Page 85 of 89 FirstFirst ... 357580818283848586878889 LastLast
Results 1,681 to 1,700 of 1780
  1. #1681  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Why did we evolve to this apparent advanced state yet gorillas and monkeys haven't? Shouldn't all of the older species be at an advanced state?
    The theory of evolution states that evolution takes place in branches... some a genetic break from the main trunk creates a branch and so on... some branches continue on the way they have been, others die out... still others continue to branch off. The reason for this, it is believed, is that evolution is a function of need. The gorillas and monkeys, in their natural habitat have evolved to a state where they are at harmony and balance with their surroundings, they have no need at the moment, so their evolutionary change has slowed.

    Humans on the other hand are believed to not be at balance, and are therefore still marching to the evolutionary drumbeat.
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1682  
    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    The theory of evolution states that evolution takes place in branches... some a genetic break from the main trunk creates a branch and so on... some branches continue on the way they have been, others die out... still others continue to branch off. The reason for this, it is believed, is that evolution is a function of need. The gorillas and monkeys, in their natural habitat have evolved to a state where they are at harmony and balance with their surroundings, they have no need at the moment, so their evolutionary change has slowed.

    Humans on the other hand are believed to not be at balance, and are therefore still marching to the evolutionary drumbeat.
    Thanks for taking the time to respond, and I like your theory. I just find it interesting that only one of these branches evolved to our state, when there's so many other species that have not.

    But wasn't our environment the same environment as the other simians of that period? How would that be out of balance?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. #1683  
    Thats interesting... my father used to tell Christians all the time "Well I hope your God is watching, because mine turned his back to us long ago."

    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I think a few of you will be surprised if you go back through this thread and learn a little more about Micael's views. If I remember correctly, he is a "deist" (which basically means he believes God created the world and then more or less ignored it after that).

    Micael, am I remembering correctly? Why do you think God would "check out" in such a way? (Just curious - and trying to change the subject a bit in order to keep the "temperature" in here from getting to high! ) -- Bob
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1684  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    Perhaps there was a bit of extrapolation, but you were arguing for humanity's unique intelligence. In post 1666, you said;
    Yes, I consider us unique on the planet - you said universe. That's a different debate, isn't it? Or did I miss a species here on earth that you would like to compare?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #1685  
    It isnt the environment that is out of balance... it is the species. My beliefs get a little Taoist here... but bear with me.

    I will also add the moniker right here, that everything following are my thoughts, and nowhere do I assert they are absolute truths or representative of anyone elses mode of thinking.

    The universe, and everything in it seeks a balance... because energies are forces, and forces will continue to do exactly as they do until another force comes along to slow, change or stop that. By this, I mean a sort of modified Einstein model... "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." Matter itself is just a lazy form of energy really... oscillations so low that it manifests in physicality.

    I just realized this isnt really answering you though... at any rate... when a species is out of balance with its surroundings, then it is not the surroundings that make a change, it is the species.

    Also... as for time... you are making the assumption that every species should be traveling along the evolutionary timeline at the same speed. If you think about it... a lot of evolutionary change happens as an escalation of violence (a function of survival) One species develops claws... so another species develops thick skin... so the first species develops a muscular mandible with teeth... so the second species develops armor, or thick fur... so on and so forth. That is the relationship between a carnivore and its prey... but the model is much the same with herbivore and plants... thats why some plants have thorns, poison so on and so forth. Ive heard this called the murder principle too... on a much smaller scale, and over vast periods of time each species and its competitors are working toward their very own nuclear bombs. Take the walnut tree for example... it grows big and strong by killing everything with roots of a certain depth around it, except other walnut trees. This developed in forests as a result of competition for sunlight.

    It is thought that humans developed intelligence because physically our strain was weak in comparison to the things that wanted to eat us, and the things we wanted to eat. Dont think of our intelligence as something special... it isnt... it is merely a response of our bodies to the nuclear arms race of its time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Thanks for taking the time to respond, and I like your theory. I just find it interesting that only one of these branches evolved to our state, when there's so many other species that have not.

