To disprove evolution...

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is... something though that separates man from animal.

Man IS an animal.
A vertebrate. A tetrapod. A mammal. A primate. An ape. Homo Sapiens.

Something about our method of cognition.

What about it?

That’s what my personal intuition tells me, surely influenced by my religious beliefs.

To quote Dr Sheldon Cooper: "Is that how you usually do science? Just hunches and guesses and stuff?"

Scientific thinking says that man is just a smart ape, it very well may be.

It is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think man would have to explore the limits of the capacity of the human mind. What a religious man may call “enlightenment”. There could be a way to access a higher power through the mind, something an animal perhaps can’t do.

"higher power"? What do you mean?

That would be something no animal could do

Except that when you do that, an animal did it. Because you, like all other humans, are an animal.

Animal:
An eukaryote multi-cellular organism that is aware of / responds to its environment, consumes (mostly organic) food that it gathers from the environment and is capable of locomotion.

How does that not apply to humans?

Perhaps not by me, but by someone. Is that a reasonable test? I doubt you think so

1. I'm not even sure what you are proposing as test, as it's very ill-defined / vague

2. As a base principle, I don't see how humans succeeding in attaining a certain mental capacity / state would result in the conclusion that "therefor no evolution".

 

[Clara Tea]

I had an idea.
Would it be possible to disprove portions of the evolution theory through this method?: One would have to prove that self aware consciousness is a unique human trait. Something about man has to be found that is uniquely human. I think it is our consciousness. After proving that no other animal is conscious like us, it would have to be proven that no other animal can develop a consciousness like us.
This wouldn’t disprove parts of evolution like mutations or survival of the fittest. Those things are readily observable. This would call into question the common origin of man with all other species. If something can be found to be uniquely human, that is non attainable by any other animal through the power of evolution, well I think that would be telling.
Just a thought.

What Do Animals See in the Mirror?

Some animals can recognize themselves in a mirror (rather than another animal like themselves....which they might attack).

Placing a limitation on evolution (the proposed limitation that they can't evolve to be self-aware) doesn't invalidate evolution.

 

[viole]

self aware consciousness is a unique human trait

Using a natural sonar to fly around blind is also a unique bat trait. That is however insufficient to disprove evolution.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Tiberius]

I had an idea.
Would it be possible to disprove portions of the evolution theory through this method?: One would have to prove that self aware consciousness is a unique human trait. Something about man has to be found that is uniquely human. I think it is our consciousness. After proving that no other animal is conscious like us, it would have to be proven that no other animal can develop a consciousness like us.
This wouldn’t disprove parts of evolution like mutations or survival of the fittest. Those things are readily observable. This would call into question the common origin of man with all other species. If something can be found to be uniquely human, that is non attainable by any other animal through the power of evolution, well I think that would be telling.
Just a thought.

Two things that would be required for this:

1. Find something that only Humans have.
2. Show that evolution can't account for this thing that only Humans have.

We don't have the first yet, and I doubt we ever will. The second looks even more unlikely.

 

[Tiberius]

...personal intuition...

Personal intuition is a lousy way of figuring out reality.

 

[firedragon]

I had an idea.
Would it be possible to disprove portions of the evolution theory through this method?: One would have to prove that self aware consciousness is a unique human trait. Something about man has to be found that is uniquely human. I think it is our consciousness. After proving that no other animal is conscious like us, it would have to be proven that no other animal can develop a consciousness like us.
This wouldn’t disprove parts of evolution like mutations or survival of the fittest. Those things are readily observable. This would call into question the common origin of man with all other species. If something can be found to be uniquely human, that is non attainable by any other animal through the power of evolution, well I think that would be telling.
Just a thought.

Evolution sometimes is used as a plug-in strategy to explain things away. But generally, atheists in the past have called consciousness as a hard problem. So it's very difficult to associate consciousness with these theories.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution sometimes is used as a plug-in strategy to explain things away. But generally, atheists in the past have called consciousness as a hard problem. So it's very difficult to associate consciousness with these theories.

Sorry, but we know that evolution is a fact. Consciousness is merely a complex problem. That is not evidence for a God.

 

[David Davidovich]

I had an idea.
Would it be possible to disprove portions of the evolution theory through this method?: One would have to prove that self aware consciousness is a unique human trait. Something about man has to be found that is uniquely human. I think it is our consciousness. After proving that no other animal is conscious like us, it would have to be proven that no other animal can develop a consciousness like us.
This wouldn’t disprove parts of evolution like mutations or survival of the fittest. Those things are readily observable. This would call into question the common origin of man with all other species. If something can be found to be uniquely human, that is non attainable by any other animal through the power of evolution, well I think that would be telling.
Just a thought.

