Is Evolution Conscious (Some amazing points about evolution)

[Robert.Evans]

@Robert.Evans While I personally accept evolution is true and non-conscious, I by no means malign your opinion/belief that it is conscious. Nevertheless, having studied evolution for many years in both a formal and informal capacity, I will do my best to answer any questions you might have in line with evolutionary theory.

Thankyou!!
I might not have many tonight, it is late.

But I look at simple things, like the eyebrow thing. There has to be an advantage, we are told... so what was it?
We have a cartlidge at the back of our neck also (I think) which stops the head bobbing forward when we run. How is that likely to happen? I mean, why would it even do such a thing? What is its goal? You will say there is no goal. So then it is sheer luck again, and then the best gets picked. But at the end of it, we something near perfect in the way it functions. Sounds contrived and wierd to me.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But that means that some had no hair, and they died out. Why?

Because animals who are best adapted for survival in a particular environment would have lived longer and had more offspring. In a warmer climate animals would tend to have less hair for example.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Eyebrows are good at keeping sweat and rain out of the eyes, which means you can see clearly more of the time. That's an obvious advantage in terms of survival, particularly if there are hungry animals with sharp teeth around.

Yeah that sounds great, till yuou stop and think about it. Could you not just wipe the stuff from off of your face? Simple eh.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But I look at simple things, like the eyebrow thing. There has to be an advantage, we are told... so what was it?

See post #17.

 

[savagewind]

I think there is another tool to discover which tool is for transport. How does aspect play a part in evolution?

 

[Kirran]

But that means that some had no hair, and they died out. Why?

No, it doesn't mean that.. It means that, in the proto-human ancestral population, there was a selection pressure in favour of thinner hair. Hair gradually thinned, over many many generations. Once hair become so thin that in the thinner-haired individuals sweat was able to get into the eyes from the forehead, a selection pressure against further thinning of hair in that location came into play, and so while hair continued to thin elsewhere, again over many generations, it ceased thinning above the eyes.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Obviously we need a mouth to eat / taste and a nose to smell, also to inhale and exhale. We need two eyes to judge distance and two ears to judge direction. It makes sense to have the ears and eyes as high as possible, and to have the nose above the mouth.

Sure it does, but you speak from a position of intelligence and hindsight. Evolution has none of these things, it just happened, by pure chance, over time, to have the right things happen.
So it makes sense but so what?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Could you not just wipe the stuff from off of your face?

You might need your hands for other things in a crisis. Small advantages can be significant. And sweat can really make your eyes sting and blur your vision.

 

[savagewind]

I am losing my eyebrows. Feminine gets me a point. LOL And I don't sweat much. Another point I think.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Because animals who are best adapted for survival in a particular environment would have lived longer and had more offspring. In a warmer climate animals would tend to have less hair for example.

I am on about eyebrows

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Evolution has none of these things, it just happened, by pure chance, over time, to have the right things happen.

But it wasn't "chance", it was adaptation and survival of the fittest.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I am on about eyebrows

See post #28. It might help if you slowed down a bit and reflected on the answers you are getting.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, it doesn't mean that.. It means that, in the proto-human ancestral population, there was a selection pressure in favour of thinner hair. Hair gradually thinned, over many many generations. Once hair become so thin that in the thinner-haired individuals sweat was able to get into the eyes from the forehead, a selection pressure against further thinning of hair in that location came into play, and so while hair continued to thin elsewhere, again over many generations, it ceased thinning above the eyes.

But that makes no sense, as evolution does not know that. What you should be saying is, those who lost all their hair so there was no eyebrows died and those who had eyebroes left, lived. But then we must explain why they died.

 

[Laika]

Well yours is one of the most productive statements I think. I know, in basic terms, how evolution works, and, from a science point of view, a physical point of view, I have no problem with it. But I don't see that is all it is. The eyebrows for example. Why? Why are they left there when the other hair fell out? I mean seriously think about this. How would it manage such a thing. Please, I am not talking about the physical processes etc. I mean why would the ones with eyebrows survive? Where is the benefit? It sounds a bit ridiculous don't you think?

