Back to David's theory of evolution of abstract thought (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 16, 2020, 20:34 (96 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again slipping over the interpretation of a time interval of several weeks to relate a causation. Conrete thought cannot do this! The mental connection requires abstract thought.

dhw: We need definitions then. You seem to think that any organism that has memory and is able to link past events to present events “requires the same degree of conceptual thought that we use”...But if you say a bee that remembers biting a leaf and makes the connection between that and the later flowering of the plant is performing abstract thought, that’s fine with me. Only I wouldn't call it thinking "in terms of universals", or "the same degree of conceptual thought that we use."

Are you backing down? Like Nagel (bats) how does a bee see a rose bush. As like you and I with a full understanding of all the parts. A bee has no understanding of all those relationships and cannot correlate leaf biting with later earlier flowering. The 'earlier' is a helpful concept, which brings purpose into the picture. Not for a bee brain. It takes human observation to make the real connections as in my first article. For us or a bee to develop an instinct to bite, it would require multiple observations They are only concrete.


dhw: Once again you erect a straw man in order to dodge the issue between us, which is your insistence that your all-powerful God directly designed every non-human life form etc.in the history of life although his sole purpose was to directly design H. sapiens.

DAVID: Same tired illogical complaint about my theory and Adler's. You want an impatient God!

dhw: I have no quarrel with those aspects of Adler’s theory you have explained to us, I have never “got rid” of our exceptionalism, and I do not want an impatient God. Please stop manufacturing excuses for dodging the issue between us, which is bolded above.

DAVID: I never dodge. Your thoughts about God's actions are illogical.

dhw: You have acknowledged the logic of all my alternative explanations of evolution, and you have manufactured beliefs that I do not have, as listed above. And you still won’t face up to the logical flaws in your own theory.

You see flaws, I don't


DAVID: You use programs like a dirty word. You never like the concept of God's implanted instructions/information. IDer's deal with it at great length.

dhw: I don’t use program as a dirty word, but I simply find it impossible to believe that your God would pack the first cells with programs for every single life form etc.

DAVID: We are stuck with Behe's evidence that DNA (Darwin) devolves.

dhw: Wrong pronoun. Not “we”. You are stuck with your belief that your God provided the first cells with programmes for every undabbled life form and natural wonder etc. in the history of the world. I am discussing this with you, not with Behe.

DAVID: Behe supports me. I can use him as you use Shapiro.

dhw: I don’t know if Behe expressly tells us that God provided the first cells with programmes for leaf-biting bees, weaverbirds’ nests, and every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. But it doesn’t matter if he does or doesn’t. You have constantly vacillated between preprogramming of species and direct dabbling of species, but both theories overstretch my own credulity, especially when you link them to the theory that your God had no other purpose than to produce H. sapiens .

I'll accept your incredulity. You accept God's right to choose a method and even evolve us. We're here. He must have chosen to create us. We are obviously a prime purpose. You don't like it a an 'only' purpose. That has never been my thought. We are an end point purpose. All of the bush is purpose, and needed for food supply. I've told you I think evolution is over. What could be better than us? A shrinking brain should signal that. We run the Earth and control its evolution.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum