Chimp vs. human brain (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, December 17, 2012, 19:30 (4360 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I think your viewpoint is too narrow.-dhw: Your view is that the bush was designed to produce homo sapiens. I have offered four alternative and equally likely/unlikely explanations for the bush. What is your definition of a "narrow" viewpoint?-DAVID: Darwin used a tree in his notebook. If we still thought it was a tree with US at the top we might not be arguing. But it is obviously a bush, yet we are still at the top. Same result, different process/method.-I'm really not bothered about the difference between a tree and a bush. Both sprout branches in all directions and so both are an image for the higgledy-piggledy progress of evolution. I don't know how this makes my four alternatives into a narrower viewpoint than your single hypothesis.
 
DAVID: All members of the bush do well in their styles of living. They are all separate pinnacles in their own way. And they do provide a balance of nature which the environmentalists keep reminding us is of extreme importance. We really do all need each other. Why then did the human branch break out and become so dominant? There was no NEED for that to happen, but it DID. Chance? We both doubt that. What is left but purpose. In his book Tallis admits this point and is frantically looking for a third way to preserve his atheism!!! Hysterical!-The fact that we all need one another is clear, and applied even before humans arrived. There was no NEED, as far as I can judge, for ANY particular species to come on the scene, since life obviously continued for billions of years without dinosaurs, dodos, ducks and dogs, and has continued without dinosaurs and dodos, and would no doubt continue without us too. Yes of course we DID come on the scene, but your question concerning chance or purpose applies to life as a whole, not just to humans. Yes, we are unique, but even if we ignore the chance hypothesis, our presence could derive from any one of the three alternative hypotheses I offered you (God having fun, God experimenting, God leaving the mechanism to sort itself out), each of which is just as likely/unlikely as your single hypothesis that this was God's plan from the beginning. The latter in fact leads to a major question, which I will ask you next time if you really do insist on this single, narrow viewpoint!