kctan

Very different assertion. You don't have to be creative, you just have to know how to differentiate difference in material. Between flesh & stone, how hard is it to determine which is harder ? How much creativity do you need to differentiate the difference ? Such a simple way of 'thinking' won't bring you far but it's a start & from there you can evolve into more complex things. This of course would also depends on cranium capacity in just how much such information can you store & use them accordingly.

Incidentally, a newborn baby also demonstrates that the baby can't differentiate much at birth & as the baby grows, the way the baby can think also changes (depending on what kind of education you subject the baby to). The thinking is 'evolving' as the baby grow my dear Albert or are you suggesting that a god is feeding the baby "thinking material" such that as the baby grows, more & more "thinking material" can be feeded in due to the increase in cranium capacity ?

Newton said what he said because of the theistic climate of that era. Newton brought us calculus thanks to our more evolved brains which evolved to help in containing the increasingly more information that are being stored which aid in our way of 'thinking' (process data). It's all linked my traditional catholic. Less cranium capacity equals less information could be stored equals less things for processing. More information means a bigger brain is required meaning more information could be used for processing meaning more complex way of thinking.

I know you must be using a computer because you can access the net, think of your brain as a computer & the way we think as processing, the more powerful a cpu you have, the more data it can process & the more complex tasks can be performed. The cpu only differentiate in 1s & 0s, not complex at all & not mysterious in anyway too but think of what it can do now & 30 years ago. That's also 'evolution'.

A few hundred years ago, catholics regards the Earth as flat, I think you think differently now right or are you so traditional that you don't ?

Wounded King

I dont see what the shoulders of giants quote has to do with theism at all.

MrDarwin

Coming in late on this, but I really don't see that morality has anything whatsoever to do with evolution. Morality is a purely human invention, and like other useful human inventions, it can be passed on from one generation to the next with no genetic basis whatsoever. Talking about the evolutionary basis of morality is somewhat like talking about the evolutionary basis of travelling by airplane.

I suppose there may be an indirect link: the ability to pass on non-genetic innovations, due to our social structure and language abilities, is at least partly genetic in basis, and so there may indeed be a selective advantage to populations that are able to pass on non-genetic changes from one generation to the next--perhaps this was a factor in the success of certain early human populations over other human populations, leading ultimately to modern humans.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Kctan
You said: Yeah, just like how the acorn is “evolving” into an oak tree. This is just such a disingenuous use of language it is unworthy of further refutation.

Now, after disqualifying yourself as one who knows the meaning of the word “evolution,” you are qualified to inform us as to the motivations behind Newton’s words? You know why he said what he said and us unwashed masses are only privy to what he said. I’m surprised you manage to get by without oxygen canisters in the rarefied altitudes you inhabit.

Then you must think women are really stupid?! Their brains are smaller than ours. And we’re dumber than Neanderthals cuz their craniums were larger than ours. Fat lot of good it did them tho, as they didn’t invent anything more than campfires. But according to your brain size = intelligence theory, it must just be a question of time before we discover trigonometry equations under their cave art.

The brains of elephants have a far far more information storage capacity than we do. No doubt, if we ever figure out how to interpret their grunts we’ll discover that their discussing calculus.

I do, I do! This proves that Catholics have evolved! which proves that Catholic brains are bigger than what they used to be! What a joke. – Insincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Peez

Albert,

I am sure that we would all appreciate it if you avoided that sarcastic tone. Instead of being offensive, why are you not addressing the points that have been raised? I have (I believe) described quite clearly how "human altruism" could evolve through simple, natural mechanisms (as far as it is possible to describe such evolution given that we do not fully understand the workings of the human mind). If you disdagree by all means say so, but then please explain why you disagree. Resorting to those tactics only harms your credibility.

Peez

Albert Cipriani

Dear Peez,
If I held back my sarcasm I fear I would explode. Better that it drip out through my keyboard now and then than my wife having to squeegee it off my monitor and the surrounding four walls.

I am patient, but I do have my limits of forbearance. If you didn’t leave it all to me and had stepped in yourself to help set Kctan aright, then you, yoked in my same harness pulling the same Kctan ton of dead weight, would have earned the right to critique my exasperation. But since I’ve done all the heavy plowing in his brain’s gray furrows, I’ve earned the right to complain about nothing taking root.