It would be nice if someone would engage with this conversation properly rather than just saying 'evolution did it'.

I hope this can be mutually beneficial as I would like to understand the source of the difference of view. I'm on the side of evolution, but I'm more open to thinking about science as having implicit philosophical assumptions about how the world works. Science has a tendency towards naturalistic explanations, but not exclusively so and leaves open the possibility of god.

I know what you mean as it doesn't make much sense to me why we'd have eyebrows if we lost hair on other parts of our bodies. so yeah, it sounds ridiculous. However, I think the evolutionary argument would say this is the wrong question- as it is not simply a question of trying to find a "reason" for why we have eyebrows, but a "cause". It is implicitly that by asking the question of looking for a reason for it we are necessarily looking for a designer.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You might need your hands for other things in a crisis. Small advantages can be significant. And sweat can really make your eyes sting and blur your vision.

Can't see that really Spiney. Think of it. Some would have survived.

 

[Robert.Evans]

See post #28. It might help if you slowed down a bit and reflected on the answers you are getting.

But I am getting no answers yet. You need to stop giving the pat answers that explain it, and explain it in simple terms. This is what you have to do with Theology. Sorry.

 

[savagewind]

Maybe hairy man saw a less hairy female and chose her to copulate. The reason being is he thought there might be something wrong with her so he'd make it right. And of course there would need to be more than one man who though less hairy women needed help. And then less hairy women were not allowed out any more. OMG I'm a troll.

 

[Kirran]

Thankyou!!
I might not have many tonight, it is late.

But I look at simple things, like the eyebrow thing. There has to be an advantage, we are told... so what was it?
We have a cartlidge at the back of our neck also (I think) which stops the head bobbing forward when we run. How is that likely to happen? I mean, why would it even do such a thing? What is its goal? You will say there is no goal. So then it is sheer luck again, and then the best gets picked. But at the end of it, we something near perfect in the way it functions. Sounds contrived and wierd to me.

I addressed the eyebrow issue in a previous post.

I had a look online, and couldn't find reference to this piece of cartilage you mention, could you clarify?

Based on what you've said, the purpose seems to be stabilising the head.

You might need your hands for other things in a crisis. Small advantages can be significant. And sweat can really make your eyes sting and blur your vision.

Plus having to lift your hands and wipe while running might obscure vision and decrease speed.

But that makes no sense, as evolution does not know that. What you should be saying is, those who lost all their hair so there was no eyebrows died and those who had eyebroes left, lived. But then we must explain why they died.

No, that isn't in line with the theory of evolution.

I never said they lost all their hair. Reread my post carefully. And it's not 'survive or die' it's 'higher chance of reproductive success'.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I hope this can be mutually beneficial as I would like to understand the source of the difference of view. I'm on the side of evolution, but I'm more open to thinking about science as having implicit philosophical assumptions about how the world works. Science has a tendency towards naturalistic explanations, but not exclusively so and leaves open the possibility of god.

I know what you mean as it doesn't make much sense to me why we'd have eyebrows if we lost hair on other parts of our bodies. so yeah, it sounds ridiculous. However, I think the evolutionary argument would say this is the wrong question- as it is not simply a question of trying to find a "reason" for why we have eyebrows, but a "cause". It is implicitly that by asking the question of looking for a reason for it we are necessarily looking for a designer.

Well thankyou for acknowledging what I am saying. Best reply so far. But I still come back to why would those without eyebrows die?
We have to have an advantage or disadvantage shown. I see none.

 

[Kirran]

Well thankyou for acknowledging what I am saying. Best reply so far. But I still come back to why would those without eyebrows die?
We have to have an advantage or disadvantage shown. I see none.

Check it out.