Posted on 09/22/2014 1:49:02 PM PDT by Heartlander
the naturalist believes that beneath every natural phenomenon there exists yet another natural phenomenon. If explanation by reference to an endless stack of large turtles is silly, then an explanation by reference to an endless stack of natural phenomena would be equally so. The naturalist's answer for the origin of life, therefore, is some natural phenomenon. (Which one is not particularly relevant.) When you ask them how that natural phenomenon came to be, their response boils down to: "It's natural phenomena all the way down!"
-Pete Chadwell
1. The Cambrian Explosion or perhaps more accurately, the Cambrian Radiation took at least 20 million years.
2. Immediately preceeding it was a period of Iceball Earth which was highly hostile to life.
3. It was accompanies by great increases in atmospheric oxygen.
4. The ozone layer came into prominence along with the increase in oxygen and provided protection from UV radiation.
5. Calcium in sea water increased aiding the formation of shells, etc.
6. As the variety and complexity of life increased, there was more food available and an arms race between predators and pray hurried things along.
7. Prior to this, many life forms were unlikely to leave fossils.
My memory, greatly aided by wiki. ;-)
that was an excellent read. thank you for posting.
Look, you're a TE - I get it - but here's a short article about a famous TE's review of Meyers book about the Cambrian Explosion.
I’ll look for a naturalistic explaination first. Thus far it’s been sufficient.
BTW, natural processes cannot create natural processes (circulus in probando). So we are logically left with creation from the supernatural.
*there*
All other things considered, intelligence and empathy give a species a reproductive advantage. Elephants, apes, dogs and others are illustrative of that. No other species had been nearly so intelligent as we are and evidence of empathy goes back as far as two million years. Elephants benefit from empathy in the close bonding of the herd.
Natural is a term loaded with funny definitions. Our world and others are all physical, but we don’t know much about physics, yet. Another way to phrase that is that we don’t know much about creation, yet.
Empathy - intelligence - consciousness - conscience - all from mindlessness? Explain why anyone should be held responsible for a crime if methodological naturalism is truly all there is - how can ‘chemicals in the brain’ be put on trial for things other animals do without consequence?
Humans took on some real costs for their intelligence. Children have long childhoods for their brains to become mature. The brain is a very costly organ taking a lot of food, much of it high protein meat. This also requires social organization and rules. Language came relatively early in our development. Religions are for social control, shaman probably first controlled to hunting band. Civil governments came much later. People are punished for behavior forbidden by the leaders of the tribe.
It so happens that I’m Christian but that’s my belief, not science. So far as I’ve seen, science cannot prove or disprove beliefs.
Dr. David Buss, an evolutionary psychologist at The University of Texas at Austin and author of The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind is Designed to Kill has been quoted as stating:
Killing is fundamentally in our nature because over the eons of human evolution murder was so surprisingly beneficial in the intense game of reproductive competition,. Our minds have developed adaptations to kill, which is contrary to previous theories that murder is something outside of human naturea pathology imposed from the distorting influences of culture, media images, poverty or child abuse.People might mistakenly assume that the theory of adaptations for murder implies approval or acceptance of killing. It doesnt. I would suggest instead that those who create myths of a peaceful human past, who blame killing on the contemporary ills of modern culture, and who cling to single-variable theories that have long outlived their scientific warrant tread on dangerous moral ground. The problem of murder cannot be solved by wishing away those aspects of human nature that we desire not to exist.
As an evolutionary psychologist, Ive become accustomed to critics who confuse what is with what ought to be.
I don’t agree with either of these people. We are, for the most part, responsible for our decisions. Darrow was an early progressive. The “evolutionary psychologist” proposes a past of all kill everyone, we’re all natural murderers. That’s as much nonsense as is the noble, peaceful savage. We’ve always applied a cost / benefit analysis to our killing. And he ignores the civilizing effect of religion. He ignores love of family and friends for which there there is abundant evidence.
A Natural History of Rape. Randy Thornhill, a biologist, and Craig T. Palmer, an anthropologist, have attempted to apply evolutionary principles to one of the most disgusting of human behaviors, and the result is a guaranteed storm of media hype and debate. The book's central argument is that rape is a genetically developed strategy sustained over generations of human life because it is a kind of sexual selection--a successful reproductive strategy.Again, - how can 'chemicals in the brain' be put on trial for things other animals do without consequence?
This flag was the flag of the first colonists in the United States. It flew proudly at the battle of Bunker Hill with other flags of all kinds. This flag flew where Washington had command. It flew at the Battle of Brandywine. The Nuns of Bethlehem embroidered one with the greatest care and sent it to the Commander that he might rally his men under that banner to fight for America against Great Britain; and this story has been commemorated by America's best known poet, Henry W. Longfellow...The red flag has been the emblem of the workers as far back as history can go, gentlemen, and I want to say further that this emblem has stood after long tribulation through the ages. It has waved when the workingman was enslaved; when he was bought and sold; and later when he formed his unions and met in caves and waste places, under the ban of the law; when he was sent to prison because he dared to haggle over his wages. When he was enslaved in France and his life was in the hands of the king; when capitalists, even in America, would make him a slave. It has represented the sufferings of working men throughout all these years. It is his banner, and you cannot take it from him by a verdict in this case. It will be his banner so long as red is the color of the blood that runs through the veins of men; and so long as the breaking clouds of dawn are crimsoned by the glorious rays of the rising sun.
“Soft sciences” and particularly psychology / sociology don’t meet the rigorous tests hard sciences must. Even cultural anthropology has its problems meeting scientific methodology. I look first for natural answers for my questions and I adhere to uniformitarianism ( the idea that the natural laws and processes that are at work in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past).
Thus, the need for an orderly society overrules “the chemicals in the brain” which haven’t been validated scientifically and don’t really matter. You’re trying your best to put words in my mouth and even, perhaps, chemicals in my brain.
You’re alleging inconsistencies in my positions that don’t exist.
I’ve already dismissed Darrow of having any influence what so ever over my positions. He defended evolution far more out of a hostility for religion than for any conviction in evolution. The supporters of the theory of evolution, in those days, went way far afield supporting abortion, euthanasia, even phrenology. They got survival of the fittest twisted around to favor superior races and survival of the normative best.
Im sorry but Im not familiar with the hard science of the need for an orderly society. Please show me the rigorous test data for this hard science. Darwin didnt even know about this hard science that you speak of:
If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.Apparently to the hard and brutal science of natural selection, killing your siblings and offspring is all the same as loving them. Selection doesnt care if it is nice and moral, or harsh and brutal.
- - Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, and Selection in Regard to Sex
What makes your need for an orderly society theory better than; Darrows pleasure pain theory? Dr. Buss theory on why the mind is designed to kill? Or Thornhill and Palmers natural history of rape?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.