|
We have evidence of West Semites living in Egypt. We have evidence for them even running the country for a while. But we have a startling lack of evidence for any kind of Jewish, as opposed to general Canaanite, presence in Egypt in the period. According to the Bible, they were present for quite some time and were rather numerous. Yet in a century of intensive excavation and exploration of Egypt we have revealed not a single piece of pottery to suggest that Jews indeed lived in Egypt at the time. The first evidence we have of any kind of Jewish identity at all is from later than the date the Exodus would have happened during, and places them as a non-national ethnic group in the Canaanite highlands.
This is odd to me. (And I'm sure that it has been addressed by someone, but I just seem to be missing it.) The "Sunday School" story goes something along the lines of Jacob (Israel) had 12 sons. One of the sons was Joseph. He gets sold into slavery, makes his way into Egypt and and eventually rises in the Egyptian system. There are famines and Jacob needs to take his family to where there is food. So he takes them to Egypt. At this point, the entire "nation" of Israel consists of around 20 people (give or take). Then after many, many, many generations, (in theory) of being in Egypt they get to go "home". But the story implies that none of them had ever really even been there.
At what point does a nation gain an "identity"? You say that not even a single piece of "Jewish" pottery was found. What constitutes "Jewish" pottery when they weren't a united people (again in theory) or even a nation at that point in time? I mean, nearly all of their customs, holidays, law, celebrations, etc. came after the Exodus. It doesn't surprise me that "the first evidence we have of any kind of Jewish identity at all is from later than the date the Exodus would have happened..."
Again, I'm sure that that has been addressed, but that's the first thing that comes to my mind.
|
I wanted to drop by again and make another note.
I've known Christians who used the Bible as nothing more than a helpful guideline when helping to make decisions in life but in the end felt them little more than moral stories. However they still managed to feel in their hearts and mind that both God and Christ were a huge part of their life and that there was a heaven in the end.
Being as the way to be a Christian is to simply believe in Christ as your savior, they all counted AS Christians. Didn't matter what the Bible said to them about same sex coupling and other arguable topics.
The way I view things, everyone is religious. Even atheists are religious in my book. Religion to me is basing things off how you feel or based on a theory of sorts. Considering NONE of you have died and stayed dead and wrote a letter back to the rest of us of what the other side is like, everyone's just going off their beliefs ... or you could say everyone's guessing to put it plainly.
Not trying to belittle anyone's religion to the statement of a "guess" but I'm just trying to make my own point clear and that's that; as for anything for CERTAIN, no one can know until they kick the bucket. However we all hold in our hearts/minds/souls our beliefs and we'll carry them with us till the end.
On the PLUS side, all those who are atheists can't say "I told you so" if they're right. Makes their victory sting a little less if they end up right. I don't believe they will be, but who knows ...
|
Reading what you found, to me, is like a Christian reading, "Fundamentalist Christians believe that David Bowie is the Son of God, and that he entrusted Antarctica to them permanently, along with the 1812 Overture and all poodles." Then again, it's easy to see from other historical examples that any religion attaining a measure of temporal power is inevitably corrupted into a mockery of itself.
But we don't want poodles. I have already stated that poodles are the spawn of Satan and proven it by posting a link to a website. Is that how you win fights on the interweb?
Is that how you win fights on the interweb?
U win mad internetz FTW rtofl!!!
(Sorry, that was a poodle walking across the keyboard.)
I dislike the term "fundamentalist". It implies that a religion can be fundamental and fungible rather than emergent and variable. I especially dislike when the term is applied to Christianity, which by its own sacred document admits to being a syncretic and evolving religion.
I also dislike the term "scientist". It implies that only certain people can do science, when in fact everyone does science (to various degrees of rigor). It also tells me nothing about the person, since it does not speak to how he or she applies science.
Separately, while I'll agree that a lot of the codes in the Bible seem to be about distinguishing oneself from the others about I don't think that's a very good reason to proscribe death on people for having consensual sex lives.I don't think that they did.
Well ok, but how do you explain those passages then? The plain reading is that every kind of same-sex sex is cause for a death sentence.
