Philosophy Now Forum

While I accept the theory of evolution as being explanative in a variety of cases, I still remain skeptical as to it being 100%.

Here's something to consider. From the moment that the human egg gets fertilized, it goes through stages that mimics biohistory, the fish stage and other stages of life up to the time it gets born. When it gets born, it has very little hair which is opposite to our primate ancestors having lots of hair. Then later on, the Homo Sapiens man child gets hairier as it grows into manhood and even more hair as it gets very old, opposite to human ancestors which has been losing hair throughout history (from a male perspective, females having even less hair).

Again I'm not saying that the theory is invalid. But I think there are complications it can't handle.

What do you think about this?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:While I accept the theory of evolution as being explanative in a variety of cases, I still remain skeptical as to it being 100%.

Here's something to consider. From the moment that the human egg gets fertilized, it goes through stages that mimics biohistory, the fish stage and other stages of life up to the time it gets born. When it gets born, it has very little hair which is opposite to our primate ancestors having lots of hair. Then later on, the Homo Sapiens man child gets hairier as it grows into manhood and even more hair as it gets very old, opposite to human ancestors which has been losing hair throughout history (from a male perspective, females having even less hair).

Again I'm not saying that the theory is invalid. But I think there are complications it can't handle.

What do you think about this?

PhilX

No, it isn't and no scientific theory ever should claim to be 100% accurate. If a scientist makes such a claim then he isn't doing science.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:While I accept the theory of evolution as being explanative in a variety of cases, I still remain skeptical as to it being 100%.

Here's something to consider. From the moment that the human egg gets fertilized, it goes through stages that mimics biohistory, the fish stage and other stages of life up to the time it gets born.

PhilX

It seems as though we carry with us the egg shells of our past. I wish I could remember who said that.

The foetal development theory as used in the theory of Natural Selection was always a side theory.
Natural Selection is not dependant on this and never was.

It's just an interesting side line, which supports the idea of evolution. Afterall - if you were a god, why would you bother to mimic part of the history of development.

But you get the same thing from basic anatomy. We all have a "reptile" brain under everything else.

Lev Muishkin wrote:
It's just an interesting side line, which supports the idea of evolution. Afterall - if you were a god, why would you bother to mimic part of the history of development.

Yes, God seems to be a bit of a tinkerer. Sir Isaac would be happy.

Lev Muishkin wrote:We all have a "reptile" brain under everything else.

But do we therefore know what it means to be a reptile? Should Thomas Nagel have aimed lower? Is there anything about 'being' that is different from the experiences you have? What do you think Hume would have said, Lev?

Ginkgo wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:
It's just an interesting side line, which supports the idea of evolution. Afterall - if you were a god, why would you bother to mimic part of the history of development.

Yes, God seems to be a bit of a tinkerer. Sir Isaac would be happy.

What are you on about?

uwot wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:We all have a "reptile" brain under everything else.

But do we therefore know what it means to be a reptile? Should Thomas Nagel have aimed lower? Is there anything about 'being' that is different from the experiences you have? What do you think Hume would have said, Lev?

I don't think even a reptile knows what it means to be a reptile!

Hume might have said that the deepest part of our brain was the thing that motivates the passions. It drives volition and gives an impulse for all reason.

He would also have applauded Darwin for his work, had he lived to see 1859, for providing a material explanation for the origin of species.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:
It's just an interesting side line, which supports the idea of evolution. Afterall - if you were a god, why would you bother to mimic part of the history of development.

Yes, God seems to be a bit of a tinkerer. Sir Isaac would be happy.

What are you on about?

My reply was to some extent, tongue-in-cheek. I am suggesting that Newton's God saw the need to keep tinkering with the universe whenever he found it necessary. This suggests that God had some goals in sight, but he needed to keep working on it from time to time. So he intervened as the universe evolved into whatever he had in mind. Nothing like making it up as you go along in order to get something like the outcome you want.

Start off with a reptilian brain and with piecemeal engineering you can end up with a conscious being. The problem was that everything along the way wasn't worth a tinker's cuss.

Ginkgo wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:
Yes, God seems to be a bit of a tinkerer. Sir Isaac would be happy.

What are you on about?

My reply was to some extent, tongue-in-cheek. I am suggesting that Newton's God saw the need to keep tinkering with the universe whenever he found it necessary. This suggests that God had some goals in sight, but he needed to keep working on it from time to time. So he intervened as the universe evolved into whatever he had in mind. Nothing like making it up as you go along in order to get something like the outcome you want.

Start off with a reptilian brain and with piecemeal engineering you can end up with a conscious being. The problem was that everything along the way wasn't worth a tinker's cuss.

Tell that to a dinosaur with a toothache!
But I see what you mean. Newton's idea was faulty when compared with the conception of a perfect God. As if a perfect god would have to tinker? An omnipotent being has to know from the beginning of time how things are going to turn out, who, and why, and which of us is going to die a sinner and burn in hell. A tinkering god
is capricious, uncertain, clumsy.
But i'm not sure that was Newton's idea. As far as I know his god was the continual motivating force of momentum, the continual pull of gravity, and the persistent energy that kept things moving along - at least when he was young and still into science!
He lived a long and wasteful life spending most of his time on alchemy, and theology.

Yes, he did spend most of his time tinkering in the basement with base metals. God I hate people who tinker.

And Gods who do this sort of stuff.

Ginkgo wrote:Yes, he did spend most of his time tinkering in the basement with base metals. God I hate people who tinker.

On an estimate I learned in 1992, he wrote a million words on each: science, alchemy and religion.

Now the estimate is massively increased due to the "Newton Project" at Sussex University.

Ginkgo wrote:And Gods who do this sort of stuff.

I think not.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:And Gods who do this sort of stuff.

I think not.

They don't?