What we lost

EF Sigh, where to begin correcting cartoons? Let's start with the silly notions first. We did not 'lose' these 'features' all at once and hope that intelligence would pick up the pieces. We can discuss what we lost and gained. For example, our ability to walk upright, while perhaps giving us aches and pains, also allowed a wider visual range and it freed up the use of our hands. If evolution actually claimed what you've outlined here, I'd abandon it too. However, your argument relies on, at BEST, a strawman picture of evolution rather than reality.

 

If the tradeoffs we made are so bad for us, how come we're crowding out all the other species all over the earth?

 

EF: Sigh. Replace one cartoon with another? If you can see more, even if it is not as sharp it is still useful--especially in a region that is rapid losing tree cover and gaining tall grasses. Monkeys and apes do not have the same manual dexterity as humans. We are much better at manipulating objects with our hands.

 

I don't know anyone who accepts evolution who subscribes to the above strawman argument. Can you reveal your evidence for the above assertions, or is that all they are? For your argument to have any merit, you need to objectively show that a deficiency of any of the attributes you mention would be *inevitably* detrimental to humans surviving and reproducing. Seeing as there is no strict measure of sensory perception vs survivability, you will struggle to produce any meaningful argument beyond your opinion.

The fact is that human eyesight, smell, touch and hearing are all adequate for survival. Of course, they aren't the best by any stretch, but the selective pressure to develop extremely acute senses just isn't there in modern humans, and likely hasn't been for some time. Furthermore, I might point out that the loss of fur and increase in sweat glands greatly *improved* the human cooling system. Allowing them to walk long distances in hot temperatures. Which leads me on to the following:

Elena has already discussed eyesight. As for limbs for locomotion. The requirement for chimps to walk on all fours compromises their ability to use their hands. They have to sit down to do complex tasks (which they aren't that good at). Also, their gait is inefficient on the ground (better suited to climbing in trees), walking on the hind legs is a much better way of getting around if climbing is not your priority. Like on the grasslands where early humans are believed to have lived.

You can invent and flog strawmen all day long and claim some kind of victory if you want, but I don't see how anything you've claimed is a true representation of evolutionary theory.

Andrew

 

You think that a primitive primate can run faster than a man? You think an ape can keep up with a man on a long march?

You think primitive primates have better eyesight than we do? Evidence for that is...?

You think primitive primates have lower threshold and wider frequency response than humans? How so?

Humans are among the largest primates ever. Only two existing species are larger.

Legs, mostly. We have much more powerful legs, pound for pound than other apes. No ape can do much damage kicking you. The bones and muscle insertions in our feet are actually larger and more robust than that of gorillas.

How do you measure that?

Generality, more like it. Name another animal that can do a forced march of 50 miles in a day, swim a river, climb a tree, remove a splinter, and throw an object with accuracy.

Intelligence seems to have come later.

Not really. It's the nature of generalization.

 

Some observations and thoughts:

1) Whether we were created ex nihilo or evolved, we clearly have traits which confer a survival advantage. If we didn't, we would never have been able to assert dominion.

2) Our advantages are broad and profound, but they aren't universal or absolute. Five hundred years ago, bears and wolves were still eating people in Europe, we've only barely dipped our feet into the oceans (sharks are still eating us there today), and it's likely that primitive algae will always do better than us in hot springs.

3) For a long time, when we were pre-cultural or proto-cultural, our intelligence and other characteristics didn't confer a huge advantage. It's possible we almost didn't make it. However, we had just enough organic edge to keep going until we got into a technological feedback loop.

4) A lot of our survival and colonization advantages come from our culture and technology. These allow us to modify our environment and carry our environment with us (e.g. clothing). Our culture and technology were made possible by our intelligence. Some less intelligent species like chimps and dolphins have tiny fragments of culture and technology, but none to the extent we posess.

5) As soon as a species acquires culture, it has two methods of evolution: Darwinian RM&NS for organic evolution, and a Lamarkian passing on of acquired traits for culture and technology. (Genetic engineering may soon give us Lamarkian evolution for organic traits, and not just acquired traits, but novel traits.) At some point, our intelligence and technology crossed a threshold where the positive feedback opened up the gulf we see today between ourselves and other species.

