Called out.

[Silvertusk]

As a religious person I am still very happy with Evolution and everything - but there is something I don't understand and please excuse my lack of biological knowledge here.

Taking the assumptions

1) We are the most advanced species on this planet
2) We are the dominate species on this planet.

Why is it just "humans" that have evolved to this level that we are at. Why is it that almost every other species on this planet doesn't come anywhere even close (vastly so).

I am talking about the levels of intelligence here and what we have done with it regards to the world we live in today.

You would have thought there might have been some reports of some species starting to advance as we have, though maybe have been killed out by humans in the long run. That just confuses me.

Why isn't there another species that exists building there own forms of transport, their own machines, computers etc.. Both of us sharing this world together. Why isn't there reports of a species developing their own ancient tools thousands of years ago - but maybe have died out.

It just seems that humans are so ridiculously far ahead of other species in terms of advancement and domination. It is like evolution put us on the inside track and we never stopped sprinting.

It is as if we were picked out for special attention.

Bear in mind that I am well aware that the assumptions I have made are debatable, but I am considering them true for this thread.

What are people thoughts on this?

 

[water]

Silvertusk,

Your wonderings make sense if we look at things the way they are now, and then go back in time. But evolution didn't happen in this direction.

When something happens or when something is completed, we tend to think it happened with a certain purpose; that there is a chain of causes and effects -- and the observed phenomenon seems special to us, we feel "It is as if we were picked out for special attention." -- and as if it couldn't be any other way.

It is not that we have been picked out; that we have, appears to us because we have put ourselves in the centre of observation.

And it is no *we* who have been picked out: The humans of today can't really relate to the early hominds -- we couldn't have a conversation with them.

 

[Throckmorton]

1) We are the most advanced species on this planet

That's true.

2) We are the dominant species on this planet.

An insect philosopher would disagree with that.

Why is it that almost every other species on this planet doesn't come anywhere even close (vastly so).

That's one of the really big questions. The Adam and Eve story was written to explain just that. In the ancient Near East "knowledge of good and evil" meant "knowledge of everything".

The Adam and Eve story was written in order to explain how man has universal knowledge (It seemed so at the time) and yet is not imortal like the gods. The Adam and Eve story does not mean what most people think it means (or at least didn't at the time it was written).

The scientific answer to your question is of course "why not?"

 

[Silvertusk]

Silvertusk,

Your wonderings make sense if we look at things the way they are now, and then go back in time. But evolution didn't happen in this direction.

When something happens or when something is completed, we tend to think it happened with a certain purpose; that there is a chain of causes and effects -- and the observed phenomenon seems special to us, we feel "It is as if we were picked out for special attention." -- and as if it couldn't be any other way.

Hi Water

Yes, granted. This is a similar arguement used against Anthropic principal wonderings. But I guess it is a case of we are in this position, and why the above reasoning may certainly true, it shouldn't be used as the sole possible answer to why it is the case.

It is not that we have been picked out; that we have, appears to us because we have put ourselves in the centre of observation.

Unfortuantely, considering where we are, there is no other centre of observation at least not when talking about humans.

And it is no *we* who have been picked out: The humans of today can't really relate to the early hominds -- we couldn't have a conversation with them.

Maybe, but my point is why is it that only humanoids seem to have this fast track of development. It seems to be that no other species ever had a chance in this race. This is probably a silly example but you don't hear of some form of Beaver developing intellegence to make rudimentry tools to help them with their damn building. Humanoids seemed to be the only ones that advanced on a much wider plain rather than just to aid their instinctive behaviour. There is no evidence of evolution helping out any other species this way even if after a while they gave up or died out. So from that it does seem that we are picked IMHO. And yes, I still appreciate that your above reasoning is true.

 

[Silvertusk]

An insect philosopher would disagree with that.

Most likely - I guess when I imply domination I mean that if we don't like it we could stamp it out. We could certainly do that with a bunch of insects. Viruses is another matter, obviously. But I think you sort of get what I mean.

That's one of the really big questions. The Adam and Eve story was written to explain just that. In the ancient Near East "knowledge of good and evil" meant "knowledge of everything".

The Adam and Eve story was written in order to explain how man has universal knowledge (It seemed so at the time) and yet is not imortal like the gods. The Adam and Eve story does not mean what most people think it means (or at least didn't at the time it was written).

That is a really interesting point of view - I never thought of it in that way before. Although what exactly do you mean when you say "The Adam and Eve story does not mean what most people think it means (or at least didn't at the time it was written"

The scientific answer to your question is of course "why not?"

LOL Don't have a problem with that, from a scientific point of view of course. Although some elaboration would be nice.

 

[Sarkus]

Maybe, but my point is why is it that only humanoids seem to have this fast track of development. It seems to be that no other species ever had a chance in this race. This is probably a silly example but you don't hear of some form of Beaver developing intellegence to make rudimentry tools to help them with their damn building. Humanoids seemed to be the only ones that advanced on a much wider plain rather than just to aid their instinctive behaviour. There is no evidence of evolution helping out any other species this way even if after a while they gave up or died out. So from that it does seem that we are picked IMHO. And yes, I still appreciate that your above reasoning is true.

