Different in degree or kind: Egnor agrees with Adler (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, March 28, 2016, 13:09 (2952 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A short essay making the same points:-http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo36/our-quantum-leap.php-QUOTE: Marks accepts the theory of common ancestry, and believes that we are descended from apes. He points out that evolutionary relationships are not the same thing as identities. Descent from apes does not mean we are apes… -QUOTE: It is in our ability to think abstractly that we differ from apes. It is a radical difference—an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. […] The assertion that man is an ape is self-refuting. We could not express such a concept, misguided as it is, if we were apes and not men. (David's bold)-David's comment: A clear difference to me. Much more than an evolutionary degree of difference, a giant leap.-Aw shucks, holy Moses, ‘n' give a sucker an even break, do you think I think humans ARE apes? And have I (or anyone with a grain of intelligence) ever disputed the fact that we think far, far, far more deeply, more widely, more abstractly, more inventively, more scientifically, more artistically, more humanly, less apely than apes? Egnor's only “new” argument is that we are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. If you boldly agree, then fine. I don't, and strictly between ourselves, I don't know if viruses are living, let alone thinking. But so what? Where does it lead us? We have flogged this pointless argument to death and beyond, and just three days ago we agreed to drop it:-dhw: …I am merely pointing out that if Adler was not concerned with the purpose and mechanisms of evolution, then you are on your own when we are discussing your theory, and there is no point in constantly bringing him into the conversation.-DAVID: [/i]I don't misunderstand you. Adler's point is quite clear. Humans are a totally different breed of cat and a natural evolution should not have produced them. He is bedrock support of my thoughts. "Different in kind" speaks to this gap. You persist in using the word 'kind' in a diminished context of difference. If you will stop, I'll stop. (My boldest of bolds)-Dhw: I like the different breed of cat! It is you who persist in emphasizing Adler's “difference in kind” during all our discussions on evolution, and I shall be delighted to put an end to this particular form of tail-chasing.-What is in dispute is not human intelligence but your insistence that the whole of evolution has been geared to the production and/or feeding of humans. And so if you refuse to stop, I shall find myself with no choice but to ask you for the thousandth time why your God had to preprogramme or personally supervise the building of the weaverbird's nest in order to balance nature so that humans could be produced and fed. You really don't want to go down that dry and dusty cul de sac again, do you?