Replies

Do the higher primates have this sort of “ineffable,” intangible, yet completely real thing, such that we can say they have mind, consciousness, will? To what extent are the higher primates capable of revising and reshaping their world, at will? If they don’t have this ability now, do you think it is conceivable that the higher primates will be able to do this in the future? If so, what would the precise mechanism need to be to cause this to happen?

Obviously humans have the characteristics you mention, so you're asking about apes, monkeys, orangs, etc. Frankly, I haven't studied them, nor have I spent any time on the literature, so I really don't know. Like VadeRetro, I suspect that they won't get much better than they already are, because if "smart apes" started to appear, they'd be in big trouble, even more than their "dumb ape" relatives. As for the precise mechanism, you gotta know I can't answer that. I suspect (but don't know and certainly can't prove) that it's a function of both brain size and structure. If you've got it, you're able to be conscious; and if not, then not. All in all, I'm glad to be human, and although I recognize that the apes and I had the same ancestors, I don't invite that simian trash to family reunions.

All in all, I'm glad to be human, and although I recognize that the apes and I had the same ancestors, I don't invite that simian trash to family reunions.

LOL PH!!! ;^)

It is precisely the presumed "common ancestor" that I find so unpersuasive. To me, it is an hypothesis, a conjecture, a notion, but not a bona fide theory. For theory, as science understands this term, refers to "a conception of nature of some set of phenomena that fits all the facts and that has survived the tests of time and experiment. Experiments give us raw data. Theory, and only theory, gives us understanding."

The common ancestor has "survived the tests of time," but only as what is really little more than an orthodox doctrine or opinion. There is no possible way that the so-called common ancestor could have ever been the subject of experimental tests. Just because nature seems to display certain uniformities or "patterns" doesn't necessarily mean that the only thing that can explain the similarities we see across species is inheritance from a single "common ancestor," plus natural selection.

Presumably, the physical laws of the universe are constant over time. They do not change or "evolve." Because of the uniformities we do observe in nature, I would be very surprised to learn that such an important sector of nature as the biological kingdom would play by different rules.

But I am really referring to Macroevolution here, which is where my chief (and perhaps sole) objection lays. I can easily accept Microevolution, and see no reason why natural selection should not have a role to play there....

I continue to remain unpersuaded about your simian forebears, as you can see, Patrick Henry. But it's always a pleasure to chat with you!