Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Steve H on October 04, 2019, 11:56:46 AM
-
Two online articles: No, theyre not (http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150706-humans-are-not-unique-or-special?ocid=ww.social.link.facebook&fbclid=IwAR3WlF6hZJEeMt0qril7d4qzRWBWobI4unPiFC2lkKd3-MsIll2uQ00OR04), and yes, they are. (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150706-the-small-list-of-things-that-make-humans-unique)
This is what I wrote on the "Evolution and creation open debate" Facebook group, where I came across these links:
I think some of the ["No they aren't"] article's conclusions are questionable. I don't think animal emotions are a recent discovery; it's always been obvious that they can feel anger, fear, grief and joy. Picking up a stick to get at termites is hardly comparable with designing and building a clock or a computer, and this kind of basic tool use has also long been known about.
Chimps and gorillas, as we now know, can learn to use human language to communicate at a basic level, but they have never come up with a complex language of their own.
No animal species that I'm aware of has ever invented religion. Some in this group [and on this forum] will regard that as a good thing, but that's not the point: religion, good or bad, is a uniquely human trait.
There is, of course, the threshold argument: that humans can build on previous achievements because we are capable of making those earlier achievements, whereas our nearest relatives, the great apes, can't quite make the first step. The analogy I've read is two frogs at the bottom of a flight of steps. Each step is 12" high: one frog can jump 12.5", the other 11'5". The first frog can get onto the first step, and from there to the second, and eventually to the top, but the second can never quite reach the first step; but the difference in ability between them is quite small. However, as no ape species has ever devised a language of their own, or complex, built tools, or religion (which was important in human progress, whatever you think of it nowadays), I think the difference is more fundamental than that.
Can I suggest that this is not a specifically religious argument, although conservative religious believers will be committed to the "yes, they are" side, and can I ask that there be no mention of leprechauns, or posts of the "If god exists, it must be an evil psycho imo" variety. Not, of course, that I want to (or even can) tell people what they can and can't post.
-
Steve H,
Are humans special?
What do you mean by "special"?
-
Humans are an animal species, but are more intellectually developed than other species.
-
Steve H,
What do you mean by "special"?
We have unique abilites, not shared by other species - language, complex tool-making, religion, and other things. No other single species has abilities unique to it. This is more than just being more intelligent than other species; we have unique abilities, which other have not got at all, not just not to the same extent as humans. The limited language-learning ability of chimps and gorillas is not an exception; they've never developed a complex language of their own. I know most animals, and even plants, can communicate, but that's not the same as complex language. I know a dog can warn other dogs of danger by saying WOOFWOOFWOOFWOOF!, but it can't say "Look out! there's a lion over there! no, not over there, you idiot, over there! Next to the Baobab tree! Oh shit - it's seen us!".
-
Steve H,
We have unique abilites, not shared by other species - language, complex tool-making, religion, and other things. No other single species has abilities unique to it.
Are you sure about that? Lots of species have unique characteristics don't they - the Alaskan frog for example can survive freezing:
https://gizmodo.com/this-alaskan-frog-can-survive-getting-frozen-and-thawed-1566672668
-
We have unique abilites, not shared by other species - language, complex tool-making, religion, and other things. No other single species has abilities unique to it.
The other animal species, like the apes, might progress in the way humans have in the future. Hopefully they won't take on religion, which has done more harm than good to the human species, imo.
-
The other animal species, like the apes, might progress in the way humans have in the future. Hopefully they won't take on religion, which has done more harm than good to the human species, imo.
They've made no progress in millions of years, so how likely are they to start now?
-
They've made no progress in millions of years, so how likely are they to start now?
The precursors of modern humans made no progress for well in excess of that (Humans are around 66 million years old, gorillas apparently somewhere around 10 million) - whatever kick-started our activity may be just around their corner.
Being first might make us something 'special' in a way - assuming that we are first and not just the first around here. Who knows what's currently wandering around the cosmos waiting for someone else to get special enough to make contact?
O.
-
Humans certainly have 'special needs'.
-
You have to show why you think there is a fundamental difference between the spread of abilities between humans and other animals, as opposed to the myriad other differences rather than simply assert it.
-
And to answer the question, yes and so are cockroaches (Insert any species here)
-
The precursors of modern humans made no progress for well in excess of that (Humans are around 66 million years old, gorillas apparently somewhere around 10 million) - whatever kick-started our activity may be just around their corner.
Being first might make us something 'special' in a way - assuming that we are first and not just the first around here. Who knows what's currently wandering around the cosmos waiting for someone else to get special enough to make contact?
O.
That answers Steve's question. It is possible there are other life forms in the universe who are much more intelligent than the human species.
-
You have to show why you think there is a fundamental difference between the spread of abilities between humans and other animals, as opposed to the myriad other differences rather than simply assert it.
Read my previous posts!
-
Just one observation:
Most humans I know don't know how to build a clock or a computer.
-
The precursors of modern humans made no progress for well in excess of that (Humans are around 66 million years old, gorillas apparently somewhere around 10 million) - whatever kick-started our activity may be just around their corner.
Where on earth do you get that figure from? The oldest Homo sapiens remains so far found are 200,000 years old. Older ones may yet be found, but it's hardly likely that they'll be anywhere near one million years old, let alone 66 million!
-
Where on earth do you get that figure from? The oldest Homo sapiens remains so far found are 200,000 years old. Older ones may yet be found, but it's hardly likely that they'll be anywhere near one million years old, let alone 66 million!
That's poor - that's two typos in one from me, apologies.
It should be the precursors of humans, and it should have been 6 million years, not 66, which is roughly the oldest common ancestor of humans and the great apes, as I understand it?
O.
-
I might have known this thread would rapidly decend into smart-arsery, dim-wittery, missing-the-pointery and irrelevancy. We are talking about life on earth, not hypothetical extra-terrestrial life; Hom sap is only about 200,000 years old, as far as we know; My opening post gave various reasons for thinking humans unique, so I didn't "just assert it"; and what the fuck have cockroaches got to do with anything? Sometimes I despair of this forum.
-
That's poor - that's two typos in one from me, apologies.
It should be the precursors of humans, and it should have been 6 million years, not 66, which is roughly the oldest common ancestor of humans and the great apes, as I understand it?
O.
The precursors of humans are beside the point; they may not have had all or any of our unique abilities. It is debated whether they had language, for one thing.
-
Just one observation:
Most humans I know don't know how to build a clock or a computer.
Oh, ffs. ::)
-
That answers Steve's question. It is possible there are other life forms in the universe who are much more intelligent than the human species.
There are life forms on earth that are much more intelligent than some members of the human species.
We sre talking about known life forms on earth, not hypothetical extra-terrestrial ones.
-
I might have known this thread would rapidly decend into smart-arsery, dim-wittery, missing-the-pointery and irrelevancy. We are talking about life on earth, not hypothetical extra-terrestrial life; Hom sap is only about 200,000 years old, as far as we know; My opening post gave various reasons for thinking humans unique, so I didn't "just assert it"; and what the fuck have cockroaches got to do with anything? Sometimes I despair of this forum.
You asserted that there is some fundamental difference between whatever the difference is between humans and other animals as opposed to all other differences between animals. That we are unique doesn't show that as pretty well all species, cockroaches for example, have unique qualities.
-
The precursors of humans are beside the point; they may not have had all or any of our unique abilities. It is debated whether they had language, for one thing.
Let's take a different tack at this, then, to get at what I'm getting at.
If you accept that humanity became humanity by evolving from a common ancestor shared with the great apes due to environmental pressures then, given that the only difference involved is the specific evolutionary pressures on otherwise random mutations amongst the populace, where's the space for 'special' to get into the mix?
O.
-
There are life forms on earth that are much more intelligent than some members of the human species.
We sre talking about known life forms on earth, not hypothetical extra-terrestrial ones.
And which life forms on this planet would you consider more intelligent than you?
-
What unique abilities have cockroaches got? I should point out that there are about 4,600 different species of cockroach, so it is not likely that any one of those species has an ability unique to it, not shared by any of the other species. Humans are one species.
-
"Special" is a bad word; I should have said "unique". I'll change the thread title.
-
Let me try again: every species is unique in so far as it is a distinct species, different from every other species, but that's not what we're talking about. No other species that I'm aware of, apart from humans, has abilities unique to it: flight, for example - most birds and most insects can fly. Bipedalism is shared by many creatures, as well. However, only humans can create complex language (as opposed to having a limited abiity to use human language), design and build complex tools and buildings, or have religious or philosophical ideas. Even chimps and gorillas can't do those things.
-
But those are just higher functions of what other animals do. They seem extraordinarily special because they define us.if other animals work on a basic language, then our complex language is merely an order of magnitude difference. Just as say our sight is order of magnitudes worse than some species.
The case you are trying to make is not whether humans are unique but whether that uniqueness is somehow unique - which is why I suspect you used the word special originally. I think you need to work out what that might really mean because I can't see much here other than 'Aren't humans amazing?'. To which the answer is yes but so are pipestrelle bats.
-
Let me try again: every species is unique in so far as it is a distinct species, different from every other species, but that's not what we're talking about. No other species that I'm aware of, apart from humans, has abilities unique to it: flight, for example - most birds and most insects can fly. Bipedalism is shared by many creatures, as well. However, only humans can create complex language (as opposed to having a limited abiity to use human language), design and build complex tools and buildings, or have religious or philosophical ideas. Even chimps and gorillas can't do those things.
That 'creation of language' is a single thing: the religious and philosophical ideas are manifestations of that linguistic capacity. Dolphins (for instance) show altruism - they can't philosophically express it, but they apparently understand the concept. Bees can communicate complex navigational concepts using a physical language. Pigs have distinct sung names their mothers use. Chickens have in excess of 20 different alarm calls depending on the nature of the threat identified.
Elephants have a sense of smell that can not only differentiate substances but also relative quantities of those substances. And they have four kneecaps! Both unique traits.
Hummingbirds can hover, fly backwards and fly upside down.
Lobsters secrete a hormone that repairs DNA breakdown, meaning that they continue to grow throughout their lives and don't appear to suffer many of the frailties of age that afflict other animals.
Insects completely reform their entire physical structure metamorphosing from larvae to adults.
Goldfish can see in both the infra-red and ultra-violet spectra.
Sheep self-medicate on different plants to counter different ailments in the wild.
Rats come together as a colony to protect and care for sick members.
Turkeys and chameleons have entirely different, independent mechanisms for changing colour in response to mood.
Whilst the human capacity for purely academic and intellectual pursuits opens up a multitude more possibilities, I'm sure that it's qualitatively a different kind of unique to the others. I don't think we have special uniqueness, just a versatile one.
O.
-
And another thing: only humans can debate whether they are unique!
-
Male seahorses are unique as they give birth.
-
Steve H,
No other species that I'm aware of, apart from humans, has abilities unique to it...
See Reply 4. Lots of species have characteristics unique to that species. Either way though, so what?
-
I might have known this thread would rapidly decend into smart-arsery, dim-wittery, missing-the-pointery and irrelevancy. We are talking about life on earth, not hypothetical extra-terrestrial life; Hom sap is only about 200,000 years old, as far as we know; My opening post gave various reasons for thinking humans unique, so I didn't "just assert it"; and what the fuck have cockroaches got to do with anything? Sometimes I despair of this forum.
I think the problem is the implication that often comes with the phrase "humans are unique" which is that "humans are best". Humans are unique in several ways that are important to humans, but then other animals are also unique in many ways that are important to them.
-
Male seahorses are unique as they give birth.
Yes and fish or at least some species of fish can spontaneously change their sex. I didn't know that until recently, watching 'Secret Life of the Zoo', in which a clown fish called Polo changed sex. Polo was very pretty. I got this from 'Discover Animals' :-
There’s also plenty of drama among the clownfish too as male, Polo, is injured while fighting with other males for the attentions of dominant female, Rosie. Clownfish have the amazing ability to change sex, and Polo’s recovery time away from the rest of the group leads to unexpected consequences.
Polo became female.
I couldn't find apicture of Polo but these are clown fish (for anyone interested who doesn't already know):- https://a-z-animals.com/animals/clown-fish/
-
Steve H,
you're not. Does that help?
-
I would say that the human ability for self awareness, self analysis and self discipline. Our ability to go beyond our own animal nature....is what is special.
Traditionally, humans are believed to be a mix of the animal and the 'divine'...though animals do have the 'divine' too...but to a lesser extent. We can choose to control our base instincts and develop our universal qualities. We can become Self Realized.
-
The phrase 'go beyond', the idea that we can do things our physical body with all its evolved traits and characteristics cannot do, is a fanciful idea, created, as all ideas are, in the mind/brain.
Unless, of course, someone can explain in rational terms that it means something really significant that science has entirely missed.
-
I would say that the human ability for self awareness, self analysis and self discipline. Our ability to go beyond our own animal nature....is what is special.
Traditionally, humans are believed to be a mix of the animal and the 'divine'...though animals do have the 'divine' too...but to a lesser extent. We can choose to control our base instincts and develop our universal qualities. We can become Self Realized.
Yeah, but 'traditionally' humans are made out of sand and earth and brought to life by being blown into...
O.
-
Yeah, but 'traditionally' humans are made out of sand and earth and brought to life by being blown into...
O.
Well...I am talking of the tradition where the development of human consciousness from animal forms of consciousness is fairly well understood. Close similarities between humans and animals is acknowledged in the Hindu tradition.
Hindus believe that we all have lived earlier as animals and then as other humans before living this life. Our Consciousness is believed to have evolved and developed over several lifetimes.
You could check out the Dasavatars and their correlation to human evolution here.....
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/evolution-and-spirituality/
-
Well...I am talking of the tradition where the development of human consciousness from animal forms of consciousness is fairly well understood. Close similarities between humans and animals is acknowledged in the Hindu tradition.
You suggested that humanity was considered to be a mixture of animal and divine - if you're citing divinity, I'd suggest that it's not in any way understood at all. It might be claimed, it might be held without really being considered in depth, but in the absolute absence of any reliable definition of 'divine', any clear evidence of anything 'divine' and the absence of any need for a concept of 'divine' to explain reality, I'd suggest that it's about as far from 'fairly well understood' as you can get.
Hindus believe that we all have lived earlier as animals and then as other humans before living this life.
Oh, I forgot the 'well understood' phenomenon of reincarnation...
Our Consciousness is believed to have evolved and developed over several lifetimes. You could check out the Dasavatars and their correlation to human evolution here...
I'm sure there's a logical progression, but that logical progression is founded upon precepts that have no basis; there is no evidence for reincarnation, or spirits, or divinity. That's not a definitive 'it doesn't exist', but it puts it on a par with the Flying Spaghetti Monster (and their separatist cult, the Leprechaunists)
O.
-
'Divine' does not necessarily mean God (though we think of God as just the highest level of Consciousness) . It simply means levels of consciousness that are universal, inclusive and futuristic that have a vision beyond narrow survival and reproduction.
You people could keep going around in circles about...evidence and definitiveness and so on and so forth...but the traditional belief is valid because we are indeed capable of 'divine' levels of emotional and intellectual capabilities...and these are growing. And.... as a society, we do consider people with such 'divine' capabilities as better and more civilized than those people who display largely competitive and survival related traits.
In other words...divinity better than animal, is the mantra. And this is a unique trait in humans.
-
'Divine' does not necessarily mean God (though we think of God as just the highest level of Consciousness) . It simply means levels of consciousness that are universal, inclusive and futuristic that have a vision beyond narrow survival and reproduction.
You people could keep going around in circles about...evidence and definitiveness and so on and so forth...but the traditional belief is valid because we are indeed capable of 'divine' levels of emotional and intellectual capabilities...and these are growing. And.... as a society, we do consider people with such 'divine' capabilities as better and more civilized than those people who display largely competitive and survival related traits.
In other words...divinity better than animal, is the mantra. And this is a unique trait in humans.
“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
-
The point is that 'traditional' does not mean only Christian traditions. There are 1 billion people (1.5 if you include Buddhist, Jain etc) on this planet who have a different tradition. It is time you guys got used to that.
-
Sriram,
'Divine' does not necessarily mean God (though we think of God as just the highest level of Consciousness) . It simply means levels of consciousness that are universal, inclusive and futuristic that have a vision beyond narrow survival and reproduction.
And for which you have no logic or evidence of any kind. If you want to claim universality you can, but it's just an unqualified faith belief.
You people...
"You people"? Presumably "you people" are the people who won't just accept your unqualified claims of fact as true because you said them right?
... could keep going around in circles about...evidence and definitiveness and so on and so forth...
You've tried this nonsense before, but just run away when the problems it gives you are pointed out. Without reason and evidence all you have is guessing an opinion. If you want them to be more than that and you abjure reason and evidence, then find another method to investigate your claims. (Oh, and no one insists on "definitiveness" either by the way - that's another of your straw men.)
...but the traditional belief is valid because we are indeed capable of 'divine' levels of emotional and intellectual capabilities...and these are growing.
Another failure in reasoning. Things aren't true because you assert them to be true.
And.... as a society, we do consider people with such 'divine' capabilities as better and more civilized than those people who display largely competitive and survival related traits.
That's debatable, but either way that doesn't for one moment indicate that people do in fact have "divine" qualities as you assert.
In other words...divinity better than animal, is the mantra.
No doubt it's a mantra for some. "Cheese and onion is better than salt and vinegar" is mine. So?
And this is a unique trait in humans.
Poor reasoning is a unique trait for humans? Well, maybe. [/quote]
-
Sriram,
The point is that 'traditional' does not mean only Christian traditions. There are 1 billion people (1.5 if you include Buddhist, Jain etc) on this planet who have a different tradition. It is time you guys got used to that.
Another straw man. No-one's not "used to" lots of people having different faith traditions.
-
Sriram,
Another straw man. No-one's not "used to" lots of people having different faith traditions.
Oh really?!! And yet, when I say 'traditional'...you assume a Christian tradition, knowing very well that I am a Hindu...!! Why?!
-
Sriram,
Oh really?!! And yet, when I say 'traditional'...you assume a Christian tradition, knowing very well that I am a Hindu...!! Why?!
Another straw man. I've never assumed any such thing. Why do you think otherwise?
-
Sriram,
Another straw man. I've never assumed any such thing. Why do you think otherwise?
