Animal language (Animals)

by David Turell , Monday, January 19, 2015, 01:04 (3595 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: We agree that there is enormous diversity. And with my theist hat on, I have no trouble agreeing that God planned diversity. However, if the plan was diversity, it was successful without humans. If you don't know why God had to design the nest in order to balance nature for the sake of humans, perhaps you should consider very seriously the possibility that he didn't design the nest and it has nothing to do with the balance of nature and the production of humans, i.e. the weaverbird designed it, and diversity is an end in itself.-It is not that I don't know why the nest appeared, the issue is that as you admit, there is great diversity, and since it is present, it must have been planned. Remember I think God ran the process of evolution. As for your point about success without humans, that is exactly my argument you are attempting to turn back on me. There was no reason for humans to appear, but they did anyway. That implies purpose to me. -> 
> dhw: As has been pointed out many times, ALL changes were “unnecessary”, since bacteria have survived unchanged. As for our giant brain, it weighs about a quarter of an elephant's and a fifth of a sperm whale's, so size is hardly the issue. If there is no giant leap between cave-dwelling vocalizing animals, cave-dwelling vocalizing humans, and all subsequent phases from them to us in our houses and with our Internet, how does the difference in kind (not degree) manifest itself?-Our 'large brain' is my way of pointing out our consciousness and complex intellect, our abstract thought. True size is of no issue. It is our consciousness that makes us different in kind.
> 
> dhw:Your second sentence suggests that the original instructions for life contained an inventive mechanism (= God's role “in part”) rather than detailed instructions on how to build a weaver's nest (= “in whole”).
> David: That is a possible solution to my dilemma.
> 
> dhw: Then my probing has not been in vain.-I given thought to your probing's in this area of our discussion. Life is inventive. The bush of life is a strong reason to conclude that there is an IM given by God to allow some of this diverse inventiveness. Again I think it is semi-autonomous, since I think evolution is guided toward producing humans as a goal. I think an IM would be adjusted to control the drive to complexity and end up with humans as a result.
> 
> dhw: We too are a community of cell communities, but with larger capacities. And so we too could be the product of the same inventive mechanism.
> DAVID: The obvious extreme complexities of our brain makes your suggestion very far-fetched.
> 
> dhw: So the extraordinary complexities of other animals' brains might have come about through the combined inventive mechanisms of cell communities, and only our even more complex brains couldn't have done, although our other organs presumably did.-Animal brains and our brains have many of the same complexity at the basic levels to run the body semi-automatically. You know full well that when I mention the extreme complexities of our brain's function I am referring to our consciousness which is enormously different than that of lesser animals. That is why we are different in kind.
> 
> dhw: I shall be away for two or three days, which should give you time for further reflection! My thanks as always for your patience.-Have a successful trip.