Humans, Dogs and oxytocin (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, September 28, 2015, 23:17 (3131 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: On the contrary, I see purpose everywhere. It is twofold, and I have mentioned it many times: survival and improvement. Every form of life pursues these purposes in its own way; some succeed and some fail.-This is just a restated legalistic form of natural selection on an individual basis. It doesn't answer the question whether evolution as a mechanism has a purpose. I think it does. Your definition does not tell us why evolution advanced beyond the bacterial state, when bacteria are the most successful life form to ever appear as life began. They still represent the largest life mass on Earth!.-> dhw: I see that as a clear explanation of the variety of life and the sequences of extinctions and innovations that characterize the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution.-If you ignore all the weird side twigs, no chance reason appears for the line that eventually lead to conscious humans. On a survival basis, it should not have gone further than lions and apes. -> dhw: To my admittedly subjective eye, it also explains why a particular wasp might decide to lay its eggs on a particular spider's back (substitute a million other natural wonders if you prefer them), rather than needing God's guidance because such a manoeuvre is necessary for a balance of nature to provide energy for humans.-Your 'survival' interest requires regular meals, which require a balance of nature.-> 
> dhw: “Evolution” means “the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms”. So convincing were the arguments Darwin assembled for this theory that in spite of vehement initial opposition, even many churches have come to accept it. Not bad for a theory that explains nothing!.....I know you would dearly love to remove Darwin and replace him with Wallace, but your frustration will not change the fact that you also believe in his theory, as defined above, so give the man his due.-I don't believe in his theory. The concept of evolution was bandied about for most of the century before Darwin. He did not invent the concept that we evolved. His theory doesn't explain evolution. He popularized the idea as a chance mechanism while Wallace, who did most of the observation work for him at least recognized the probable need for design. I simply accept the probability of evolution because of the fossil record following a progressive time line. You cannot get over the 'Darwinization' that occurred to you in your earlier life before this website was started. We never talked about Wallace until I brought him into the conversation.