partly fear of the strength of the leader? Partly greed since more can get more.Left to fend for themselves children very much exercise the "might makes right" principle and will very much so demonstrate a pack mentality.Ah, so why do they form packs if they just want things for themselves? Does it enhance might, increase power to obtain more objectives?
Yes, weaker males will happily cluster around or follow a stronger male, just as with dogs. Females will also tend to favor alpha males, again, just as with dogs. I pretty much don't see humans as that different from other animals. The key difference is that some generation, somewhere along the way, developed some rules for interacting in groups larger than packs. These rules are now taught to children from birth as "how you behave" and that helps children grow into productive members of society instead of misfits who attempt to dominate all around them. To be sure there are still examples of the latter, but I suspect they are a result of households where either conditioning was entirely withheld, or was not the same sort of conditioning that most adult members of human civilization experience. By that I mean, adults who condition them into adulthood may not have been present, or, the adults who were present may themselves have been improperly conditioned and so they are offering their offspring a sort of conditioning that results in adults with difficulty interacting with "normal" culture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we are all just animals then? We do not have thoughts beyond ourselves?
If that is how you want to define 'animals'. I am pretty sure there have been studies which found primates that are aware of themselves and others. Being a pet owner, I have seen cats and dogs morn the loss of other family members.
Yes, we are animals. Just smarter ones. I wonder if dolphins had means of physical manipulation, things might be quite different.
|
Yes, weaker males will happily cluster around or follow a stronger male, just as with dogs. Females will also tend to favor alpha males, again, just as with dogs. I pretty much don't see humans as that different from other animals. The key difference is that some generation, somewhere along the way, developed some rules for interacting in groups larger than packs. These rules are now taught to children from birth as "how you behave" and that helps children grow into productive members of society instead of misfits who attempt to dominate all around them. To be sure there are still examples of the latter, but I suspect they are a result of households where either conditioning was entirely withheld, or was not the same sort of conditioning that most adult members of human civilization experience. By that I mean, adults who condition them into adulthood may not have been present, or, the adults who were present may themselves have been improperly conditioned and so they are offering their offspring a sort of conditioning that results in adults with difficulty interacting with "normal" culture.partly fear of the strength of the leader? Partly greed since more can get more.Left to fend for themselves children very much exercise the "might makes right" principle and will very much so demonstrate a pack mentality.Ah, so why do they form packs if they just want things for themselves? Does it enhance might, increase power to obtain more objectives?
Then how do you explain those who through no fault of upbringing have turned into functioning members of society? Or who have changed society to more fit their needs?
I thought about not posting that part since I knew you would go there by the way.:)
And yet, you did. I go there simply because believes do so frequently. The argument simply does not stand for me.
I'd rather be a man. Not a Filthy Ape! Get your hands off of me!
Could that be pride? Pure, simply, human-centric pride?
|
|
So we are all just animals then? We do not have thoughts beyond ourselves?If that is how you want to define 'animals'. I am pretty sure there have been studies which found primates that are aware of themselves and others. Being a pet owner, I have seen cats and dogs morn the loss of other family members.
Yes, we are animals. Just smarter ones. I wonder if dolphins had means of physical manipulation, things might be quite different.
Dolphins have been shown to play a version of soccer using jellyfish as balls.
I do not think that intelligence alone is what separates us from more 'base' animals. Awareness of self and of others has been shown in birds. This then is also not a separator.
We are the only creature who is capable of changing our own nature. I can choose to do something, or choose not to. A dog will do as he has been trained to do or is in his base nature to do.
|
|
I thought about not posting that part since I knew you would go there by the way.:)And yet, you did. I go there simply because believes do so frequently. The argument simply does not stand for me.
I'd rather be a man. Not a Filthy Ape! Get your hands off of me!Could that be pride? Pure, simply, human-centric pride?
Possibly. Pride in and of itself does not have to be a sin.
|
|
So we are all just animals then? We do not have thoughts beyond ourselves?How do you know animals don't have thoughts beyond themselves or that having thoughts beyond oneself makes one not an animal?
