The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes (Humans)

by David Turell , Monday, July 13, 2009, 20:40 (5610 days ago) @ xeno6696

Dr. Turell,
> 
> Thank you--the point is much clearer. I am finally starting to get that picture from Adler here, he finally--deep into chapter 8--expresses the thought that man being different in kind does not have to destroy phylogenetic continuity, something that when you first told me about the book I thought he had done.
 
The animal continuity of evolution is present for Adler, but the huge jump to the big brain and consciousness/intellect are the issue for him and me. - > My REAL view--is that we bring in outside assumptions (deities) if and only if all possible other alternatives have been completely exhausted. Though I can only guess at your case, I just don't think that complexity + a paradigm shift in humanity are enough to invoke a designer. - But I do. 
> You mentioned before that you think life-scientists are more likely to be theists because they are so close to life's complexity. I have a competing theory. They don't spend any time studying chaos or dynamics. - But I have studied chaos and understand your points, but even though chaos has an underlying organization doesn't mean that it can make life and its underlying code. - > I'm not trying to say that biologists should be staunch materialists, but when you see something that shouldn't be solvable become solvable with a very simple application... so much magic in the world disappears. - You are right but we medical folks watch amazingly complex life under attack. The truth is doctors don't cure anything. We just give the body time to catch up with the onslaught. 
 
> Personally, I would *really* like to be able to believe in God/designer. I would like some of the comforts that come with it. I would like to say that "magic" in some form exists somewhere in the universe. - My form of belief is not really comforting. I agree with Adler that God possibly cares about us 50% of the time. - 
> Ah well... back to the book. Deep into chapter 8 and Adler removes one of my reservations, admitting that phylogenetic continuity can still be compatible with humans being different in kind... he even addresses some of my previous arguments detailing instincts. Pushing on... - Remember H. sapiens have been around 200,000 years with a big brain case 10% smaller than Neanderthals. The theory is that we have had language about 50,000 years. We know from archeologic study of the N's they stayed relatively primative, with an unknown ability for speech (brain-wise, but their laryngeal anatomy was pretty good for it). Our agricultural period from about 15,000 years ago did create quite a cultural advance, but our bodies became much smaller and only now are growing back to the original stature. Look at clothing in colonial museums or go thru an Elizebethean doorway in England. The agriculture was due to our increasing intellect as we learned to use our brains. - Our brain is very plastic and certain areas grow neurons and dendrites in older adults( Newberg & Waldman, "How God Changes Your Brain"), and children who have greater intellectual interaction with their parents have higher IQ's. I think we got the big brain and then learned how to use it. That seems obvious. Agriculture was a way station on the road to here and now.