ant wrote:[

What exactly was the mechanism that caused an animal to become "human"? Meaning, when did the phenomena of "humaness" begin?
Is that mechanism an arbitrary law of nature?
Are laws of nature actually arbitrary?

I would not say that the laws of nature and what cause us to develop as we did were arbitrary. More like inadvertent as changes were/are cause by errors in the DNA that prove to be beneficial to the organism and get passed up.

If I recall correctly, I have no link, the reason our brains developed to be what we have is due to our jaw dropping a bit to enhance speech and thus allowed more room for our brains to grow.

Regards
DL

Oh, so inadvertance is when humaness began.

At last I have something good to put into the google scholar search bar.

Interbane wrote:I don't see any moral necessity either. Where is the moral necessity in a lion killing another lion's cubs? This example isn't a mark against the cruelty of the view of evolution. The act itself is cruel, not the worldview through which we gain the most understanding of it.

Hi Interbane. Did you have a good Independence day weekend? That's something I might as an Irishman have some empathy with you on, in terms of British rule.
My point here was that Bishop in my opinion applies Darwinism not just to animals but humans also and the killing of other tribes and babies might be viewed as no more immoral than a lion doing so on this basis.
Dawkins flatly rejects any meaning or purpose or moral underpinning to evolution. "D.n.a neither knows nor cares and we just dance to it's music". There is neither objective good nor evil in any real sense,only that which furthers survival and replication of genes.
Ruse on this basis regards morality as an illusory thing. Morality for him is an evolutionary adaptation like a limb which serves evolutionary success though we might think it's objective and real.If immorality worked better for evolutionary success that would be illusory too and simply a successful evolutionary adaptation to this same end.
You may disagree with Ruse and Dawkins here on some basis which you might explain. I accept that morality is real and objective on the grounds of theism and man being given rationality a conscience and a moral nature.
Simply because we are aware of having such faculties doesn't prove that they evolved or that evolutionary processes are capable of producing them.
Strictly speaking evolution doesn't serve truth or rationality but survival and replication and for no particular reason.
So then do good and evil really exist or not and who decides what is or isn't morally good or evil? You say,"we decide" but who is we? Everyone who agrees with your opinions or the majority at any given time?

Flann wrote:My point here was that Bishop in my opinion applies Darwinism not just to animals but humans also and the killing of other tribes and babies might be viewed as no more immoral than a lion doing so on this basis.
Dawkins flatly rejects any meaning or purpose or moral underpinning to evolution.

Evolution doesn't seek to explain morality. Christianity does. The comparison doesn't work for that reason.

There is no moral or purpose behind evolution. Moral codes are created by man, the creation of which was influenced by our moral emotions. Our moral emotions evolved, and the most basic in-group moral codes(similar to animal behavior) evolved. But the more complex widespread altruism is due to cultural evolution, not biological evolution.

Flann wrote:Ruse on this basis regards morality as an illusory thing. Morality for him is an evolutionary adaptation like a limb which serves evolutionary success though we might think it's objective and real.

So if Ruse thinks morality is an illusion, does that mean it doesn't exist? But we know that it exists, so perhaps you misunderstand him? Just because something is subjective and created by men doesn't mean it's illusory. It's still very much real.

Flann wrote:Strictly speaking evolution doesn't serve truth or rationality but survival and replication and for no particular reason.

This needs some clarification I think. The theory of evolution is the truest account we have of how man has come to be. It describes a complex set of mechanisms. Those mechanisms do not serve the truth, but instead serve survival.

Platinga unwittingly expanded this idea into an Evolutionary Argument against Supernaturalism. If evolution favors fitness over truth, then if left to our own devices our beliefs and worldviews will be untruthful. This is exactly what we find across history, with countless religions and false philosophies. Only when we've outsourced the formation of our beliefs to processes have we started to make progress. The most popular process is science, followed by logic. Those who cling to their beliefs see science as the enemy for that reason. When pressed, people believe it's acceptable if their concept of god is illogical, because god is greater than logic. It's a house of mirrors...

ant wrote: Meaning, when did the phenomena of "humaness" begin?

It didn't begin at some particular time, that was the point. It was a gradual change. This is not a controversial statement, it's a consequence of the fact that evolution has taken place.

The alternative, I suppose, is that God injected a soul at some particular time. What exactly is the religious view if you accept evolution? I don't think there really is one because it's not actually compatible.

So, say, abstract thought never began at any moment.

Flip through a deck of cards - you never quite see one particular card, like an ace of spades. That card dowsnt exist singularly. It exists within a series, right?