How do you know that they do? We can observe some obvious reaction to stimuli. But that is about all.
Your choices.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we are all just animals then? We do not have thoughts beyond ourselves?How do you know animals don't have thoughts beyond themselves or that having thoughts beyond oneself makes one not an animal?
How do you know that they do? We can observe some obvious reaction to stimuli. But that is about all.
Your choices.
I'm not making the claim that this is the grounds for diffentiating humans from other animals. In order to make such a claim, you would need to demonstrate that (a) thinking beyond oneself is a meaningful difference between humans and other animals and (b) that animals don't actually think beyond themselves. I'm not willing to accept (a) as the demarcation point between humans and other animals, and I don't see any need to provide the evidence requested in (b).
Or, to take it back to the point upthread, there is much more commonality between humans and other animals than there are differences.
|
|
I'm not making the claim that this is the grounds for diffentiating humans from other animals. In order to make such a claim, you would need to demonstrate that (a) thinking beyond oneself is a meaningful difference between humans and other animals and (b) that animals don't actually think beyond themselves. I'm not willing to accept (a) as the demarcation point between humans and other animals, and I don't see any need to provide the evidence requested in (b).So we are all just animals then? We do not have thoughts beyond ourselves?How do you know animals don't have thoughts beyond themselves or that having thoughts beyond oneself makes one not an animal?
How do you know that they do? We can observe some obvious reaction to stimuli. But that is about all.
Your choices.
Ok.
I would rather live as if there is a god because the consequences are much better that way.Also the chances of all of this being totally random is so low that I think I will hedge my bet.
Who does your god treat better (or worse)? People that don't believe in them or people that believe in a false god?
Because when you argue the following you are wrong:
Belief in god (and are correct) = reward
Belief in god (and are wrong) = nothing
Belief in no god (and are correct) = nothing
Belief in no god (and are wrong) = punishment
The correct way to view it is:
Belief in the correct god out of thousands (and are correct) = reward
Belief in the correct god out of thousands (and are wrong due to wrong god) = horrible punishment
Belief in the correct god out of many (and are wrong due to no god) = nothing
Belief in no god (and are correct) = nothing
Belief in no god (and are wrong) = punishment
|
|
I would rather live as if there is a god because the consequences are much better that way.Also the chances of all of this being totally random is so low that I think I will hedge my bet.
Who does your god treat better (or worse)? People that don't believe in them or people that believe in a false god?
Because when you argue the following you are wrong:
Belief in god (and are correct) = reward
Belief in god (and are wrong) = nothing
Belief in no god (and are correct) = nothing
Belief in no god (and are wrong) = punishmentThe correct way to view it is:
Belief in the correct god out of thousands (and are correct) = reward
Belief in the correct god out of thousands (and are wrong due to wrong god) = horrible punishment
Belief in the correct god out of many (and are wrong due to no god) = nothing
Belief in no god (and are correct) = nothing
Belief in no god (and are wrong) = punishment
There are several ways to view this.
I think CF actually had the best response. If that is the only reason you believe How does G~D feel about it?
We are the only creature who is capable of changing our own nature. I can choose to do something, or choose not to. A dog will do as he has been trained to do or is in his base nature to do.
Your saying we can adapt and that's what separates us from animals?
We are animals and many animals have adapted as individuals and as species.To be honest our technology and written language are the big separators.
Edit: ...and our technology is only possible because of written language.
|
|
We are the only creature who is capable of changing our own nature. I can choose to do something, or choose not to. A dog will do as he has been trained to do or is in his base nature to do.Your saying we can adapt and that's what separates us from animals?
We are animals and many animals have adapted as individuals and as species.To be honest our technology and written language are the big separators.
No actually I am not. Many animals can adapt. We can choose how and in what ways to adapt. DO we change how we approach things or do we change our environment to change to adapt to us.
Written Language allows us to expand upon ideas and to share them. I think it does help but is in and of itself only a small part of that equation.
Monkeys and Octopi use tools so technology is not it either.
No actually I am not. Many animals can adapt. We can choose how and in what ways to adapt. DO we change how we approach things or do we change our environment to change to adapt to us.
