[_ Old Earth _] Is Evolution "Mindless"?

[Asyncritus]

Part 1​

The foolishness of evolution is nowhere more obvious than in its supporters’ efforts to account for the origin of the human mind.

Not satisfied with being unable to account for the many biological phenomena I have shown on this forum, its supporters add to their tally of folly their efforts to account for the origin of the human mind.

Where did our minds come from?

In evolutionary terms, since we are descended from some form of chimpanzee or orang-utan, then hidden away somewhere in the gene pool of those creatures (millions of years ago, next November) was the POTENTIAL to produce the human mind.

But evolution does not deal with POTENTIALS. It cannot – because it has no foresight. EVERYTHING is produced by mere chance, not purpose. Therefore, those genes which would produce the human mind in the future, were useless at the time they were produced, and would have been selected out, by the natural selection processes which eliminate the useless and harmful.

Alfred Russell Wallace, the co-author of the theory of evolution, no less, saw this problem very clearly, and unlike modern supporters, was honest enough to openly abandon his own work and declare it totally unsound.

Darwin, however, like his worshippers, wasn’t so smart.

Wallace simply could not see how it could be true that a chimpanzee or similar creature, of the bow-wow and yo-he-ho brigade, could possibly produce a descendant – us – with our complex languages, which are apparently becoming simpler as time goes on, the ability to sing, dance, philosophise, do mathematics, create architecture, invent machines, go to the moon etc. That’s a very short list.

He was perfectly right..

There is quite simply no evolutionary accounting for these things – quite apart from the physical things: and there are plenty of them.

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 2​

​

I mentioned the physical things which evolution cannot account for.

In humans, specifically, in a paper published by King and Wilson in Science, 1975, and studiously ignored thereafter, the comment was made that since humans and chimpanzees share the greater part of our genomes, then we must be apes.

I suppose that also means that apes must be humans too! Hmmm.

Unfortunately for their idea, the facts got the better of them, because they then went on to say:

“…Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size, but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits.

Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape and size from its human counterpart.

Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course major differences in posture, methods of procuring food, and means of communication.

Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families.”

Given all that, it is quite impossible for the chimp/orang/whatever to become human. I mentioned previously the fact that the metatarsal ligament in human feet, binds all 5 toes together, while in chimps etc, the same ligament binds 4 toes, leaving the 5th or great toe free to grasp branches etc easily.

There is no possible intermediate between the 4-bind and the 5-bind and so it is perfectly clear that humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, but are a separate and distinct creation.

Which is only to be expected.

In 2007, Eugene Koonin said what the palaeontologists have been saying for decades:

Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity.

Further: facts that fall outside the margins of Darwin’s theory include “the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla.”

Which is to say, almost everything.

Given that fact, repeated by palaeontologist after dozen palaeontologists, the evolutionist is forced to admit that the human brain and mind also emerged suddenly. No intermediates, no gradual improvements, Simply, BANG! And there we were.

In 1936, Alan Turing produced a theoretical model of a machine which could imitate the human mind. That machine, brilliant as it was, could do nothing without a program. It’s descendants, modern computers, magnificent as they are, can also do nothing without a program.

Saying that the human mind is like a computer is quite simply, stupid.

Computers are artefacts of the human mind, requiring as an initial condition, a creator. The existence of the mind of the creator must also be explained. Well?

Newton faced the same problem when he produced his system of the world in the Principia. He could accurately describe the planetary orbits, but not the initial conditions which created those orbits.

This, of course, was no problem to him, because he correctly said that this most beautiful system could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of the Creator of all things.

Our minds are reflections of the mind of God, who created us. Pale shadows, of course, but reflections nonetheless.

The palaeontologists will dig till doomsday, in vain, in the search for human origins, producing one idiotic theory after the next. Our origins are not in the mud and dirt, buried among the graves of countless chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and the like.

It is only by blatant eye-shutting that anthropologists can make the foolish claims that they do make. Anyone making the claim that we are somehow descended from the gorillas etc. deserves to have descended from them: their intellect is on a par with said gorillas.