We can also say Nothing gradually changed into Something.
Difficult hypothesis to test, but I think it can be used against those magic loving theists.


A string attached to the ends of two tin cans gradually changed into an iPhone.

LMAO!

:p

A string attached to the ends of two tin cans gradually changed into an iPhone.

LMAO!

Didn't you say you accepted evolution? So why is it hilarious?

Gradual evolution of humans isn't some new-fangled theory at the frontier.

Can we also say for instance that there never was one moment when Johnny became an alcoholic, he gradually changed into one over time?

Ps.

Yes, I personally do not have an issue with the evolution of life.

At what moment autonomy emerged is not a mystery, in my opinion, that can be explained away scientifically with untestable explanations that are actually very unscientific hand waving.

ant wrote:Can we also say for instance that there never was one moment when Johnny became an alcoholic, he gradually changed into one over time?

You can't draw conclusions like this, either for or against. Perhaps something similar can be used as a metaphor to explain the transience, but that's different.

ant wrote:At what moment autonomy emerged is not a mystery, in my opinion, that can be explained away scientifically with untestable explanations that are actually very unscientific hand waving.

Do you think of autonomy like humanness, in that it suddenly popped into existence? It sort of depends on how you define the concept.

Is a spider autonomous in how it builds a web and catches prey? Is an amoeba autonomous in how it reacts to stimuli to pursue food? Is a black hole autonomous in how they wander the universe sucking down nearby matter? Is a geyser autonomous concerning periodic eruptions?

Somewhere in the middle of this mud, you have to draw a line. The line is usually drawn depending on the point you want to make. Where would you draw the line? Between an amoeba and a black hole?

Interbane wrote:There is no moral or purpose behind evolution. Moral codes are created by man, the creation of which was influenced by our moral emotions. Our moral emotions evolved, and the most basic in-group moral codes(similar to animal behavior) evolved. But the more complex widespread altruism is due to cultural evolution, not biological evolution.

We've been here before Interbane.
European cultures would be considered to be advanced culturally in understanding and evolved biologically as much as any other humans. I don't think our current moral sense is that dependent culturally but we have an innate sense of right and wrong and of what is good and bad independent of our culture.
We know that it's good to be kind to others whether relatives or strangers and bad to be cruel apart from our cultures values.
So how do advanced cultures with these capacities turn into murderous societies or as in the Communist states into repressive societies?
I saw a BBC documentary about a Nazi concentration camp commander who couldn't be kinder to his own family or more cruel to the human victims in the camp. However we may rationalise this it is obvious that he understood the difference between cruelty and kindness and his kind actions to his own family passes judgement on his cruelty to others.
And not all Germans supported this regime but many opposed it to their cost.
Do humans simply lose their evolved moral emotions and just how real is this evolutionary advance it if it can disappear so easily?

Interbane wrote:If evolution favors fitness over truth, then if left to our own devices our beliefs and worldviews will be untruthful. This is exactly what we find across history, with countless religions and false philosophies. Only when we've outsourced the formation of our beliefs to processes have we started to make progress. The most popular process is science, followed by logic. Those who cling to their beliefs see science as the enemy for that reason.

Not all science Interbane. I would admit to bias in favour of my beliefs but I do think there are problems with the theory in macro terms nonetheless which are not answered satisfactorily.
Currently dominant scientific theories may be overthrown in the future and there are tensions and human realities in all disciplines.
I think the walking land mammal to whale hypothesis is fraught with many problems. While no biologist I understand that this involves the gradual transformation of many intricate and connected biological systems suitable to land dwelling to others necessary for life in the ocean.
Visual systems,auditory systems,respiratory systems,reproductive systems,sonar,digestive systems as well as skin changes for water and so on.
How such entire systems gradually change from one to another is not explained. How creatures with complex partially changed systems could exist is not either.
So I must just take their word for it and not be sceptical?
And I find within the scientific community examples of clearly biased and sometimes fraudulent behaviour. To be fair I also see other scientists at times taking issue with such things which is commendable. How successful the system is in dealing with such things I don't know.
Clearly in the U.S. there are deep seated ideological elements on both sides which must impact these things beyond what is demonstrable in purely scientific terms.
Though it's not the dominant view here are the kinds of reasons I remain sceptical though not unbiased.
A brief video in relation to the whale fossil evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G5vAc5_VJo
And another brief video looking at the problems in terms of timescale and mutation rates in terms of fixity of mutations in species in the possible time available.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJD1LGc2JzQ

And finally a more general look at the biological and systems problems. http://www.evidentcreation.com/?p=491