I am slightly confused, so for clarification, are you saying free will is the marker between 'man and beast'?
|
|
I am slightly confused, so for clarification, are you saying free will is the marker between 'man and beast'?
No actually I am not. Many animals can adapt. We can choose how and in what ways to adapt. DO we change how we approach things or do we change our environment to change to adapt to us.
In short then yes. In my humble opinion, for good ill, our choices, yes our free will is what separates us from mere beasts.
I'll say that again, maybe more clearly: I believe that a human, if left to develop without social instruction from adults, would behave extraordinarily differently as an adult than a socialized adult human. Every day you have to teach a child what is and is not acceptable behavior. Left to fend for themselves children very much exercise the "might makes right" principle and will very much so demonstrate a pack mentality. So with that said, I feel that what many feel are inherent traits of humans are nothing more than learned behavior gained from adults who were themselves socialized.
We've observed that in feral children, in fact. A Ukrainian boy who fell in with a dog pack in fact acted like a dog. There's no Rousseauean state of nature where we were all pure and innocent moral paragons who frolicked among the flowers and sunlight like it was a commercial for feminine hygiene products or toilet paper.
But it's not that we're born bad and society makes us good either. If aliens were to come to earth and resurrect the species from traces of DNA they'd only end up with a very intelligent ape, not what we'd generally call a person. (Even though we are all very intelligent apes.) As a species, we've stumbled into a survival strategy that requires a ton of cognitive development. We can't do all of that unassisted, and if the machinery doesn't get the right stimulation at the right times, the connections might never be made. Feral children, or our post-extinction descendant, aren't bad. They're ignorant, but there's no way they could help it.
I'm not making the claim that this is the grounds for diffentiating humans from other animals. In order to make such a claim, you would need to demonstrate that (a) thinking beyond oneself is a meaningful difference between humans and other animals and (b) that animals don't actually think beyond themselves. I'm not willing to accept (a) as the demarcation point between humans and other animals, and I don't see any need to provide the evidence requested in (b).
We have evidence against b, at least in our closest relatives. Chimpanzees have been observed in the wild checking if another member of the pack is watching before doing things. Likewise they've been observed teaching their young how to fish for termites. Chimps thus have some sort of theory of other minds (they know that others exist and may observe their actions and react to them as they might themselves do the same) and at least a few different cultures (culture being the aggregate of learned behaviors passed down generations, stuff like termite fishing, other forms of tool use, or writing annoying know-it-all posts on message boards). At one point I had reporting on the studies on hand, but that seems to have gone away a few hard drives ago.
Or, to take it back to the point upthread, there is much more commonality between humans and other animals than there are differences.
Nature's kind of fuzzy that way. It certainly helps taxonomists secure employment. :) We're made out of the same stuff, more or less, that makes up fish, chickens, snakes, and toads. The source code comes in different versions and is executed differently (our hands are the many-times-great grandchildren of fins, for example) and if it gets bungled at the wrong moment, we get real world Blue Screens of Death.
But being an animal isn't such a bad gig, I think. Of all the parts of my body the one I enjoy the most (I once said this in person and gave a smile and a weighty pause here) is the brain. I don't know many plants, protists, or fungi that have much in that department.
|
Many animals can adapt. We can choose how and in what ways to adapt. DO we change how we approach things or do we change our environment to change to adapt to us.
From a strictly logical point of view, I really agree with this. Evolution boils down to a species' ability to adapt to its environment. If a food source disappears, then either find another food source or die out. If it gets too cold, those with bodies that can adapt to the cold better will survive. If the food is in the water and you can't swim, you will die. Either run faster to evade the predator, or develop some other means of defense or die out. Humans have evolved past evolution. Instead of adapting to the environment, we have adapted the environment to suit us. If food doesn't grow in this area, we force it to with chemicals, timing, etc. If it's too cold, we turn up the heat. If a predator is going to eat us, we pull out a gun. While some other creatures may manipulate some of its environs to suit its needs, its nothing on the scale of what we do.
