When did we become fully human?

[Patrick]

@r_speir

We were fully human and fully intelligent when God created us.

And please tell us when did that occur?

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@r_speir

But to be clear, I do hold close a belief in God’s creation as laid out in Scripture. However, in battling the evolutionary paradigm, we sometimes have to go to unusual places, places that for us personally may be unpleasant.

Why must you battle evolution? There is no conflict between the scriptural account of creation and evolution.

I suppose I should see this as intelligent design at work. You have used your own intelligence to design a conflict where none actually exists.

@r_speir

Evolutionists begin at this level of human consciousness and intelligence when they first define, then design, their evolutionary paradigm.

This is already mistaken. The “evolutionary paradigm”, as you call it, has evolved with empirical evidence. It cannot properly be described as something designed. It continues to change as we learn more.

@r_speir

Their paradigm basically states that, with no pre-directed goals, blind, unintelligent, unguided processes of natural selection and random mutation brought about the complex design of life we find today, including the self-aware and intelligent modern human.

That’s another mistaken view that is repeatedly regurgitated by the anti-evolution crowd. The Wikipedia entry on Gould’s structure lists agency as a core commitment of evolutionary theory. That’s agency of biological organisms. And where there is agency, then “blind” and “unguided” are not appropriate descriptions.

[r_speir]

@nwrickert

It continues to change as we learn more.

And with that statement, you just invoked abstract reasoning and critical thinking - the very things that your paradigm cannot explain.

Your complaints have changed nothing about the claims of my paper.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

Are you saying that learning requires abstract reasoning?

Does a child learning to walk, do abstract reasoning about walking? Does a bicyclist need to abstractly reason about bicycling?

[r_speir]

@nwrickert

Are you saying that learning requires abstract reasoning?

No reason to be so vague, elusive, and dodgy. I know apes learn and repeat learned steps by rote.

You already know that when you “learn these new things about your paradigm over time” that it will take critical thinking to properly assimilate them into your existing theory.

Are you going to ask an ape to do the same?

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@r_speir

You already know that when you “learn these new things about your paradigm over time” that it will take critical thinking to properly assimilate them into your existing theory.

I’m not sure of your point.

A theory is an abstract entity, so learning anything about a theory requires abstract reasoning. But most learning does not require any abstract reasoning.

[r_speir]

@nwrickert

I’m not sure of your point.

I think you are sure of my point. This time around I used “critical thinking” rather than abstract reasoning. Either way, my point is made and you are acting dubiously ignorant. I am aware of the tactic.

Point made: It will take a higher level of human intellect to build and maintain your theory. Only the level found in the human kind will be able to accomplish it. My point is made and my point stands, your feeble complaints notwithstanding.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@r_speir

Point made: It will take a higher level of human intellect to build and maintain your theory .

This completely misses the point.

Evolution can proceed in nature, regardless of whether we have such a theory.

If “Intelligent Design” just means that intelligent humans designed the theory of evolution – I could agree with that. However, as I understand it, “Intelligent Design” claims that the biosphere that we see is the result of intelligent design. I’m actually okay with that, too, because I see all biological organisms has having a little bit of intelligence, and I see evolution as the process by which this intelligence has a cumulative effect that we see in the current biosphere.

The idea that this requires abstract reasoning is absurd.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

I think questions like when we became fully human are immensely silly. They inevitably devolve into arguments about how to define the terms of the question, with each definition sprouting its own host of answers.

That’s what can make it productive and fun. We are approaching a grand question here, one that unsettles simple answers.

[r_speir]

@nwrickert

Evolution can proceed in nature, regardless of whether we have such a theory.

Now you are missing the point. If evolution cannot account for the human intelligence it took to define and design the paradigm it cannot “proceed in nature” because it doesn’t exist anywhere but in the mind of the evolutionist.

The existence of the evolutionist and the concurrent existence of his higher reasoning powers precludes his very theory. That failure in his construct opens the door for an intelligent designer.

(And by the way, we disagree on what abstract reasoning is. You will not be able to construct the theory without it. But we can agree to disagree on that point.)

[CrisprCAS9]

@r_speir

If evolution cannot account for the human intelligence

It can, so no problem.

[r_speir]

@CrisprCAS9

It can, so no problem.

What are those steps?

[T.j_Runyon]

@r_speir

If evolution cannot account for the human intelligence

Define human intelligence then state what parts of it you think evolution is unable to achieve.

You are so incoherent I can’t even figure out what you are arguing.

[CrisprCAS9]

Allow me to quote my prior comment to you:

@CrisprCAS9

The range of human intelligence is greater than the average difference of human and chimpanzee intelligence. That means that not only is intelligence a gradient, it is a gradient that covers the entire range in need of explanation.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@r_speir

If evolution cannot account for the human intelligence it took to define and design the paradigm it cannot “proceed in nature” because it doesn’t exist anywhere but in the mind of the evolutionist.

Evolution accounts very well for human intelligence.

Evolution is pragmatism in action. And pragmatism is the core of human intelligence.

[r_speir]

@CrisprCAS9

Allow me to quote my prior comment to you:

Allow me to re-quote my question to you:

What are the evolutionary steps to intelligence? Then how are the higher reasoning steps to human intelligence achieved?

[r_speir]

@nwrickert

Evolution is pragmatism in action. And pragmatism is the core of human intelligence.

Great. You just committed yourself. Here is the definition of pragmatism:

“an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.”

So please list the practical application of steps necessary in your paradigm to achieve human intelligence.

[CrisprCAS9]

@r_speir

What are the evolutionary steps to intelligence?

If the range of human intelligence covers the range of intelligence between humans and chimpanzees, then there are no ‘steps’ required to explain human intelligence beyond incremental selection along a gradient.

@r_speir

Then how are the higher reasoning steps to human intelligence achieved?

Non-human primates, and likely a variety of other non-humans, are capable of higher reasoning.

[r_speir]

@CrisprCAS9

If the range of human intelligence covers the range of intelligence between humans and chimpanzees, then there are no ‘steps’ required to explain human intelligence beyond incremental selection along a gradient.

You keep telling me what I already know. I am trying to get you to tell me what I don’t know, and apparently, you don’t know either. Give me the steps to intelligence in your model.

@CrisprCAS9

Non-human primates, and likely a variety of other non-humans, are capable of higher reasoning.

Don’t tell me obvious things about your model.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@r_speir

Here is the definition of pragmatism:

“an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.”

I don’t agree with that.

Pragmatism is making decisions about behaviors on the basis of how well those behaviors appear to work. Pragmatism has nothing to say about theories, beliefs or truth, except to the extent that those terms are related to behaviors.