The rest of us, with some degree of common sense, can say to the said anthropologists Just look around you, pal. There’s the evidence that we aren’t descended from them.

You’ve missed it, because your head is stuck so firmly down the hole you dug for yourself.

Trouble is, with your head down there, you’ve exposed a very vulnerable part of your anatomy. It deserves to be kicked.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Re: THE MINDLESSNESS OF EVOLUTION

Wallace simply could not see how it could be true that a chimpanzee or similar creature, of the bow-wow and yo-he-ho brigade, could possibly produce a descendant – us – with our complex languages, which are apparently becoming simpler as time goes on, the ability to sing, dance, philosophise, do mathematics, create architecture, invent machines, go to the moon etc. That’s a very short list.

He was perfectly right..

There is quite simply no evolutionary accounting for these things – quite apart from the physical things: and there are plenty of them.

If the smartest chimpanzee is smarter than the dumbest human, I wonder if that chimpanzee will be allowed in Heaven.

 

[Arch Angle]

Re: THE MINDLESSNESS OF EVOLUTION

I would call it mindfulness. As in using your mind to understand the fullness of god.

The foolishness is not evolution, it is the man the refuses god's handy work that is foolish. Lay out all the data on a table and come upwith a story that links those observations together on how god created man. The best story we have to date is that god did it threw evolution.

You went backwards in you this stance. What you do is layout the observations you have first. Then come up with a story that can link them. Lastly, when you look at the"gaps", does your story help explain them. It may not, and in this case does not, have the exact hows.

"evolution" is not the end all. It does not exclude god.

You claim god did it via the bible.

I claim god did it through the laws that we see. The rock record.

 

[cupid dave]

Re: THE MINDLESSNESS OF EVOLUTION

Part 1​

The foolishness of evolution is nowhere more obvious than in its supporters’ efforts to account for the origin of the human mind.

\.

I believe that the Bible specifically tells us where the mind appeared during this process of Evolution.

By "mind" I assume we are talking about the free will that we all recognize as our personal option to choose, consciously, between various choices that could be made when the opportunities present themselves.
Whether to do this or do that, chose this path in life or another, decide that Genesis was misunderstood and poorly explained, or doggedly stick to Fundamental Creationism, etc.
Choices which we can consciously make and all the consequences that we must live with thereafter create our own totally new existence in the Future that unfolds.

This all arose as the evolution of a Response to Fear developed, grew, and matured into a pause in time during which we were granted more time to decide upon the choices available.

It was that "Wait" between the response to Flee or Fight that expanded as time allowed for a better choice and for more information in regard to the danger that was becoming better perceived.
The Response to Fear in man is not Fight or Flight, but has matured into a pause which tells us to Wait" before we respond and "think".


It was this God-given step in the evolutionary process which created the Conscious mind that "Waits" 24/7 now, collecting information and storing Knowledge useful in the decision making process:


Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge:

 

[Arch Angle]

Re: THE MINDLESSNESS OF EVOLUTION

fear of the unknown,

to become "less" afraid

to build a better relationship I think.
to know thy god just a tad more.



I am sure there is quote somewhere if you need such a thing.

 

[Claudya]

Re: THE MINDLESSNESS OF EVOLUTION

That topic is very interesting. But I dislike the smug disdainfull tone of the OP. That's no way to start a debate if one is really interested in debating.
Thus I conclude the OP is not interested in debating, but rather in spewing his hatred.
You guys should discontinue your contribution to this thread. Don't feed that troll.

 

[Sparkey]

Re: THE MINDLESSNESS OF EVOLUTION

The thread title is bad enough as an example of trolling.