Ah....so, you don't speak for others when it is inconvenient.....?!! ::) Right!
-
Sriram,
Ah....so, you don't speak for others when it is inconvenient.....?!! ::) Right!
No, I don't "speak for others" because I have no mandate to do so and because I've never claimed to do so. You're very confused - when I detonate your wrongheadedness I speak only for myself of course, and convenience has nothing to do with it.
-
'Divine' does not necessarily mean God (though we think of God as just the highest level of Consciousness) . It simply means levels of consciousness that are universal, inclusive and futuristic that have a vision beyond narrow survival and reproduction.
So still not something that's 'well established'.
You people could keep going around in circles about...evidence and definitiveness and so on and so forth...but the traditional belief is valid because we are indeed capable of 'divine' levels of emotional and intellectual capabilities...and these are growing.
We don tend to go in circles, yes - from phenomenon to hypothesis to evidence to refutation and back to hypothesis. Occasionally, though, we break out from evidence to theory. By contrast, with faith-based positions on ideas like 'spirit' we've spent several thousand years going precisely nowhere. In what way is traditional belief 'valid'? How can you establish that we are capable of 'divine' levels of anything when you can't come up with a definition of 'divine' that actually means anything - 'levels of consciousness that are universal'... what do you offer by way of any sort of demonstration that such a thing exists?
And.... as a society, we do consider people with such 'divine' capabilities as better and more civilized than those people who display largely competitive and survival related traits.
Which 'we' is this? I don't look at the Pope, or Archbishop Welby, or the Coptic Princep (or whatever his title is) as being particularly 'better' or 'more civilized' and I certainly wouldn't apportion those sorts of descriptions to the likes of the Iranian Mullahs or the Westboro' Baptists or any other number of extremist nutbags.
In other words...divinity better than animal, is the mantra. And this is a unique trait in humans.
And flibbles are better than nunkings, except when they're kumquat flavoured or it's a no-trump hand...
O.
-
They've made no progress in millions of years, so how likely are they to start now?
In "The Prehistory of Mind" by Prof Steven Mithin, he argues that the minds of the higher primates (other than humans) developed in quite a different way from Homo Sapiens. If this is true, whatever further evolution they make will certainly not take a similar direction to the one that humans took. It may be indeed be that these primates' evolved mentality has backed them into a dead-end (he suggests that this happened with most of the Neanderthals, except those that passed on their genes by cross-breeding with Homo Sapiens).
I tend to agree with you, but a lot of the arguments in the above book are highly speculative.
-
So still not something that's 'well established'.
We don tend to go in circles, yes - from phenomenon to hypothesis to evidence to refutation and back to hypothesis. Occasionally, though, we break out from evidence to theory. By contrast, with faith-based positions on ideas like 'spirit' we've spent several thousand years going precisely nowhere. In what way is traditional belief 'valid'? How can you establish that we are capable of 'divine' levels of anything when you can't come up with a definition of 'divine' that actually means anything - 'levels of consciousness that are universal'... what do you offer by way of any sort of demonstration that such a thing exists?
Which 'we' is this? I don't look at the Pope, or Archbishop Welby, or the Coptic Princep (or whatever his title is) as being particularly 'better' or 'more civilized' and I certainly wouldn't apportion those sorts of descriptions to the likes of the Iranian Mullahs or the Westboro' Baptists or any other number of extremist nutbags.
O.
It is well established as an experience and billions of people regard it as 'fact'. Scientifically unproven is neither here nor there. Now...I know you will tell me this is an ad populum fallacy! Go ahead, tie yourself in knots.
I have already explained what I mean by 'divine'. You can call it 'civilized' or 'enlightened'....if you want.
You again make the mistake of connecting this to religions, religious heads and extremists. These have nothing to do with what I am saying.
There is no denying that some people are more civilized and self disciplined than others....and we as a global society are more civilized and universal than people were centuries ago.
-
It is well established as an experience and billions of people regard it as 'fact'.
And contradictory 'spiritual' explanations are equally well-established and equally regarded as 'fact' - and they can't all be right.
Scientifically unproven is neither here nor there.
Well it is, but only in the absence of any other equally reliable method of ascertaining likely facts. If there were a reliable non-scientific derivation - pure logic, for instance - that would suffice. Currently there isn't.
Now...I know you will tell me this is an ad populum fallacy! Go ahead, tie yourself in knots.
It's not an ad populum fallacy, you aren't suggesting that it's actually true just because people believe it; however, you're suggesting that because people believe it we shouldn't be worried whether it's true or not? I'm not sure exactly what your point is, I think that's it, but please correct that if I'm wrong.
I have already explained what I mean by 'divine'. You can call it 'civilized' or 'enlightened'....if you want.
But it's just making reference to other unestablished concepts. If I define 'divine' in terms of souls, and souls in terms of nature spirits, and nature spirits in terms of unexplained phenomena, then the whole thing has no basis - it doesn't matter how convoluted or long-standing or intricate the web of inter-supporting logical references is, so long as it's based on nothing it means nothing.
You again make the mistake of connecting this to religions, religious heads and extremists. These have nothing to do with what I am saying.
They are the social and cultural equivalent that I'm used to - different names for the same nothing.
There is no denying that some people are more civilized and self disciplined than others....and we as a global society are more civilized and universal than people were centuries ago.
In my experience 'civilised' tends to mean 'most like my cultural definition of appropriate' - I'm not sure there's an objective definition of 'civilised' any more than there's an objectively better 'culture'. As to self-discipline, yes you can be more or less self-disciplined, but I fail to see how that's relevant.
O.
-
Oh really?!! And yet, when I say 'traditional'...you assume a Christian tradition, knowing very well that I am a Hindu...!! Why?!
Most of us wouldn't assume a Christian tradition; they're aren't so many Christians anyway so why would they? Here in the UK we're well aware of diverse traditions, people go to school, to work and generally mix with others from completely different cultures and traditions. Anyone particularly interested in religion and ethics will study them in order to understand. I know you are a Hindu and am not at all surprised by what you say, I'd expect it.
-
Sriram,
It is well established as an experience and billions of people regard it as 'fact'.
Just as the earth being flat, blood in veins being blue and our fingers actually touching the keyboard are “experiences of billions of people” you mean?
Scientifically unproven…
How many effing times does it have to be explained to you that science doesn’t involve proofs?
…is neither here nor there.
No, it’s everything if you want to have a method to distinguish just guessing from the verifiably true. If not for the methods and tools of science, what other method would you propose to do the job?
Now...I know you will tell me this is an ad populum fallacy! Go ahead, tie yourself in knots.
Why when you’ve just committed an ad pop fallacy would you then dismiss that fact that you’ve done it?
I have already explained what I mean by 'divine'. You can call it 'civilized' or 'enlightened'....if you want.
I don’t want. “Divine” means to do with gods. “Civilised” and “enlightened” on the other hand are entirely possible with no “divine” assertions at all. Indeed, some would say that “divine” and “enlightened” are pretty much opposites.
You again make the mistake of connecting this to religions, religious heads and extremists. These have nothing to do with what I am saying.
No he didn’t. Believing in gods does not necessarily involve religions.
There is no denying that some people are more civilized and self disciplined than others....and we as a global society are more civilized and universal than people were centuries ago.
“Civilised” and self-disciplined are relative terms. The 9/11 hijackers presumably considered themselves to be exemplars of both. Would you?
Oh, and if you think there’s a “global society” that’s more civilised than it was centuries ago that’s largely true I’d say of secular countries, but pretty much the opposite for theocracies.
-
Most of us wouldn't assume a Christian tradition; they're aren't so many Christians anyway so why would they? Here in the UK we're well aware of diverse traditions, people go to school, to work and generally mix with others from completely different cultures and traditions. Anyone particularly interested in religion and ethics will study them in order to understand. I know you are a Hindu and am not at all surprised by what you say, I'd expect it.
That's nice Robbie. Everyone should know at least the rudiments of other cultures...and respect them. I wrote with specific reference to Outrider's comment at post 36.
Thanks.
-
Coming back to the subject. I think my comment at post 34 stands.
Thanks.
-
Sriram,
Coming back to the subject. I think my comment at post 34 stands.
Thanks.
You attempted a series of arguments to justify your faith position set out at Reply 34, and you've had those arguments falsified. You now tell us that you retain your faith position nonetheless, which you are of course perfectly entitled to do but that comes at the price of giving no-one else any good reason to think you're right.
-
I do not see any evidence of animals being able to contemplate their own uniqueness.
Nor do they show evidence for studying the behaviour and attributes of themselves or other species.
And other species do not show any capacity for discovering how things work.
Nor do they show any wish to explore the world we live in, or seek to know the secrets of the universe.
And they do not put themselves in danger just for the thrill of it, as in mountain climbing or white knuckle rides.
(and I have not even mentioned free will yet!)
-
I do not see any evidence of animals being able to contemplate their own uniqueness.
Do you speak Dolphin?
Nor do they show evidence for studying the behaviour and attributes of themselves or other species.
Any number of hunting animals study the behaviour and attributes of prey, and any number of prey animals study the behaviour of predators, it's part of the arms war of nature red in tooth and claw.
And other species do not show any capacity for discovering how things work.