There were a number of humanoid species - Neanderthal to name one, and almost certainly a number of others that are as yet undiscovered.
And yes, they died out - all except us Homo Sapiens.
And we haven't really changed all that much genetically in the last 100,000 years or so.

As to what the mutation triggered our eventual dominance? Possibly self-awareness, although other humanoids and apes / monkeys are self aware (I think?).
Possibly a greater ability to memorise and recall, and to learn from experience?
Possibly the NEED to learn from experience to survive?
The ability to adapt to a wide range of environments?
Maybe there is a gene that enables us to add 1+1 to = 2, where in other animals they merely see symbols / pictures.
Almost certainly it was a wide variety of things.
I just see it as homo-sapiens getting lucky along the evolutionary path.

I can see why people feel, looking back, that it makes them special, but bear in mind that we "dominant" species live on a planet that is over 2/3 naturally uninhabitable to us.

 

[Silvertusk]

As to what the mutation triggered our eventual dominance? Possibly self-awareness, although other humanoids and apes / monkeys are self aware (I think?).

Interesting - that would tie in with the imagery in Genesis.

Possibly a greater ability to memorise and recall, and to learn from experience?
Possibly the NEED to learn from experience to survive?
The ability to adapt to a wide range of environments?
Maybe there is a gene that enables us to add 1+1 to = 2, where in other animals they merely see symbols / pictures.
Almost certainly it was a wide variety of things.
I just see it as homo-sapiens getting lucky along the evolutionary path.

Yes, possibly to all of above - but why just us. We were definately lucky in the evolutionary path to the point that it seemed to be almost a one man (excuse the pun) race. Just seems extrodinary to me. As a thiest I would of course determine that it isn't luck that made it happen, but divine intervention.

I can see why people feel, looking back, that it makes them special, but bear in mind that we "dominant" species live on a planet that is over 2/3 naturally uninhabitable to us.

That is very true - but for how much longer will that be the case.

 

[Silas]

I believe the advantage possessed by humans comes about from a number of genetic changes coupled with a good genetic environment for them to flourish - and as each devopment flourished it encouraged the others, so that a runaway effect took place. Brain size increase coupled with specifically the increase in size of what we now (naturally) call the Speech Centre of the brain, but which probably had some kind of function to do with pattern matching. These flourished in an environment where we had a mouth and lips capable of rapid articulation, (dogs and cats could never evolve speech, for example) and we were descended from the ape line with its uniquely adaptable set of "paws", including the all important opposable thumb. Because of early success with hand use, we rapidly evolved an ability to stand absolutely upright and maintain that posture when walking - something no other animal can do.

Unfortunately, the problems with human evolution are indeed the ones which cast doubt in my mind over the whole theory. I understand how Natural Selection can produce significant differences between species over millions of years, but I can't see that our feet, so different from ape feet (which are just the same as their hands, of course) could achieve their shape and amazing balancing act in the small incremental steps required by evolution.

Fortunately this doubt does not force me to conclude that "Holy smoke, Genesis must be right!"

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, possibly to all of above - but why just us. We were definately lucky in the evolutionary path to the point that it seemed to be almost a one man (excuse the pun) race. Just seems extrodinary to me. As a thiest I would of course determine that it isn't luck that made it happen, but divine intervention.

"One man obeying the law of probability is another man's miracle." - Some bloke (2005)

 

[Silvertusk]

I believe the advantage possessed by humans comes about from a number of genetic changes coupled with a good genetic environment for them to flourish - and as each devopment flourished it encouraged the others, so that a runaway effect took place. Brain size increase coupled with specifically the increase in size of what we now (naturally) call the Speech Centre of the brain, but which probably had some kind of function to do with pattern matching. These flourished in an environment where we had a mouth and lips capable of rapid articulation, (dogs and cats could never evolve speech, for example) and we were descended from the ape line with its uniquely adaptable set of "paws", including the all important opposable thumb. Because of early success with hand use, we rapidly evolved an ability to stand absolutely upright and maintain that posture when walking - something no other animal can do.

Unfortunately, the problems with human evolution are indeed the ones which cast doubt in my mind over the whole theory. I understand how Natural Selection can produce significant differences between species over millions of years, but I can't see that our feet, so different from ape feet (which are just the same as their hands, of course) could achieve their shape and amazing balancing act in the small incremental steps required by evolution.

Fortunately this doubt does not force me to conclude that "Holy smoke, Genesis must be right!"

Thanks Silas.

That is a good post outlining a Evolutionistic explanation - which may well be the actual process that occured. It just seems to be leaving an awful lot to chance though.

It is almost as if when the fire was lit, nothing else in nature stood a chance against us. It would be interesting to note what these genetic changes were and what the ideal enviroment was for us to get such a boost.

Eden prehaps?