    But wasn't our environment the same environment as the other simians of that period? How would that be out of balance?
    Last edited by bluewanders; 09/30/2010 at 01:52 PM. Reason: spelling errors
  6. #1686  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I didn't say would. I said could (as in 'capable of').
    Which brings us back to the question of how advanced that capability really is in comparison to knowing how (or more importantly being able to come up with it in the first place). Come now, Micael, don't devolve into just parsing words.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1687  
    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    It is thought that humans developed intelligence because physically our strain was weak in comparison to the things that wanted to eat us, and the things we wanted to eat. Dont think of our intelligence as something special... it isnt... it is merely a response of our bodies to the nuclear arms race of its time.
    I don't know. If weakness was the primary driver for evolution of the intellect, I can think of several species that should be in the running for the nobel prize.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1688  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Which brings us back to the question of how advanced that capability really is in comparison to knowing how (or more importantly being able to come up with it in the first place). Come now, Micael, don't devolve into just parsing words.
    I promise not to parse my words if you promise not to change them
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. #1689  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Which brings us back to the question of how advanced that capability really is in comparison to knowing how (or more importantly being able to come up with it in the first place). Come now, Micael, don't devolve into just parsing words.
    We are looking at the species as a whole... on the individual level... every species has its inferior members... the only difference is ours survive, because weve managed to free ourselves from the need for "survival of the fittest" through technological advancement and the coddling of the weak.
  10. #1690  
    Name a few for me... and I will consider them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I don't know. If weakness was the primary driver for evolution of the intellect, I can think of several species that should be in the running for the nobel prize.
  11. #1691  
    Micael, I was trying to get past that point. I grant your premise that we are unique on Earth as far as intelligence and technological advancement, etc. What was the point you were trying to make with that argument?
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1692  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    Micael, I was trying to get past that point. I grant your premise that we are unique on Earth as far as intelligence and technological advancement, etc. What was the point you were trying to make with that argument?
    I think that may be the problem. I was asking a thought provoking question, and I think you thought I was posing an argument which led to some assumptions.

    I'm actually asking the question "why is it?" - there was no "therefore" hidden behind it.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #1693  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I promise not to parse my words if you promise not to change them
    I didn't change your words. I asked you a question based on the implications of your position. Seems there's even a show called "The Colony" based on the concept. We don't even have to go that far. Are humans in 'Western society' really any more 'evolved' than our tribal brethren in remote jungles that still speak in clicks and whistles?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1694  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I didn't change your words. I asked you a question based on the implications of your position. Seems there's even a show called "The Colony" based on the concept. We don't even have to go that far. Are humans in 'Western society' really any more 'evolved' than our tribal brethren in remote jungles that still speak in clicks and whistles?
    I'll go out on a limb here and say "no".
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15.    #1695  
    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    ... when a species is out of balance with its surroundings, then it is not the surroundings that make a change, it is the species.
    It could be either. In the case of humans, I suspect you may be right about the cause (but we also seem to be affecting our environment by our actions). In the end ()at least Biblically, it seems as our environment (including our ablities to live amongst eachother peacefully) may become very challenging. Let's not extrapolate our own experience to that of other species!

    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    Also... as for time... you are making the assumption that every species should be traveling along the evolutionary timeline at the same speed. If you think about it... a lot of evolutionary change happens as an escalation of violence (a function of survival)
    I think the rate of evolutionary change may be more or less constant but the success or failures of each such change would be dependent on environmental factors. (This is "Natural Selection", right?)

    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    It is thought that humans developed intelligence because physically our strain was weak in comparison to the things that wanted to eat us, and the things we wanted to eat. Dont think of our intelligence as something special... it isnt... it is merely a response of our bodies to the nuclear arms race of its time.
    That could be the case, but nothing says that we cannot be special for other reasons.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  16. #1696  
    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    We are looking at the species as a whole... on the individual level... every species has its inferior members... the only difference is ours survive, because weve managed to free ourselves from the need for "survival of the fittest" through technological advancement and the coddling of the weak.
    I think you misunderstand my point. I'm saying that as a whole our species is _not_ that advanced. Most of us do not have the capacity to come up with electricity, or cell phones, or computers, etc. We like to think that we're 'evolved', but what really happens to us if some of those advances are removed?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1697  
    But that's an interesting point, Toby. Given time it may be that western society could 'evolve' down a different path than our tribal brethren?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. #1698  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I'll go out on a limb here and say "no".
    Then why do they not share the same technological advances?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1699  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Then why do they not share the same technological advances?
    I'd say isolation/trade barriers.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. #1700  
    Hmm... no I think I understand your point, I think we just have two very different ways of approaching the same question.

    The technological accouterments we surround ourselves with are not evolution... nor is the amount of knowledge one carries. From an evolutionary aspect... Stephen Hawkins is no more advanced than someone with down syndrome. Evolution is only concerned with survival and adaptation to the the environment in which a species lives.

    There are some though... that would argue the increase in cases of Aspergers and Autism is really another step in evolution based on our oversaturation of technology and the disconnection with the physical world. How true that is I dont know... but it is interesting to note how much more their brains work like a computer than ours, and how most of their problems are social ones.


    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I think you misunderstand my point. I'm saying that as a whole our species is _not_ that advanced. Most of us do not have the capacity to come up with electricity, or cell phones, or computers, etc. We like to think that we're 'evolved', but what really happens to us if some of those advances are removed?

Posting Permissions