Pigs have recently been added to the growing list of animals that deploy tools in the pursuit of food and play. Ravens (in particular) are capable of solving simple puzzles. Dogs are adept at training humans to give them treats for performing simple tricks.
Nor do they show any wish to explore the world we live in, or seek to know the secrets of the universe.
Do you speak 'Whale'? What do whales think about when they come to the surface, do they contemplate how the environment differs from the deep? Do they have favourite colours of coral, favourites smells of marine diesel? I'd agree if they are thinking about it then it's likely their understanding of the scope of the universe is limited by their ability to leave the ocean and the evolutionary limitations and capabilities of the senses they have evolved, but who knows if they are contemplating facets of underwater life that we have no concept of as it's outside of our sensory experience. How do whales feel about changes in water pressure, about hydrothermoclines, about rivers of different salinity within the seas?
And they do not put themselves in danger just for the thrill of it, as in mountain climbing or white knuckle rides.
Have you ever watched a house cat tease a dog? It's, again, a different extent, but isn't put its life on the line for no obvious tangible benefit?
and I have not even mentioned free will yet!)
Well, let's stick with things that might actually exist for now... :P
O.
-
I do not see any evidence of animals being able to contemplate their own uniqueness.
Nor do they show evidence for studying the behaviour and attributes of themselves or other species.
And other species do not show any capacity for discovering how things work.
Nor do they show any wish to explore the world we live in, or seek to know the secrets of the universe.
And they do not put themselves in danger just for the thrill of it, as in mountain climbing or white knuckle rides.
(and I have not even mentioned free will yet!)
The latter point is questionable, but in general I agree. In short, humans have acquired self-awareness, which is what the Adam and Eve myth can be interpreted as being about.
-
Any number of hunting animals study the behaviour and attributes of prey, and any number of prey animals study the behaviour of predators, it's part of the arms war of nature red in tooth and claw.
they don't study them; they know them instinctively.Pigs have recently been added to the growing list of animals that deploy tools in the pursuit of food and play. Ravens (in particular) are capable of solving simple puzzles. Dogs are adept at training humans to give them treats for performing simple tricks.
As I've already pointed out, there's a big difference between using a stick as a poker or a rock as a hammer, and designing and putting together a complex tool. Not even gorillas or chimpanzees, our closest relatives, who have the requisite hands with opposable thumbs, have yet independently come up with so much as a flint axe.
-
they don't study them; they know them instinctively.As I've already pointed out, there's a big difference between using a stick as a poker or a rock as a ammer, and designing and putting together a complex tool. Not even gorillas or chimpanzees, our closest relatives, who have the requisite hands with opposable thumbs, have yet independently come up with so much as a flint axe.
Give them time, humans were probably no more capable than chimps at the start of their evolutionary process.
-
they don't study them; they know them instinctively.
There are instinctive reactions, yes, but there are prey animals that not only instinctively keep watch but that learn the potential hiding spots in the area around their den, that learn the individual preferences of particular predators in their immediate vicinity.
As I've already pointed out, there's a big difference between using a stick as a poker or a rock as a ammer, and designing and putting together a complex tool. Not even gorillas or chimpanzees, our closest relatives, who have the requisite hands with opposable thumbs, have yet independently come up with so much as a flint axe.
Do you consider it to be a difference of scale or nature, though - are we doing something fundamentally different, or are we doing essentially the same thing only better? To me, the fundamentals of machinery are simple (there are, after all, only seven basic machines), and whilst we might apply them in subtle or sophisticated ways, that's essentially a matter of scale not a change in the nature of what we're doing.
The combination of complex language and conceptualisation of complex tool design means the scale of our difference from the animals is immense, but I'm not sure at what point it becomes something qualitatively different. As with so many other things in biological thinking, I'm not sure there is a hard and fast answer, it depends on the context in which it's phrased.
Ultimately, as I think that all traits are evolved, we're no more nor less 'unique' than any other creatures, we're a unique combination of evolved traits exactly as much as chimpanzees, gorillas, bananas and mealworms.
O.
O.
-
Give them time, humans were probably no more capable than chimps at the start of their evolutionary process.
They have already had at least as long as us.
-
There are instinctive reactions, yes, but there are prey animals that not only instinctively keep watch but that learn the potential hiding spots in the area around their den, that learn the individual preferences of particular predators in their immediate vicinity.
Do you consider it to be a difference of scale or nature, though - are we doing something fundamentally different, or are we doing essentially the same thing only better? To me, the fundamentals of machinery are simple (there are, after all, only seven basic machines), and whilst we might apply them in subtle or sophisticated ways, that's essentially a matter of scale not a change in the nature of what we're doing.
The combination of complex language and conceptualisation of complex tool design means the scale of our difference from the animals is immense, but I'm not sure at what point it becomes something qualitatively different. As with so many other things in biological thinking, I'm not sure there is a hard and fast answer, it depends on the context in which it's phrased.
Ultimately, as I think that all traits are evolved, we're no more nor less 'unique' than any other creatures, we're a unique combination of evolved traits exactly as much as chimpanzees, gorillas, bananas and mealworms.
O.
O.
It becomes qualitatively different when you shape a piece of flint into an axe-head, and attach it to a handle, as opposed to just picking up a conveniently-shaped piece of flint which already has a sharp edge.
-
They have already had at least as long as us.
We developed a bit faster than them.
-
They have already had at least as long as us.
Given that evolutionary forces work on the natural selection of random variation, how does the length of time matter? That we evolved the trait earlier than them (apparently) is random.
O.
-
It becomes qualitatively different when you shape a piece of flint into an axe-head, and attach it to a handle, as opposed to just picking up a conveniently-shaped piece of flint which already has a sharp edge.
Is that qualitatively different? Ravens - which don't have the opposable thumbs to do the construction, nor the language to convey the ideas to each other in order to cooperate at that level, are capable of working out how complex machinery works, which is the same cognitive skill required to develop them.
Those, then, are not unique skills in themselves, but perhaps a unique combination of them.
O.
-
Given that evolutionary forces work on the natural selection of random variation, how does the length of time matter? That we evolved the trait earlier than them (apparently) is random.
O.
There you go. It is random every time....! The 'We don't know' answer, if ever there was one.
It just sounds more 'scientific' than 'God did it'.....but really isn't much more than that.
-
We developed a bit faster than them.
That isn't how evolution works.
-
There you go. It is random every time....! The 'We don't know' answer, if ever there was one.
It just sounds more 'scientific' than 'God did it'.....but really isn't much more than that.
To be fair, everything sounds more scientific than 'God did it'. At the submolecular level it probably isn't a random event, but functionally at the level of individual organisms it is.
'We don't know' is also and infinitely more scientific answer than 'God did it', which is just 'We don't know, but with added magic'.
O.
-
We developed a bit faster than them.
They haven't developed at all, even with human achievements to copy.
-
Given that evolutionary forces work on the natural selection of random variation, how does the length of time matter? That we evolved the trait earlier than them (apparently) is random.
O.
What on earth has that got to do with the fact that we have developed complex tools, and apes haven't?
-
Is that qualitatively different? Ravens - which don't have the opposable thumbs to do the construction, nor the language to convey the ideas to each other in order to cooperate at that level, are capable of working out how complex machinery works, which is the same cognitive skill required to develop them.
I'd like a reference for that assertion, please.
-
They haven't developed at all, even with human achievements to copy.
That is an assumption with no evidence to back it up, unless you were there when they first emerged from the primeval swamp. I bet humans were very different then too and much more like apes are today.
-
They haven't developed at all, even with human achievements to copy.
That's just piling Pelion upon the Ossa of LR's mistake about evolution.
-
That is an assumption with no evidence to back it up, unless you were there when they first emerged from the primeval swamp. I bet humans were very different then too and much more like apes are today.
Can you two stop with the competition to find a worse take on evolution?
-
Can you two stop with the competition to find a worse take on evolution?
Ehhhhhhhhhhh? I didn't think this was a competition, I am one of the least competitive people in the universe.
-
Ehhhhhhhhhhh? I didn't think this was a competition, I am one of the least competitive people in the universe.
Who removed the words sarcasm and humour from your dictionary?
-
Who removed the words sarcasm and humour from your dictionary?
If I had any feelings they would be hurt. :'( ;D
-
If I had any feelings they would be hurt. :'( ;D
The thieving so and so stole your feelings as well! Lock them up!
-
The thieving so and so stole your feelings as well! Lock them up!
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( ;D
-
What on earth has that got to do with the fact that we have developed complex tools, and apes haven't?
That we've evolved the suite of required capacities and the other apes haven't at this point in our evolution isn't necessarily indicative of anything, is the point I was making.
O.
-
I'd like a reference for that assertion, please.
Which 'assertion'? That ravens can work out complex mechanisms, or that the capacity to work them out is the same cognitive skill as is required to implement them?
O.
-
That is an assumption with no evidence to back it up, unless you were there when they first emerged from the primeval swamp. I bet humans were very different then too and much more like apes are today.
What the bloody blue bollocking blazes are you wittering on about? Show me a complex tool designed and made by a gorilla or chimp: the lack of evidence is the evidence!
-
That we've evolved the suite of required capacities and the other apes haven't at this point in our evolution isn't necessarily indicative of anything, is the point I was making.
O.
