Human Nature

[RPGista]

Who decides that we're animal? It's a highly technical question lending itself to be explained by scientists, biologists. I presume you insist on it because you like the evolutionary theory? I'm just questioning why it matters for our overall determinism and cosmological view of the world? Just a more cynical and less outgoing view of life.

At the end of the day certain questions can't be answered reliably, views change, science evolves. We went down from exploring space to hunting fake news stories. Quite a dumb down if you ask me on humanity's ambitions. Let's just do our jobs, prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

 

Btw I'm not against the evolution theory. It's just more questionable that we specifically evolved from apes. I mean what are the odds that's true based on fossil and bone DNA analysis? Geological research is more reliable.

 

If we are not animals, what are we then?

 

Humans have not evolved from apes, they are apes, african apes. Again, before we can make assumptions about any being, we should at least study what we can actually know about it.

[Anderson]

 

If we are not animals, what are we then?

 

Humans have not evolved from apes, they are apes, african apes. Again, before we can make assumptions about any being, we should at least study what we can actually know about it.

 

DNA is similar but what are the odds we are an ape evolved and a species now distinct versus the possibility that those apes just went extinct the same way as dinosaurs and have nothing in common with us?

Making a round circle - we like to make patterns but we'll still never be sure that it is true. In the same way we thought lobotomy works. It failed horribly. Here the price of an erroneous theory is only someone's mind being confused and tormented

What's the objective contribution of the human evolutionary theory to science, epistemology if it is defended as dogmatically as dogmatic religion? In the same way as in USSR by making palaces of atheism but in methods being as fanatic and hysterical as your religious sect extremist.

Does that really improve our aesthetic somehow? Are we really calling this progress? Versus getting to the moon 50 years ago?

To me this is a dumbing down of all priorities and following a false road until we have more conclusive evidence (which we don't, it's just a slightly more plausible theory but still very vague).

 

Good sources for once secret stuff that the likes of Ezhov, later Lavrentii Pavlovich Beria wanted to hide, Nazis would get followed all the way to Latin America for such experiments, but c'est la vie: http://minval.az/news/25076 (hope at least with google translate you can get the approximate sense, the article is written in a properly dignified way [contains graphic images]).

Edited June 3, 2017 by Anderson

[CarltonTroisi]

Don't know about you folks, but I find that low social status guys--autistic, unaccomplished, whatever--are still pretty popular. They also have access to partners; not just tall guys with a law degree. I've rarely seen such bitter cynicism in my life, as in this thread.

Edited June 3, 2017 by CarltonTroisi

[Destined]

Don't know about you folks, but I find that low social status guys--autistic, unaccomplished, whatever--are still pretty popular. They also have access to partners; not just tall guys with a law degree.

And that, some argue, is a problem, as humankind works against nartural selction through this (to add to the cynisim ). It is not necessarily something I agree with, but it is definitely true that the nature of selection has changed. It is still survival (or rather reproduction) of the fittest. However, it is not longer the best suited to survive in a certain environment, but rather the best suited in his socio-economic role.

 

Coming back to evolution and the roots of mankind: It is quite obvious that we are share traits with other primates, as they exhibit similar social behaviour and are also able to use tools. We were just lucky enough that at some point in time, one of our ancestors curious to try food that was modified with fire beforehand. This is thought to have been the critical step, as cooked food exhibits more nutrious value than raw food and gave mankind the energy needed to develop the brain we have now. It would be an interesting experiment, how monkeys would develop, if shown how to prepare cooked food...

It may not progress humanity to research these things, but I think, this is the great thing: If you are interested in stuff like that, you can research it. We have the resources to allow people to research what they want. If it does not interst you, this is fine. Study something else, that you think progresses mankind. Unfortunately, it is quite hard right now to find ideas that are really ground breaking. This is in part attributed to the peer review system, that should ensure the legitimacy of research. This is generally a good idea, but it also tends to dismiss discoveries that seem to contradict, what they think is possible. But I digress. This discussion would be one for another thread...

[Anderson]

Indeed, if once it was ground breaking to fly to the moon, now it's all about the next iPhone version.

[CarltonTroisi]

And that, some argue, is a problem, as humankind works against nartural selction through this (to add to the cynisim ). It is not necessarily something I agree with, but it is definitely true that the nature of selection has changed. It is still survival (or rather reproduction) of the fittest. However, it is not longer the best suited to survive in a certain environment, but rather the best suited in his socio-economic role.

