Evolution vs Creationism

Remove all ads!

I did not ask if a goat was horse, or a cat or dog. I asked you to answer a specific question. I did not ask if a cat was a human, the same way in which you exlained to me that your cat was a person, a cat, an animal. But I understand that you are explaining to me that your cat may have a particular value because you think of him as a "person" - human. Being human is a particular state of being, which belongs to us. That was the only point I wanted to make to you as well. We just have different ways of explaining the same thing. But I see that in some ways you want to "humanize" your cat (I can't say I blame you).

I would ask you to be more open-minded and perhaps see that people who believe in God have a different way of describing and organizing things than those who rely on science. Someone here, I think, mentioned "hubris" or "fool's" something or other, and I think we have seen enough of that in science. First it was Aristotle, then Newton, but wait, that was not really "it" because then there was Einstein. Jacob Bronowski said that, "Science was always at the edge of what we can know," but that knowldge was "fallable," and so it needed to be approached with a degree of humility.

If you have read his book, _The Ascent of Man_, Bronowki makes an important point about science and being "human." He opens the dialogue at a concentration camp where millions of Jewish people were murdered. He claims that science will not "dehumanize people, because science is a very human form of knowledge." Being a "human" is not a species but a state of humanness; "homo sapien" may be an "animal" in this regard, but they are not really the same thing. This is what I found an odd thing to have to explain.

We often speak figuratively of the "dual" nature of man. In that he is both like an angel and an animal. Shakespeare comments in _Hamlet_ that man is both "like an angel" and the "paragon of animals." Shakespeare used language in a very deliberate manner; in that regard, man can be viewed in that dual nature of the divine and the earthly. Just because science cannot measure the "divine spark" within man, does not mean that it is the fault of God, but perhaps the shortcoming of science.

But Bronowski's larger point was that you cannot measure "humanness" with any scientific device, and that you have to understand a sense of humanness before you can determine what it really is, regardless of the science. Animals are in this sense very different, in that they don't question their own sense of "animalness." They are what they are. I'm not asking you to believe in a higher power or a even a soul, since you are "certain" that none of those exist. But I would ask you not to substitute science for the "knowledge of the Gods," for it may be an even poorer substitute than the worst TV evangelist (since all he wants is your money); you are asking people to "give-up" their souls.

Yet, even if you don't believe in God, consider that we are made of the same stuff as the stars - stardust, if you will, and that we are the stars becoming human. If you believe that evolution is a journey, then so may be the journey of becoming "uniquely" human.

Depends on what you mean by the mind. Einstein said that "imagination was more powerful than knowledge." Maybe we do "know" more than we think.

 

I think chandos just summed it up as well as it could be explained.

I do have 1 question natajara(& it may seem way out there), if humans are so close to apes in all aspects(except our higher function mind) how come apes can't swim?

 

Ah but Chandos, here you touch upon the very difference between science and religion and why science is "it". It is fallable, it depends on what we can figure out, what we can prove and if something comes along to disprove the current "it" then it replaces "it". On the basic level science and religion is the same thing, they both try to explain the world, but the difference is that in religion one or a few guys thought about the world and how it worked and then it was set in stone, there you had your set of beliefs and the reality of those believes didnt matter because they were belief. Science doesn't sit around the campfire trying to imagine how things are, well they might but then they go out and check if what they imagined is true or not. The very superiority of science over religion (if you want to pit them against each other) is that science changes after reality while religion make up their own reality and tries to live as if it was real.

Science for example are looking quite far into the human mind, they are very interested in this "humanness" and this "soul" thing. What makes us us and what they have found is, nothing. Smoke and mirrors, the world we see and the feelings we experience is mostly an illusion created by chemicals and electrical stimulation in our brains. I do not understand it fully and I have just read a few articles but they were fascinating. We really are no different from animals, it seems like our "consciousness" is an illusion, a lie and that we are just as controlled by instinct and genetic programming as any other animal. That the correct manipulation of the brain can generate all kinds of sensations and experiences. We are basically what we are and nothing else and no amount of pondering the issue will change what we are.

Religion is what mankind invented to set us outside the rest of nature, what we invented to shield us from the futility of everything. To give us purpose and comfort. I say we have grown out of the fairy tales of childhood to shelter us from the real world and are capable of facing the universe as it is, not as we wish it to be. This is why I am so offended by religious faith, I see it as a horrendous and horrible squandering of resources and intelligence in what is basically just a scam or to put it less sinister, a blankie to comfort us when it is dark.

Martaug, have you ever come across the "aquatic ape" theory? It is quite the rage at the moment and ties in quite nicely with your question. Also, humans only swim without being learnt for the first few months after that we need to be taught.

