PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Lots of people have.
[youtube]hOLAGYmUQV0[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Symphony of Science - 'The Unbroken Thread' (ft. Attenborough, Goodall, Sagan)‬‏
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Humans are still evolving...
- Thread starter FDRC2014
- Start date
[youtube]hOLAGYmUQV0[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Symphony of Science - 'The Unbroken Thread' (ft. Attenborough, Goodall, Sagan)‬‏
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Too bad my old machine won't play youtube.
But I grew up with Carl.
I'm fairly sure his point.
Did you want to approach being human?
Or do you still lean on your chemistry?
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Every living species is always evolving. There is nothing special about human beings in that respect.
Depends on what you mean by "human part". BTW, the very prolific Richard Dawkins devoted yet another of his books to exploring just the question that you seem interested in: Unweaving the Rainbow. He takes on the poet John Keats for accusing Isaac Newton of having destroyed the unscientific appreciation of rainbows. This is very similar to your idea that the scientific reductionism offered by evolution theory somehow misses out on explaining a key component of human nature. But your argument seems grounded mainly in your application of a kind of radical reductionism. Explanations of high level phenomena get lost in the noise when you insist that they can only be described in terms of low level phenomena. One might describe hunger in terms of the dynamic chemical composition of a brain, but that does not begin to explain how hunger motivates people to do the things they do.
It appears to me that you are less able to connect dots than you are to type them, but I will agree that humans are not typical animals. They are certainly animals, but they have very unique properties that set them apart from other animals. In fact, the same could probably be said for just about every animal species. They are all unique in some ways.
And some of us are just plain dotty.
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
You could just answer the question.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Every living species is always evolving. There is nothing special about human beings in that respect.
Depends on what you mean by "human part". BTW, the very prolific Richard Dawkins devoted yet another of his books to exploring just the question that you seem interested in: Unweaving the Rainbow. He takes on the poet John Keats for accusing Isaac Newton of having destroyed the unscientific appreciation of rainbows. This is very similar to your idea that the scientific reductionism offered by evolution theory somehow misses out on explaining a key component of human nature. But your argument seems grounded mainly in your application of a kind of radical reductionism. Explanations of high level phenomena get lost in the noise when you insist that they can only be described in terms of low level phenomena. One might describe hunger in terms of the dynamic chemical composition of a brain, but that does not begin to explain how hunger motivates people to do the things they do.
It appears to me that you are less able to connect dots than you are to type them, but I will agree that humans are not typical animals. They are certainly animals, but they have very unique properties that set them apart from other animals. In fact, the same could probably be said for just about every animal species. They are all unique in some ways.
And some of us are just plain dotty.
Nothing like dragging people along..........
You can see it....but you won't pursue it.
Humans are evolving.
It's not just our bodies randomly being born different form one to another...
and it's not random natural events sorting out which one is better and continues to live.
Until you step up to the human portion...that part that is not animal....
this discussion will remain shallow.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Thief, if you cannot understand that I see humans as just a species of animal, then the discussion will remain shallow. We have very specialized brains, but we are not the only animals with central nervous systems. You seem to have bought into the very common theme of human narcissism--that we are somehow more special than other animals.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Humans are only special insofar as it is in our interest to preserve human interests (because we are ourselves human...at least most of us ).
From a biological and physiological standpoint, humans are just another species of the Kingdom Animalia. We ARE animals. We have keen intelligence and complex society. So do other species.
Other species have tremendous advantages we do not possess. A cheetah runs faster than a human could ever run. A whale is bigger than a human could ever be (though I'm getting close). Every species has an advantage that it uses to survive and fill a niche. If all species held the same advantage, it wouldn't be an advantage at all.
Humans are special insofar as we develop close, complex relationships with other humans. Indeed, it is a part of our complex society that we have developed as a survival mechanism. But these relationships aren't unique to humans. They are present in other species as well and even between species (think human-dog relationships or even bees pollinating flowers).
Our complex society demanded the use of a complex language, so basic communication evolved and got more complex as needs and technology changed. We aren't the only species that can communicate ideas to each other. Other species are capable of this as well.
Do you expect dolphins to speak English? Do you expect lions to do algebra? These are human advantages that we developed because our environment demanded it, not because we have some sort of magical powers. Humans are special to each other, for sure, in an emotional sense. But biologically speaking, we are not. We're just another species among the diverse Kingdom Animalia.
).From a biological and physiological standpoint, humans are just another species of the Kingdom Animalia. We ARE animals. We have keen intelligence and complex society. So do other species.
Other species have tremendous advantages we do not possess. A cheetah runs faster than a human could ever run. A whale is bigger than a human could ever be (though I'm getting close). Every species has an advantage that it uses to survive and fill a niche. If all species held the same advantage, it wouldn't be an advantage at all.
Humans are special insofar as we develop close, complex relationships with other humans. Indeed, it is a part of our complex society that we have developed as a survival mechanism. But these relationships aren't unique to humans. They are present in other species as well and even between species (think human-dog relationships or even bees pollinating flowers).
Our complex society demanded the use of a complex language, so basic communication evolved and got more complex as needs and technology changed. We aren't the only species that can communicate ideas to each other. Other species are capable of this as well.
Do you expect dolphins to speak English? Do you expect lions to do algebra? These are human advantages that we developed because our environment demanded it, not because we have some sort of magical powers. Humans are special to each other, for sure, in an emotional sense. But biologically speaking, we are not. We're just another species among the diverse Kingdom Animalia.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Special?...no.
Unless you want to talk about awareness of theology.
Different?... yes.
We influence our environment.
We influence our chemistry.
We cheat a natural death at every opportunity.
Evolving?...yes.
But nature and all this discussion about genetics is falling to the wayside.
Time to step up the discussion.
Time to examine what Man really is.
This thread a shallow discussion so far?....yes.
For the bazillionth time...
There is nothing random about natural selection.
Genetic mutation is random, natural selection is NOT!
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Though, to be clear, "random" is an attribute of the knowledge one has about a phenomenon, and not an intrinsic attribute of the phenomenon itself.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Mammals of all types engage in "superstitious" behavior. The more social they are, the easier it is to mess around with it through operant conditioning.
Which serves the function of social animals and has other evolutionary advantages as well.
Superstition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
"Guiding"? No. That would be an error of anthropomorphizing. Do you think the universe is non-causal?
I know I sure am.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
What is the opposite of "random"? It's not "determined", "purposed" or "guided." It's "predictable with complete certainty." Randomness and uncertainty are not a comment on how things come to be, but about how much we fully understand how things come to be. This is the cornerstone of the scientific method.
That would be "predictable."
doppelgänger;2482441 said:
Well in that case, I see your point. It also explains why Thief and others think that evolution suggests we all got here by random accident.
I however don't think "random" mutations could ever be predictable, so it's fair to call them "random" mutations.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Well, that's a tautology. They are "random" precisely because we don't have enough information to predict them with certainty. But nevertheless, if cosmic energy bounces through the atmosphere and alters a gene, it got there because of all the prior movements of energy/matter in in the Universe that led up to its being at that point in spacetime. In that sense, it is not intrinsically random. It was always going to happen just as it happened. We just didn't know enough to predict it with complete certainty. The probability collapses therefore, only when we determine that it has already occurred.