A few other thoughts. A lot of it has to do with degree or amount. We can say "Well we communicate" and then someone else will say "Creature X communicates" -- but is it really the same? Or same amount? (Have you seen how much teenage girls talk?) We can say "We build XXXXXX" and then someone else will say "Creature Y can build XXXXXX" -- but is it really on the same scale? "We use tools" -- "But creature Z uses tools" -- but is it really on the same scale? Apes still haven't developed a bow and arrow yet. Using a stick to hit something is far different than what we are capable of. On a similar note, while we may be able to find similar individual qualities in a number of other creatures, is there any other creature that embodies all the same qualities? Dolphins play games, elephants are self aware, ants communicate, wolves have teamwork, beavers build structures, and so on -- but they all only have part of what we are.
Last thought -- we are able to think things like "I think, therefore I am". I don't think that monkeys care. At best, they're probably thinking "of course I am -- give me another banana."
We are animals. But very special animals.
|
|
Who does your god treat better (or worse)? People that don't believe in them or people that believe in a false god?
Because when you argue the following you are wrong:
Belief in god (and are correct) = reward
Belief in god (and are wrong) = nothing
Belief in no god (and are correct) = nothing
Belief in no god (and are wrong) = punishmentThe correct way to view it is:
Belief in the correct god out of thousands (and are correct) = reward
Belief in the correct god out of thousands (and are wrong due to wrong god) = horrible punishment
Belief in the correct god out of many (and are wrong due to no god) = nothing
Belief in no god (and are correct) = nothing
Belief in no god (and are wrong) = punishment
I don't want to go into this too much because this isn't a good reason for belief. However ...
"Belief in the correct god out of thousands (and are wrong due to wrong god) = horrible punishment" -- not exactly. I really don't know all the other beliefs that are out there, but most of them aren't really "horrible punishment". Most are basically "oblivion" or something similar. Some are kind of "if you don't get it right this time, try again." In addition, most religions are fairly "works" based. So really from a strictly logical, "hedging your bets", point of view, worshipping the Christian God will cover you for most potential negative outcomes.
I can't emphasize enough that this does not make Christianity "right" and it isn't a good reason to believe. I'm just trying to clarify something that was meant to be a "logical" rebuttal.
I don't want to go into this too much because this isn't a good reason for belief. However ..."Belief in the correct god out of thousands (and are wrong due to wrong god) = horrible punishment" -- not exactly. I really don't know all the other beliefs that are out there, but most of them aren't really "horrible punishment". Most are basically "oblivion" or something similar. Some are kind of "if you don't get it right this time, try again." In addition, most religions are fairly "works" based. So really from a strictly logical, "hedging your bets", point of view, worshipping the Christian God will cover you for most potential negative outcomes.
I can't emphasize enough that this does not make Christianity "right" and it isn't a good reason to believe. I'm just trying to clarify something that was meant to be a "logical" rebuttal.
I understand that it really depends on what you think the god you worship would feel about worshiping false idols compared to being ignored. But there are plenty of religions were the gods get mad at people who don't worship them and madder at people who worship their competitors (real or imaginary).
All I was pointing out is the you-cant-go-wrong-by-worshiping logic is false. If you believe in gods and worship wrongly then that may lead to a worse punishment then not believing at all.
If you guesstimate (meaning educated guess) at the total number of gods ever worshiped by anyone and give them all equal chance of being the correct god (or group of gods), as you don't know which god is 'the god', well then the pick-one-and-hope strategy has a much worse chance of success then winning the lottery (if you got to buy only one ticket for your whole life).
Edit: In other words you have faith in your chosen god or you don't. But trying to sell religion by using fear mongering hidden behind logic is wrong.
|
I don't want to go into this too much because this isn't a good reason for belief. However ..."Belief in the correct god out of thousands (and are wrong due to wrong god) = horrible punishment" -- not exactly. I really don't know all the other beliefs that are out there, but most of them aren't really "horrible punishment". Most are basically "oblivion" or something similar. Some are kind of "if you don't get it right this time, try again." In addition, most religions are fairly "works" based. So really from a strictly logical, "hedging your bets", point of view, worshipping the Christian God will cover you for most potential negative outcomes.
