What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[Alexiev]

What differentiates humans from other animals is culture.

That is a second thing, of course, and quite true: animals don't have culture. If they did, then given the timespans invoked by Evolutionism, we'd have chimp Michaelangelos and Shakespeares by now, or dolphin cities, or bird airports, or whatever. Billions and billions of years is a long, long time; and even a tiny bit of culture would surely be manifest by now, in some other species. But it's not. (Well, bacteria have cultures, but that's different. )

So now we have three things: environmentalism, morality and culture.

...without language we would be quite different animals.

That is true, as well. Human language is quite distinct from so-called animal "languages" of beeps, squeaks, brays and howls. Unlike their "languages," ours is a morphing system of shared-concept cognitions, not a stable set of instinctual noises. This is why, for all their "languages," there is no philosophy among wolves and chimps, smart as they may be...they don't have metacognitive abilities or a transforming ability to conceptualize.

So now we have four things that make human beings not animals: environmental responsibility, morality, culture and language.

All this is merely solidifying the case against any confusing of human beings with mere animals.

Our moral duties are products of our culture.

Really?

If so, it would be the moral duty of Islamists to protect their cultural product of the subjugation of women? And it would be the moral duty of Southern Democrats to protect their cultural institution of slavery? And it would be the moral duty of Red Stalinists to protect their culture against the hated Kulaks, and of Maoists to protect the Cultural Revolution by robbing and killing intellectuals, and of the German Volk to protect the Fatherland against the alleged predations of Jewish bankers?

Those beliefs are all "products of a culture" as well...but I don't think you would want to say we had any duty to protect them...

WE can choose (to some extent) what cultural mores we will adhere to. Nonetheless, we are also products of our culture. You -- more than anyone-- should see that. Your mores have been molded by the Christian culture. So have mine. That's one reason I'm interested in Christianity -- as, I think, all Western agnostics should be. This is our religion, even if we don't believe in all of its assertions. Man makes himself (the title of an excellent V. Gordon Childe book). Whether we or Jesus, or God created Christianity, it has created us. We mold our culture, and are molded by it. Of course, I'm not Bigmike. We can choose (to some extent). We can even choose to mold our culture. But we are also created by it. God (it seems to me) may be a symbol of culture -- purveying morality, offering wisdom, and (indeed) "creating" humans. Because without culture we would be different animals (yet animals we surely are).

[Immanuel Can]

WE can choose (to some extent) what cultural mores we will adhere to.

But on what basis? If there's no objective moral truth, then neither are there objective criteria for right and wrong choices. So the decision of a man to own and abuse slaves, or to free them, are morally equivalent decisions, because nothing but "choosing" makes the difference.

Your mores have been molded by the Christian culture. So have mine.

But again, so what? You and I could have as easily been born Zoroastrians, tribal villagers, Chinese Communists or Nazis. Many people have been. So the mere fact of where we're born doesn't tell us we have any duty to stay with that, or that it's moral.

That's one reason I'm interested in Christianity -- as, I think, all Western agnostics should be. This is our religion, even if we don't believe in all of its assertions.

For an Atheist, all it means is "this is the God I refuse to believe exists." For an agnostic, all it means is, "this is the God I don't know exists or not." But neither has a reason in his refusal to believe, or his admission of ignorance, to think he has to be conformed to that particular moral code at all. And if he can "choose," he can choose another, too. He can reject his own, and in fact, reject all codes, and be a Nihilist -- and that, too, would be a choice that was no less moral than any other, because nothing at all would be moral.

...without culture we would be different animals (yet animals we surely are).

But concerning the evolution narrative, this is a very hard thing to explain: why should there be this one "animal" on the planet that has culture, language, morals, and responsibility for his environment. No other creature has it. Why would we? Why would we think we owe any of it anything, either?

We aren't just animals. We share some physical traits with lower animals, which is pretty unsurprising: what are we going to be made out of but the substance of this world, and the elements that are found in it? But existentially, spiritually, morally, culturally, linguistically, epistemically, in competence, strength, wisdom and magnitude, we are so different from all other beings on this planet that we are like super-aliens to them. And as for relative power, we do, indeed, "have the world in our hands," so to speak. Qualitatively as well as quantitatively, we are beyond animal.