But other animals have consciousness, but they just aren't as intelligent as humans are. Many mammals have strong emotions and attachments with each other and also with humans who own them as pets. Also, animals mourn when either their owners or fellow animal friends or family die.

 

[Tiberius]

But other animals have consciousness, but they just aren't as intelligent as humans are. Many mammals have strong emotions and attachments with each other and also with humans who own them as pets. Also, animals mourn when either their owners or fellow animal friends or family die.

How do you define intelligence?

 

[David Davidovich]

How do you define intelligence?

I would agree with these definitions:

the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON
also : the skilled use of reason
the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)​

Intelligence Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

And humans are better at that than animals are.

So, why do you ask?

 

[Tiberius]

I would agree with these definitions:

the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON
also : the skilled use of reason
the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)​

Intelligence Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

And humans are better at that than animals are.

So, why do you ask?

Dealing with new situations, well, simple robots can do that in some surprisingly complex ways. And some animals can deal with new situations better than Humans can. Does that mean they are more intelligent than us?

And the testing thing seems a bit circular to me. "Let's define intelligence as A, then we'll test for A, and if we find A, we'll conclude that it's intelligence."

I mean, the ability to solve problems is a part of intelligence, I agree, but there's more to it. The ability to understand that others have their own unique viewpoint is also part of it as well, I would say.

 

[wellwisher]

There is... something though that separates man from animal. Something about our method of cognition. That’s what my personal intuition tells me, surely influenced by my religious beliefs.
Scientific thinking says that man is just a smart ape, it very well may be.

Humans have two centers of consciousness; inner self and the ego. Animals have one center of consciousness; inner self. The inner self is much older than the ego and is connected to our DNA. It is the center of consciousness for instinct and collective species behavior; human nature or lion nature. The inner self has a very 3-D view of reality; integrated with nature.

The ego is much newer and may have appeared only about 6-10k years ago. It offers a secondary POV, that can either reinforce or depart from the inner self. Humans have lost much of their natural instinct in favor of culture and artificial instincts, via the ego. Since the inner self is connected to our DNA, it remains even with the ego, but tends to get more unconscious to the ego. Transgender is from the ego, since the inner self is a product of our DNA. The ego can oppose the inner self.

The possible exception to the two or one center of consciousness dividing line, between humans and animals, are domesticated animals, like dogs. These highly species appear to have the potential for a virtual secondary, that can be induced with the outside via human help. The dog owner who treats their dog like a spoiled baby, can induce this type of semi-human behavior, via s a virtual secondary, in spite of the dog still having natural instincts from its primary; inner self. They will play the role and even initiate the assumed spoiled needs for their owner. Ferrel dogs tend to revert back to the DNA based primary.

The term self aware is implicit of being aware of the inner self or another center of consciousness that is connected to our DNA. It often makes decisions for us that we may call, innate.

As an home experiment to witness the inner self in action, agree to have someone scare you when you are not prepared. They can take their time to catch you off guard and jump at you from behind a door. What often happens the ego is caught off guard and the inner self will react first, with instinct. Often the ego is embarrassed that it; inner self let out a squeal. It may get mad as a defense mechanism as the ego tries to save face. Outer social reality is more important to the ego than to the inner self.

The human ego has will power and choice in the sense it can choose things that would not be chosen by the DNA based inner self; natural instinct. This can be good and bad, like the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Often social definitions of good and evil are there for the ego and often these can harm or help the inner self. If they harm the inner self, this brings suffering into the world, since one is not being true to their innate nature.

In terms of evolution, the ego may not have formed by the standard mutation method, since a center of consciousness is far more complicated; firmware, than a few genes. It is an integrated phenomena that regulates the sum total of the DNA since all is connected for this pinnacle consciousness affect. This is why Genesis has Adam created in a way that was not biological. He was the first human ego.

My guess is the ego formed with the help of domesticated animals, but before they were domesticated. The pre-humans had evolved from the apes and had human DNA and human inner self; natural human. A virtual ego appeared as a result of humans learning from other animals like dogs.

In the case of dogs, both the pre-humans and dogs; wolves, were apex animals, with the dogs having unique skills that apes did not have, such as hunting in packs and a high protein diet. These new ape-man skills were not part of the original prehuman DNA. They were learned and would form a virtual secondary; monkey see monkey do. The ego would eventually consolidate. This was not an original feature of the inner self, but it allowed new selective advantages than benefited the survival of both. The ego defined modern humans as separate from the prehumans. Both has human DNA but the ego made man different.

The two trees in the Garden of Eden; Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, where connected to the inner self and ego, respectively; neurons branchings. The tree of life is how the inner self was a product of natural selection and DNA. The tree of knowledge was connected to the external learning nature of the ego, as it tries to substitutive learned knowledge for the objective nature of the inner self. Inventions like spoken and written language would go a long way to consolidate the ego; external learning.

