Not supernatural intelligence - ours.

Mel kindly alerted me to Fisherian Runaway recently and it struck me that a lot of evolution could driven by methods outside the classic "survival of the best adapted [to the environment]".

I'm floating an idea here, so please bear with me: I guess we can co-opt animal intelligence into the survival paradigm, but a more intelligent discussion (and refutation of the supernatural!) could perhaps be had if we allow for the separation of purely natural biological effects (of which there are many) and other effects which are directed by other forms of selection.

I can't find any sensible biologist suggesting that plants have intelligence - they just didn't need any so they're evolving in a classic undirected chaotic line. Higher animals, however, are quite capable of making "informed" decisions; and the highest of all (us, arhem) are really messing it all up.

I'm don't want to argue the rights and wrongs of this, just accept that we do.

Why?

It struck me one of the problems extolling evolution to an evolution denier is they see [supernatural] design in everything - even though it's clear to us that the designer is only nature "herself". A better examination of the sentient affects on evolution could, perhaps, better explain the ludicrous theses proposed by Perry Marshall and others.

Views: 68

Replies to This Discussion

Thought as much - but I try to avoid Prof Dawkins as he's a bit too polemic for me these days (and as a fellow writer, albeit a microscopic one by comparison, I don't want to fall into the involuntary plagiarism trap.) What about the other animals though? Seems to me that the incredible intertwining of different species as they go about their daily business produces a chaotic effect that some might perceive as intelligence. An evolutionary butterfly effect if you will.
I qoute from Ken Richardson & SueRichardson in their paper 'Cognitive Development to Adolescence' OU
"The adaption of an organism to it's enviroment during it's growth, together with the interactions which characterize the 'epigenetic system'. Epigenesis in it's embryo-logical sense is always determined both internally and externally.
Since the brain is the central nervous systems focal point one can say that our intelligence has a large part to play. Is'n't bipedal behaviour usually inferred, if not directly stated, as a product of the mind. Also the lower functions of the mind would through need create imaginitive ways of seeking such. However is not the solution of the mind then seen to create an evolutionary drive as we evolved into our new tool etc, use. The drive of smell and taste driving us to seek new food sources, however could it be seen as our higher minds creating solutions that led to our evolving into the animal we are today. Depending on which part of the general theory of evolution one ascribes to or views one could say descending from the trees or walking upright were a development of the mind.
As my answer plainly shows you've managed to get us round to the old philisophical question (just won't go away will it), the chicken or the egg?
Chicken and Egg is a religious paradox; long since answered - can I assume you're using it as a rhetorical device?

From what I can recall of bipedal evolution, it's suggested that it was a development that endowed us with the ability to gain a greater brain - not the other way around. There was some connection to our loss of fur there too, but for the life of me I can't recall the connection.
There was some connection to our loss of fur there too, but for the life of me I can't recall the connection.

I think the current theory around that is because we were endurance hunters, we ran down prey over long distances. Because of that, we lost a lot of the matte features of our fur/hair due to the fact that our sweat glands needed the skin surface area to be clear so we could sweat more effectively and maintain our internal/external temperature better.
You know what, I think that was it. We kept the hair on our heads to protect the brain from too much heat in summer and from getting cold in the winter.

A doc. I watched demonstrated how most people prefer us to have no body hair at all. Weird.
Then how would you account for that other naturally nude mammal, the pig?
The pig wasn't mentioned in the documentary (BBC Horizon) only the apes - but that's an interesting question. Since I don't know, I could only hazard a guess that the "domestic" pig has been selectively bred that way?
All species of wild pigs have hair. I suspect that hairlessness is more a product of selective breeding rather than a natural state.
True. All mammals have hair to some extent. Actually domestic pigs are much like us in terms of hair (and diet).
Hey Carver, the also taste like us - or is that the other way around?
Please stop this, folks, or the jews and muslims will deride us as cannibals soon.
I believe you do (recall correctly). This, of course, may be nothing more than a fallacious rumor.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service