I can't emphasize enough that this does not make Christianity "right" and it isn't a good reason to believe. I'm just trying to clarify something that was meant to be a "logical" rebuttal.
I understand that it really depends on what you think the god you worship would feel about worshiping false idols compared to being ignored. But there are plenty of religions were the gods get mad at people who don't worship them and madder at people who worship their competitors (real or imaginary).
All I was pointing out is the you-cant-go-wrong-by-worshiping logic is false. If you believe in gods and worship wrongly then that may lead to a worse punishment then not believing at all.
If you guesstimate (meaning educated guess) at the total number of gods ever worshiped by anyone and give them all equal chance of being the correct god (or group of gods), as you don't know which god is 'the god', well then the pick-one-and-hope strategy has a much worse chance of success then winning the lottery (if you got to buy only one ticket for your whole life).
Edit: In other words you have faith in your chosen god or you don't. But trying to sell religion by using fear mongering hidden behind logic is wrong.
It also has the problem that you're effectively lying to God. This generally does not end happily.
We are animals. But very special animals.
I prefer 'lucky'. We developed brains instead of claws, wings, what-have-you. Well, brains, vocal-cords and opposable thumbs. The combination has proved incredibly efficient. And even with that efficiency, it has taken us thousands of years to get to where we are.
The first 'man' probably wished he had claws or wings instead of brains, vocal-cords and opposable thumbs.
|
|
We are animals. But very special animals.I prefer 'lucky'.
Maybe, but "lucky" to the extreme. The earth has had an evolutionary "restart" a number of times (to some degree). With regard to the age of the earth or how long evolution has been going on, humans have evolved to what we are in an incredibly short amount of time. Maybe it is "luck". Maybe the "luck" is more in that no other creature got to this point even though they had many million years more to get there.
Maybe, but "lucky" to the extreme.
Fair enough.
Consider though, let's throw out a random number for the possibility that life similar to modern day humans could evolve, let's call it .0000001%. Now multiply that by the universe (even a finite universe).
Maybe, but "lucky" to the extreme. The earth has had an evolutionary "restart" a number of times (to some degree). With regard to the age of the earth or how long evolution has been going on, humans have evolved to what we are in an incredibly short amount of time. Maybe it is "luck". Maybe the "luck" is more in that no other creature got to this point even though they had many million years more to get there.
All of this assumes, a priori, that humans are something super-awesome and that it's a really great thing that we evolved. I'm not sure that any number of other species -- or dispassionate aliens observing us, for that matter -- would agree with that assumption, however.
The really lucky thing, to me, was the early advent of cyanobacteria, which massively changed the composition of the atmsophere, drove all other existing life forms into extinction or localized niches, and paved the way for the types of life that we see today (not to mention preventing the Earth from ending up like Venus, with the oceans eventually boiling off). Compared to the effect they've had on everything else, humans are petty bit players.
Consider though, let's throw out a random number for the possibility that life similar to modern day humans could evolve, let's call it .0000001%. Now multiply that by the universe (even a finite universe).
Selection isn't random, though; that's the whole point of the theory of natural selection. And we can see empirically that if there's a niche, no matter how outlandish or specialized, some critter will evolve to exploit it.
|
|
Edit: In other words you have faith in your chosen god or you don't. But trying to sell religion by using fear mongering hidden behind logic is wrong.Which is pretty much what I was trying to say at the end. I also don't agree with or believe in "fire insurance".
Yes, well it did bring a conversation back here again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The really lucky thing, to me, was the early advent of cyanobacteria, which massively changed the composition of the atmsophere, drove all other existing life forms into extinction or localized niches, and paved the way for the types of life that we see today (not to mention preventing the Earth from ending up like Venus, with the oceans eventually boiling off). Compared to the effect they've had on everything else, humans are petty bit players.
I've always aspired to cyanobacterium. Ah well... maybe in the next life.
|
|
Maybe, but "lucky" to the extreme.Fair enough.
Consider though, let's throw out a random number for the possibility that life similar to modern day humans could evolve, let's call it .0000001%. Now multiply that by the universe (even a finite universe).