THE MINDLESSNESS OF EVOLUTION
Forum: Christianity & Science
Assigned Moderators: [MENTION=142]Free[/MENTION], Sparrowhawke

The initial 2-part post contains phrases such as

• "Darwin, however, like his worshippers, wasn’t so smart."
• in reference to Wallace, the comment, "He was perfectly right.."
• Speculation that, "then we must be apes."
  "I suppose that also means that apes must be humans too! Hmmm."​
• facts that fall outside the margins of Darwin’s theory include “the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla.”
  "Which is to say, almost everything."​

Without going into any attempt at scientific rebuttal (which I would typically leave to other, more qualified Members), it just seems to me that the petition recently considered for a Sanctuary to be created for Young Earth Creation includes the reasonable request that they be given a place of safe harbor, where trolling posts would not be made and strong rebuttal would be stopped. If this concern is to be applied for those Members who believe one thing, why not also for those whose beliefs are seen in opposition? Do we no longer want others treated as we would like ourselves to be treated?

I'm thinking that it may be time to issue a moratorium on what could be termed YEC trolling in the C&S forum. So that all members are told to limit their conversations to more respectful content and less trolling. To me, it's like going into a room and saying, "Shhhhhh... it's time to play nicely now, boys..." Pardon the sound of my "Dad voice" here, please.

Action:

• Closing this thread.
• I will open a new thread to get various inputs from the Members of our Christianity & Science forum.
  
  Recall: Forum Header:
  Christianity & Science (10 Viewing)
  Discuss science topics such as creation and evolution and how they relate to Christianity.
  ​

 

[Sparkey]

I've re-opened the thread, after a brief time-out.
Let's see where this goes. If you feel there is significant attempt to provoke an unkind response? Resist the urge and reply without ad hominem attacks.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Such comments are specifically addressed in the Terms we've all agreed to in exchange for the Service provided here. They are an irrelevance.

The OP poses a couple questions:

• Where did our minds come from?
• Statements have been made about Alfred Russell Wallace having abandoned his own work on Evolution.
• The supposition that Apes are human
• Assertion that Biologist have classified Apes and Humans in two different "Families"
• Allegation that Darwin’s theory include “the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla.†and the subsequent statement, "Which is to say, almost everything."
  

If I've missed anything in the first couple posts of this thread, it may very well be on purpose. Conjecture about where others deserve to be kicked may be attributed to writing style, or then again, it may simply be yet another irrelevance.

 

[Barbarian]

I appreciate you interest in fairness, Sparrowhawke, but the fact is, such trollish behavior really plays into the hands of the opposition. Fair-minded people are not going to be persuaded by such talk. And if one keeps one's own temper under control, it's easy to pick apart such arguments.

It doesn't matter to me. But again, your interest in fairness is appreciated.

 

[cupid dave]

The OP poses a couple questions:
Where did our minds come from? .

I thought I had posted on this thread that what we call "mind" is really our own conscious mind.

The Conscious mind collects knowledge and commits it to memory, which it can access and use as we live and learn.
The bible supports the hypothesis that our Conscious mind is actually a State-of-Fear expanded into a long and unending pause (24/7), before we respond with the classic Fight or Flee behaviors.

Proverbs 2:5
Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God, (i.e.; almighty Reality whose son is Truth).

This did not begin with man, but is found in some degree as a natural opportunity for the appearance of the Free Will choice animals can have, basing their action on the options which they recognize as available to them.
It is found in ape, in ape-men, and in man in ever longer degrees of that "pause."

This is the spirit of man.
It is the meaning of mind.
It is the garden wherein all existence external to man is "fenced off."

In the spirit of understanding the external world, the environment, and the Natural Laws by which God created that environment, the spirit of man mirrors the almighty Reality which is our God.

This is the image of God, a spirit, that man was made to correspond to in spirit.

 

[Narwhalist]

Proverbs 1:7 - The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools[a] despise wisdom and instruction.

 

[cupid dave]

Proverbs 1:7 - The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools[a] despise wisdom and instruction.

This makes sense, that the reason one pauses before responding either way to Fear, is so that knowledge about the apparent threat and knowledge about the environment which may offer options can be analyzed.

For man the pause became 24/7 as his ability increased to see ahead and recognize fearful situations far off, but certain to come.

 

[Asyncritus]

The OP poses a couple questions:

• Where did our minds come from?

No evolutionist has attempted to account for this as yet.