As Hamlet so powerfully opined:

What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! (2:2)

How does that come to be? That's the interesting question.

[Dubious]

As Hamlet so powerfully opined:

What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! (2:2)

How does that come to be? That's the interesting question.

...and yet to poor Hamlet, what is this quintessence of dust?

...and how more potently was life explained in Macbeth...

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle.
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

The last line is truly a very accurate description of how man has made himself into a caricature and distortion. Nature's so-called of masterpiece of creation ending in the final version of the Picture of Dorian Gray to which theists also made a not inconsiderable contribution to its final image.

[Immanuel Can]

As Hamlet so powerfully opined:

What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! (2:2)

How does that come to be? That's the interesting question.

...and yet to poor Hamlet, what is this quintessence of dust?

...and how more potently was life explained in Macbeth...

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle.
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

The last line is truly a very accurate description of how man has made himself into a caricature and distortion. Nature's so-called of masterpiece of creation ending in the final version of the Picture of Dorian Gray to which theists also made a not inconsiderable contribution to its final image.

Both of Shakespeare's heroes were, of course, in despair at the time when they spoke: Hamlet, that such an exalted creature as man should amount to nothing, and Macbeth, because he had sold out everything worthwhile in his own life. As he put it, "my way of life is fall'n into the sere, the yellow leaf..." In both cases, the protagonists were keenly aware that life ought to be more for a man.

But why? Why should life "be more"? If man is just an animal, then what justification has man in not having to live and die like one? This is the point. Why should we expect better for mankind than comes to lower creatures naturally?

Dorian Gray is also interesting, but for a slightly different reason. He is Wilde's own realization that man CANNOT live without morality, much as many would like to think they can. Wilde himself, no doubt, must have had moments when he wanted to do something quite "beyond good and evil." But even he realized that he could not escape the objective truth of moral obligation.

But again, if we are animals, how? Why? Why would we suppose any such things?

[Age]

Humans evolve. NO one can REFUTE this Fact, NOR even just 'logically dispute' this Fact.

[Will Bouwman]

What special status for human beings do even atheist moralists and environmentalists accept...

Moral responsibility to "do the right thing," (however you want to define that).

I don't want to; it is just word salad. Morality is as fictitious as the Bible, in my view. In practice, any action can be justified given an appropriate moral code; the Bible itself justifies slavery, war and genocide. Fortunately, enough human beings have feelings of empathy and respect to pose some opposition to others who lack such feelings.

What makes the environmentalist's concern with the global condition legitimate, and a man's desire to improve his own lot or to feed his family illegitimate?

You see, "having a sense" doesn't tell us much. Most importantly, it doesn't prove that "sense" should be obeyed.

What people sometimes do is create a moral code that aligns with their feelings, just as they create gods in their own image. Then they insist that their feelings, being their god's will is legitimate and must therefore be obeyed. It makes no difference if an environmentalists concern or a man's desire to feed his family is legitimate, it is enough simply to care.

...many, many of your compatriots in the Atheist ranks want to insist that Atheists are moral people, and that Atheism itself does not necessitate the illegitimacy of all moralizing. You're evidently an exception to that norm, I must suppose, if you say so.

I've no objection to moralising, like all philosophy, it is basically story telling and, as in all philosophy, any given story is underdetermined.

In my view, the evidence for evolution is more compelling, in no small part because it doesn't rely on having to deny what is quite clearly evidence for evolution as a conspiracy.

Ah, the old "conspiracy theory" accusation. Unfortunately, in this case, it's too obviously merely a way of avoiding the point.

The point is very simple: that if Evolution is a good "theory," then it should be able to provide some of the evidence that that "theory" itself instructs us to expect. In this case, it should, at the very least, be able to supply a fossil record that contains the transitional forms it tells us must have existed.

I didn't avoid the point, rather I made a point that you avoided:

Nor does it rely on a bogus argument about billions of fossils. Where are the billions of fossils of creatures you do accept once lived?

It's not clear that you think any fossils are real. If not, then you presumably think they are part of a conspiracy. Assuming you accept that at least some fossils are genuine, your insistence that evolution implies that at least one example of every stage of evolutionary development has to have been fossilised is absurd.

[Age]

'These people' like 'these two', here, who ARGUE FOR or AGAINST things like 'evolution' or 'creation' WILL KEEP DOING SO, and 'forevermore', UNTIL 'they' come together, PEACEFULLY, and DECIDE, AGREE UPON, and ACCEPT A DEFINITION for 'the word/s' that they are ARGUING OVER.

'These two' have NOT YET even talking ABOUT what even IS 'evolution', itself. In fact if one was to ASK either of them, what even IS 'evolution', EXACTLY, then BOTH of them could NOT ANSWER straight away. But, here they BOTH ARE ARGUING OVER whether 'evolution' exists, or NOT.

[Will Bouwman]

...what even IS 'evolution'...

Something that has passed you by.

[Immanuel Can]

What special status for human beings do even atheist moralists and environmentalists accept...

Moral responsibility to "do the right thing," (however you want to define that).

I don't want to; it is just word salad. Morality is as fictitious as the Bible, in my view.

Then you are a Moral Nihilist?

In practice, any action can be justified given an appropriate moral code;

Well, that tells us nothing: Hitler was "justified" by Aryan Occultism. The question is, is Aryan Occultism itself a right moral system. But if you're a Nihilist, you'd have to say that it's neither justified nor unjustified...it just is what it is.

Fortunately, enough human beings have feelings of empathy and respect to pose some opposition to others who lack such feelings.

Feelings also fail to tell us anything about morality. How many times do people say, "I'm so mad I could kill X"? That's a feeling, for sure: but is it a morally right feeling? Is empathy a morally right feeling? Lots of recent thinking in Moral Philosophy suggests it often isn't, and I'd agree.

What makes the environmentalist's concern with the global condition legitimate, and a man's desire to improve his own lot or to feed his family illegitimate?

You see, "having a sense" doesn't tell us much. Most importantly, it doesn't prove that "sense" should be obeyed.

What people sometimes do is create a moral code that aligns with their feelings,

Again, that's no good. It doesn't tell us whether the code itself is right or not. Islamists have extremely strong feelings, no doubt, and a code to go along with those feelings. If feelings justified morality, then you'd have to say the Islamists are as right as anybody can be.

it is enough simply to care.

In fact, it just isn't. Plenty of people "care" deeply about evil things. Hitler "cared" about racial purity. I know you're not going to say that his "caring" was "enough" to make him moral.

Where are the billions of fossils of creatures you do accept once lived?

I'm not the one who's insisting there should be vastly more transitional-form fossils than fixed-species ones. Evolutionism presupposes them. Except we don't have them. So that's a big problem.

It's not clear that you think any fossils are real.

Sure I do. I'm just pointing out that the fossils we have do not at all tell the story that Evolutionism wishes us to believe. It requires far more fossils, and far greater variation of an interspecies kind, than we can find any evidence for, either in the fossil record or today, by observation.

[Age]

...what even IS 'evolution'...

Something that has passed you by.

See, EXACTLY as I SAID, and POINTED OUT,

'These people' like 'these two', here, who ARGUE FOR or AGAINST things like 'evolution' or 'creation' WILL KEEP DOING SO, and 'forevermore', UNTIL 'they' come together, PEACEFULLY, and DECIDE, AGREE UPON, and ACCEPT A DEFINITION for 'the word/s' that they are ARGUING OVER.

'These two' have NOT YET even started talking ABOUT what even IS 'evolution', itself. In fact if one was to ASK either of them, what even IS 'evolution', EXACTLY, then BOTH of them could NOT ANSWER straight away. But, here they BOTH ARE ARGUING OVER whether 'evolution' exists, or NOT.

And, it is for this VERY REASON WHY people like 'these two' NEVER progressed and/nor MOVED ALONG, here, in Life.

[Will Bouwman]

Morality is as fictitious as the Bible, in my view.

Then you are a Moral Nihilist?

A what now? My guiding principle is 'don't be a shit', with the caveat 'to anyone who doesn't deserve it'. I really don't care if that is legitimate, nor do I care what you call me.

Where are the billions of fossils of creatures you do accept once lived?

