By FRANS de WAAL: refuted (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 16, 2016, 12:26 (2717 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: What do you mean by “ordained”? Are you now saying that as well as preprogramming humans, God also preprogrammed our culture?
DAVID: I should have said pre-ordained, just as your statement does.

Does this mean your God organized every advance in our culture(s)? Every religion, every art, every language, every bomb – all preordained? Where does pre-ordaining end and free will begin?

DAVID: I've noted previously my drive to complexity includes improvement. I am not espousing complexity for the sake of unreasonable useless complexity.
dhw: Good. If complexity had a purpose, then I suggest that purpose was improvement. What other purposes do you “include”?
DAVID: Creating humans, the most complex anatomically and mentally.

I assume you believe that humans are an “improvement” over bacteria. The only reason you have given for the millions of other unrelated complexities is “balance of life”, which you agree simply means life continues. The futility of that argument is exemplified by our next exchange.

DAVID: Then tell me why humans appeared for no reason, against all odds.
dhw: I have done so: for the same reason as every other multicellular organism appeared against all reason, against all odds - the drive for improvement. But as an agnostic, I do not discount a divine dabble. I simply do not believe that your God designed the weaverbird’s nest in order to keep life going for the sake of humans.

DAVID: And I have no idea how the weaverbird nest was invented, but since I accept God, I have an answer.

Not “how”. You have told us that God must have designed it, because it’s too complex for the stupid old weaverbird. The question is why, since you believe all such complexities were necessary to balance life so that humans could appear. No nest, no humans? It is perfectly possible to “accept God” and also accept that the weaverbird may have done its own designing.

Xxxx
David’s comment under "Ape gestures": Yes, why language?

dhw: The answer is contained in the text you have quoted: “At some point, it became necessary for our human ancestors to communicate about more than these immediate goals, and therein lies the mystery of language evolution.” The mystery is the enhanced consciousness, which has led to every other advancement, including language.
DAVID: You can't be implying that the stress of needing language created the anatomy for speech and the giant brain? Other primates weren't that stressed.

We have been over this before in full detail, including all the necessary anatomical changes. Once humans had acquired their enhanced consciousness, they needed “to communicate about more than these immediate goals”. And so, yes indeed, I am suggesting that just as other organisms are known to respond to needs by changing their own anatomy, our ancestors did the same. That is the hypothesis I offer for adaptations and innovations, but it does not explain how humans acquired the enhanced consciousness that led to the need for new sounds. THAT is the inexplicable leap.