Below is an image of the developmental path from human conception to adult in comparison with evolutionary path from prokaryote to human.
Unlike Haeckel’s biogenetic law with its focus on physical forms, the comparison above also concerns activity, lifestyle and behaviour. Comparative stages may be vastly different in detail, but the similarity of general lifestyles and consecutive stages are there to be observed.
Human life begins in an aquatic environment. Toddlers gradually learn to walk upright from a previous state of crawling and moving around on all fours. The brains of children develop through daily interactions and experiences. This brain development accompanies the child’s increasing ability to achieve complex manipulation skills using hands that have been released from the task of providing support and locomotion, and also the practice of producing sounds using the various muscles of the mouth. Well developed brains allow for rational thinking and the creative use of language.
Human minds have brought about technological advances which have allowed human activities to engulf the planet. Signs of intelligent human activity are evident a good distance beyond the earth spreading ever further out into space.
The various forms of extant animals and all other life forms have evolved as an integral component of the living earth and the whole forms a dynamic system.
The various animal forms should be studied in the context of the complete system in both time and space. Conditions would have been very different prior to the terrestrial colonization of earthly life In all probability none of the present aquatic animals would bear any resemblance to the aquatic ancestors of humans and other higher vertebrates save that at some stage they all require an aquatic environment for their continued existence.
From a point of view which regards physical organisms as the individual expressions of overarching general forms, the evolution of cetaceans need not have involved moving to the land only to return to the water at a later time. They may have reached the mammalian stage of evolution but in a way that was suitable for an aquatic lifestyle. They adopted the archetypal mammalian form in a way that suited an animal living in an aquatic environment and there would be no need to posit a terrestrial stage in their evolution.
It’s my belief that higher consciousness is ever present. Evolution is the process whereby higher forms of consciousness descend from the group level to the individual level. The most fully developed individual consciousness which I am aware of on earth can be found in humans but it is still rudimentary compared to the higher level group consciousness.
Plasticity is a fundamental feature of living systems at all levels from human brain development to the radiation of multicellular life. Paths are formed by branching out and becoming fixed along certain lines. It would be impossible to forecast specific paths but, nonetheless, there is a general overall direction.
Now that biological life has reached the stage where social organisms have become individually creative and rational, the all encompassing Word is reflected in single beings. This could not have come about without preparation and the evolution of earthly life is the evidence of this preparation. We, as individuals, are only able to use language and engage in rational thinking because our individual development has prepared us to do so. Likewise humanity could not arrive at the present state of culture without the evolutionary preparation in its entirety.
Focussing in at the lower level gives a picture of ruthless competition, of nature “red in tooth and claw”. But from a higher vantage point life benefits from this apparent brutality. For instance if a sparrowhawk makes regular hunting visits to a suitable habitat in your neighbourhood it signifies that this environment supports a healthy songbird population. In the case of the continued evolution of physical forms, survival of the breeding population is more important than any individual’s survival. In the evolution of consciousness the individual is the important unit.
I think it is a mistake to see biological evolution as a blind random groping towards an unknown and unknowable future.
Oddly, I don’t control my body temperature; it maintains a narrow range of temperature without me doing anything. Let’s leave the “conscious” red herring on one side. For any cellular process that would reasonably be described as “controlled” can you describe the mechanism that would support your assertion “they [cells?] control many processes”.
I shall consider copy/paste from a googled source a fail.
ETA correction grammar
May I suggest the more neutral term “regulate” here? Also appropriate for various cellular processes like apoptosis.
I wasn’t actually taking a position, more questioning the basis of Charlie’s assertion. Though I think metabolic pathways such as the Krebs cycle are regulated largely by consumption or transport of products. Removal of the product drives production.
Plus I slipped into teleology talking about me and my body rather than me in my body.
You are not your body?
Those are not the same.
“Dying” is what happens to individuals, while “selection” is about populations.