I'm not the one who's insisting there should be vastly more transitional-form fossils than fixed-species ones.

Yes you are. In evolutionary theory, all fossils, and in fact all living creatures, are transitional forms.

Evolutionism presupposes them.

No it doesn't.

Except we don't have them. So that's a big problem.

No it isn't, yours is a straw man argument. The theory of evolution is in part an explanation for the fossil record as it has been discovered. While I agree that Piltdown Man was a fraud, there are other fossils strongly suggestive of human evolution. I understand that you have an alternative hypothesis, but I don't think the evidence you present is as compelling as actual, tangible objects.

[Alexiev]

WE can choose (to some extent) what cultural mores we will adhere to.

But on what basis? If there's no objective moral truth, then neither are there objective criteria for right and wrong choices. So the decision of a man to own and abuse slaves, or to free them, are morally equivalent decisions, because nothing but "choosing" makes the difference.

Your mores have been molded by the Christian culture. So have mine.

But again, so what? You and I could have as easily been born Zoroastrians, tribal villagers, Chinese Communists or Nazis. Many people have been. So the mere fact of where we're born doesn't tell us we have any duty to stay with that, or that it's moral.

That's one reason I'm interested in Christianity -- as, I think, all Western agnostics should be. This is our religion, even if we don't believe in all of its assertions.

For an Atheist, all it means is "this is the God I refuse to believe exists." For an agnostic, all it means is, "this is the God I don't know exists or not." But neither has a reason in his refusal to believe, or his admission of ignorance, to think he has to be conformed to that particular moral code at all. And if he can "choose," he can choose another, too. He can reject his own, and in fact, reject all codes, and be a Nihilist -- and that, too, would be a choice that was no less moral than any other, because nothing at all would be moral.

...without culture we would be different animals (yet animals we surely are).

But concerning the evolution narrative, this is a very hard thing to explain: why should there be this one "animal" on the planet that has culture, language, morals, and responsibility for his environment. No other creature has it. Why would we? Why would we think we owe any of it anything, either?

We aren't just animals. We share some physical traits with lower animals, which is pretty unsurprising: what are we going to be made out of but the substance of this world, and the elements that are found in it? But existentially, spiritually, morally, culturally, linguistically, epistemically, in competence, strength, wisdom and magnitude, we are so different from all other beings on this planet that we are like super-aliens to them. And as for relative power, we do, indeed, "have the world in our hands," so to speak. Qualitatively as well as quantitatively, we are beyond animal.

As Hamlet so powerfully opined:

What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! (2:2)

How does that come to be? That's the interesting question.

My moral choices are the same as yours -- both are informed by our personal opinions and our cultures. WE think slavery is immoral because we have taught to think so by our culture; after all, for millennia most people didn't think slavery was immoral. Jesus, for example, never preached that it was.

We share a great many traits with other (not "lower") animals. Culture is what differentiates us from them. WE disrespect it at our peril. Cultural mores are "objective" in precisely the same way as religious morals. IN fact, religious mores are cultural mores (this is clearly true whether or not Christianity, or Islam, or Hinduism are correct). God speaks to the Faithful through the Bible, or the Church -- both of which are cultural artifacts.

"Believing in" God is no more objective than "believing in" a particular moral code. Why would it be?

You misunderstand Hamlet. Hamlet is a blow hard, showing off before his friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in the speech you quote (who wouldn't show off if he could trot out speeches this good?). IN fact, his two friends are laughing at him, and Hamlet joins in at the end of the speech: "....what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so." Of course the speech is a good one, because, ever since eating from the Tree of Knowledge (metaphorically or actually), our "apprehension" is like that of a God. That's because culture -- language and history -- makes us aware of the human tragedy.

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is as fictitious as the Bible, in my view.

Then you are a Moral Nihilist?

A what now? My guiding principle is 'don't be a shit', with the caveat 'to anyone who doesn't deserve it'.

Well, let's try to take that seriously. What does it actually mean? Which prohibitions and sanctions does it entail?

I really don't care if that is legitimate, nor do I care what you call me.

I wasn't being insulting. I was endeavouring to identify your preferred orientation to morality, which seems to me to fluctuate between extremes of Emotivism and Nihilism without reconciling itself to either. Clear that up for me, if it can be made clear.