If the Bible is to be believed at all, those chapters especially (and other places in the Bible) seem to indicate that there were people who would have sex with just about anything. Both of those chapters really seem to be pointing to the idea that a man should only really have sex with the person he has vowed to be with. Which means that you shouldn't have sex with your mother, your daughter, another man's wife, another person's daughter, your sister, another man, or an animal.
I think you've contradicted yourself here. Setting aside the issue of premarital sex, I'm just as capable of vowing to be with another man. So if that's what was meant, why the specific prohibition against having sex with another man? I don't think that the Bible would argue that men cannot make binding vows between themselves, since it shows them making such promises now and then and also making them with God. (Although those tend to be more of God dictating things.)
Separately, I don't really see all that much evidence that historical sexual diversity was any less than present sexual diversity. Oscar Wilde didn't invent homosexuality, though he did go to prison for it.
It's relatively common in the animal kingdom, though obviously not as common as heterosexuality. If all men are meant to have sex only with women, we're not wired very well for it. I think I had my first moment of sexual attraction around age eight. The object of my lust, which I had no understanding of at all at the time, was the like-aged MacCaulay Culkin.
This would have been around 1988 or so and I lived in a small town, so I really had no idea what was going on. I didn't have to be told that he was cute and I should find him attractive. If anything, my culture told me the opposite. His appearance on the screen at the theater was hardly sexualized. But I have consistently been attracted to men all my life and never been attracted to women, sexually speaking. Just like every other gay man I know. If we're not meant to be with men, then God has some explaining to do. :)
And regarding what your friend said about actually going through with the punishments -- as I understand it, the actual process with which to convict a person was rather complicated and designed to keep people from finding loopholes and getting people killed who were innocent.
One would rather hope so. We've certainly spent thousands of years on and off improving our justice systems. The Romans had lawyers (Cicero was one.) and something you could call juries. The struggle for a good and just system is one of the oldest parts of the human story.
I dislike the term "fundamentalist". It implies that a religion can be fundamental and fungible rather than emergent and variable. I especially dislike when the term is applied to Christianity, which by its own sacred document admits to being a syncretic and evolving religion.
Fundamentalism is a term the Christians developed for and adopted themselves. They only began to distance themselves from it after they suffered national humiliation, but legal victory, in the Scopes Trial. Now groups that believe virtually identical things call themselves Evangelicals in the US, which is quite a contrast from European usage where the Evangelicals are mainline to liberal Lutherans for the most part.
And the fundamentalists are very much of the opinion that their religion out to be fixed and unchanging. That position is the origin of their movement.
At what point does a nation gain an "identity"? You say that not even a single piece of "Jewish" pottery was found. What constitutes "Jewish" pottery when they weren't a united people (again in theory) or even a nation at that point in time? I mean, nearly all of their customs, holidays, law, celebrations, etc. came after the Exodus. It doesn't surprise me that "the first evidence we have of any kind of Jewish identity at all is from later than the date the Exodus would have happened..."
People who have an ethnic identity will identify themselves by it. They'll say that they are Polish or Japanese or Sioux. These identities are not something we are born with, but are socially constructed. The first humans in Africa did not have all the multitude of identities we have today any more than they would have gone around calling themselves Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives. We make these things up, and then revise, change, and abandon them over time. So then the ethnogenesis can be traced. Once a sufficiently large portion of a population are calling themselves Polish, or naming themselves Israel, other people notice and it appears in inscriptions and such. The stele I mentioned is the first account we have of there being any people called Israel distinct from the general run of Canaanites. Notably it does not describe them in the terms of a nation, only as a people. So we can say that the identity Israel is attested on the ground at this date, but we cannot go further and say that they had a nation with a king and the like.
So far as the Bible account goes, it's true that we would not necessarily expect to find record of twenty or so people. But the issue is not the historicity of Joseph but of his nation. That nation, per the Bible, grew quite numerous in Egypt. Yet we have no mentions of Israel in the Egyptian record at the time, no records of Israel calling itself Israel at the time, etc. So if you believe the Bible when it says there's a nation calling itself Israel, numbering six hundred thousand or so, then you have to explain how it's not mentioned. How none of its distinctive pottery styles have survived. How not one piece of evidence we would expect to find attests to it. Instead, the evidence suggests that at the time of the Merneptah Stele, Israel was an emerging polity new to the world stage. Which can't be reconciled with its also being a long-established polity of considerable numbers in Egypt.
