Logic and evolution: doubting Darwin; (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, September 03, 2019, 18:04 (1906 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTES: Because the minute one expresses doubt about Darwin’s basic premise that all life-forms, including humans, descend from a common ancestor through the simple processes of random, heritable variation and natural selection, one admits the possibility of a counter-theory — Intelligent Design — that is considered anathema to the intelligentsia, since it implies, you know, the G-word.

Here Wolfe disassembles the history of Darwinism in his characteristically madly entertaining fashion, but concentrates on what seems to me Darwinism’s even more puzzling Achilles’ heel, its utter failure to account for, alone amongst the species, humans’ large brains and capacity for both abstract thought and speech.

"Speech isn’t merely “a” trait that separates us from primates, it is why humans rule the planet. It is why there are zoos with primates inside and us outside. Speech allows us to make “plans” (something no primate understands). It allows us to record and measure, to express ideas and act on them. Make your own long list. Speech is, in Darwinian lingo, the ultimate “artifact.”

DAVID: This is a complete justification for Adler's approach. The essay is exactly on point. Darwin cannot explain humans in any way, as Adler noted. All Darwin provided was to bring to the fore that evolution happened.

dhw: Ever since this forum began we have agreed to reject Darwin’s theory of random mutations and natural selection as the driving force of innovation. Of course humans are extraordinary, but Darwin cannot explain other complex organisms either, once we reject random mutations. In any case, I don’t know why the author thinks “speech” is the key to demolishing this particular aspect of Darwin’s theory, when you yourself have offered us hundreds of natural wonders that do the job just as well. I do not regard speech as a key issue in the case against Darwin, because I see it as a perfectly natural progression from the sounds made by other organisms for the sake of communication, just as I see the larger brain as a natural progression. In both cases, existing organs respond to the need for greater capacity as hominins and homos become aware of more and more ways of coping with the conditions around them. (I would say that the mystery of awareness at all levels is far more key than speech.) The brain expands in order to implement new concepts, and “language” expands to increase the range of communication. I do not believe for one second that even the most primitive of homos did not communicate by sound. And I suggest that as the need for a wider range of sounds increased, so the intelligent cell communities that form the speech organs made the necessary adjustments to create new sounds, just as pre-whale legs would have become flippers in response to new requirements. I don't see how this can demolish Darwin's case for common descent. It's just random mutations that go out of the window.

I view the point of this essay is that humans cannot be justified by Darwin's principal theories. The only accomplishment of Darwin is to put the emphasis on evolution. Once again you ignore Adler's point that we are different in kind, and God is required. Your paragraph simply uses a hope that organisms can evolve themselves. Your evidence is epigenetics which only provides adaptations, nothing like speciation, according to current scientific findings.