Where are the billions of fossils of creatures you do accept once lived?

I'm not the one who's insisting there should be vastly more transitional-form fossils than fixed-species ones.

Yes you are.

No, I'm not. The Evolutionism story requires them.

In evolutionary theory, all fossils, and in fact all living creatures, are transitional forms.

Well, basic observation, even today, disproves that. What we have is many species, but all fixed within their species boundaries. We have no cases at all of species-in-transition, which Evolutionism tells us should be by far the most common phenomenon, orders of magnitute more common than any fixed species. If it takes millions or billions of years for one animal to turn into another, we should be neck deep in transitional forms all the time.

The theory of evolution is in part an explanation for the fossil record as it has been discovered.

Then it has to be the least plausible pseudo-explanation in history, because none of what it tells us to expect is evident.

[Immanuel Can]

My moral choices are the same as yours -- both are informed by our personal opinions and our cultures.

Yours are, if you say they are. My culture is largely secular today, so if culture were determining my morals, we'd expect that I would be a Nihilist.

WE think slavery is immoral because we have taught to think so by our culture; after all, for millennia most people didn't think slavery was immoral.

Most people in the world still think it's fine, apparently. There are more slaves in existence today than at any time in history. And they're in worse conditions than many historical slaves ever were.

We share a great many traits with other (not "lower") animals.

If they're not "lower," then you and I have no moral responsibility for caring for them. The environment goes as the environment goes: no moral concerns attach. But many people think otherwise: why do they think that? Do you? Why do you think it, if you do?

Culture is what differentiates us from them. WE disrespect it at our peril.

No, we don't. Actually what works best for the individual is that his culture obeys its own code, but he doesn't. That way, he can predict what others will do, but is unconstrained himself; and he will experience no detriments, if he's clever.

You misunderstand Hamlet.

Oh, my dear sir...if only you knew.

Why is it that secularists can't read Act 5?

[Alexiev]

My moral choices are the same as yours -- both are informed by our personal opinions and our cultures.

Yours are, if you say they are. My culture is largely secular today, so if culture were determining my morals, we'd expect that I would be a Nihilist.

WE think slavery is immoral because we have taught to think so by our culture; after all, for millennia most people didn't think slavery was immoral.

Most people in the world still think it's fine, apparently. There are more slaves in existence today than at any time in history. And they're in worse conditions than many historical slaves ever were.

We share a great many traits with other (not "lower") animals.

If they're not "lower," then you and I have no moral responsibility for caring for them. The environment goes as the environment goes: no moral concerns attach. But many people think otherwise: why do they think that? Do you? Why do you think it, if you do?

Culture is what differentiates us from them. WE disrespect it at our peril.

No, we don't. Actually what works best for the individual is that his culture obeys its own code, but he doesn't. That way, he can predict what others will do, but is unconstrained himself; and he will experience no detriments, if he's clever.

You misunderstand Hamlet.

Oh, my dear sir...if only you knew.

Why is it that secularists can't read Act 5?

As usual, you take Hamlet out of context, just as you quote my posts out of context. Hamlet is obviously just waxing eloquent in the "What a piece of work is man" speech. Hamlet asks R and G why they have come to Elsinor. He suspects that the king and queen (his mother) have sent for them to beguile him out of his funk. He complains of having "lost all his mirth". Then he goes on about how "man" is "infinite in faculty" (gee, I thought that was God -- or perhaps Hamlet is being facetious). Finally, he jokes about how he cares nothing for man -- or woman, although by R and C's grins they seem to think he does. IN fact, he asks, "Why did you laugh then when I said man delights not me?" R and C are laughing because they think it's funny how Hamlet runs off at the mouth, and they think man does, in fact, delight him -- else why would he engage the troop of actors.

You also misunderstand my position about culture, and you appear to misunderstand culture. Of course your moral positions are determined by your culture inasmuch as they are determined by Christianity. Christianity is cultural. We humans are inseparable from our cultures -- we think by using language, for example. We couldn't hold moral tenets without it. Culture is not a thing apart from "humanness". Man makes himself. We humans create culture, and are created by it. This is obvious for the religious and non-religious alike.