 

martaug, the answer to that is because humans aren't specialized in a single type of ecosystem niche. Most apes don't need to swim, but those that do need to, can. We evolved less hairs to be more streamlined in the water, and the hairs we have left, are streamlined. We learnt to fish way before we developed agriculture, and humans originally became concentrated in coastal/freshwater areas.

 

Hee hee... Sea Monkeys!!

 

Umm, no they don't coin. The only great apes that have been observed to swim are orangutans. No gorillas, bonobos, chimps, etc.

This was obviously written before the orangs at a conservation refuge on Kaja island in Borneo were observed swimming a small river to get to some of their favorite fruits
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3828123.ece

Now why would naturalists be shocked if as you assert they(the great apes) have learned to swim before(they wouldn't but as they were it was because great apes have never been observed swimming)
In fact chimps & bonobos are very hydrophobic.
Conversely most monkeys are good swimmers.

The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis is(& has been) interesting & i remember an article from years ago that posited that the shape of our nose was part of this adaptation.
IIRC by being shaped the way it is the nose allowed easier diving into the water without having water forced up the nasal cavities.


I've always used this to explain why dwarves are portrayed as either very poor or non swimmers.
They, like the great apes, are more dense than humans so they have less(way less!) bouyancy to help them try to swim.
Dwarves are even described this way but in different words(only 2/3rds the height of a man but weighs the same = denser)
It also explains the strength discrepancy

 

The dutch word aap means monkey, so I was confused. You contradict yourself too, since you admit that orangutans can swim across rivers. We have an easier time swimming rivers because we store fat under the skin, making us lighter in the water. Most primates don't store so much fat. We came from omnivorous ancestors, and the change into worldwide generalists was quite easy. Swimming was one trait we evolved, but the most important were the opposable thumb and larger brains.

 

Nataraja, there are a few problems. One, I've never said that humans aren't animals, only that we are more than animals. No other animal has achieved sentience, and that is a vast and significant difference. There are a slew of behaviours that are not seen in any other animal than man. That seperates us.

As to the brain/mind issue, you have only proven that one has an influence on the other, but we also know quite well that the second also has an influence on the first. The two are connected, sure, but you can't prove that one originates from the other.

 

I keep forgetting you aren't a native english speaker.
Yes monkeys swim well but the orangs in borneo were the first great apes they had observed swimming, which is why it was so shocking to them.(haha, I can just picture 2 naturalists watching an orang enter the water & start swimming, 1 of them exclaims "he can't do that!" at which point the other looks at him & says "i know that & you know that but someone obviously forgot to tell HIM that!"

 

Yes, that was my point about how science keeps changing. It seems as if they have always believed that they have arrived at the "truth," only later to discover that they hadn't.

Yes, as I commented, Joac, they describe humanness and organize us differently, but on a basic level they are very much the same thing. But I strongly disagree with your second point. It wasn't just a "few guys," thinking about the world, because religion (the belief in God) is fairly universal; it exists in many cultures in many places. Some people point to the similarities in religions as disproof, while for others, it only proves that God wants everyone to experience Him in some way (often in a similar fashsion).

I disagree with your third point as well: Religion is always evolving as our experience with God grows. For instance, the Reformation in Christianity, changed that religion in profound ways. Religion, like science, is always in flux and adapts itself to change. Another example is how women are now pastors in many churches, but once it was never considered. A religion that does not grow, as human experience with it's Creator grows, is doomed. Religion has laws that are set, like it is not human to murder someone in cold blood, as an example, while science has a basic set of laws as well. In this they are very similar.

Yes, but they are late to the game. Religion and the Arts have been doing this since the dawn of history. For instance, you may be able to learn more about religion, man's soul and the human state, from reading _Moby Dick_ than from reading a science textbook. When I was in literary studies I was in a class with a guy who was making that novel his life's study (really, one novel!). I guess it was sort of his Bible. But there's SO MUCH in that novel that it may take him a lifetime to fully understand it.

I enjoyed "The Matrix" as well. I always like a good science fiction story if it is done well. But thoughts are words. Words are how we organize our thoughts and they are not "illusions" because you are reading my words in a different time and place than I am (Decartes struggled with the same question). But perhaps we are sharing this illusion together, and maybe there are more sharing the same illusion. Yet, if enough of us share the same illusion does it become reality? Before you reach for your keyboard to disagree, remember that no matter what your response, it will take words to say it. Even to describe and understand a chemical reaction, you will still need words. The reaction "means" nothing without them.

But science is at a bit of a disadvantage, because as I commented religion, the Arts, literature, philolosphy, and history have been at this game (I use that term loosely) for years. And collectively they are known as the "humanities." Pickup a copy of the Bible, or _Hamlet_ and you can learn more about what a human IS than a whole shelf of science textbooks on evolution. At least, what's important about us.