Ok, but consider this. Is it "luck" that birds developed beaks instead of keeping their teeth? Is it "luck" that an armadillo has a tough skin/shell (that is useless vs. cars)? Is it "luck" that polar bears store up all that fat? Not generally. It's time. It's time to evolve to a point where they can survive the coming conditions. It doesn't seem to me that we truly have had enough time. I guess from your point of view, it's "luck" because we managed to evolve and other creatures didn't -- at all -- given the same stimuli. Although I'm not entirely sure what natural "stimuli" would cause a creature to get brains. Especially since it hasn't happened before or since. I mean, we can't even train an animal to get more brains. Maybe we can genetically enhance a creature (at some point) where we can "create" a dog that can get its doctorate.
It's not really about the odds. (Regardless of what Ben Stein says.) We are living proof of "beating the odds". But if you really wanted to look at how likely/unlikely that event is to have happened, consider the lottery. The odds of winning the Powerball lottery here is something like 1 in 6 million (plus or minus). Which roughly translates to something like .0000001666% chance. Yet at LEAST once a month, someone wins. For us to have happened in the short amount of time in which we are here during the 100s of millions (billions?) of years that life has been evolving on this planet -- and we still don't know what stimulus would have caused it to happen -- makes winning the lottery infinitely easy by comparison.
But in the end it isn't about odds. We are here. It did happen. You feel that it was "luck". I just don't feel that evolution works with "luck". Evolution is a natural response to changes. So for some reason, we evolved in response to some change that our species couldn't overcome by a more physical change. I guess that it really was "lucky" that we got that magic stimuli and no other creature ever did.
|
|
The really lucky thing, to me, was the early advent of cyanobacteria, which massively changed the composition of the atmsophere, drove all other existing life forms into extinction or localized niches, and paved the way for the types of life that we see today (not to mention preventing the Earth from ending up like Venus, with the oceans eventually boiling off). Compared to the effect they've had on everything else, humans are petty bit players.I've always aspired to cyanobacterium. Ah well... maybe in the next life.
We all want to improve ourselves.
But our brain, vocal cords and opposable thumbs are a physical change. Are you suggesting they were spiritual? Or that our reasoning is a spiritual change and not directly related to our brain development? How can we know that animals do not contemplate their own existence? We have language which allows us to communicate a complex concept like god.
Magic stimuli? No other creature ever did? Well why do you think animals are not all exactly the same? Are they all equally lucky that no other species evolved exactly as they did?
Again, beneath the surface of all of this, I hear hints that there must be an intelligent creator to have done all this. And once again, I must wonder, how lucky was god to have sprung magically into existence.
|
|
But our brain, vocal cords and opposable thumbs are a physical change.
Opposable thumbs I feel are a physical change. Vocal cords are a response to intelligence. What good is intelligence if you cannot communicate? The ability to think is not a physical response to external stimuli. (At least the way I see it.) A larger brain is a physical response to the ability to think.
I'm not saying in any way that all animals are the same. I'm saying that no other animal has developed "big brains" like we have. Most other animals have some traits that are shared with other creatures -- ourselves included. But what could have caused us to evolve "big brains" that hadn't ever happened before in the 100s of millions of years prior. There are all kinds of creatures that share traits that are not even related -- soft skin, hard skin, scales, fur, feathers, eye types, teeth, no teeth, two legs, four legs, claws, nails, hoofs, pads, tails, and so on. Even opposable thumbs. But to my knowledge, no other creature in billions of years of evolution has had a reason to develop "big brains". And we did it in a relatively short amount of time.
Not "magic". I just can't come up with some reason for us to evolve the way we did. I don't know why we responded to something with "intelligence" when an easier, more physical response would have probably worked just as well. It worked fine for apes and monkeys. As I said before, maybe it was "luck" -- luck that we got the stimulus to cause us to evolve this way and that no other species did.
That is the beauty of evolution, sometimes it tries 'crazy' things and it works. Mutation is change for change's sake. If it works well, it gets passed on. If it doesn't, it does not get passed on. Mutation does not have to be a good step. It does not even have to be a 'step in the right direction'.