6) Altruism arises spontaneously out of RM&NS. This is profound, interesting, and hopeful in and of itself. Even more profound is that we, and some other species to a lesser extent, now have things we call self-awareness, empathy, and volition. We can conciously make decisions that we know will help others only distantly related -- even other species -- for reasons that we somehow find more satisfying than mere survival. Something that Christ paid a heavy price to teach us.

7) So in the end, the fact that my science and my faith seem to be pointing to the same end gives me reason to hope.

-Neil

 

what a strange topic - I had never thought of the argument that Helen presents - humans (as is said above) are great generalists, that is our success surely?

 

Helen wrote:

Why not try walking around for a week wearing eyglass-mounted telescopes? They will provide you increased visual acuity at the expense of visual field. You'll find that the loss of field is not compensated by the increased acuity. So it was with our ancestors. To some degree it was advantageous to sacrifice visual acuity for visual field.

 

Similarly, prey species often sacrifice stereo vision for a wider view by moving the eyes further around to the sides of the head, while predators have forward-looking binocular vision. The eyes of humans and other large primates are a good compromise between binocular vision and field of view; it complements our other capabilities as generalists.

The "from the trees" school of primate evolution postulates that early primates had highly forward-looking binocular vision for moving in trees and capturing small-animal prey. This is still seen in tarsiers and other small primates today . As larger primates moved to the ground and capturing small animals in the trees became less important, a wider field of vision was more useful.

-Neil

 

EF Well, you started the thread. Did you think we'd let you get away with posting such a pitifully absurd strawman?

 

Helen, simply asserting a strawman ad nauseam, heaped with a large dose of personal incredulity, does not make your argument any more valid. Some very pertinent comments on your initial post have been made by The Galatian, M. D. Kluge, Elena and NeilUnreal. You have responded to none of them. Instead, all we have is some disparaging (verging on ad hominem) comments about "the pack of you" believing in "fairy tales". I don't believe that sort of attitude is very helpful at all. Remember, you are debating fellow Christians who just happen not to agree with you, not a rabble of atheist evolutionists.

Please re-read the thread carefully. Then post some evidence that actually backs up your initial assertions, and attempt to answer the opposition comments made. Post scientific material (or links to it) that shows how much worse our senses are in relation to other primates. Then, assuming you can do that, you can show how these apparently "poor" senses would inevitably lead to extinction. I don't think these are unreasonable requests.

Thanks.

Andrew

PS: The toothless basking and whale sharks seem to get by quite well, they're the two biggest fish in the sea!

 

If you take away sentience, I have to agree with Helen. At least with respect to an ability to hunt other animals. So this begs the question: What changed? Did we simply learn to exist on a wider diet?

 

There's not a universal consensus on this issue. (The changes that took primates away from being small predators predate even the pre-humans.) The most-favored hypotheses are that we started as omnivore/herbivores (like chimps). The ability to communicate and think allowed us to gather food cooperatively and hunt more effectively (chimps do limited cooperative hunting today). The improved food resources let us grow bigger brains and changed the structure of society. Thus, a positive feedback loop was created with respect to intelligence and social organization, yet our retained capability as generalists let us spread geographically.

Our thinking, tools, and social structure actually allow us to function more effectively as predators than if we devoted equivalent organic resources to teeth and claws. Also, we can hunt when there's meat, and switch to foraging and farming when there's no meat. This means we can switch ecological niches more quickly when the environment changes, always staying at the optimum level in the trohpic chain.

At some point our only major threats became climatological and our only major predators became pathogens. Most of our changes since we became Homo sapiens sapiens reflect this in combination with social and sexual selection.

Who knows what role sentience played? Clearly an advantage, but is intelligence possible without sentience? I have no idea (even though I work in artificial intelligence). Personally, I could believe either that God supernaturally implanted sentience or that God somehow used the laws of nature to develop it. The fact that I am sentient is what's theologically interesting to me -- how I got that sentience is secondary.

Helen is right in cautioning that a lot of this is still a heap of speculation -- though our knowledge has come a long way since the early "Leaky" days. At least we're moving from wild speculation to informed speculation.

-Neil

 

I don't think that anyone believes that humans are not effective predators. Our nearest relatives are better than any other primates except humans.

Animals of all kinds tend to give us wide berth. For good reason.