But as to the question of what constitutes a Jewish piece of pottery before there is a Jewish national identity, the answer is that no such animal exists. There were no Jews to make it. If they existed at the time described and in the numbers described, we would have found their potsherds. I don't know all the particulars, but pottery is one of the very most common things to find in an archaeological dig and styles develop and change in it over time. They also have numerous local variants that archaeologists can classify and compare in context with other finds elsewhere to determine the date of making and assign it to a set of makers. (It helps when we find sherds with writing on them, but it's not required.) Similar classifications are done for tools and other artifacts, stretching back before H. sapiens evolved. (The first tool-using hominids were Homo Habilis if I remember correctly.)
Among other things it suggested that the explosion of Santorini and accompanying tsunami might have caused the Reed Sea (not Red Sea) to become passable for a short time - this occurs in approximately 1600 BCE (Before Common Era).
I always get a kick out of it when someone else points out the Reed Sea thing. I know of several Bibles that footnote it now. The Hebrew, to my understanding, very clearly means Reeds. A similar issue of mistranslation is why Michaelangelo's statue of Moses has horns. Still a beautiful statue, though. Captures some of the same sense of apparent motion and emotion as his David does, albeit in a very different context. David is a kid scared out of his mind. Moses is the Giver of Law awash in his own potency, a scholar armed with facts and forthrightness, if you will.
I read the webpage up to the point where it got into the theology. The recommended reading looks to be all theological works, which is disappointing. If they had a book on the volcanology of Santorini, I might have looked into it. It's not a bad story and, if the experts are being on the level, provides some kind of real-world scenario in which the plagues could have happened. That's ok with me, but there are still issues.
1) It's too early. The cities the Hebrews are supposed to have helped build (Pi-Ramesses in particular) aren't built in 1600 BCE. Pi-Ramesses is dated to the rule of Ramesses II, 1279-1213 BCE.
2) Does the Egyptian record contain any mention of anything like the plagues at the time? I don't know, but I suspect that after two centuries of excavating Egypt that kind of find would have been very highly publicized. The Merneptah Stele was when it was discovered. Even of the king could hush up the loss of a bunch of chariots and their riders, the plagues would have been a massive public event. One expects that comment would have survived. So I'm disinclined to think that the whole sequence happened like the scientists are positing. I'll happily agree with them that there's volcanic ash found, etc. But the chain of the events they posit has necessary causes present, but not sufficient evidence. Could have happened isn't the same as did happen, in other words.
3) We still don't have Jews in Egypt to have fled from there. No Israel is attested in the historical record until the era of Ramesses II's son. That's 1213-1203 BCE. No Israel is attested in Egypt at the time at all.
One can go from here and argue that maybe the plagues are a general part of Canaanite myth from that period, recalling how their ancestors were in Egypt and saw these things. That could be sustained if we have the plague story independently in the surviving non-Hebrew corpus of Canaanite literature, but would still fail against the lack of mention of such plagues by the Egyptians. Without that evidence, I don't think the position can be sustained as a matter of history.
A similar thing happened about fifteen years ago. On discovering that the Black Sea used to be much smaller and was likely expanded to its current size in a torrential flood, the geologists made the leap that this was the inspiration for the Genesis flood and other associated flood myths going back to Sumer. Well ok, you have a possible cause but they hadn't done the work to link it to the effect they claimed. Indeed, such work isn't in their field at all. It's an interesting speculation, but doesn't graduate past that on its own.
I'm not sure whether this corresponds to a period of tight Egyptian border controls, such as you mentioned, or if it helps provide a realistic escape route to evade such controls, but I thought you might be interested to hear about it, if you didn't already know.
The tight border controls are a post-1570 BCE innovation, after the expulsion of the Hyksos. A 1600 BCE Exodus would evade that objection but hits up hard against the others listed.
It mentions an Egyptian 'stele' recording an unusually violent storm, although there is no reference of any kind of exodus or other event attached to it.
I too am unsure of the credentials of the Thera Foundation, having never heard of them. They seem to be on the up-and-up, but I've seen a lot of crackpots and cranks throw up convincing-sounding websites over the years. Given the association some pseudoarchaeologists have between Thera and Atlantis, I'm especially wary here.
That said, this is the kind of thing I would be looking for in the Egyptian record. A storm, ashfall, and flooding seem reasonable, but it still doesn't attest to the chain of events posited by the BBC page to inspire the full run of plagues. In fact, that the Tempest Stele mentions the flood and storms but not the other things the Bible describes as happening is evidence against the plagues' historicity, at least in conjunction with the eruption of Santorini. Maybe they're in those lacunae, but we can't presume them to be there.
I have already stated that poodles are the spawn of Satan and proven it by posting a link to a website.
Yes, but do you have a book?
I have already stated that poodles are the spawn of Satan and proven it by posting a link to a website.Yes, but do you have a book?
I think your pack tore it up in another thread. Darn poodles. ;)
I think your pack tore it up in another thread. Darn poodles. ;)
Gah! The irony!
I think your pack tore it up in another thread. Darn poodles. ;)I have already stated that poodles are the spawn of Satan and proven it by posting a link to a website.Yes, but do you have a book?
*has a torn up book in mouth* Oops, my bad!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also dislike the term "scientist". It implies that only certain people can do science, when in fact everyone does science (to various degrees of rigor). It also tells me nothing about the person, since it does not speak to how he or she applies science.
Well, we do need a name for our job ;)
I partially disagree with the "everyone does science" statement. The use of the scientific method, however loosely defined it might be, is implicit in the construction of scientific knowledge. It is, of course, possible to not have any formal degree, or education, and be a scientist (take Faraday as an example). But doing science is not something which is associated to all means of rational or empirical knowledge pursuit.
Besides, being a scientist is an occupation (formal or informal). Saying that the term implies only certain people can do science is like saying the term "trader" implies that only certain people can trade stuff.
On the other hand, I completely agree with your second statement. The mere fact of being a scientist doesn't exclude the possibility of being sloppy or (worse) a moron.
I also dislike the term "scientist". It implies that only certain people can do science, when in fact everyone does science (to various degrees of rigor). It also tells me nothing about the person, since it does not speak to how he or she applies science.Well, we do need a name for our job ;)
Well presumably you have a more specific job title related to your particular field of interest. I suppose it's like calling someone a businessman without specifying what sort of business they do; without further details one can only assume.
As for "everyone does science" if you look at the method at its simplest - observe, hypothesize, test - you'll likely to find it in all sorts of places, not all of them traditionally associated with Science(tm).
I also dislike the term "scientist". It implies that only certain people can do science, when in fact everyone does science (to various degrees of rigor). It also tells me nothing about the person, since it does not speak to how he or she applies science.Well, we do need a name for our job ;)Well presumably you have a more specific job title related to your particular field of interest. I suppose it's like calling someone a businessman without specifying what sort of business they do; without further details one can only assume.
This is true. However, in my country at least, it is quite common to refer to yourself as a scientist, researcher or something like that instead of a chemist or physicist. Both are possible, but "scientist" and "researcher" are terms usually employed to specify that your work involves research, since, for instance, chemists can do other things beyond research. I see no problem with it, though I think this is more of an aesthetic decision.
As for "everyone does science" if you look at the method at its simplest - observe, hypothesize, test - you'll likely to find it in all sorts of places, not all of them traditionally associated with Science(tm).
I understand what you are saying. I have no interest in derailing the subject of the thread, but I must point out that this description of the scientific method is somewhat innacurate. Scientific propositions are generalistic instead of individual. Discovering, for instance, the best arrangement of blocks to climb to a window may involve the three steps you cited above. However, unless you derive some general law or hypothesis concerning optimum block arrangements, and test it afterwards in different situations, this was not a scientific endeavour, being more of an engineering feat.
Collection and interpretation of data can also be scientific by itself. Not all scientific work must involve the construction of scientific hypotheses. However, it is expected that this data be obtained in a very specific way, and put into context with known general theories, be it by adding to their generality, or by questioning them. Also, the development of new experimental procedures for these objectives are also considered scientific research.
Once again I reiterate that anyone can be a part of this process, be it as a hobby or professionally, having formal education or not. But scientific investigation resembles only superficially the ordinary kind of investigation we usually pursue for solving daily tasks.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
But we don't want poodles. I have already stated that poodles are the spawn of Satan and proven it by posting a link to a website. Is that how you win fights on the interweb?
Reading what you found, to me, is like a Christian reading, "Fundamentalist Christians believe that David Bowie is the Son of God, and that he entrusted Antarctica to them permanently, along with the 1812 Overture and all poodles." Then again, it's easy to see from other historical examples that any religion attaining a measure of temporal power is inevitably corrupted into a mockery of itself.
Come on. Poodles mostly suck. But they aren't near the rodentia that the chihuahua is, right?
I have two rules about dogs: dogs bark, and dogs are bigger than cats. If it doesn't do pretty much both of those, it isn't a dog. It's a bat without wings.
|
|
If the Bible is mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust it to tell us where we're going? -Arthur C. Clarke
This is a famous quote and the facts behind the creation that we now know could not possibly have happened 6000 years ago in 7 days. If one of part of the bible is false does it therefore void the rest? Or is it possible that whoever god told the story of genesis wrote it down as best he could but did not understand what the full details of creation was, mainly because the understanding was not yet there? What are your opinions.
If one of part of the bible is false does it therefore void the rest?
Not necessarily, but it certainly voids any claims of inerrancy. A work with any errors, even just one, cannot be devoid of errors. Also getting wrong things that it claims to be the paramount authority on is certainly very injurious to its credibility indeed.
Oh yeah, why is there evil?
Because foolish men, suffering from their cravings, strive to satisfy them even if it causes suffering to others... not realizing that clinging to those cravings is in fact the source of their own suffering.
Oh yeah, why is there evil?
Are you asking the believers or the nonbelievers? :)
Oh yeah, why is there evil?
Define 'evil'.
Define 'evil'.
Cancelling Firefly.
Oh yeah, why is there evil?Define 'evil'.
Also, does your definition of 'evil' encompass so called natural evil (hurricanes, earhquakes, puppies getting eaten by lions, etc.) or just things that sentient creatures do to one another?
why is there evil? The question may seem somewhat trollish but I've never come across a satisfactory answer.
Do you want a big, cosmic answer? Because I don't think that applies. There is evil because people are often selfish, lazy, stupid, and generally lacking in empathy and in thinking ahead more than 15 minutes.
|
|
Are you asking the believers or the nonbelievers? :)
Oh yeah, why is there evil?Either group.
The question may seem somewhat trollish but I've never come across a satisfactory answer.
It's really straight-forward. For free will to matter, there must be choices. If God does everything for us, we are nothing but slaves and the free will He carefully allowed us to have is worthless. Thus there is Evil to force mankind to use it's God-given free will and to make a meaningful choice.
Alternatively, Evil is the punishment of Man for betraying God in the Garden of Eden.
Alternatively again, Evil is simply a symptom of mortals being separate from God. Bereft of the divine presence, some fall away from the righteous path. But for those who resist temptation, they are rewarded when they die by reuniting with God and knowing no Evil in his presence.
Alternatively yet again, it all comes from a little box given to Zeus to plague mankind for being given the divine fire by Prometheus.
There aren't a shortage of reasons, it just depends what sort of God you believe in which one makes sense.
EDIT: And if you don't believe in God, Kirth's answer works pretty well, too.
There is evil because people are often selfish, lazy, stupid, and generally lacking in empathy and in thinking ahead more than 15 minutes.
Oh no, poodles are evil!
This is supposed to surprise us?
Surprise who? Wait? What are we talking about?
Here is a good read regarding the "good" book(s)
Either group.Are you asking the believers or the nonbelievers? :)
Oh yeah, why is there evil?
Ok. It does depend on what you mean by evil. I don't believe in it as a sort of disembodied force that flits about inducing people to do things. If you want that explained, there's nothing I can offer save that people made it up. For other definitions, I'd prefer the more precise term of suffering.
Natural disasters are a result of a pitiless, indifferent universe that cares not one whit about us. That sort of situation makes it an especially good idea for us to care for one another, in the eyes of this stone cold atheist. There's no heaven where it's all better, or hell to punish those who escape justice. Doing right is our responsibility, without threats of eternal torture or promises of eternal bliss.
Why do people do bad things to one another? Firstly there's little agreement on what constitutes a bad thing, and when it's ok or not ok to do them to what groups of other people. (Is it ok to kill someone if the state says so? If they're locked away in prison? If they live in another country that doesn't get along with yours?) Thus some people will do bad things which they believe to be good things to people who disagree. Of course this can provoke retaliation. Likewise people in desperate situations, especially if they've been treated very badly themselves, are more likely to resort to doing the same to others.
People aren't perfect. They're going to have foibles, be petty, fall prey to mistakes and errors in judgment. Some are raised to favor perverse sorts of empathy that apply generously to their own tribe but never to any other. These sorts of things give rise to legitimate grievances, which may then be expressed in illegitimate ways like revenge, oppression, etc.
I've always had an interest in the sectors of Christianity that hold that you either believe in Jesus, or you go to hell. Those I know personally that hold these beliefs also define hell as an eternal torment that has no comparison to earthly horrors.
A few of these individuals are some of the brightest minds I know as well as being the best friends I've ever had.
However, I'm an Atheist. By their own confession they believe me damned to hell unless I change my ways (this is treated as an unfortunate circumstance but ultimately, my fault).
My question:
Is it ethical for someone who believes this to be friends with an atheist?
Not believing in God and Jesus is placed as a higher crime than (insert favorite human rights atrocity here).
If your creator is willing to torture someone for eternity shouldn't that automatically list them as something repulsive in your eyes?
They call me friend but their God would look more favorably on a serial rapist so long as he said the right prayers.
Dead Sidekick,
Christians are instructed to go out and spread the good word of Jesus Christ to non-believers. You are the exact type of person your good friends should be hanging out with. You can't convert the choir, they're already taken care of. But you are someone that they should continue to witness to.
Not by force-feeding a Holy Bible down your throat, but by doing what it appears they have been, loving you as their friend. If God is love, how better to spread his Word than by demonstrating that love?
As for the torment . . . Hrrmmm. I understand Hell to be the absence of God, not any sort of thumbscrews and hot coals for the spirit. God, being perfect, cannot abide imperfection. Those judged to have sin (imperfection) will be removed from his presence, forever. That's the torture of Hell, to know that you'll never see God. Those in Christ Jesus have their sins blotted from the Lord's sight so that they may enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Dead Sidekick,...
Your answer completely explained my question in a way I never would have been able to fathom on my own.
I have many questions and challenges left for believers, but I will save them for another time as I think they would cloud what I intend this post to be.
A very sincere thanks...
|
|
Dead Sidekick. You've got some great questions. And Mykull answered very well. Just a few other random thoughts...
You asked if it was "ethical" for a "Christian" to be friends with an atheist. I would almost say that it would be unethical for a Christian to not be friends with an atheist. Or with anyone for that matter. Jesus didn't create a bubble around himself to keep people away. I often feel that it is more damaging if we try and do that.
As far as the heaven/hell thing -- I've got so many thoughts about it, but I've already said most things and in the end I'm not sure if it really matters. For now, I really feel that it ends up being far more of a choice made by the individual rather than a punishment. I also kind of feel that putting too much emphasis on heaven/hell is too much like putting the cart before the horse. While it may be a consequence of the the "goal" it isn't actually the "goal" we should be striving for.
|
|
I have many questions and challenges left for believers, but I will save them for another time as I think they would cloud what I intend this post to be.
Oh, and don't feel the need to shy too much away from this. If you have questions, feel free to ask. Just understand that there are most likely many questions that may not have a "good" answer. And as long as you are interested in listening and/or explaining there shouldn't be too much of a problem here. (Of course, chances are good that many of your questions have already been addressed in the 85 previous pages of posts here.)
(Of course, chances are good that many of your questions have already been addressed in the 85 previous pages of posts here.)
Yeah, but who has the patience to read through all of that?
Yeah, but who has the patience to read through all of that?
I thought patience was a virtue? Here's a chance to practice!
An article from The Dallas Morning News this weekend...
Texas public schools struggle to incorporate new requirements on Bible literacy ---- Say What???
