Human Brain Evolution Was a 'Special Event'

Howard Hughes Medical Institute ^ | 29 December 2004 | Staff

[Dataman]

Because one formation of layered sediments formed in a day, that does not therefore mean that all layered sedimentary formations were formed in a short timeframe.

Of course that is not a claim I made.

[GreenFreeper]

ping

[Dataman]

Okay, let's put it this way: You have been hit over the head with literally mountains of evidence.

And the above illustration is typical of your "evidence." But remember Lewontin said it's not the evidence, but the commitment to materialism.

[Dataman]

However, you then take that one square-peg truth and try to pound it in every stratigraphic round hole that you come across.

The fact that layers can and did form rapidly seems to make materialist very uncomfortable.

[Dataman]

The fact that layers can and did form rapidly seems to make materialists very uncomfortable.

[WildHorseCrash]

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin

You're not pulling this out-of-context quote again, are you??? Sigh.

This is from a review of Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World. When you look at this quote in context, he is really making the point that one of the difficulty science has in educating people is the fact that some things which are true seem to lack "common sense" to those who don't know science. Nonetheless, they are true. Thus, Lewontin is really saying, is, essentially, that people have difficulty believing in science because they are ignorant of how science works. What he is saying is that the fact that science is "counterintuitive... [and] mystifying to the uninitiated" simply means they don't understand it, and scientists have to do a better job in teaching it.

From the article:

With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn't even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. ...

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism....

I see this all the time on these boards, when people say, "I don't believe in evolution because it just doesn't make any sense to me..." That something appears to go against common sense is no proof that it is not true.

[Dataman]

Oh, and FWIW, I have my own doubts about some of the dynamics of Darwinian evolution.

I have no problem with the benign evolutionists; I was one myself. And I don't lump them in with the malignant evolutionists who favor ridicule over reason.

[Dimensio]

I'm sorry but there is no way I can belive evolution, there is just no way it is possible. The chances to create life as complicated as Human beings is just far too remote

This is called "argument from incredulity".

[Dimensio]

Blank-Slate Syndrome -- a horrible way to go through life.

I think at this point it's safe to say that he's just a liar.

[Dataman]

Yes, we all know that Lewinton didn't mean what he said. He really didn't mean his commitment to materialism didn't bias him at all.

And Antony Flew really didn't abandon atheism.

And Darwin really didn't mean half of what he wrote.

The quotation is fairly lengthy. It wasn't a sound bite. It wasn't even a sentence. It was an entire paragraph that obviously embarrassed Sagan. So if these men are so brilliant, why can't they say what they mean?

[dirtboy]

The fact that layers can and did form rapidly seems to make materialist very uncomfortable.

No, it doesn't. It simply fails to buttress your position in any manner.

[VOYAGER]

The accelerated evolution of these genes in the human lineage was apparently driven by strong selection. In the ancestors of humans, having bigger and more complex brains appears to have carried a particularly large advantage, much more so than for other mammals. These traits allowed individuals with “better brains” to leave behind more descendants.

As a result, genetic mutations that produced bigger and more complex brains spread in the population very quickly.

This led ultimately to a dramatic “speeding up” of evolution in genes controlling brain size and complexity.

I sure hope God reads this thread so He can know what a good job He was doing when He didn't know what He was doing before He got through doing what He had no idea what a terrific job He was doing!

Thank you God!

[dirtboy]

Of course that is not a claim I made.

Not correct - you clearly inferred just that in post #141 (bolded sections are your responses):

As for the flood, it supposedly lasted 40 days and nights,

Closer to a year.

That takes millions of years. Are you telling me that all those deposits formed in forty days?

How long do you think these layers took to form?

[Junior]

A fixation on wings and chickens... Ted, is that you?

[_Jim]

Mmm, Sovek, would you care to state what the theory of evolution says?

After he's done exposing his ignorance about which he says he 'doesn't believe', send him here for some edification:

The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin

Gotta love the 'net, where even the torch-wielding pitchfork-thrusting Neanderthals can be shown the 'source documents' in an argument ...

BONUS - here's the opening paragraph from the preface.

I WILL here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species.

Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created. This view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of pre-existing forms. Passing over allusions to the subject in the classical writers,* the first author who in modern times has treated it in a scientific spirit was Buffon.

But as his opinions fluctuated greatly at different periods, and as he does not enter on the causes * Aristotle, in his 'Physicae Auscultationes' (lib. 2, cap. 8, s. 2), after remarking that rain does not fall in order to make the corn grow, any more than it falls to spoil the farmer's corn when threshed out of doors, applies the same argument to organization: and adds (as translated by Mr Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to me), 'So what hinders the different parts [of the body] from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident.

And in like manner as to the other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity, and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished, and still perish. or means of the transformation of species, I need not here enter on details.

[_Jim]

Evolution is rejected because it is bad science, bad logic and not even very good story telling.

Sheer, unalloyed idiocy (IOW, "idiocy in it's purest form").

[WildHorseCrash]

Yes, we all know that Lewinton didn't mean what he said. He really didn't mean his commitment to materialism didn't bias him at all.

No, it means that you didn't understand what he wrote. He said that the commitment to materialism is the only thing that keeps scientist doing science, and not conjuring up stories based on wishes or pretending four-thousand year-old mid-Eastern creation stories are factual history.

And Antony Flew really didn't abandon atheism.

An 81 year-old philosopher now believing in some kind of deity...Wow, there's a shocker. Interesting description of God, by Mr. Flew, by the way: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,"

And Darwin really didn't mean half of what he wrote.

This doesn't even make any sense. Of course he meant what he wrote.

The quotation is fairly lengthy. It wasn't a sound bite. It wasn't even a sentence. It was an entire paragraph that obviously embarrassed Sagan. So if these men are so brilliant, why can't they say what they mean?

Again, just because you can't understand him does not mean he isn't saying what he meant.

Further, just because your quote was long does not mean that it could not be out of context. You even cut out the topic sentence of his paragraph: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural." In other words, scientists have a commitment to materialism because it is the only thing separating scientific belief from the superstitious nonsense the yokels believe in.

As for Sagan, he believed that if you teach ignorant people the truth, they will rise out of their ignorance. Lewontin believes that they will not, because he views science as a bit less grand than Sagan, but believes that if you show people how science is done, they will accept it and rise out of their ignorance. Seeing discussions of ID on FR tells me that those who believe in ID and creationism are happy to wallow in their ignorance, and won't rise up even if you gave them a rope.

[Dataman]

C'mon DB, I give you more credit than that. Am I wrong for expecting you to abstain from fabrication like so many of your brethren? Show me where I claimed all layers are laid down quickly through water action.

Is the frequent fabrication of material the standard evolutionary alternative to conceding a point?

[Dataman]

No, it means that you didn't understand what he wrote.

That's just another dusty tactic from the evos worn out bag of tricks. You're smart and anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. I guess that puts you in the category of malignant evolutionist.

An 81 year-old philosopher now believing in some kind of deity...Wow, there's a shocker.

Like Gene Edward Veith said, it would be like Billy Graham renouncing Christianity. Apparently you were not aware of Flew's writing or influence. It is not only a major big deal for atheists, but the result of Christian apologists and that just ruins the decade for some. He left the reservation so now you attack his person in a most dignified, scholarly and scientific manner. So you think you can discredit the mental process that led him to discard atheism over the years can be dismissed by his age? Hmmm. How old are you?

This doesn't even make any sense. Of course he [Darwin] meant what he wrote.

Then you'll enjoy some of the ALS classics:

There are more if you want.

[PatrickHenry]

Permit me to explode yet another fraudlulent example of shameless creationoid quote-mining, the part presented as being a legitimate quote is in blue:

My dear Lyell,

You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question; there could not have been a better plan than reading up on the opposite side. I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in your new edition; nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained in the position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Source: HERE.

Observe the several indicia of fraudulent quote-mining: First, the alleged quote begins in mid-sentence. Second, the alleged quote has no source to check it out (easily remedied, however). Third, Darwin is really saying that he is delighted to have other experts agree with him. Fourth, the creationoids never seem to tire of trying to quote Darwin as their "evidence" against evolution. Tragic behavior.