*******************

You have not explained human naturalism. You have illustrated how natural mechanisms responsible for automatic behaviors that resemble human altruism could have evolved. That’s like a schoolchild throwing a paper airplane and thereby claiming to have, “explained aerodynamic flight.”

Simply put, human altruism requires a conscious decision. Altruism in Nature, from leukocytes to seeing-eye dogs, requires programming (be it genetic or human). Indeed, even the refusal to engage in human altruism requires a conscious decision, which just goes to further underline the fact that human altruism is not a programmed behavior but a conscious response to and expression of love. Here’s the syllogism:

1) The evolutionary process is a process of genetic programming.
2) Human altruism is a conscious process.
3) A conscious process is not a programmed process.
4) Ergo, human altruism is not an evolutionary process.

– Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Wounded King

So basically albert your definition of human altruism is any altruistic behaviour not derived from strictly biological evolution. This leaves a lot of possible human altruistic behaviour out of that definition presumably. But by definition your particular breed of altruism does not involve evolution, well done.

Whether your assumptions hold water is another question.

MrDarwin

And here's the fallacy of the syllogism:

1) The evolutionary process is a process of genetic programming.
2) Human sexuality is a conscious process.
3) A conscious process is not a programmed process.
4) Ergo, human sexuality is not an evolutionary process.

In other words, just because it's a conscious process doesn't mean it doesn't have an underlying genetic basis that is subject to evolution. I'm not sure that anybody (except strict creationists) would argue that human sexual expression does not have evolutionary origins in the sexual expression of mammals and of animals in general. In fact, virtually all human behaviors have their precursors in our mammalian relatives, and our closest relatives, the great apes, have behaviors more similar to ours than do most other primates, or mammals in general.

So I think the really critical questions regarding human altruism are whether we see altruism of any kind in chimpanzees or other great apes and if so just how similar it is to human altruism, as well as whether what you are calling "human altruism"is consistent from one human society to another.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Mr. Darwin,
I’m surprised by you. Surely, you cannot believe: Have you never had a wet dream? Have you never consciously tried to inhibit your sexual processes to no avail? Doesn’t your head sometimes have a mind of its own independent of your conscience head? Does not that prove that sex is a biological drive, like hunger and thirst, independent of our conscious processes?

You have conflated two distinct things into one: the sexual drive that we may or may not be conscious of, and consciousness itself. By your illogic, stones must be conscious, too, for we are painfully conscious of gallstones while passing them.

Here’s where you go off the deep end: What weasel words these are: “underlying genetic basis.” Pray tell, what biological processes DON’T have an underlying genetic basis? Life, by definition, is genetic. How do you get from that fact your assertion that consciousness must be a genetic process? That’s a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. In other words, just because consciousness as we know it is associated with living processes such as evolution, does not mean that consciousness is derived from living processes like evolution.

Yes. No one is arguing to the contrary. But so what? Everything derives from a precursor, just like every effect results from a cause. This is a metaphysical truism that leads nowhere but backward to the First Cause or Unmoved Mover.

Nah. Were we to find that apes were capable of human altruism, we’d simply either have to start calling it something else, like “supernatural altruism,” or start calling apes human. Any animal capable of human altruism would thereby prove it was endowed with what St. Thomas called “a rational soul.” Such a creature would be capable of loving God and could go to heaven.

I personally believe that the higher animals are capable of human altruism. But their ability to express it and our ability to detect it is so limited that we may never know for sure. We’ll just have to wait till we get to heaven to find out, where, no doubt, the dinosaurs will express their love of God by stepping on the atheists. – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

kctan

Growing is also a process of evolution in biological sense.

So you're a better authority of knowing what evolution is all about then ? Pray enlighten us as to what evolution is then. So you know better then me as to why Newton say those words then ? You are the one posting it in the first place. Pray tell what's the exact meaning of his sentence then, use his own words pls.

Reference pls as to when women brain are smaller then men. We are talking in terms of brain size to body ratio. :banghead: . Who's to say that if those neanderthals aren't wipeout, they won't discover trigonometry ? They're able to use fire but what else will they be able to use if they aren't wipeout ?

Brain to body ratio. Pls reference the study conducted that says elephant brains have a bigger storage capacity for information.

This does not prove that catholics have evolved or not. It only shows that some catholics just don't like to use their brains for thinking.

:banghead: :boohoo: