. I read the article this thread alludes to several weeks ago.

At that time in history when neither apes nor humans were apes or humans.

There's a line of poetry from what I forget: "The boy is father to the man." Likewise, we might say the primate was the progenitor of the ape and the man.

But knowing what we know about ourselves behaviorally, I can't buy our ascent as being wholly from natural processes. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Kevbo

In essence, you understand the common origin but wish to ascribe other unknown factors to human development in addition to common lineage? I think I understand your view better now. Would you concede that, in absence of any other evidence, that a person without reference to any religion would be able to describe the evolution of man solely through observed processes? Based on the evolution and morality thread, I would say probably not, but the general point of this thread (correct me if I'm wrong, WinAce) is directed towards fundies who think the earth is 6,000 years old.

Peace,
-Kevbo

Doubting Didymus

Wait... You're saying you accept common ancestry? Forgive me, but I was under the impression that you were at least an old earth creationist. Are you saying you accept that all species evolved from a single ancestral species over many millions of years, but that god plays a vital role in this process? In other words, that you are a theistic evolutionist?

Oolon Colluphid

Ah, behaviour. Hmmm. How about this: knowing what we know about chimpanzee behaviour, it is entirely plausible that ours has come about wholly from natural processes. This may surprise you. But you see, everyone thinks they’re an expert on human behaviour. However, remarkably few people, it seems, know much about chimp behaviour.

Chimpanzees can lie and deliberately deceive others. For instance, if one has seen a tasty food treat being hidden, and the others know he knows, they will follow him... and the chimp will lead them away from it. (See Robin Dunbar, The Trouble with Science, or Dunbar in general I gather.) Human children can't do this sort of thing till about four.

They band together to defend against predators such as lepoards, chasing them off by throwing stones.

They hunt and kill as a highly organised group; and attack rival groups, killing weaker members. Such co-operation, of course, requires sophisticated communication.

They can make tools: strip a stick down to the right shape and length to get termites out of a crevice; use stones to crack nuts and shells; even make themselves sandals out of leaves for crossing expanses of low thorny bushes. I’ve seen film of one that was trying to reach some bananas hung overhead out of reach. Jumping didn’t work. A stick waved at them proved too short. Eventually a packing crate was dragged below the bananas, and standing on that, the chimp could reach them with the stick. Now, it’s only in the last year or so that my four-year-old daughter has figured out that chairs can be moved and stood on, so on this rough comparison chimps are at about the three-year-old human level. Three-year-old humans grow into adults, with adult-level understanding and complexity... and do so by wholly natural processes.

They can medicate themselves, eating the right plant to help get rid of parasites, and even to prevent themselves getting them in the first place. (See Huffman 1997, ‘Current evidence for self-medication in primates: a multidisciplinary approach’, Journal of Physical Anthropology 40:171-200.) This appears to be passed on culturally. How’s that for abstract reasoning?

The work with teaching apes sign language may be doomed to failure, as eg Pinker argues -- they’re intelligent different species, not stupid humans -- but even so, they do show remarkable capabilities in that department for mere animals.

So tell me Albert, what behavioural feature of humans is there that chimpanzees do not have in some rudimentary form?

Cheers, Oolon

KnightWhoSaysNi

Winace,

Did you post this in the TheologyWeb forum too? I'd love to see them squirm there.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Kevbo,
Yes I’ve come to basically accept the theory of common origin. I see it as the parallel for my metaphysical understanding of communal life. That is, all that is and ever was alive was alive from the beginning of life on this planet, since only life begets life (ironically, usually through death).

No. Our behavior ‘taint natural. It’s why I believe in the non-naturalistic principle of a God-given soul. Nota bene, we were “created in His image.”

I’ve made it as clear as I know how that I am here as a Catholic. I despise the fundamentalist mindset. As moderator Jobar noted in a different thread, fideism has been condemned by the Church. The greatest doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, devoted his life work to the premise that faith is rational and against the Protestant mantra of blind faith.

And I did not come here. I was sent here by moderator Diana. She moved my Existence of God thread here (with me attached to it like a barnacle), and its been one thing after another ever since. Do you mean to imply that only whacky fundamentalists should be allowed to debate the issues I’ve raised here? – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic