Boris, Good post(s)! You were so thorough that I have very little to add to the fray. Except.. I.P. You mentioned in a previous post that there exists no species linking animals with plants. I won't deal with the little issue of divergence, but will just point out blue-green algae. Lastly, I think my signature directly applies to you. ------------------ Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. -Mark Twain
IP, I know this is nitpicky, but the term data is plural; the singular is datum. ------------------ Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. -Mark Twain
Boris, I solemnly bow to your thourough, but nescessery intervention. I must admit I saw it coming, your silence was like the quietness before the storm... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! About a new view on evolutionism: Why is the theory of the evolution of species looked upon as being atheistic or non religious ? I find it on the contrary deeply religious to know that all living things on this planet are connected through our mutual ancestors. This provides us a new way of finding our place in the universe, we are as much part of this magnificent place then the smallest virus and the biggest star who provides the nescessary heavy elements in its last moments. All these things are ultimatly governed by four fundamental forces and are constitued out of twelve fundamental particles. If I say fundamental then I mean in resprect to the Standard Model, which until further notice is the best theory we have. How can such simple constituents give rise to such complex beauty ? That is the miracle most scientist have devoted their lives to. Saying that this miracle is just an act of some deity is deadly for any original thought, which is what being human is all about... ------------------ we are midgets standing on the backs of giants, Plato
Wow. Just plain wow. Boris, apparently you've been involved in this type of discussion before Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Man, I guess I shouldn't take a weekend off from this discussion board. So basically what you guys are saying is that the discussion has progressed slightly onward Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!?? After reading some creationalist articles and talk.origins/and the like articles I am much more aware of the issues in this discussion . Thanks to all who motivated me to investigate further. I was wondering if IP had any more points that have not been addressed by Borris or had evidence against said points/studies? ------------------ "Give me a firm place to stand, and I will move the earth." Archimedes
Hi All, To be honest I haven't read all of this lengthly debate as of yet, but wanted to interject a notion for discussion. I was recently reading an article addressing the problems that we've been having with kids nowadays, and particularly the violence in schools. I wish I could remember the site that I read it on, but to no avail. And it was put much more eloquently than this, but here's the basic message...if we teach our children that they are nothing more than animals, then why are we so shocked when they act like animals? This message relates back to something I just posted on the "where's the proof" string, in that, if we really are only animals, you know, like cows and chickens tigers and whatnot, then why not act like them? And why not treat other people like we treat them? We are really not communicating to our children that there is any value to a human life, so why is it again that they should value a human life exactly? What makes us so special exactly, if we are telling them inexplicably that we are not special?
Lori: Thank you for bringing up the point of self-worth. It is certainly a very important point, and any debate on the vices/virtues of science is not complete without it. Aside from morality, for a moment let's consider reality. Evolution is just plain fact. One can pretend it's not real, but then one would have to be either ill-informed or delusional. Whatever the consequences of reality are, reality is something we cannot deny. We simply have to learn what it is, and try to live with the knowledge. That said, the question becomes: "what role should reality play in our morality and life choices?" I flatly disagree. You see, Lori, we indeed are animals; that is just plain fact. But, we are not like other animals. We are intelligent, sentient, enlightened beings; that is also just plain fact. We indeed are far more evolved, and to act primitively is to lose dignity. To act like lower animals is to degenerate far below what it is to be human. It means to loose all sentience and intelligence, all wisdom, and all purpose other than following simple instincts. Why artificially restrict oneself to so much less, when one could instead have so much more? To lose one's human attributes is to essentially condemn and punish oneself; who in their right mind would want to do that? If nothing else, evolution speaks volumes precisely of how special we are. In no way is human life devalued by acknowledging its real origins. We should teach our children to respect each other, and especially respect human life, for only one powerful reason: the Golden Rule. That's right -- do unto others as you would have done unto you. In the interests of peace, happiness, prosperity and a good, fulfilling life -- people must uphold the Golden Rule. That is what we must teach our children, first and foremost. What goes around, comes around. A friend is better than an enemy. It is easier to destroy, but then one must live with the consequences. And another thing we should stop telling children is that their only purpose in life is to glorify God. They must be told that everyone has a special purpose, and that every person must discover that purpose for themselves. Unless a person searches for a purpose, or has found one, life is empty and emptiness leads to violence and despair. Finally, let's not loose sight of the big picture. We are only toddlers in the enterprise of comprehension; we have come very far indeed, but most likely we have barely scratched the surface of the truth. To assume that from current scientific theories one can deduce the reasons for life, or lack thereof, is ludicrous. A very important realization that must be made by everyone is that we indeed know so little, that grand mysteries surround us on all sides, and behind every corner, that the future is ours and there's no limit in sight, and that to prematurely form conclusions about human worth or the purposelessness of life is to be utterly short-sighted and dull-witted. What we must teach our children is a sense of humility before the awesome cosmos they inhabit, and a sense of proper pride for their place in it, and the places of their peers. ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited August 30, 1999).]
Boris, Thank You for posting something worth reading, except your expected BS concerning my motives or claims. I just got back into town and will slog through it all and get back to you.
Lori, You bring up some interesting points and, of course, of a major concern. However, it is of interest that when humans engage in violence, it is often UNLIKE animals. While it is true that intra-species violence occurs, it is usually a motivated action (e.g. defending the nest, vying for the alpha position, etc.) and often does not end in death, but one of combatants backing down. Humans take this to a different level that is almost unique to our species. We readily kill each other for reasons no other than to kill; I mean motivation could have been there, but it is not quite like what animals do. Under this context, I mean murder and other acts of violence, not war (which could be considered a defense of territory). There have been cases of unmotivated violence in other animal species. However, it is again of interest, because they tend to be 'higher' species with larger brain capacities (old world apes, mostly). I often think that while humans are more intelligent than most other species on this world, we could learn a lot from them regarding wisdom. -Bitsy P.S. I apologize for my previous heated posts to you. I was running low on java. ------------------ Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. -Mark Twain
Boris, I don't mean to sound critical, but you sound like you're talking out both sides of your mouth. You go to extremes to delineate that we are no different from animals, supporting evolution, and the thought that there is no God, but now you're saying that we are far more enlightened than any other animal, and preaching about the golden rule. Let me ask you then...why do you think that we are sooooooo different from EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY OTHER ANIMAL ON THE PLANET, and where exactly do you think that the golden rule comes from? ------------------ God loves you and so do I!
Lori: You are allways free to quote me, but please do not put your words into my mouth. I never said we are "sooooo different form EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY OTHER ANIMAL ON THE PLANET". What I was responding to is your comparison of humans to cows, chickens, lions, etc. From them, we are indeed very different. However, the difference is much smaller between us and chimpanzees for example. What makes us ultimately unique within the animal kingdom is our brain -- the largest and most complex between all animals out there. It is the ultra-sophisticated (by Earth standards) cognitive machine in our skulls that gives us our unique capacities for language, complex abstract thought, and accretion of knowledge far beyond our individual memory capacities. As for the golden rule, I believe I explained before where it comes from. Among social animals, it comes from emotional capacity for empathy and companionship -- it is an evolved trait. In that respect, the golden rule is a mere accident of evolution. However, it can also be derived on purely sociological grounds as the best policy to maintain peace and equalty. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
It's relative brain size. What that means is, you weigh the brain, and you weigh the body without the brain; then you divide the brain weight by body weight -- and get the percentage of body weight devoted to the brain. Humans have the largest brain-to-body ratio, but not the largest brain (I believe the whales have the largest brains) just thought i would post this for a little comic relief Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! [This message has been edited by god (edited August 31, 1999).]
Lori - When people bring up the point about not being able to either not being able to believe that our ancestors were not intelligent in the same way we are or that we are nothing more than animals, it truly shows me how they regard evolution. Your bias is against it, so you see only negative interpretations. Mine is positive towards it so I see positives ones. When I look at our species, I see it as the culmination of billions of years of improvements. Some call it an accident. I see it as inevitable. Eventually, an "advanced" species would develop, with higher powers than anything before them. That species is us. This statement is very similar to the creationist endpoint, however one is grounded in fact, one in faith. FyreStar
FyreStar, What, little "g", god had to say about relative brain size is very interesting. We're finding that, at least with some parrots, the old thinking about intelligence does not hold completely true. We've know for a long time that some of these birds can imitate speech. What we have found more recently is that they can verbalize a delineation between number, size, shape, and color. I was surprised when I saw a zoologist asking a bird questions of difference and commonalities in unrehearsed situations. The little critter got it right every time. As we learn more about the function of the brain, we're sure to find more astonishing things than the fact that a bird brain can handle such tasks. I agree with you that there is a certain amount of cumulative something to humans. That something is learned knowledge and nothing more. We tend to think of people in the past as having been less intelligent or even stupid because, in relation to our own products, theirs were more primitive. Take, for example, any tribe in the rain forest. They display these same primitive aspects. Yet, in less that even one generation, if exposed to other cultures, these people have been know to incorporate and embrace technology hundreds of years ahead of them. More than that, some of these same people will even enter into cities and function without flaw. In this same span, tribes have been known to completely disappear into modern culture. Well, you could take the argument that since these people are in our generation; they must have the same capacity for knowledge. If so, how could you explain the fact until outside intervention, they had not shown any sign of it? I have no doubt that people as far back as there have been people (excluding Adam and Eve -- they were likely smarter before the fall), generally, were as smart as we. Their intentions were quite different from our own and, as such, look to be less advanced than us. Peace, Love, and Prayers ISDAMan P.S. -- I posted an answer to you in your forum on the second page. ------------------ Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online.
ISDAMan - You are correct that parrots and other creatures can be taught what are thought of as "higher" mental capabilities; the fundamental difference in this case is that while they can be taught, they cannot teach themselves. Man teaches man, man teaches parrot, however parrot does not teach man. The similarities between "civilized" folk like ourselves and "primitive" folk is negligible - after all, we are the same species. There should be no difference whatsoever unless you are saying that certain "races" are genetically superior to others in such aspects. In recent history (recent as in since the dawn of civilization, 5000-7000 years ago, man has had basically the same level of intellectual capability. The only difference in how "smart" we are is how we are educated. If you take a broader view with larger periods of time, then yes, we are more intelligent than our ancestors. FyreStar
