Adam and Eve

[Inigo Montoya]

From what I know about the nature of DNA, genetics and Mendels laws of genetics (namely that are inherent species limitations imposed by the genetic makeup of all living things) the account about Adam and Eve, ie two humans parenting the human race, seems to me to be the most plausible explanation of our origins.

What about it, folks? What does/can DNA, genetics, and Mendel do to establish Adam and Eve as the most plausible explanation for our origins?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 85 by mgb]

I don't see the brain as a thinking organ. It is more like a valve and an organizing mechanism.

This seems to classify the brain as more like a programmed computer, capable of doing only what the programmer specifically defined via their source code, as opposed to an AI-equipped computer with the ability to "think" for itself and produce outputs from inputs that were not explicitly programmed as potential outputs beforehand.

We have barely scratched the surface of real AI machines, and the efforts to date cannot hold a candle to a real human brain. But the brain is clearly capable of "thinking", in the sense that it can receive multiple inputs and then determine responses by combining these inputs with stored memories, experiences, etc. to arrive at a response. The fact that different people can receive the same inputs, yet produce vastly different outputs, would tell me that the brain is indeed a thinking organ and not just a valve or organizing mechanism. If everyone produced the same responses and courses of action from the same inputs, then I might agree with your analogy.

I see the gradual increase in brain size and complexity from worms to humans, and especially within the homo series itself, as evidence that the process must be normal evolutionary development, each step being reinforced and then expanded upon because of the significant advantages greater levels of intelligence provided. And these advantages often provided exponential benefits in terms of survival (eg. the development of spear tips, the bow to propel a stick with a spear point added to it at far greater velocities than the human arm could provide, thereby allowing easier access to large animals as food sources when the were not prior to development of the technology). These developments fed on themselves due to the huge advantages they provided, and this supported further brain development and higher intelligence levels as these were beneficial in big ways.

So to me it is the gradual process by which brain size and complexity increased that shows that it fits nicely into other similar evolutionary processes (eg. the process by which simple light sensitive molecules ("eyespots") evolved into complex eyes). The large gap between human intelligence and even the closest animals seems to be the primary issue that theists use to claim that there must be some intelligent designer or god involved. But brain development followed a very similar basic process to eyes and other features, and humans just happen to have pushed the brain thing a lot farther than any other creature (so far).

[mgb]

I already discussed how your analogy is completed

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy

[mgb]

This seems to classify the brain as more like a programmed computer, capable of doing only what the programmer specifically defined via their source code, as opposed to an AI-equipped computer with the ability to "think" for itself and produce outputs from inputs that were not explicitly programmed as potential outputs beforehand.

I was only arguing that in some respects, by analogy, the brain 'blocks' or filters, thoughts, like a valve. The mind is what is traditionally called spirit. It thinks. But thoughts are only able to be effective in the world in so far as the brain can allow them in.

This seems to be why drugs can have such a dramatic effect on the mind. Drugs, being physical things, seem to somehow liberate the mind from the brain.

[mgb]

What exactly is thoughtful belief?

When computer programmers are modelling the gravitational evolution of a galaxy they calculate each individual star within the entire gravitational field of the galaxy. They then move the star, accordingly. Then they move to the next star and do the same, an so on. In this way, the form of the entire galaxy is determined. But there are two things happening here;

1. each star contributes to the entire shape of the galaxy (bottom up causation)
2. the entire form of the galaxy determines the position of each star (top down causation)

In this way the entire system is a whole thing where the whole is determined by its parts and each part is determined by the whole. There is a feedback loop between the part and the whole.

Another example of this is an ecological system. The forest is made by each creature and plant it contains and it, in turn, determines the lives of the things that live in it. A complex feedback loop between the parts and the whole.

Another example is a human society; what the society is, is determined by the individuals in it and individual lives are influenced by the form the society is taking. Another feedback loop between the individual and the whole.

Quantum mechanics is another example. In Q.M. each particle is potentially entangled with all other particles. The universe is determined by its parts and each part is influenced by the entire universe.