GK Chesterton

We are different. And never lose your sense of humor, or life may really appear "futile."

 

Hmm...so does anyone here know who Kanzi is?

Kanzi is a male bonobo, one of our closest relatives, a subspecies within Pan the same as neandertal were a subspecies within Homo. Kanzi makes music, stone tools, plays pac man, knows how to start fires and cook food, amongst other things.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html

 

Hi guys.

I just read over the whole post and you seem like an intelligent lot.

As a person who earned my undergraduate degree in Evolutionary Biology I just wanted to clear up a few misconceptions. (However, I had to go into Statistics for my graduate work so I could get a job )

First off, the Theory of Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It is a considered a theory with respect to how evolution works, not if it occurs. It is inconceivable that the Darwinian take on evolution could be completely wrong; it simply explains too much and is truly the keystone in modern Biology. Animal behaviors, such as altruism, grouping patterns, mate selection, homologous structures and even seemingly aberrant behaviors such as homosexuality can be explained through evolutionary theory.

Evolution may be defined as as the change in allele frequencies through time. Of course this is indisputable; in fact, it's improbably even in the most contrived situation for allele frequencies to remain constant from one generation to the next.

And yes, humans are evolving. The frequencies of alleles are changing from generation to generation. The point made by Silvery below is actually a contradictory statement.

It brings up an interesting dilemma however. With restrained selection on human beings, will the frequency of genetic maladies accrue over coming generations to the point where it creates a health care crisis? (If you're interested in an advanced degree in Mathematics or Biology this would be a great topic for your dissertation!)

It's hard for humans who live only several decades to wrap our head around a phenomena that is in most cases is only observable over a geological time scale. However consider the illustrative example of domesticated dog breeds. In several thousand years (thereabouts) look at the huge variation in phenotypic characteristics observed between differing breeds. Perhaps now it doesn't seem so far-fetched that Mother Nature could do such a thing over a timescale several orders of magnitude larger.

Finally, yes humans are animals. My suggestion is to understand your modest origins so you can better rise above them. Don't accept nature... fight it!

Best of luck.

 

Thank you...

 

Interesting that you put in cold blood in that statement, it opens up an interesting side-topic which troubles me. I don't find our emotions a characteristic which makes us human: Animals clearly exhibit emotions, some of them have the same complex ones which we have ourselves, and we can recognize them as such. The tendency to label logical rational thought as inhuman, is worryingly inaccurate. If anything, rationality, the scientific method, and logic, are human ways of thinking. It's our emotions that make us like animals.
Not that I disagree with all that you said, Chandos, I certainly think we should keep the humour in; it's the lubricant for reality.

 

Chandos, you confuse the way we behave with what our species name is. To 'be human' is to be like us, which is to be the animal species 'human'. This is why I said what I said about the other animals not being other animals, and yet being animals in their own right. A cow does not behave like a parrot, yet both are still animals. Humans are animals, it is a fact. The way we behave is not what qualifies us as being human or not.

As for animals killing in cold blood...you obviously have not seen chimpanzee tribal warfare...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7XuXi3mqYM

The embedding is disabled by the BBC, so sorry...

 

yes kanzi does amazing things but then so do trained animals in the circus, whats your point?

 

You obviously were not paying attention because he is not trained.

 

Yes he was, what you showed was a very good PR film, nothing more.

 

Oh, I've seen chimpansee agression all right... Last I watched a show on chimps, there was a low-ranking female who had just had twins. Two high-ranking females got jealous, and decided to chase her and her babies in order to murder the infants. It was because the females have enough trouble tolerating a low-ranking female having one offspring, let alone two. There was a disturbing point in the chase, where the two females gestured to the mother, to tell her: "Don't worry, we don't hate you, we just want to kill your babies." After about half an hour, the murderous chimps had calmed down, and had accepted the fact that the mother had 2 offspring. So she approached them later, and the babies were accepted. The chimps held the babies, and cared and loved them. Everything's fine and dandy from then on. Well isn't that just peachy!
Now curse my human memory, rationality, and logical thinking, but I'd feel very resentful to these two females if I were the mom. Although, she wasn't in any position to act any differently. Whenever there are docus of great apes on Animal Planet, I zap away now, because they just remind me of the negative aspects of humans too much.

 

Actually, I think that has to do in part with the fact that people in well off countries can't do enough to get their surplus food to these starving people...

Actually, From what I understand, Mormonism picks this up in progress, simply telling us that "As man is, God once was, and as God is, Man may become." I guess the point is that it matters less how things started, and more what we do while we're here...

If they have intellects or souls, we can't know that for sure because of the communication differences between the species. Experiments have shown that animals learn, but that's about it. And I don't accept your claim that souls don't exist.