• Statements have been made about Alfred Russell Wallace having abandoned his own work on Evolution.

Proof:


“To Darwin, man was just another evolved animal. Wallace, however, believed that man’s higher capacities such as the human spirit, the mind, and the faculties of speech, art, music, mathematics, humour and morality could not have arisen by natural and sexual selection alone. In an article published in the April 1869 issue of Quarterly Review, Wallace wrote:
‘Natural Selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but very little inferior to that of the average members of our learned societies.’7,8
In the same article Wallace added, ‘… we must therefore admit the possibility, that in the development of the human race, a Higher Intelligence has guided the same laws [of variation, multiplication, and survival] for nobler ends.’7 Darwin was aghast. He wrote to Wallace, saying that he differed grievously from him,9 and in another letter said, ‘I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child.’10
The present paper is focused on, what is, perhaps, the most fundamental area of disagreement between Darwin and Wallace: the evolution of humanity.

Darwin argued that human evolution could be explained by natural selection,
with sexual selection as a significant supplementary principle. Wallace always had doubts about sexual selection, and ultimately concluded that natural selection alone was insufficient to account for a set of
uniquely human characteristics. Among these characteristics, the size and complexity of the human brain, found in all extant human races, occupied a central position.

Once he had identified the “paradoxical†cerebral hypertrophy of non-European racial groups, Wallace’s commitment to “adaptationism,†meant that a supplementary principle had to be invoked in order to account for that
hypertrophy. The invocation of a higher power, and/or supreme intelligence, that intervened to create modern humanity, was undoubtedly facilitated by his interest in, and conversion to, spiritualism.

Wallace’s abandonment of natural selection and sexual selection, as the sole agents of human evolution, set him apart from Darwin –

Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, and the
Evolution / Creation of the Human Brain And Mind
Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace y la Evolución / Creación del
Cerebro y Mente Humana

Stephen E. Glickman

• Assertion that Biologist have classified Apes and Humans in two different "Families"

“However the substantial anatomical and behavioural differences between humans and chimpanzees have led to their classification in separate familiesâ€
King and Wilson 1975

• Allegation that Darwin’s theory exclude “the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla.†and the subsequent statement, "Which is to say, almost everything."
  

It is not my statement. Koonin, 2007 wrote that particular piece.


If you look at the statement carefully, you’ll see that ‘almost everything’ is a pretty fair description.

 

[Arch Angle]

since whene has anybody claimed "darwin" knew it all?

yes, everyone knows the evolutions had gaps. Compare thosegaps to the gaps in the bible literalist story. We are left to chose to the "story"with less gaps. The one with "lessgaps" matches what we see better. That being, god did it threw evolution.

also, you will haveto list the evidence that god went "poof there it is". please, can you list three pieces? Then we will have to compare that to the listused by people that say god did it through evolution.

 

[Sparkey]

The OP poses a couple questions:

• Where did our minds come from?

No evolutionist has attempted to account for this as yet.

• Statements have been made about Alfred Russell Wallace having abandoned his own work on Evolution.

Proof:

...
If you look at the statement carefully, you’ll see that ‘almost everything’ is a pretty fair description.

I have traveled via your links to the article you've quoted. Maybe I'm dense in this? It's possible. Can you draw the lines to connect the dots for me? What exactly was said that convinces unbiased observers that the statement "Which is to say, almost everything," may be properly derived in the "fair" manner you allege? Would it be "fair" to say that almost nothing could be concluded here? We do see that there was dissent between the co-founders. That is clear and convincing. We see that those differences were focused upon:

On the Tendency for Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type
"...Then it suddenly flashed upon me that … the fittest would survive. … I became convinced that I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the origin of species. … I waited anxiously for the termination of my fit so that I might at once make notes for a paper on the subject.

The article goes on to describe Darwin's reaction, "When Darwin received it, he was devastated. What he had been thinking about and putting off publishing for virtually all his working life, Wallace had done ‘while in a fit of delirium, in the space of a couple of hours between the onset of chills and their subsidence in a pool of sweat."

