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?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 73 by mgb]

What I mean by 'well thought out' refers to people like me who have thought about their beliefs in great detail for long years.

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.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 73 by mgb]

But what I do believe is not something that would be listened to on this thread.

What is eagerly awaited, on the other hand, is why you believe. What is the most compelling reason you have for believing in your God?

Edit: It seems you have addressed this in your reply to DrNoGods (post 75).

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 75 by mgb]

For me, explaining things exclusively in biological terms just doesn't work.

So where do you make the transition from everything physical to something supernatural? We are organic organisms. Everything we do is inextricable from the physical. Sight requires light, hearing requires vibrations of particles. Smell and taste require molecules interacting with receptor molecules. Electrical signals convey messages to the brain. Blood circulation and oxygen are essential for the brain to function. Damage the brain and everything that we think we are can change. Our memories and even our personality, the essence of 'us', can be altered significantly. So where does the supernatural make its appearance and by what mechanism does it operate?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 75 by mgb]

Questions concerning intelligence, creativity, mental states, music, evil, character traits, art, literature, religion, genius, insight and intuition etc are far more convincingly explained in terms of onthology and being. The background to all these things seems to stand apart from mere physical determinism. That a mind is a living, conscious entity that exists in a spiritual order of things is a far better and more coherent explanation for the higher things of the mind. Human beings don't seem to be just an accidental outcome of survival mechanisms. Philosophy and religion strongly suggest that there is a non physical order of being and this order is outside our minds and available to consciousness.

But how do you make such a scenario consistent with what we do know about the evolutionary path leading to modern humans? We know that at some point in the past, in the 6-10 million year time frame, that nothing resembling a modern human existed on this planet. Therefore, neither did the intelligence, creativity, art, literature, etc. that is observed with modern humans.

Then, for whatever reason, a group of apes diverged that were a little smarter, with slightly larger brains, and some crude tool making capabilities. They had none of the capabilities of modern humans in terms of art, literature, music, etc., but the process of increasing brain size and complexity, and increasing levels of intelligence and thought capabilities, continued until Homo erectus appeared.

These guys were highly successful and by the end of their period resembled modern humans much more than apes (in physical appearance), and were smarter still. Other species were probably around as well with similar characteristics, and about 300,000 years ago the first Homo sapiens appeared (based on the recent Morocco findings). Brain size and structure had reached nearly modern levels, but there was still no ability to create art, music, or things like this that may require higher level cognitive capabilities. Or at least no evidence of such capabilities has been found.

So the brain itself appears to have reached roughly modern levels in terms of structure and size a few hundred thousand years ago, but the higher level creative abilities you mention didn't arrive until much later. The development of complex language no doubt was a major advancement, and it was a measly 5,500 years ago (or so) when humans finally figured out a system of writing. But the earliest records we have of art (cave paintings, figurines), music, etc. is about 35,000 years ago, ballpark, despite a brain not much different than our own having been around for some 200,000 years or more prior.

If a supernatural being of some sort was involved in this process, why did it proceed so haphazardly over such a long period of time? It appears to have all the hallmarks of "just an accidental outcome of survival mechanisms" that played out over a long period of time, only relatively recently leading to abilities in art, literature, music, etc. Maybe it was the development of language that jump started the "great leap forward", and that ability allowed for exponential advances in the creative department, so that we have all of the rich achievements in those areas that we do have today. But it seems to me that if a god or supernatural being was involved in the process, it would have proceeded much differently ... like a sudden poofing into existence of fully-formed humans capable of such creative things as some religious texts describe. But that is not how it happened.

[mgb]

If the human physical world is a concept, in the way an oxygen atom is a concept, what then is reality in its true form? This is what religion tries to address.

Religion tries to address the real world? When did this start?

Plato's analogy of the cave would be a good start.

What is eagerly awaited, on the other hand, is why you believe. What is the most compelling reason you have for believing in your God?

It is not intellectual at all. That's only the background 'housekeeping' so to speak. My belief is essentially founded on the fact that I see God.

I know, I know...deluded, schizophrenic, brainwashed...no need to remind me...

