---

Quote: from Moridin at 4:51 pm on July 7, 2009

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:14 am on July 7, 2009

---

Quote: from Moridin at 5:49 pm on July 6, 2009

---

1. The implications from evolutionary sciences, especially evolutionary psychology and moral psychology has, arguably, presented a decent amount of evidence for the conclusion that the mind has a natural, rather than supernatural, origin and that it is an evolutionary adaptation, just like eyes or wings.    

  2. Evolution does imply that such a perspective is not reasonable. There are many, many obvious engineering mistakes in biological organisms which does not support the idea that an intelligent designer is ultimately behind life. The path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is my favorite example, but there are other examples of these sorts of jury-rigged exaptations.    

  3. You don't? Then why did god only imbue humans with an immaterial soul if humans where not special to god? Why don't ferrets have souls?

---

1 & 2. Implications are not evidence or proof. 3. I didn't say that I don't think humans are special to God. I don't think we have a special place in the world in His eyes. How long were the 'dinosaurs' the dominant animals on this planet? How long for humans?

---

 

 Yes, implications are evidence. If A implies B, it means that If A (evolution) is true, then B (natural mind) must also be true.  

 1-2. How would you feel about the idea of the human mind having a natural, rather than supernatural origin? Or that no intelligent agency was behind evolution? Would that be something you could come to terms with?  

 3. But if humans are special to god, why was the human arrival on the scene far from a guarantee? Dinosaurs where the dominant creatures for around 160 million years. Humans for less than a few thousand years. Humans have existed for about 2 million years, but was not dominating for most of that time period. Then it can be argued that humans are not the dominant species on earth since we are food to literally billions of microbes.

---

If A (evolution) is true does that not imply that B (humans are the most advanced species on earth) is true? And would that not imply that humans are also the most dominant? How then can you make the argument that microbes are more dominant? Since you claim that implications are evidence, wouldn't your argument be shown as false simply from the previous implications?

---

No, evolution does not imply that humans are the most advanced species on earth. Many bacteria are far more advanced biologically than humans. What you think evolution is claiming is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being

which evolution rather refutes, than confirms. Your above post is a further testimony to your poor knowledge of evolution.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

No, evolution does not imply that humans are the most advanced species on earth. Many bacteria are far more advanced biologically than humans. What you think evolution is claiming is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being

which evolution rather refutes, than confirms. Your above post is a further testimony to your poor knowledge of evolution.

---

---

Quote: from Moridin at 11:02 am on July 9, 2009

---

No, evolution does not imply that humans are the most advanced species on earth. Many bacteria are far more advanced biologically than humans. What you think evolution is claiming is  

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being  

 which evolution rather refutes, than confirms. Your above post is a further testimony to your poor knowledge of evolution.

---

You never seem to stay within the parameters of the response you attempt to refute. And then you bring in religion as an added twist to refute something not even a part of my post. Adding to or changing the meaning of what I say in order to refute it means you don't really have a rebuttal. Try again.

---

You have tried to squirm so hard on these issues I have no idea what you are talking about.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Tell me how bacteria are more advanced, minus the biology lesson, than human beings. Do they have a brain? How do they think? Dream? What do you suppose their theory of evolution is?

---

What do you mean by "more advanced"? There are bacteria that can live without aid in temperatures above the boiling point of water, in highly acidic environments, in areas where there is no oxygen and live entirely on metals.

You have to get rid of your belief that humans are on the top peg of a latter of life if you wish to remain rational. Humans are on the end brush of a branch of a tree of life, other branches having other living organisms that are equally evolved as humans.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)