 

Whatever. I don't believe the "quality" of a person is quantifiable. We're all here; no one chose to be.

 

I don't think one has to invoke facts and figures, socio-economic this or that, when talking about this stuff.

 

If a man lacks higher education and he is autistic and not tall, does that "automatically" mean he is low quality and not fit? Who is the one making such a judgment? If he believes himself to be high quality, then for all intents and purposes, he is. Life is what you make of it, not what some facts and figures suggest or some nonsense about evolutionary psychology.

[Destined]

I completely agree with you. This is what I meant by my statement. In "the olden days" (i.e. stone age) such a person (disregarding the higher education, as this was not an option then) would not have survived for very long. In modern days such people not only have the chance to survive, but also to lead a happy life and contribute to our society, as this is not only based upon pure survival anymore. And this is a very good thing!

 

On a more depressing note: It is very difficult to determine, if a life is worth living. Of course, each life is sacred and as long as a person can speak for oneself, it is clear. However, there are people who cannot speak for themselves anymore and who just waste away. I have worked in a hopsital for my civilan service and have seen some cases, that really made me doubt, if this would be worth living. Still, as I said, it is very hard to determine and while I myself would not want to live under these circumstances, some of these people may still prefer it over being dead. A very difficult and depressing topic...

[Springheel]

Btw I'm not against the evolution theory. It's just more questionable that we specifically evolved from apes. I mean what are the odds that's true based on fossil and bone DNA analysis? Geological research is more reliable.

Humans didn't evolve from apes. We are apes, along with orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees. Different apes evolved in different ways, from a common ancestor. The genetic evidence alone is pretty incontrovertible on that point.

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

[Anderson]

 

Humans didn't evolve from apes. We are apes, along with orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees. Different apes evolved in different ways, from a common ancestor. The genetic evidence alone is pretty incontrovertible on that point.

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

 

"Besides similarities in anatomy and behavior, our close biological kinship with other primate species is indicated by DNA evidence. It confirms that our closest living biological relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos, with whom we share many traits. But we did not evolve directly from any primates living today.

DNA also shows that our species and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor species that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. The last common ancestor of monkeys and apes lived about 25 million years ago."

 

Until that ancestor is found, the evidence is not conclusive.

The only way to know for sure is to clone the ancestors.

It's like the infinity of the universe. We presume it might be infinite, but we can't know for sure. We can believe in it. But it can't be proven until we go to it's known edges.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Anderson

[Destined]

Well, even if the notorious "missing link" has not yet been found, we still share a lot more genes with apes than we do with dust, which is why I prefer the evolutionary theory over the creationist "made from dust" theory

[Anderson]

Well, even if the notorious "missing link" has not yet been found, we still share a lot more genes with apes than we do with dust, which is why I prefer the evolutionary theory over the creationist "made from dust" theory

 

Muslims say we were made from clay if you like it better.

 

​Also, why do we evolutionarily need beards? They make you worse in a fight, don't help against cold and most girls find them repulsive. Apes didn't have them. Evolution is hard to understand sometimes. It's all full of maybe's and possibilities.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Anderson

[RPGista]

The idea of a "missing link" is a fallacious one. Its a wrong perception of evolution, how it works. Consider this simple fact: every being that ever lived, was born to the same species as its parents. There's no reptilian parents giving birth to the first bird. The gene pool changes very gradually, so that the child will always be from the same species as the parents, but it'll likely be carrying very slight changes. What we get is a continuous flow from A to B. What we refer to when we look backwards in the past and say, this was a species, this was another, is merely a snapshot, an image of how the changes that happened to a certain population had effect over time. But it was so gradual, that only when those changes are visible in a meaningful way, do we stop and separate them into different things. In truth, it is always the same matter, changing shape and characteristics over time, going into different directions. There's no one moment when an ape gave birth to another ape called human. It was a gradual, continuous process, the populations are the same until they separate and evolve according to different situations. This also means that in a couple million years, human beings will be different from what they are today, we have not reached any pateau, it will keep changing, gradually, slightly, forever.

 

As for the beards, ask yourself why do lions need their mane. We prefer girls with mostly no body hair nowadays, but that was obvisouly not the case back in the day otherwise we wouldnt be here.