It's indicative of the fact that, at the moment, humans are unique in the their mental capacity.
-
That's just piling Pelion upon the Ossa of LR's mistake about evolution.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
-
To pile on the agony with no positive result, in other words, pointless rhetoric.
-
To pile on the agony with no positive result, in other words, pointless rhetoric.
I know what the expression "to pile Ossa on Pelion" means; I mean, what mistake does NS think I'm making?
-
Sorry, no idea. Don't suppose LR knows either :D.
-
Sorry, no idea. Don't suppose LR knows either :D.
Oops! I meant NS, not LR. Previous post edited.
-
Oh right, I don't know that either. Wait till NS returns.
-
To be fair, everything sounds more scientific than 'God did it'. At the submolecular level it probably isn't a random event, but functionally at the level of individual organisms it is.
'We don't know' is also and infinitely more scientific answer than 'God did it', which is just 'We don't know, but with added magic'.
O.
As Sean Carroll says somewhere...we can't keep looking at the world as sub atomic...classical...cosmic....as though they are three separate worlds. Everything is basically quantum in its nature and that is the physical reality. The classical world is merely our perception.
-
(&) Lewis Carroll said:-
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”
&
"It's no use going back to yesterday because i was a different person then."
C S Lewis said:-
"Humans are amphibians - half spirit and half animal. As spirits they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time."
-
(&) Lewis Carroll said:-
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”
&
"It's no use going back to yesterday because i was a different person then."
C S Lewis said:-
"Humans are amphibians - half spirit and half animal. As spirits they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time."
What is your definition of 'spirit'?
-
Whisky
(I'm channelling my inner Walter)
-
Whisky
(I'm channelling my inner Walter)
A single malt whisky is pleasant, although I only drink alcohol on very special occasions these days, and in strict moderation.
-
(&) Lewis Carroll said:-
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”
&
"It's no use going back to yesterday because i was a different person then."
C S Lewis said:-
"Humans are amphibians - half spirit and half animal. As spirits they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time."
Yes....looks like some westerners have also had the same animal-divine impression of humans. It makes perfect sense of the observed world without making the divine into something 'out there'. The divine is just a word for that part of our inner being that we need to bring out.
-
Whisky
(I'm channelling my inner Walter)
trent,
let it out. I guarantee you'll feel much better ;)
-
What is your definition of 'spirit'?
I did say it tongue in cheek, LR;
however :-
Spirit:
the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.
"we seek a harmony between body and spirit"
'the prevailing or typical quality, mood, or attitude of a person, group, or period of time'.
"I hope the team will build on this spirit of confidence"
-
I did say it tongue in cheek, LR;
however :-
Spirit:
the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.
"we seek a harmony between body and spirit"
'the prevailing or typical quality, mood, or attitude of a person, group, or period of time'.
"I hope the team will build on this spirit of confidence"
The brain creates the emotions and characters, the 'soul' is only another name for human consciousness, once the body dies so does the 'soul' and spirit, imo.
-
I accept that from your pov, L.roses.
-
as far as I know, only humans can do this
https://youtu.be/-dCln8n0i5g
-
as far as I know, only humans can do this
https://youtu.be/-dCln8n0i5g
That looked more like a rocket to me than a human.
-
As Sean Carroll says somewhere...we can't keep looking at the world as sub atomic...classical...cosmic....as though they are three separate worlds. Everything is basically quantum in its nature and that is the physical reality. The classical world is merely our perception.
Yes, but we function at the level of our perceptions - quantum effects, whilst random individually fall within fairly rigidly defined probabilities over a population such that, when writ large (i.e. at the macroscopic scale) the various random fluctuations balance out and we get the predictable macroscopic world we live in. In the absence of a unified quantum theory we HAVE to persist with a classical and microscopic view when it's appropriate, or we just have to give up on any science above the quantum scale until that theory arrives.
O.
-
It's indicative of the fact that, at the moment, humans are unique in the their mental capacity.
I suppose getting there first could be considered a 'uniqueness' of sorts, I'm not sure it fits the spirit of the original question, but I can see it. It seems more as though it's a technicality (CURRENTLY, we're unique, but that might change next week, like it's a matter of circumstance more than something intrinsic? Maybe I'm overthinking the original intent...)
O.
-
I suppose getting there first could be considered a 'uniqueness' of sorts, I'm not sure it fits the spirit of the original question, but I can see it. It seems more as though it's a technicality (CURRENTLY, we're unique, but that might change next week, like it's a matter of circumstance more than something intrinsic? Maybe I'm overthinking the original intent...)
O.
No other creature has ever shown the slightest capacity for developing their own, complex language, or designing complex tools or machines, not even the stone axe I keep referring to, even though they've had at least as long as us, so it's not just that we got there first; it seems that we are the only creatures capable of getting there at all. I read somewhere of gorillas being observed in the wild using stones as hammers. some bits broke off the stone, some of which had sharp edges and would have served as crude cutting or chopping tools, but the gorillas ignored them. Even when they are presented with a naturally-formed cutting tool, they don't cotton on.
-
Gorillas and chimpanzees have shown that they can acquire and use human language - they just cannot communicate verbally. Several researchers - and other interested people have shown that other primates can learn and use sign language (for example ASL) and use it expressively. It has been observed that chimps who are raised in close contact with humans can be seen to think like humans. Chimps can also communicate using sign language with each and teach sign language to other chimps. The first animal to be taught ASL was a female named Washoe.
-
No other creature has ever shown the slightest capacity for developing their own, complex language, or designing complex tools or machines, not even the stone axe I keep referring to, even though they've had at least as long as us, so it's not just that we got there first; it seems that we are the only creatures capable of getting there at all.
Except that, until we got there, we didn't look likely to either, I suppose.
I read somewhere of gorillas being observed in the wild using stones as hammers. some bits broke off the stone, some of which had sharp edges and would have served as crude cutting or chopping tools, but the gorillas ignored them. Even when they are presented with a naturally-formed cutting tool, they don't cotton on.
Can we safely presume that what's current, though, suggests an absolute limitation on what's possible? At some point in our evolutionary background our predecessors were (presumably) as limited as the gorillas are now, but our strain evolved and adapted - can we be certain that this can't happen to another species?
I guess, what I'm saying is, it's possible that we're unique, that there's something distinctive about humanity that can't be replicated, but I don't see anything to suggest that's the case. If it could happen to us by accident, why couldn't it happen to something else by accident?
O.
-
Animals and tool use.
https://www.livescience.com/9761-10-animals-tools.html
-
Gorillas and chimpanzees have shown that they can acquire and use human language - they just cannot communicate verbally. Several researchers - and other interested people have shown that other primates can learn and use sign language (for example ASL) and use it expressively. It has been observed that chimps who are raised in close contact with humans can be seen to think like humans. Chimps can also communicate using sign language with each and teach sign language to other chimps. The first animal to be taught ASL was a female named Washoe.
As I've pointed out previously, learning to use human language (at a fairly basic level: their vocabulary was quite small) is not the same as spontaneously developing a language of their own. Similarly, chimps and gorillas can learn to use human machines, but have never themselves managed to invent so much as a stone axe.
-
Except that, until we got there, we didn't look likely to either, I suppose.
Chimps and gorillas have been around at least as long as humans. I repeat: gorillas don't even cotton on to the possibilities of edged tools when presented with them. No doubt they would do if shown how to use them, but they haven't got the ability to do it themselves.
-
Chimps and gorillas have been around at least as long as humans. I repeat: gorillas don't even cotton on to the possibilities of edged tools when presented with them. No doubt they would do if shown how to use them, but they haven't got the ability to do it themselves.
And, again, given the apparently random nature of mutation and variation in a species, how does the fact that we evinced this capacity earlier signify that we are unique and that these other animals can't manifest it at some point?
O.
-
And, again, given the apparently random nature of mutation and variation in a species, how does the fact that we evinced this capacity earlier signify that we are unique and that these other animals can't manifest it at some point?
O.
Because we have, and they haven't, in spite of many millennia, and the opportunity of copying us. FFS - are you deliberately trying to wind me up, or what?
-
My family think I am unique, the mould was broken when I put in an appearance. ;D ;D ;D
-
That looked more like a rocket to me than a human.
oh dear! ::)
btw, I cleaned that comment up before posting
-
And, again, given the apparently random nature of mutation and variation in a species, how does the fact that we evinced this capacity earlier signify that we are unique and that these other animals can't manifest it at some point?
O.
I'm with Steve H on this one - not because I want to claim any anthropocentric view of the world (as far as I can see, nothing whatever matters a jot sub specie aeternitatis), but simply because we can see that this is what has happened when we compare the evolution of humans with other higher primates. Humans have evolved extremely complex 'tool-making' capacities etc along with other complex cultural features, whereas those of chimps, gorillas etc have remained static over millennia.
To return to the views of Prof Steven Mithen, to whom I referred earlier. He suggests that this stagnation in other primates was due to the way the neural structures of the brain became arranged. He uses two analogies to describe the marked differences between the chimp brain and the human brain - the 'Swiss army knife' model (chimps etc) and the 'cathedral with side chapels' model (humans). The former led to various specialised forms of social behaviour, without much possibility of 'transferable skills', whereas the latter allowed the functioning of the human imagination, the ability to conceptualise things and situations not present, and greater integration of many of the brain's conscious capacities. Once these neural pathways were laid down, the ability of chimps and gorillas to evolve complex tool-making methods was compromised and led to their cultural stagnation.