 

[Throckmorton]

what exactly do you mean when you say "The Adam and Eve story does not mean what most people think it means (or at least didn't at the time it was written"

Most people, even people who know the Bible fairly well, think of the Adam and Eve story as a morality tale. People think of it as being about disobedience to God (which of course it is in part). It's thought by many that man came to know evil by eating the apple. People think about it in terms of "original sin". Psychologists see it as being a metaphor for loss of innocence. Someone (I read it in a book by Robertson Davies) said that man loses innocence when, as a little child, he "drops his last carefree turd".

To the ancients the story was an explanatory tale. The question you asked was an important one back then....."How did we come to possess godlike knowledge without being gods?" I'm guessing that people also were wondering then, as they do now, "How come God seems to be pissed at us" and the story explains that as well.

I'm of the opinion that the biggest mistake many make in trying to understand the OT is seeing it through modern rather than ancient eyes. One can't really understand what the ancients were thinking but in order to get an inkling one must study the surrounding cultures.......Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Egyptian, Hittite, and others.

 

[spidergoat]

Sarkus is right, there were other intelligent life forms around but in all probability, we killed them. There's no way to know if our strategy is going to be more successful in the long run than that of the Dolphin or Octopus. Animals simply do not need transportation machines and computers.

 

[Silvertusk]

Sarkus is right, there were other intelligent life forms around but in all probability, we killed them. There's no way to know if our strategy is going to be more successful in the long run than that of the Dolphin or Octopus. Animals simply do not need transportation machines and computers.

Maybe, but that is because they never developed an intelligence to want more than what they have. (I am not saying that is a bad thing by the way).

 

[scorpius]

Why is it just "humans" that have evolved to this level that we are at. Why is it that almost every other species on this planet doesn't come anywhere even close (vastly so).

maybe b/c humans are the only species that had to travel to all the different parts of the world to find food
(or maybe it was just from curiousity)
and consequently had to adapt to different climates,enviroments by using their brains harder to survive and so the humans brains size increased and people become smarter as a result.

It is as if we were picked out for special attention.

special eh?...we are just a fng animals and sometimes worse than that

quote
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the /quote
from
www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/pale_blue_dot.html

 

[duendy]

EXACTLY. which is why i destest this Western notion, fueled by the OT Genesis dogma that 'our' species should be seen to be THe one closest to 'God'--its errr 'writer' and dominate Nature, which of course translated into the whiteman's mind means woman, and all peoples of a darker colour etc

someone here's trying to say the Garden of Eden story justifies this. well superfically yeah, but reading deeper, between the lines and looking at the symbols, we can see patriarchy strutting its stuff. laying down its authority. a big part of which is PROHIBITING Indigenous use of sacred sacraments which really MEANS 'knowledge of good and evil/everything'

what we are......animals with a moveable thumb and reflective capability. But what all that propaganda from the patriarchy has done is slice wholsitic intelligence in two. keeping the 'rationality' (which is irrational when functioning without deeper understanding) and demonizing the body, which includes of course Nature.

 

[Throckmorton]

we can see patriarchy strutting its stuff.

They didn't know anything else back then. They didn't see the choice as a patriarchal society vs. a non-patriarchal society.......they saw the choice as being between a patriarchal society vs. no society.

demonizing the body, which includes of course Nature.

It's odd how we do that. I mean to say that it's odd how one can feel ashamed to be naked even when nobody is looking. The modern interpretations of Genesis 2-3 address that.

The question of why shame of our bodies and it's functions is inherant in most people is an interesting one. It doesn't seem it's a necessary aspect of the human condition but it certainly is ingrained.

You're right about contempt for nature going along with demonizing the body of course.

 

[SkinWalker]

We cannot dismiss the fact that humanity is a very new species on the planet. We are very recent, coming about only within the last 200,000 years or so (not including earlier hominids) while life in some form or another has been evolving for 3 1/2 billion years with the earliest vertebrates appearing 500-600 million years ago.

If left alone, nature and evolution could quite likely create more intelligent species (assuming they don't already exist). Unfortunately, the world's first evolved intelligent species might very well ensure that it is to be the only.

 

[John Smith II]

I think that contemporary astrology with all it's fuss and flavours, inhibits, supresses, and discriminates individuality. I said that you don't need anything else except yourself if you want to notice yourself, so chill out. :m: :bugeye: :m: Social retard

 

[alteredperception]

We are the most intelligent species on the planet. We are not necessarily the most advanced in terms of ability to survive. Bacteria or viruses are much better equiped to survive and will probably out live our existence.

Humans are not the goal of evolution. We are not the end result of evolution. Evolution is an eternal process and we are an insignificant part of what evolution has or will create in the universe

 

[Silvertusk]

We cannot dismiss the fact that humanity is a very new species on the planet. We are very recent, coming about only within the last 200,000 years or so (not including earlier hominids) while life in some form or another has been evolving for 3 1/2 billion years with the earliest vertebrates appearing 500-600 million years ago.

If left alone, nature and evolution could quite likely create more intelligent species (assuming they don't already exist). Unfortunately, the world's first evolved intelligent species might very well ensure that it is to be the only.

Agreed - Humans are a relatively new species. But I will go out on a limb here and say that certainly while humans exist on this planet, there will never be another intelligent species like us. To be honest it seems to be me that is could not have happened any other way, but that is the thiestic side of me talking again.