 

[David Davidovich]

Dealing with new situations, well, simple robots can do that in some surprisingly complex ways. And some animals can deal with new situations better than Humans can. Does that mean they are more intelligent than us?

And the testing thing seems a bit circular to me. "Let's define intelligence as A, then we'll test for A, and if we find A, we'll conclude that it's intelligence."

I mean, the ability to solve problems is a part of intelligence, I agree, but there's more to it. The ability to understand that others have their own unique viewpoint is also part of it as well, I would say.

Well, if you believe that animals are just as intelligent as humans are, then who am I to tell you differently?

 

[Tiberius]

Well, if you believe that animals are just as intelligent as humans are, then who am I to tell you differently?

Woah, hang on there.

Birds are better than us at optimizing wing shape for maximum aerodynamic efficiency.

Hell, even a fungus can determine the optimal layout for a subway system. Slime Mold Grows Network Just Like Tokyo Rail System

There are animals that can easily solve problems and deal with situations we would have a poor performance in.

However, you think I'm speaking in an all-or-nothing manner. I'm not. I'm stating that animals may be more intelligent in some ways and less intelligent in other ways. Stop looking at intelligence as a black and white thing. Intelligence can't be measured by a single number. (And no, IQ is not a refutation of that)

 

[David Davidovich]

Woah, hang on there.

Birds are better than us at optimizing wing shape for maximum aerodynamic efficiency.

Hell, even a fungus can determine the optimal layout for a subway system. Slime Mold Grows Network Just Like Tokyo Rail System

There are animals that can easily solve problems and deal with situations we would have a poor performance in.

However, you think I'm speaking in an all-or-nothing manner. I'm not. I'm stating that animals may be more intelligent in some ways and less intelligent in other ways. Stop looking at intelligence as a black and white thing. Intelligence can't be measured by a single number. (And no, IQ is not a refutation of that)

That sounds more like you are describing animal instinct:

All animals are born with certain instincts that guide their behavior. An animal's instincts is the ability to know without thinking, the capability to automatically know how to behave or respond in certain circumstances. This "knowing" ability occurs naturally or instinctively to an animal, and is inherited from birth. That's why fish do not have to think about how to swim; instead, they simply know how to do so, just like beavers are born knowing how to build those amazing dams.​

click here: What Are Animal Instincts? (and please excuse the site, but it had the best applicable description that I was looking for )

 

[Tiberius]

That sounds more like you are describing animal instinct:

All animals are born with certain instincts that guide their behavior. An animal's instincts is the ability to know without thinking, the capability to automatically know how to behave or respond in certain circumstances. This "knowing" ability occurs naturally or instinctively to an animal, and is inherited from birth. That's why fish do not have to think about how to swim; instead, they simply know how to do so, just like beavers are born knowing how to build those amazing dams.​

click here: What Are Animal Instincts? (and please excuse the site, but it had the best applicable description that I was looking for )

Ah, and baby birds don't need to learn how to fly, is that what you're saying?

 

[asherjaechester]

I had an idea.
Would it be possible to disprove portions of the evolution theory through this method?: One would have to prove that self aware consciousness is a unique human trait. Something about man has to be found that is uniquely human. I think it is our consciousness. After proving that no other animal is conscious like us, it would have to be proven that no other animal can develop a consciousness like us.
This wouldn’t disprove parts of evolution like mutations or survival of the fittest. Those things are readily observable. This would call into question the common origin of man with all other species. If something can be found to be uniquely human, that is non attainable by any other animal through the power of evolution, well I think that would be telling.
Just a thought.

We have evidence of other human species. At least one of which had spiritual practices. This is something you would most likely say is exclusive to homo sapians.

 

[ppp]

I had an idea.
Would it be possible to disprove portions of the evolution theory through this method?: One would have to prove that self aware consciousness is a unique human trait. Something about man has to be found that is uniquely human. I think it is our consciousness. After proving that no other animal is conscious like us, it would have to be proven that no other animal can develop a consciousness like us.
This wouldn’t disprove parts of evolution like mutations or survival of the fittest. Those things are readily observable. This would call into question the common origin of man with all other species. If something can be found to be uniquely human, that is non attainable by any other animal through the power of evolution, well I think that would be telling.
Just a thought.

Lots of animals have unique attributes. So even if consciousness was unique to humans, which it's not, it would simply be an arbitrary choice on your part.

 

[David Davidovich]

Ah, and baby birds don't need to learn how to fly, is that what you're saying?

I don't know... Because are you saying that since baby birds learn how to fly that they're more intelligent than or just as intelligent as humans?