This is all speculative, though Mithen bases his research on sound paleontological and archeological evidence, along with primatology studies carried out by Jane Lawick-Goodall, for instance.
It may be that some genetic mutation might 'rearrange' the brains of chimps to allow greater cultural achievements, but as Steve rightly points out, it doesn't look like it's going to happen next tuesday.
-
Because we have, and they haven't, in spite of many millennia, and the opportunity of copying us. FFS - are you deliberately trying to wind me up, or what?
How often is it supposed to happen? It took 'us' millions of years to evolve to this point - in the evolutionary timescale it's been next to no time since we evolved the traits. What makes you think that the very small time (relatively) since we developed the trait is a significant enough delay on the part of the rest of the natural world as to consider us unique?
O.
-
If I remember from The Runaway Brain by Christopher Wills, there is a distinction that is made between 'the unique evolution of humans', and 'evolution of human uniqueness'. I believe in the 2nd but I think Steve appears to be thinking of the first, and that seems unjustified by his claims.
-
And, again, given the apparently random nature of mutation and variation in a species, how does the fact that we evinced this capacity earlier signify that we are unique and that these other animals can't manifest it at some point?
Clearly, even extremely stupid humans are vastly more intelligent than the next most intelligent animal, which is probably the chimpanzee or bonobo. I would argue that makes us unique, although not necessarily special.
It is entirely possible that, given the sudden extinction of human kind, chimanzees or another species could evolve equivalent intelligence, but they haven't yet and if they did, they would be a different species to chimpanzees in much the same way as we are different to our ancestors from six million years ago.
-
My family think I am unique, the mould was broken when I put in an appearance. ;D ;D ;D
Thank f*** for that! ;D
-
How often is it supposed to happen? It took 'us' millions of years to evolve to this point - in the evolutionary timescale it's been next to no time since we evolved the traits. What makes you think that the very small time (relatively) since we developed the trait is a significant enough delay on the part of the rest of the natural world as to consider us unique?
O.
Hom. sap. hasn't existed for millions of years! Ffs - if you must disagree for the sake of disagreeing, at least don't ignore known facts!
-
Our human ancestors are millions of years old. Homo sapiens are reckoned to be about 300,000 years old.
-
Because we have, and they haven't, in spite of many millennia, and the opportunity of copying us. FFS - are you deliberately trying to wind me up, or what?
But the human species does what it does with the abilities it has because it has been lucky enough to have had the random mutations which have produced those abilities. Other species cannot choose to have those mutations.
ty.
-
But the human species does what it does with the abilities it has because it has been lucky enough to have had the random mutations which have produced those abilities. Other species cannot choose to have those mutations.
ty.
Susan
I think that sums it up. In fact, I think we see these kinds of phenomena paralleled many times in evolution. Sometimes a mutation will produce a particular life form with a considerable potential for variation, and other mutations will produce a life form which has little innate capacity to adapt and evolve, which will then lead to its evolutionary stagnation and likely eventual extinction.
There are certain life-forms, such as the coelocanth, which appear to have all the potential for setting off a whole new line of evolutionary development (in this case the evolution of amphibians). I believe that looking to the coelocanth as the origin of amphibians has now been abandoned by biology - though new fossil evidence may turn up. This 'walking fish' however, seems to have just taken to a life of evolutionary stasis, since various examples kept turning up in the nets of 20th century fishermen in the Indian ? ocean. These specimens appear to have differed little from their prehistoric ancestors, apart from some adaption to deep sea conditions, where it seems to have found a comfortable niche. Likewise the crocodile, which seems to have evolved little from the forms of its historic ancestors.
Where the ancestry of humans is concerned, we see a plethora of evolutionary 'experiments', particularly with the development of the many varieties of Australopithecines in Africa - a number of species having lived contemporaneously. Some like A. robustus prospered for a considerable time, but eventually became extinct (were they perhaps hunted for food by the gracile Australopithecines, one type of which -A afarensis - probably launched the line to Homo sapiens?) The presence of so many species of "Ape-men" suggests that the genetic mutations that had produced them had considerable potential for diversification.
Whereas their distant cousins among the other higher primates had long been 'condemned' to evolutionary stasis by their particular genetic makeup. Some scientists trace the ancestry of chimps and gorillas to the Miocene apes (Dryopithecus?), and I'd say it is a fair speculation that the life style of these modern primates is not so very different from their ancient ancestor. The mutation that produced them had not much capacity for variation, and evolutionary stasis is the result. And likely extinction as their environment becomes more and more threatened.
My own speculations (riffing on the ideas of Steven Mithen).
-
Walter: as far as I know, only humans can do this
https://youtu.be/-dCln8n0i5g
Phallic, Walter?
-
Susan
I think that sums it up. In fact, I think we see these kinds of phenomena paralleled many times in evolution. Sometimes a mutation will produce a particular life form with a considerable potential for variation, and other mutations will produce a life form which has little innate capacity to adapt and evolve, which will then lead to its evolutionary stagnation and likely eventual extinction.
Interesting post - the more we can learn about evolutionary biology, the better.
I have attended quite a few talks over the years about the TofE and all point out that no life form can choose an adaptation, or a random mutation, or any DNA alteration. Even the limited use of stem cells etc nowadays is not going to lead to a general natural selection of such things. Species survive if they happen to have mutations that happen to enable them to survive changes of environgment or circumstances of any sort.
The Ancestor's Tale by RD was one of the most interesting books I've read. Unfortunately a complete and unabridged audio version was not available at the time.
-
But the human species does what it does with the abilities it has because it has been lucky enough to have had the random mutations which have produced those abilities. Other species cannot choose to have those mutations.
ty.
Exactly. I'm not trying to make any kind of theological argument on this thread; humans are unique because of lucky mutations in or ancestors' DNA, but the fact remains (I contend, at any rate) that we are.
-
Exactly. I'm not trying to make any kind of theological argument on this thread; humans are unique because of lucky mutations in or ancestors' DNA, but the fact remains (I contend, at any rate) that we are.
Still not really seeing what you are trying to claim. As I already mentioned there is a difference between unique evolution and evolution of uniqueness.
-
Every species is unique in a trivial sense, because that's more or less the definition of a species. Humans, though, are unique in a non-trivial way, because we have importsnt abilites which are not shared by any other currently-living species: complex language and complex tool-making. Chimps' and gorillas' limited ability to use human languages, and simple human tools if they're shown what to do, is not evidence against this: they've never come up with a language, or complex tool, of their own. We are also the only species, as far as I know, to come up with religion. Some on here will think that's a bad thing, but that's not the point; only we have done it. No other species has important abilities unique to it.
-
You are defining non trivial in a circular manner. Again I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is human evolution in any sense unique? Or do you agree that it is rather that human uniqueness has evolved?
-
Of course it's evolved. What's that to the purpose?
What's circular about my non-trivial uniqueness definition?
-
Of course it's evolved. What's that to the purpose?
What's circular about my non-trivial uniqueness definition?
You haven't really answered or indeed understood the question.
Are you claiming that in some way the evolution of humans is unique i.e. that the form of evolution is unlike anything else. Or as would be classically understood that how humans have evolved as humans is just uniqueness as any species?
As to your circularity, if you say the way is non trivial because the abilities are important, then you just define differences as being significant because you use circular terms for important. The entirety of the thread is confused because it isn't clear what you are trying to say.
-
Every species is unique in a trivial sense, because that's more or less the definition of a species. Humans, though, are unique in a non-trivial way, because we have importsnt abilites which are not shared by any other currently-living species: complex language and complex tool-making. Chimps' and gorillas' limited ability to use human languages, and simple human tools if they're shown what to do, is not evidence against this: they've never come up with a language, or complex tool, of their own. We are also the only species, as far as I know, to come up with religion. Some on here will think that's a bad thing, but that's not the point; only we have done it. No other species has important abilities unique to it.
Using the word 'trivial' to describe the uniqueness of other animal species is rather silly, imo. ::)
-
Using the word 'trivial' to describe the uniqueness of other animal species is rather silly, imo. ::)
You obviously haven't the faintest idea what I'm talking about.
-
You obviously haven't the faintest idea what I'm talking about.
I am not the only one by the looks of it! It appears your understanding on this topic is rather limited. Never mind dear have a cycle ride, wearing a helmet and high viz jacket of course, it might help your brain cell to focus. :P ;D
-
You haven't really answered or indeed understood the question.
Are you claiming that in some way the evolution of humans is unique i.e. that the form of evolution is unlike anything else. Or as would be classically understood that how humans have evolved as humans is just uniqueness as any species?
As to your circularity, if you say the way is non trivial because the abilities are important, then you just define differences as being significant because you use circular terms for important. The entirety of the thread is confused because it isn't clear what you are trying to say.
I meant trivial because it's part of the definition of a species. It's not that difficult to understand, but let me try again: all species are unique by definition. That's why that kind of uniqueness is trivial. I was trying to avoid the phrase "by definition", because it is much abused, and is often little more than a vague intensifier. Here, though, it is meant in the strict sense. What I mean by "unique" in this thread, though, is "having properties shared by no other species", which makes humans unique for their language and tool-making abilites, amongst other things. Other species may be unique in other ways, but not the male egg-laying ability of seahorses, the example offered by LR, beause there are over 40 different species of seahorse, and the feature is shared by pipefish, to which seahorses are related.