The question now is, how can a human society, for example, be similar in some respects, to a galaxy in space? What is the connection? How can a forest have similarities with a galaxy or a human society? Why does this whole-part dynamic apply to what seem to be completely unconnected systems?

The answer must be that these systems have the same nature. The same nature expressed on different levels. And what this means is that the universe has a nature and that it is not simply a reductive 'bottom up' deterministic set of events. It is a whole thing and has its own overarching nature that cannot easily be predicted deterministically.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 93 by mgb]

The answer must be that these systems have the same nature. The same nature expressed on different levels.

The same matter, energy, electrochemistry, gravity, all expressed on different scales. No gods necessary

And what this means is that the universe has a nature and that it is not simply a reductive 'bottom up' deterministic set of events. It is a whole thing and has its own overarching nature that cannot easily be predicted deterministically.

Thoughtful, but thought that ultimately just says "I don't know, so... God". Then there is the bigger question of how one makes the leap across the god-of-the-gaps to the Christian God.

[mgb]

Thoughtful, but thought that ultimately just says "I don't know, so... God".

One thing at a time. It shows that the universe is a whole thing; it determines its parts and is, in turn, determined by its parts. That seems to be a universal law. Consequently rigid (bottom up) determinism is refuted. Science itself has shown that this is so. What I'm getting at here is that the universe, as a whole, has a nature and part of that nature is that it is one thing.

[brunumb]

Thoughtful, but thought that ultimately just says "I don't know, so... God".

One thing at a time. It shows that the universe is a whole thing; it determines its parts and is, in turn, determined by its parts. That seems to be a universal law. Consequently rigid (bottom up) determinism is refuted. Science itself has shown that this is so. What I'm getting at here is that the universe, as a whole, has a nature and part of that nature is that it is one thing.

You still haven't explained "thoughtful belief". That said, your post makes absolutely no sense to me. There is still no god necessary regardless of what you think of the universe as a whole, or in parts.

Let me repeat what I said earlier and see if you can address the issue head on.

And the result of that thought is a belief in God. Accepted. But what in all of that thought produced the compelling reason to believe in God? Is it just a failure to understand how the universe can function without the existence of God? Is God just an invented answer? Then there is the huge hurdle of going from the existence of not just 'a god' but to the Christian God with all its trappings.

I have always maintained that religious belief is acquired by indoctrination. Once it is firmly in place any thought devoted to that belief is usually in the form of retrofitting reasoning that never occurred in establishing the belief in the first place. If the case for God was truly compelling, there would be no need for faith. All thoughtful people would believe in a god, and if the arguments were valid they would all believe in the same God. That is very much not the case.

[TSGracchus]

Thoughtful, but thought that ultimately just says "I don't know, so... God".

One thing at a time. It shows that the universe is a whole thing; it determines its parts and is, in turn, determined by its parts. That seems to be a universal law. Consequently rigid (bottom up) determinism is refuted. Science itself has shown that this is so. What I'm getting at here is that the universe, as a whole, has a nature and part of that nature is that it is one thing.

The universe doesn't "determine" its parts. The universe is its parts.

Reality determines reality. It takes little science to observe that. That does not refute determinism.

[mgb]

The universe doesn't "determine" its parts. The universe is its parts.

Reality determines reality. It takes little science to observe that. That does not refute determinism.

I does. In Q.M. every particle is influenced by every other particle. The whole universe influences its parts and vice versa. I have explained in post #93 how whole systems determine parts and parts, in turn determine whole systems. This is far more complex than linear determinism.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 98 by mgb]

Observation involves uncertainty. Prediction involves uncertainty. Reality is determined. Think of the quantum probabilities as the cosines of Euler angles, though not necessarily cartesian or even affine. The magnitude of the dot product of the vector with itself is 1. The periodic probabilities of space-time sum to 1.

I would recommend a good text on differential geometries, perhaps some point set topology.