And the theocracy marches on. "We're not going to say that Christianity is compulsory, kids. But if we can sneak by under the nose of the Supreme Court then you betcha it is!"
If we evolved then why did we evolve into such weak creatures ill suited for survival? Our vital organs are exposed to attack from predators, we have no natural weapons, our young are helpless for years, and we cannot deal with temprature extremes. I know the most common answer to this is our minds/technology make up for this, and yes they do... now. But how about thousands of years ago? I would call our current forms a de-evolution from basic primates, at least physicly. I would be interested to hear from anyone with an education in this area so I could better understand the evolution theory.
Our presence as the dominant species on the planet rather defeats your argument. We emerged triumphant because we descended from the trees, stopped using just pure physical strength and started to use tools. We may have become weaker then your average primate, but we became more adapted to our surroundings. We walked upright, for instance.
Have done some graduate work in evolutionary (biological/physical anthropology), and hope you are still around months later to read my lengthy reply to your good question(s) and comments.
The persistence of our lineage must have been in doubt for quite some time-until quite recently, actually (good reading here for points I am making: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/new_batch1.s html). We often assume that persistence and success of a taxon or taxonomic group records a good suite of adaptations, while extinction records an inferior suite of adaptations. As you suggest, we look at our success and our huge brains and think that they must have guaranteed our survival, and perhaps that our success was almost inevitable.
However, considering that within the last 100000 years we were reduced to a population of perhaps as few as 10000 individuals, it is clear that our big brains did not guarantee our survival. Chance plays a major role in the history of life on this planet. A slightly more virulent pathogen, slightly different climatic conditions, a potentially devastating bolide narrowly missing our planet-any of these could easily have wiped out our genus. Also, the big brain experiment (which, by the way is still running-some have said that, if we annihilate ourselves or render our planet uninhabitable, then it didn't work out too well after all. Perhaps you can be too smart for your own good, especially when you consider the full diversity of life on this planet, and the rarity of neural complexity. Bacteria alone, which we consider the simplest organisms, are BY FAR the most successful living things on our planet, by any standard-always have been and always will be, and they don't even have rudimentary nervous systems, let alone gigantic brains) wasn't at all fated to succeed, considering how metabolically expensive big brains are.
You can find more evidence for the importance of chance by looking at successful species which are no longer around. For example, everyone's favorite dinosaurs. No one would argue that the dinosaurs were poorly adapted or unsuccessful. This is a group of animals which flourished and diversified for over 150 million years, and except for one small crew of funny reptiles with feathers, they're gone, and it was simply bad luck.
Regarding the second post: you can probably tell from the above that I'm less than enthusiastic about phrases like 'we emerged triumphant.' As Stephen Jay Gould pointed out over and over again, (paraphrasing closely here), humans are only one tiny, anomalous twig on this huge bush of life. Neural complexity is extremely rare, and the overwhelming dominance of life forms without complex nervous systems-in numbers, in lifespan of lineage(s), in diversity, in short, in any way you can think of to measure dominance-bears testament to the fact that we are by no means the preeminent life form on this planet.
Furthermore, the earliest decent bipeds in our lineage appear in the fossil record between 6-7 million years ago, after the chimpanzee-human lineage split. For many millions of years, bipedalism was not nearly as specialized or efficient as it is among modern humans. These creatures, the australopithecines were not great walkers and runners-in a sense they were intermediate forms, better at walking and running than the apelike ancestor but also still capable at climbing trees. Not trying to belittle you, but they didn't simply hop down from trees, start walking and running and making great tools, and take over the planet.
The earliest stone tools, Oldowan pebble tools, date from perhaps 2.5 million years ago, which was 4 million years after the first bipeds (and there was little or no technological progress for nearly a million years after that), and big-brained Homo didn't evolve until perhaps 1.5 million years ago. My point is that there was quite a long period of time between the evolution of the earliest decent bipeds and major population growth of our species, which was facilitated by tool-use and tool-making, which were only possible after big brains evolved. The truth is that the human lineage was carried forward for many millions of years by wimpy and small-brained primates who somehow managed to survive. How that happened, I can tell you is still the subject of debate and speculation among paleoanthropologists.