Flagella were given as an example of an 'irreducibly complex' organism which seemed impossibly likely to have evolved from a simpler organism because if any of the parts were missing, the organism as a whole would not function. Except that the Type three secretion system is similar while missing key components found in the Flagella and it functions quite well, albeit differently.
I agree with you in that I do not know what caused us to evolve the way we did. However, that is not proof that there was intelligence behind it.
I'm saying that no other animal has developed "big brains" like we have.
If by "big" we're going by total mass or volume, whales and elephants have much bigger brains. If instead we're looking at a ratio of brain to body mass, I seem to recall that tree shrews have us beat by a pretty substantial margin (theirs is like 10%). Either way, we lose.
Then again, if you're basing "intelligence" on, say, written language, you're skewing the results right out the gate. A tiger would likely rate intelligence based on the success of a creature's strategies for stalking prey, for example.
|
|
I'm saying that no other animal has developed "big brains" like we have.If by "big" we're going by total mass or volume, whales and elephants have much bigger brains. If instead we're looking at a ratio of brain to body mass, I seem to recall that tree shrews have us beat by a pretty substantial margin (theirs is like 10%). Either way, we lose.
How about "mental capacity"?
How about "mental capacity"?
Dunno; there was some speculation that dolphins can simultaneously be actively awake and physically involved, and also dream at the same time, so that they don't have to have a separate sleep cycle. Doing both things at once is certainly far beyond my mental capacity.
|
|
That is the beauty of evolution, sometimes it tries 'crazy' things and it works. Mutation is change for change's sake. If it works well, it gets passed on. If it doesn't, it does not get passed on. Mutation does not have to be a good step. It does not even have to be a 'step in the right direction'.
Flagella were given as an example of an 'irreducibly complex' organism which seemed impossibly likely to have evolved from a simpler organism because if any of the parts were missing, the organism as a whole would not function. Except that the Type three secretion system is similar while missing key components found in the Flagella and it functions quite well, albeit differently.
I agree with you in that I do not know what caused us to evolve the way we did. However, that is not proof that there was intelligence behind it.
Evolution in and of itself does not cover every possibility. But science is all about experimentation and finding out what fits and what does not. My only issue with evolution is that we are stuck with Darwins 1800's explanation and we have not advanced any beyond that simple, well complex examination. Many who try to are shot down. Or labeled creationists or worse yet ID'ers.
I think it may take some time but another brilliant scientist will at some point push us past the bottle neck of belief we are currently at and like Einstein to Newton, show us something we missed.
|
|
How about "mental capacity"?Dunno; there was some speculation that dolphins can simultaneously be actively awake and physically involved, and also dream at the same time, so that they don't have to have a separate sleep cycle. Doing both things at once is certainly far beyond my mental capacity.
I don't think that's a great adaptation. I have met many people who can do that and live their lives sort of like that all the time.:P
My only issue with evolution is that we are stuck with Darwins 1800's explanation and we have not advanced any beyond that simple, well complex examination. Many who try to are shot down. Or labeled creationists or worse yet ID'ers.
I don't know who told you that, but they're totally off-base. In today's synthesis, Darwin would see his idea of natural selection, but would be at a loss to account for Mendel's genetic work, the sequencing of genomes, etc., etc. -- all of which form integral parts of the modern theory. People with other ideas so far haven't been shot down, for the most part -- instead, they've been more or less seamlessly absorbed.
Re: Einstein and Newton, you should be aware that Einstein's theories nicely prove that Newton's work under normal conditions. In other words, they're an EXPANSION of Newton's work, more than a refutation of them. Exactly like modern evolutionary synthesis is a fusion of work by Darwin, Mendel, Collins, and others.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Evolution in and of itself does not cover every possibility. But science is all about experimentation and finding out what fits and what does not. My only issue with evolution is that we are stuck with Darwins 1800's explanation and we have not advanced any beyond that simple, well complex examination. Many who try to are shot down. Or labeled creationists or worse yet ID'ers.