So “dying” is a binary — either you die or not. And “selection” is statistical. It’s the difference between a coin flip and the use of a Monte Carlo method.
phoodoo,
I am my body. My body is me.
Alan Fox,
Then you must control your body temperature. You also make your hair and fingernails grow, and you keep your heart beating.
Nope. There’s no oversight. But any of your examples is worthy of consideration. What about hair growth in humans? My understanding is human hair grows at a fairly constant rate.
Oversight? You mean no one is telling you how to regulate your body temperature? You are doing it all yourself.
That’s what I said.
So you’d rather discuss thermoregulation of body temperature in humans?
Maybe we can discuss why phoodoo thinks he is not his body? I mean, phoodoo, it’s an aerial or something, right? And that you have some sort of free will zone where you make decisions (soul decisions) unencumbered by material physics?
Actually, now I think about it, you never did explain….
Alan Fox,
Yea, I am trying to figure out why you think you somehow don’t regulate your body temperature. Why don’t you think you regulate your hair growth? Do you think you regulate your breathing? What about how much you exercise, do you regulate that?
But my body (which is me) does actively maintain body temperature within close limits.
Hair growth is fairly constant. There doesn’t seem to be any requirement for feedback.
I do, though I don’t think about it most of the time.
Not really. I take walks when the weather is suitable and I have time and if I feel like it.
If there’s a gotcha moment, can you pick up the pace?
That whole thread was a trip down memory lane. Good times.
Alan Fox,
I don’t understand what hair growth being constant has to do with anything. If its constant, that is what your body regulates (even though I doubt it is constant). If your breathing isn’t constant, this is also what your body does.
When you say you feel like taking a walk, again, I am not sure what that has to do with anything. Do you somehow think taking a walk and having your hair grow is not the same principal? They are just different ways your body regulates itself. No oversight is needed.
If it is constant, it doesn’t need regulating. There is more to it than that, of course. Follicles apparently switch from active growth to stasis and hairs shed. In other mammals there are seasonal coat changes and so on. All fascinating or not depending where your interests lie.
Again, it’s a fascinating subject. One thing I have discovered by trying it is that I can reduce my blood pressure quickly by simply doing yoga-style slow, deep breathing.
It was an honest attempt to answer your questions. Am I wasting my time?
I do. Tell me what common principle you are thinking of and then maybe this exchange of comments will become less pointless.
It’s a very weak correlation that “They are just different ways your body regulates itself”. I think we could apply that generally to many aspects of the spectrum of all life. Life on any level involves degrees of self-organisation. But that “self” is physical. Maybe you want to argue against a purely physical universe. I guess you will either get around to making a point or not.
No, you “can’t” reduce your blood pressure. It is either done or its not. The same as your hair growth, it either grows constant, or it grows faster or it grows slower or it doesn’t grow at all. The words here -can or can’t-are meaningless to a materialist worldview. Its like saying the earth can or can’t turn. It either turns or it doesn’t it is not a matter of can.
So I find the whole issue of you evolutionists complaining about Shapiros use of words such as engineering in true keeping with their famous hypocrisy. Why do evolutionist talk about “being able to…” in terms of humans whereas when you talk about gravity, you don’t say something can be attracted to some other body because of gravity, rather you say it is or it isn’t-not that it can.
So, be consistent with your complaint about teleology.
Some soup with your word salad?
So, as a non-materialist (presumably) you can reduce your blood pressure and control how fast your hair grows?
Is this related to your belief that Uri Geller really can bend spoons with only his mind?
I do not understand this comment. The fact that the earth is turning does not mean it cannot hang still. What would forbid it from doing so from a materialist viewpoint?
Let’s set aside that “evolutionist” is not synonymous with “materialist”. It seems to me that James Shapiro deliberately chose the word “engineering” to convey that this involves a different process from traditional mutation. Do you think he merely meant that these mutations are induced, whereas traditional mutations are not? If not, what did he mean, according to you?