-
The meaning of the word 'trivial' is of little value or importance. That cannot be used to describe animals of other species, many of which are of great value and importance to either this planet, the human animal, or both.
-
The meaning of the word 'trivial' is of little value or importance. That cannot be used to describe animals of other species, many of which are of great value and importance to either this planet, the human animal, or both.
It's the sense of the word "unique", as applied to all species, that is trivial, because it is part of the definition of the word "species", so is indeed of little value or importance.
-
It's the sense of the word "unique", as applied to all species, that is trivial, because it is part of the definition of the word "species", so is indeed of little value or importance.
?
-
I can't put it much simpler than that, so if you still don't understand, I suggest you give up posting on this thread, as you are not giving a good impression of your intelligence.
-
It's the sense of the word "unique", as applied to all species, that is trivial, because it is part of the definition of the word "species", so is indeed of little value or importance.
Steve H
I've been following this thread and can now say I think I understand what you are asking in the title .
I think others here are being purposefully disingenuous in their misunderstanding .
-
Steve H
I've been following this thread and can now say I think I understand what you are asking in the title .
I think others here are being purposefully disingenuous in their misunderstanding .
Well then you explain what Steve is trying to say.
-
I'd say, for what it's worth, that that when applied to evolution a term like 'unique' is redundant when describing species since, as has been noted, all species have, or had if no longer extant, particular 'unique' attributes that distinguish them from other species and are relevant to their environment, activities and survival.
Humans have evolved particular intellectual attributes that are relevant to the activities and survival of our species, including being able to adjust our environment (and not always beneficially for ourselves or other species), in exactly the same way that, say, eyesight and flying attributes are to the activities and survival of raptors: they have no use for our attributes, and we have no use for theirs.
I suspect that some might tend to see our species as perhaps 'more' or 'better' evolved that other species, and if so that view isn't consistent with the TofE.
-
Well then you explain what Steve is trying to say.
nope, have a go at working it out for yourself . Get back to me with what you think and we'll see if we have a match :)
-
...
I suspect that some might tend to see our species as perhaps 'more' or 'better' evolved that other species, and if so that view isn't consistent with the TofE.
Indeed, but on the other hand we have a ToE and can discuss it, something other species will never achieve - at least without our help/meddling.
-
Indeed, but on the other hand we have a ToE and can discuss it, something other species will never achieve - at least without our help/meddling.
True: but then we can't fly, breath underwater or hear sound frequencies that dogs can.
-
nope, have a go at working it out for yourself . Get back to me with what you think and we'll see if we have a match :)
That says it all! ::)
-
That says it all! ::)
in that case your mind reading abilities are about as accurate as your presumptions 8)
-
in that case your mind reading abilities are about as accurate as your presumptions 8)
Gobbledegook! ::)
-
True: but then we can't fly, breath underwater or hear sound frequencies that dogs can.
I don't think any of those abilities are confined to a single species.
-
I don't think any of those abilities are confined to a single species.
They're not, as you say: for those species having those abilities in various ways they are essential, hence they have evolved in those species, but not for other species (like ours).
I suspect the comparison between species based on attributes, or that some attributes are better or more useful than others, is utterly pointless - hence observations along the lines of that fish have little use for bicycles.
-
They're not, as you say: for those species having those abilities in various ways they are essential, hence they have evolved in those species, but not for other species (like ours).
I suspect the comparison between species based on attributes, or that some attributes are better or more useful than others, is utterly pointless - hence observations along the lines of that fish have little use for bicycles.
I agree.
-
we have important abilites which are not shared by any other currently-living species:
I agree the abilities you list are unique to humans and they are important to us. However, are they important in any general sense? It seems to me that the ability to reproduce every 20 minutes (i.e. like lots of bacteria) is far more important, especially considering that bacteria outnumber all the other living organisms by orders of magnitude.
-
I meant trivial because it's part of the definition of a species. It's not that difficult to understand, but let me try again: all species are unique by definition. That's why that kind of uniqueness is trivial. I was trying to avoid the phrase "by definition", because it is much abused, and is often little more than a vague intensifier. Here, though, it is meant in the strict sense. What I mean by "unique" in this thread, though, is "having properties shared by no other species", which makes humans unique for their language and tool-making abilites, amongst other things. Other species may be unique in other ways, but not the male egg-laying ability of seahorses, the example offered by LR, beause there are over 40 different species of seahorse, and the feature is shared by pipefish, to which seahorses are related.
Again this isn't addressing the question, even if we accept that the different abilities are 'uniquely unique', and I don't think that it has been clearly shown that they are not just similar to other animals abilities but by a order of magnitude better, are you claiming that the evolution of humans is in someway unique rather than we have evolved with human uniqueness, just as all other animals have?
-
Again this isn't addressing the question, even if we accept that the different abilities are 'uniquely unique', and I don't think that it has been clearly shown that they are not just similar to other animals abilities but by a order of magnitude better, are you claiming that the evolution of humans is in someway unique rather than we have evolved with human uniqueness, just as all other animals have?
An excellent question. :)
-
Hom. sap. hasn't existed for millions of years! Ffs - if you must disagree for the sake of disagreeing, at least don't ignore known facts!
My turn - are you being deliberately dense? Of course we haven't been homo sapiens for millions of years, but we evolved from things that were there millions of years ago. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not all of us have evolved reading skills?
You see how that attitude grates?
Now, what became homo sapiens evolved traits over millions of years, some of which became the complex language and tool using skills we currently enjoy - the advent of each of this individual elements was random, so I ask again - should we consider the emergency of that particular combination of traits to be significant enough to justify some sort of 'unique' classification, or should we accept that the fortunate confluence of individual traits which we see in other organisms has had a fortunate compound effect and that we are not 'unique' in any underlying way, we are just fortunate in the combination of traits we've inherited?
O.
-
I wish Ihadn't started this bloody thread now. I'll leave the rest of you to it. 'Bye.
-
I wish Ihadn't started this bloody thread now. I'll leave the rest of you to it. 'Bye.
Isn't that the sort of reply you have stated previously means the person has lost the argument?
-
Isn't that the sort of reply you have stated previously means the person has lost the argument?
There was an argument?
-
Isn't that the sort of reply you have stated previously means the person has lost the argument?
Yep. ;D
-
Isn't that the sort of reply you have stated previously means the person has lost the argument?
No, that's "We'll have to agree to disagree", or words to that effect.
-
No, that's "We'll have to agree to disagree", or words to that effect.
Wow, that was a short goodbye! ;D ;D ;D
-
Seems relevant
https://www.discoverwildlife.com/news/theory-of-mind-demonstrated-great-apes/
-
Seems relevant
https://www.discoverwildlife.com/news/theory-of-mind-demonstrated-great-apes/
When a great ape independently comes up with a theory of mind relating to humans, I'll be impressed.
-
When a great ape independently comes up with a theory of mind relating to humans, I'll be impressed.
You might have to wait a little while but it may happen one day.
-
When a great ape independently comes up with a theory of mind relating to humans, I'll be impressed.
I'm with you on that Steve H
-
Quite a good thread Steven. Even though I haven't been joining it, I've read all the posts.
NS:-
Quote from: Steve H on October 16, 2019, 10:27:22 PM
I wish Ihadn't started this bloody thread now. I'll leave the rest of you to it. 'Bye.
Isn't that the sort of reply you have stated previously means the person has lost the argument?
_____
I don't see the point of going over the same ground endlessly albeit with different words. There have been threads that are never ending and go round in circles, might as well walk away from them or at least have a break & think about something else.
-
Quite a good thread Steven. Even though I haven't been joining it, I've read all the posts.
NS:-
Quote from: Steve H on October 16, 2019, 10:27:22 PM
I wish Ihadn't started this bloody thread now. I'll leave the rest of you to it. 'Bye.
Isn't that the sort of reply you have stated previously means the person has lost the argument?
_____
I don't see the point of going over the same ground endlessly albeit with different words. There have been threads that are never ending and go round in circles, might as well walk away from them or at least have a break & think about something else.
Oh, I agree, it was just that Steve has posted in the past that when people suggest that they are agreeing to differ, then they are accepting that they have lost the argument. Sometimes it's just as you say, it's not going anywhere.
-
Yeah.
-
You might have to wait a little while but it may happen one day.
Not unless they evolve into creatures a lot more intelligent than they are now.
-
Not unless they evolve into creatures a lot more intelligent than they are now.
Maybe they will in the future.
-
Maybe they will in the future.
The thread title is "ARE humans unique?", not "WILL humans BE unique in the future?". Pay attention at the back.
-
The thread title is "ARE humans unique?", not "WILL humans BE unique in the future?". Pay attention at the back.
It is you who doesn't seem to understand what has been posted by others. ::)
-
It is you who doesn't seem to understand what has been posted by others. ::)
Examples?
-
Examples?
Steve I don't know what gets into you, it seems to give you a kick to be unpleasant to other posters. ::)
You misread my post, I suggested apes might be able to achieve in the future what humans are capable of doing today. I didn't say humans might be unique in the future.