This post incorporates by reference Kith's prior posts on this topic as well as the many, many, many, many scientific studies done regarding evolution (and finding further evidence thereof) performed after the publication of the Origin of Species.
|
|
My only issue with evolution is that we are stuck with Darwins 1800's explanation and we have not advanced any beyond that simple, well complex examination. Many who try to are shot down. Or labeled creationists or worse yet ID'ers.I don't know who told you that, but they're totally off-base. In today's synthesis, Darwin would see his idea of natural selection, but would be at a loss to account for Mendel's genetic work, the sequencing of genomes, etc., etc. -- all of which form integral parts of the modern theory. People with other ideas so far haven't been shot down, for the most part -- instead, they've been more or less seamlessly absorbed.
Gregor Mendel?
|
|
That is the beauty of evolution, sometimes it tries 'crazy' things and it works. Mutation is change for change's sake. If it works well, it gets passed on. If it doesn't, it does not get passed on. Mutation does not have to be a good step. It does not even have to be a 'step in the right direction'.
Flagella were given as an example of an 'irreducibly complex' organism which seemed impossibly likely to have evolved from a simpler organism because if any of the parts were missing, the organism as a whole would not function. Except that the Type three secretion system is similar while missing key components found in the Flagella and it functions quite well, albeit differently.
I agree with you in that I do not know what caused us to evolve the way we did. However, that is not proof that there was intelligence behind it.
Evolution in and of itself does not cover every possibility. But science is all about experimentation and finding out what fits and what does not. My only issue with evolution is that we are stuck with Darwins 1800's explanation and we have not advanced any beyond that simple, well complex examination. Many who try to are shot down. Or labeled creationists or worse yet ID'ers.
I think it may take some time but another brilliant scientist will at some point push us past the bottle neck of belief we are currently at and like Einstein to Newton, show us something we missed.
Uhm, and what would these explanations be, exactly? We've actually changed lots of stuff from Darwin in the details but the boring basics still hold true.
Do you complain that we're still stuck on Newton's Laws of Motion? Are the Laws of Thermodynamics a problem? Or maybe the periodic table needs to be rewritten as it's too old? Why do you think we need to get beyond Darin's 1800 explanation?
Do you complain that we're still stuck on Newton's Laws of Motion? Keppler's Laws of Thermodynamics a problem?
Keppler's laws are about planetary motion. (Newton's equations show that they're basically correct.)
Gregor Mendel?
The same. Darwin had no knowledge of genetics, which is a fundamental pillar of modern evolutionary theory.
|
|
Do you complain that we're still stuck on Newton's Laws of Motion? Keppler's Laws of Thermodynamics a problem?Keppler's laws are about planetary motion. (Newton's equations show that they're basically correct.)
Yeah. I thought that was wrong and went and checked, then changed it. Next time, I'll do the checking before I hit submit.
|
|
That is the beauty of evolution, sometimes it tries 'crazy' things and it works. Mutation is change for change's sake.
Maybe it's me and I still really don't get evolution, but that is not how I understand it at all. Change happens for a reason. It isn't our species' bodies tries something and if that doesn't work it tries something else. That is something that we do now. Not something that supports evolution. That's like saying that because I couldn't reach the cookies on the top shelf my body tried to have stronger hair. ???? I guess that luckily that mutation didn't work and so won't get passed on.
Evolution is not spontaneous. It is a process that happens over a long period of time. If it is "spontaneous", it looks like it's because of changes that happen to a creature while it is growing or maturing. If only one food source is available, the parent may survive, but it's the child that actually adapts and passes on "mutated" genes. So you're talking about a generation or two before the mutation actually manifests. As Samnell implied, our intelligence is largely learned. If that's true, then where or why did it start? From a strictly genetic point of view, it should start from the child -- but that doesn't exactly make sense either. And then there's the question, if we are not born intelligent, then that would imply that it has little to do with genetics. But then why can't we then train other creatures to think like we do?
Mutation is change for a specific sake. It doesn't roll the die to see what it needs to change to adapt to the present circumstances. It doesn't "try" something and if that doesn't work, then "try" something else.