I am equally confused by this use of language. Does anyone say the Earth “can” revolve around the sun, or do they say the Earth does revolve around the sun? Do you say the sun does emit photons are do you say the sun can emit photons?
What would the word “can” mean in either situation. Its nonsensical.
It is also not clear to me how you can say this is true.
Wesley R. Elsberry
We are having a few arguments here about how we use words, even how we use use :).
I have been thinking about how Neil prefers to use the word “crafting” where Shapiro uses “engineering”.
I have my own suggestion, use the word “farming”, or even the word “gamekeeping”. Either would be more accurate than “engineering”.
Both Behe and Shapiro stick with the mechanistic thinking that prevails in present day biology. Behe with his “molecular machines” and Shapiro with his “NGE”. Both are advancing an unfortune, inaccurate, anthropocentric view of life at the molecular level.
If we wish to portray living molecular activities accurately we should be thinking in terms of livestock and crop growth. Molecular biologists are not genetic engineers or nano-engineers, they are genetic farmers or nano-farmers. As a replacement for Shapiro’s natural genetic engineering (NGE) I propose the term natural genetic farming (NGF) be used.
Take the example of CRISPR which has been discussed here a few times in the past. Bacteria do not use NGE they use NGF.
Bacterial cells use the CRISPR system to record viral infections. The dual RNA guided protein complex searches for viral DNA. The nuclease Cas9 is a highly dynamic protein which uses an RNA guide to handle the cell’s DNA by holding on to it and unwinding it as it moves along using an RNA guide to detect viral segments. The CRISPR system keeps a record of past viral infections which are stored between short insertions in the bacterial genome.
In their labs scientists use a modified CRISPR system to manipulate DNA. They grow cultures, weed out unwanted DNA from their crop of cells and generally manipulate the DNA. They are copying the genetic farming that is naturally carried out by bacteria.
Cas9 is not a machine, it is a dynamic living entity. The machine metaphor is one that has definitely been overused and I would say wrongly used. And both orthodox biologists and ID advocates are guilty of its misuse.
It has been said that using Cas9 to manipulate DNA is the definition of genetic engineering. Engineers and technicians design and build machines. In what way can it be said that genetic engineers design and build complexes such as Cas9? These complexes are not built they are grown.
CharlieM,
I propose Shapiro doesn’t change a thing. Rather I propose evolutionists start listening to their own use of words more.
As I alluded to above, I don’t see this as just a semantic issue. How we teach our children to view a subject is very important. If we teach them to think of living entities as machines then they will grow up believing that life is just machinery.
As for all your perceived waste in nature, all I can say is that nothing is ever wasted. Think of all the seed crops grown by farmers. How much of it goes on to reproduce itself? Do you think that all this overproduction of this potential renewal of its own life is a waste? To carry on with your anthropocentric tale, maybe all this unused gametic material sacrificed itself for the greater good. 🙂
Okay, let’s talk about the evolution of consciousness. What does it take for a creature to attain self-consciousness?
I think what he is arguing is that within cells we find intricate networks and not linear causation. DNA cannot function without a discriminating cell membrane and the other contents of the cell. DNA is meaningless with cells and cells are meaningless without the organism they are a part of, even if this relationship is one to one. Alfred North Whitehead said, “a horse is meaningless in isolation from other horses and the reality in which it exists”, or words to that effect. Only those who do not understand what he is saying would think that banal.
My liking or disliking a person does not hinge on their philosophy. I’ve spent my life among friends and work colleagues, the majority of whom I would say either didn’t think to much about the deeper meanings of life, or didn’t share my world view. Maybe we would have the odd drunken argument about religion but it never got heated. If it felt as if it was getting out of hand I would use that well known tactic of trying to deflect it with a joke. 🙂
I tend to get on with most people I meet or interact with. (Apart from you lot of course 😉 )
If it does, than it can. What does any of this have to do with materialism? I still do not understand.
For one thing, this very thread is hosted by Charlie, who accepts that species are evolving but is definitely not a materialist by any stretch of the imagination.