-
The thread title is "ARE humans unique?", not "WILL humans BE unique in the future?". Pay attention at the back.
And why would our capacity at any arbitrary moment in time be significant? There's a monkey somewhere that's half-way through the action of hurling his own faeces at a tree - that's probably currently unique, but that doesn't appear to be in the spirit of your question, but then the spirit of your question isn't exactly that clear.
Are you asking if humanity, currently, has a unique capacity amongst terrestrial life for advanced thinking? Well, obviously. For that trait to be considered universally unique you'd have to have reason to think that there was no extra-terrestrial intelligence of similar capacity, no possibility for any other terrestrial organism to develop such talent in the future and, arguably, to think that it's impossible for an artificial intelligence to be created with the capacity.
Do you think that? If so, yeah, humans are unique. If not, no they aren't.
O.
-
And why would our capacity at any arbitrary moment in time be significant? There's a monkey somewhere that's half-way through the action of hurling his own faeces at a tree - that's probably currently unique, but that doesn't appear to be in the spirit of your question, but then the spirit of your question isn't exactly that clear.
Are you asking if humanity, currently, has a unique capacity amongst terrestrial life for advanced thinking? Well, obviously. For that trait to be considered universally unique you'd have to have reason to think that there was no extra-terrestrial intelligence of similar capacity, no possibility for any other terrestrial organism to develop such talent in the future and, arguably, to think that it's impossible for an artificial intelligence to be created with the capacity.
Do you think that? If so, yeah, humans are unique. If not, no they aren't.
O.
I would be very surprised if humans were the only intelligent lifeforms in the universe. There could be others more intelligent than us.
-
Steve I don't know what gets into you, it seems to give you a kick to be unpleasant to other posters. ::)
You misread my post, I suggested apes might be able to achieve in the future what humans are capable of doing today. I didn't say humans might be unique in the future.
However, as Steve originally stated, the extreme period of evolutionary stasis exhibited by the great apes suggests that this is unlikely to happen. It may be, as I suggested earlier, that the way their neural pathways have been laid down prevents this kind of 'evolutionary leap', and they have been backed into a dead-end, and may soon become extinct (as we all may, if humanity is not careful!) I don't know what we can judge from the fossil record about such matters, but it does seem that there are numerous examples of creatures which have changed little over millennia (with even some contemporary surviving genera, such as the crocodile) - while all around them other life-forms show evidence of rapid evolutionary change.
There again, with the matter of comparison of chimps, gorillas and humans, we are dealing with a two-fold phenomenon: both biological and cultural evolution, which complicates the question.
Do any boffins here know of any ancient species which appear to have remained in stasis for millennia, and then suddenly appear to have undergone rapid evolutionary change, and had somewhat different descendants which appeared in a relatively short time (in terms of the overall existence of life on earth)?
-
And why would our capacity at any arbitrary moment in time be significant? There's a monkey somewhere that's half-way through the action of hurling his own faeces at a tree - that's probably currently unique, but that doesn't appear to be in the spirit of your question, but then the spirit of your question isn't exactly that clear
O.
I'm also puzzled by the spirit of Steve's question, though I wonder why there has been so much questioning of his original observation, which seems self-evident. I know Steve is a liberal Christian, and doesn't believe in any kind of traditional god who creates by instant fiat. I also know he is torn between the non-realist god of Don Cupitt, Tillich et al. and some kind of 'realist' god, which would seem to be introducing teleology into evolution. That in turn would indicate the possibility of a kind of vitalism, such as that of Bergson, who definitely thought that evolution was 'going somewhere', and that humanity alone had almost reached that culminating point.
There again, I know Steve has previously spoken out against vitalism, so I ultimately haven't a clue where he's coming from on this one. But no doubt if we keep our cool (and you've certainly done well to keep yours, under provocation), maybe he'll get round to telling us.
-
I wish Ihadn't started this bloody thread now. I'll leave the rest of you to it. 'Bye.
The title of this thread is a question. What were you expecting? Everybody to just post "yes"?
-
Do any boffins here know of any ancient species which appear to have remained in stasis for millennia, and then suddenly appear to have undergone rapid evolutionary change, and had somewhat different descendants which appeared in a relatively short time (in terms of the overall existence of life on earth)?
That's pretty much how it always works isn't it? That's why the hypothesis of punctuated equilibria was invented.
-
Steve I don't know what gets into you, it seems to give you a kick to be unpleasant to other posters. ::)
You misread my post, I suggested apes might be able to achieve in the future what humans are capable of doing today. I didn't say humans might be unique in the future.
OK, maybe I was a bit crabby.
Yes, apes might develop high intelligence in the future, a la 'Planet of the Apes', but it will be a long time in the future, given the slow pace of evolution - probably hundreds of thousands of years. There's no guarantee that they will at all: they probablty don't need more intelligence than they've got, being physically well-adapted to their environment in the wild. There's nothing special, in a sense, about intelligence: we evolved it and it helped us survive and thrive, because physically early man wasill-adapted to their environment physically. We must reject the idea of evolution as progress from lower to higher, with humans currently its summit.
-
Yes, apes might develop high intelligence in the future, a la 'Planet of the Apes', but it will be a long time in the future, given the slow pace of evolution - probably hundreds of thousands of years. There's no guarantee that they will at all: they probablty don't need more intelligence than they've got, being physically well-adapted to their environment in the wild. There's nothing special, in a sense, about intelligence: we evolved it and it helped us survive and thrive, because physically early man wasill-adapted to their environment physically. We must reject the idea of evolution as progress from lower to higher, with humans currently its summit.
I think that's what most of us have been getting at when we suggest that whilst we aren't currently aware of a similarly advanced intelligence, it's merely another evolved trait that we happen to have - it's unique, but it's not intrinsically special, or at least it wasn't bequeathed to us because we're special.
O.
-
I think that's what most of us have been getting at when we suggest that whilst we aren't currently aware of a similarly advanced intelligence, it's merely another evolved trait that we happen to have - it's unique, but it's not intrinsically special, or at least it wasn't bequeathed to us because we're special.
O.
I don't think though that the adaptation is unique, it's just an adaptation that we happen to the most adapted to.
-
OK, maybe I was a bit crabby.
Yes, apes might develop high intelligence in the future, a la 'Planet of the Apes', but it will be a long time in the future, given the slow pace of evolution - probably hundreds of thousands of years. There's no guarantee that they will at all: they probablty don't need more intelligence than they've got, being physically well-adapted to their environment in the wild. There's nothing special, in a sense, about intelligence: we evolved it and it helped us survive and thrive, because physically early man wasill-adapted to their environment physically. We must reject the idea of evolution as progress from lower to higher, with humans currently its summit.
I get very crabby too, especially with my husband when he doesn't take my advice about his health. :o
-
I get very crabby too, especially with my husband when he doesn't take my advice about his health. :o
It's said that married men live longer than single men, because their wives nag them to go to the doctor if they've got a minor health problem.
OK, back to the topic, though I think it's run its course.
-
That's pretty much how it always works isn't it? That's why the hypothesis of punctuated equilibria was invented.
I've read several of Stephen J Gould's books, and (not having had any advanced scientific training) I'm still rather puzzled by the hypothesis of 'punctuated equilibrium'. It would certainly seem to explain a lot, especially those apparent 'missing links' in the fossil record (the links are there, but not enough are preserved). I suppose it all depends on sudden rapidly changing environmental conditions, which may jolt an established species into more rapid change. However, the hagfish has remained unchanged for 300 million years - I wonder what it would take to stir it from torpor?
Maybe the necessary genetic component has to be there from the start to allow change in the distant future?
Please enlighten me...
-
Got this on my Facebook page today - https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/a-group-of-panama-monkeys-have-entered-the-stone-age/ (https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/a-group-of-panama-monkeys-have-entered-the-stone-age/)
Maybe we're not as far away as we thought?
O.
-
I have seen videos of crows dropping nuts on the freeway so that cars can run over them and break the shells...after which they eat the nuts inside. They must be in the car age! ;) ;)
-
I have seen videos of crows dropping nuts on the freeway so that cars can run over them and break the shells...after which they eat the nuts inside. They must be in the car age! ;) ;)
Wow - they'll be sending rockets to the moon next! (Sarcasm.)
-
Got this on my Facebook page today - https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/a-group-of-panama-monkeys-have-entered-the-stone-age/ (https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/a-group-of-panama-monkeys-have-entered-the-stone-age/)
Maybe we're not as far away as we thought?
O.
but does he swear when he traps his fingers ?
that's real progress!
-
It gets the parrot to do that
-
Wow - they'll be sending rockets to the moon next! (Sarcasm.)
No, It's ok, they'll just say they did.
-
I have seen videos of crows dropping nuts on the freeway so that cars can run over them and break the shells...after which they eat the nuts inside. They must be in the car age! ;) ;)
I've seen chimps successfully running a furniture removal firm , wearing flat caps and drinking tea !
-
David Attenborough......
http://www.bbc.com/earth/storyoflife/player?clipID=20160713-crows-use-cars-to-crack-nuts
-
Well, well, well, who would have believed it, I thought it was only humans were the only animal species who could drive cars, not so rats can drive them too! ;D
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50167812