[mgb]

Brain size and structure had reached nearly modern levels, but there was still no ability to create art, music, or things like this that may require higher level cognitive capabilities. Or at least no evidence of such capabilities has been found.

I don't see the brain as a thinking organ. It is more like a valve and an organizing mechanism. You could compare it to the development of the internet. Back in the day internet pages were very simple because computers were not developed enough to display video, sound etc. The first internet pages were very rudimentary. This is because the 'valve' (computer) was not sophisticated enough to express more complex pages. As computers became more sophisticated they were able to channel more and more complex pages. The information that can come to you from the server is limited by the sophistication of the 'valve' they must pass through. In other words, the mind can only enter into physical consciousness to the same degree as brain development. A simple brain will only allow an equivalent degree in the mind's participation in physical experience. The more complex the brain is, the more mind can participate in physical reality. All it takes to understand this is to look at the creative potential of one's own mind and see how inadequate the brain is in expressing this. A lot of artists imagine great works of art, but are acutely aware of how limited the physical world is in being able to translate what is in the mind, into physical terms. I'll address the rest of your post later.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 85 by mgb]

That analogy fails to consider there isn't some mystical "otherspace" where internet pages are held. And computers aren't designed to "reach" that space. All information in the world is held purely in the physical databases and computer towers. The internet is a network, which means that your analogy would liken computers to neurons. The "valve" you speak of still necessarily fails to describe how spirituality explains consciousness, and in fact works against you when you inevitably realize that information in the form of digital data is nonexistent if not for physical sources.

Where are you channeling "information" from that it passes through your brain like a valve? No matter where you end up, your analogy remains obsolete. Maybe if you could demonstrate that a structure can imitate a "valve" type of brain and channel the same information; this would indicate that there is a source, and identical structures can access the same source. That's certainly how a computer would handle it; with the same registry and specs, it can access the same external information as any other computer (with restrictions due to memory, so we're assigning the imitation computer the same memory size as the computer it's imitating). But no, that's not how minds work. In fact, this demonstrates that the information contained within your brain exists within your brain alone, not outside of it, not channeled by it. Otherwise scientists would be trying to read minds by hooking up structures that "match" the valve you fantasize about.

Is that your prediction then? Of course not, that would bring your argument into the realm of falsifiability. Better still to keep your argument trapped in mysticism so you can wax on about how your religion is super special, without ever defining it satisfactorily. And those who are skeptical of your useless claims? Well, they're just propagandists and close-minded.

[mgb]

That analogy fails to consider there isn't some mystical "otherspace" where internet pages are held. And computers aren't designed to "reach" that space. All information in the world is held purely in the physical databases and computer towers.

You are extending the analogy beyond its intended meaning which was so show that a computer can only process information on the level of the computer's sophistication. It cannot process information that is more sophisticated than the physical computer's ability. Take the analogy as such because it is not meant to illustrate anything more than that simple idea.

[mgb]

If a supernatural being of some sort was involved in this process, why did it proceed so haphazardly over such a long period of time?

Any answer I give would not be acceptable to the materialist's way of thinking. But here it is; creation needs to evolve. Evolutionary pressure and work are essential if creation is to evolve spiritually. Suppose you could get a student and put all learning directly into his head instead of him having to make an effort. That might have its merits but it is better that the student learns by work and effort because these things develop the mind. Feeding information into it doesn't. In building physical creation from the ground up, we become involved in a creative challenging endeavour. That's much better than having everything handed to us on a plate. In the fall, creation descended into an abyss. Work and creativity are a means of ascent.

It appears to have all the hallmarks of "just an accidental outcome of survival mechanisms" that played out over a long period of time, only relatively recently leading to abilities in art, literature, music, etc.

Yes, but it also has the hallmarks of design and intelligence - depending on which end of the telescope you are looking through.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 87 by mgb]

I already discussed how your analogy is completed when you view the whole of all digital devices as nodes in a large network. That more completely encapsulates the brain. If I lack the power I need to access information, I simply utilize a different part of the network. Your analogy serves my position better than it ever could yours, so intentionally applying an arbitrary cut-off point so you can discard it at a moment's notice is no surprise.