I am honoured in accepting monkeys as my cousins.
And as far as I know Shapiro accepts common descent.
Don’t be silly. We love you, Charlie.
If a niche encompasses the whole planet and more, are we still justified in referring to it as a niche? Could this be another overused metaphor?
I’d suggest the niche needs to be looked at at the scale of the particular organisms were are considering as adapted to that niche. My gut is a niche for micro-organisms living there, though I dare say those micro-organisms don’t care whose gut it is. Their existence is fairly closely linked to my continuing to live so should we take that into account? We’re not tied to a single approach, we can zoom in and out to find a useful scale for study.
Your proposal is noted.
A couple of years ago, I agreed a régime with my doctor that she said would reduce my blood pressure to a healthier level without my having to take medication which I was not keen on. I reduced it from 180/100 to 130/80 in a month or so. My daughter, a yoga teacher, sent me details of a phone app that helps with the breathing exercises and I was able to demonstrate a clear and immediate effect on my own blood pressure.
Ah, so we’re playing word games. I was right.
You don’t consider intelligent design evolution do you? Evolution suggests a certain kind of descent.
I disagree with you suggesting can and is are the same thing. There is a reason NOBODY says the Earth can revolve around the sun-and instead say it does revolve around the sun. Because it doesn’t have a choice-it just is.
Likewise Alan can’t say he has a choice about how his hair grows, it just is as it is. Alan, is of course now saying it is word games to try to differentiate between making a choice and something being determined. To him this is just word games.
But, that is Alan-he has no choice about how he is.
No WE are not playing word games- you are. That is what you do.
Alan Fox,
My point to you is that just because you have the illusion that you choose how you breathe and you don’t choose how your hair grows, that this is any kind of reality if you believe what you believe is silly. If all you are is your body, then there is no difference between the two. I fully understand why you won’t get why your worldview requires this to be so-but that is because you don’t even understand what you believe. A fish may believe that his reflection is another fish-because he doesn’t understand anything. But a fish beliving that his reflection is another fish and also believing that he is the only fish in the world makes no sense. Your worldview makes no sense.
IKYABWAI
I agree this sums up your input here.
Now, I didn’t say that. Breathing is largely under subconscious control. The reasons why humans need to over-ride the subconscious control is because the alimentary system and breathing system have evolved in a way that requires breathing and ingestion to be coordinated. Imagine if the grand designer had kept the digestive and breathing systems separate! And breath control is crucial for speech.
It would be a courtesy if you took note of the words I write. I repeat, I don’t have any conscious control over where and how fast hair grows on my body.
So we are having a phyisical/dualistic discussion.
I don’t find you a reliable interpreter of my beliefs.
No idea where you are going with this.
My world-view is a puny thing but I like it. I care not that you don’t find it appealing. Actually, I’m not sure what a world-view is. This is pretty confused.
Alan does say he has no conscious control (nor sub-conscious either) over the extent or growth rate of hair on his body
Nope it is just as it evolved.
Well, there is a difference. I can’t choose to grow my hair faster or restore its melanin levels. I can choose to do or not do things I am physically capable of doing. Why do you mention determinism?
If you think you are your body, and only your body, you don’t have control of over any of it, you fool!! What the hell do you think control means?
Does the Earth have control over how it turns? Does the sun have control over how much light its gives off?
Sorry Alan, but this is very clearly way over your head. I think you better stick with IKYABWAI. It makes as much sense as anything else you are saying.
This is so dumb its spectacular.
No problem.
Alan,
phoodoo believes that “materialism” entails a deterministic view of the world, as in a clockwork universe, which phoodoo views as so obviously wrong as to not be worthy of discussion.
Two things:
He’s wrong about the entailment
He’s wrong about the clockwork universe: it’s unappealing rather than impossible.
He’s also deeply wrong about biology.
So we are left with word-gaming.
Charlie also rocked some deflection, tu quoque, `twas ever thus, and a Gish gallop, giving me
FULL HOUSE!