Edited June 6, 2017 by RPGista

[Anderson]

The pertinent point here is that there is no clear moment when that thing became human and what is distinct that allows us to name it as such. Different from ape.

 

Another point for the human evolutionary theory that I can't tie in is how evolution happened in the same way for apes on the American Continent, in Asia, Africa and Europe in the same way and the exact same outcome?

Panagaea as one continent was ripped at least 175 million years ago. Well before they presumably evolved in what exists now.

What's the likelihood evolution is so intelligent or whatever to have had the circumstance and coincidence for all apes of that missing species to evolve in the same humans for what would later be Mayas and Aztecs in America, for the natives of Peru, for Africans, Asians, Japanese, Australians and so on? They were separate during all those years and had no way to reach out or connect.

Are there really supposed to be that many coincidences?

Edited June 6, 2017 by Anderson

[Springheel]

"Besides similarities in anatomy and behavior, our close biological kinship with other primate species is indicated by DNA evidence. It confirms that our closest living biological relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos, with whom we share many traits. But we did not evolve directly from any primates living today.

DNA also shows that our species and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor species that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. The last common ancestor of monkeys and apes lived about 25 million years ago."

 

 

Yes, of course we didn't evolve from existing primates. No one who knows anything about evolution would suggest otherwise.

 

The pertinent point here is that there is no clear moment when that thing became human and what is distinct that allows us to name it as such. Different from ape.

 

 

Humans are tail-less primates. Tail-less primates are classified as belonging to the Ape family. Therefore, humans are apes.

 

As for the point about there being no clear moment when something became human, that is true. Just like there is no clear day when someone becomes "middle-aged". Evolution is a very gradual process. But it wouldn't make sense to say that since you can't pick a moment when something stopped being a young adult and became middle-aged, that therefore that transition can't happen.

 

 

Another point for the human evolutionary theory that I can't tie in is how evolution happened in the same way for apes on the American Continent, isnAsia, Africa and Europe in the same way and the exact same outcome?

 

With respect, you really might want to read some basic info about human evolution before arguing against it. No one actually claims modern humans evolved into existence independently on different continents at the same time. That would be quite ridiculous.

[Anderson]

 

 

 

 

With respect, you really might want to read some basic info about human evolution before arguing against it. No one actually claims modern humans evolved into existence independently on different continents at the same time. That would be quite ridiculous.

 

That's exactly why I ask. Because I don't believe they migrated each time on obscure islands from ships made of animals hides and tied lumber before 5000 or 10000 B.C. Not at those distances without being developed communities first of all, and developed communities only started appearing at least with Mesopotamia started developing strongly at least around this time.

Are we really suggesting that each continent and small island was populated by insanse travelling expeditions just for curiousity sake before states started to consolidate properly? No society that hasn't built a state by that time wouldn't be able to build those kind of ships.

These are huge gaps to connect logically and has yet to be provided with evidence.

 

I emphasise this to show that the human evolutionary theory is in its current form the same make believe as religion. Without conclusive evidence it is just as the name implies - a theory. No reason to accept it just because it's more likely than other theories.

Not something that can be said about the evolutionary theory as a whole however.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Anderson

[Springheel]

I emphasise this to show that the human evolutionary theory is in its current form the same make believe as religion.

 

How modern humans migrated across oceans has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory. You've left the field of biology entirely and are now into archaeology (also a very interesting subject).

 

Evolutionary theory, at least the broad strokes, is as "conclusive" as it gets in science. Again, I'd recommend learning a little bit about it before claiming that it's "make believe". When I was younger, I was very skeptical of evolution, because I couldn't figure out how something complex like an eye or wing could evolve. Classic argument from ignorance. Somehow, it never occurred to me that the scientists who study this stuff might not be idiots, and may actually have answers to the kinds of questions that completely uninformed people might ask.

[Anderson]

 

How modern humans migrated across oceans has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory. You've left the field of biology entirely and are now into archaeology.

 

Evolutionary theory, at least the broad strokes, is as "conclusive" as it gets in science. Again, I'd recommend learning a little bit about it before claiming that it's "make believe".

 

Yes it has. Because it's directly related to the intelligence level of any human in any evolutionary stage, to their level or social organization and ability to adapt strongly enough to migrate and survive.

The theories on how they migrated are all based on presumptions and speculation when it comes to migration to the Americas. And new evidence will always be scarce because it's buried under the sea and whatnot.