To Darwin, man was just another evolved animal. Wallace, however, believed that man’s higher capacities such as the human spirit, the mind, and the faculties of speech, art, music, mathematics, humour and morality could not have arisen by natural and sexual selection alone. In an article published in the April 1869 issue of Quarterly Review, Wallace wrote:

[QUOTE="Wallace April 1869]‘Natural Selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but very little inferior to that of the average members of our learned societies.’[/QUOTE] When Darwin read this, he scribbled ‘No’ in the margin, underlined it three times, and added a shower of exclamation marks.

The story focuses on the rivalry between two 19th century scientists and their competition(s). This isn't "almost everything" by a long shot. Or maybe it is? Help me connect the dots between the article quoted and the broad nature of the conclusion drawn.

 

[cupid dave]

The OP poses a couple questions:

• Where did our minds come from?

No evolutionist has attempted to account for this as yet.
.

But scripture has attempted to account for the human mind deriving its Consciousness and Free Will from the Fear that God instilled in animals such that they could "have a mind to either flee or fight."

 

[Sparkey]

The OP poses a couple questions:

• Where did our minds come from?

• Statements have been made about Alfred Russell Wallace having abandoned his own work on Evolution.

Proof:

...
If you look at the statement carefully, you’ll see that ‘almost everything’ is a pretty fair description.

But scripture has attempted to account for the human mind deriving its Consciousness and Free Will from the Fear that God instilled in animals such that they could "have a mind to either flee or fight."

Yes, dave. So you say. We are familiar with your style. I find no Scriptural reference for neither of the modern terms, 'fight or flight' nor 'flee or fight' and conclude that this linking is inferred and not directly quoted. You're free to give exact and unmodified quotes (minus commentary) that will change my mind about it if you wanna. Also, I may have misquoted things somewhere, some of what I've said and what the OP said is drifting from true. No biggie, just saying.

Per Wiki: The fight-or-flight response (also called the fight-or-flight-or-freeze response, hyperarousal, or the acute stress response) was first described by Walter Bradford Cannon.[1][2][3] His theory states that animals react to threats with a general discharge of the sympathetic nervous system, priming the animal for fighting or fleeing. This response was later recognized as the first stage of a general adaptation syndrome that regulates stress responses among vertebrates and other organisms.

Wiki Footnotes:
[1]^ Some references say he first described the response in 1914 in The American Journal of Physiology. Others in the 1915 edition of Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear and Rage. Other sources say that he first used the term in 1929 or in 1932 edition of the same book. The issue needs further research.
[2]^ Walter Bradford Cannon (1929). Bodily changes in pain, hunger, fear, and rage. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. by sympathetic nervous system activation that innervates the adrenal medulla, producing a hormonal cascade that results in the secretion of catecholamines, especially ... |work= }}
[3]^ Walter Bradford Cannon (1915). Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear and Rage: An Account of Recent Researches into the Function of Emotional Excitement. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

 

[cupid dave]

I find no Scriptural reference for neither of the modern terms, 'fight or flight' nor 'flee or fight' and conclude that this linking is inferred and not directly quoted.

You're free to give exact and unmodified quotes (minus commentary) that will change my mind about it if you wanna.

Per Wiki:

The fight-or-flight response His theory states that animals react to threats with a general discharge of the sympathetic nervous system, priming the animal for fighting or fleeing.

?

1) Is it your position that the Response to Fear is NOT to decide which way to react?

2) Or, are you suggesting that I ought try to convince of this definition, and see if I could ever get you to agree with it?

3) Or are you asking me to find in scripture the definition for the response to fear, in order to use the definition we have above?

 

[Sparkey]

?

1) Is it your position that the Response to Fear is NOT to decide which way to react?

2) Or, are you suggesting that I ought try to convince of this definition, and see if I could ever get you to agree with it?

3) Or are you asking me to find in scripture the definition for the response to fear, in order to use the definition we have above?

As stated, you're free to do as you please. Some will be unconvinced without direct Scriptural support of the allegations you've made, as you know.