Think about this

[Jimmy Mac]

So i've been really pondering the whole bla bla bla meaning of existence thing... there are those that say we are nothing more than the pinnacle of evolution, and they are probably right, but think about this. Why are we the only species that can think based on non-instinct? And be intelligent enough to speak, and create the things we have created? it is mind boggling that this is the pure product of evolution. My opinion is that there is a higher being that had us in mind when he started the whole big picture... man its so confusing. Thoughts are welcome.

[Glenn]

Higher being=God (to some people)
I think God had it planned that humans would be the smartest race on Earth.

[Jimmy Mac]

Originally posted by Duffy@Dec 31 2004, 06:50 AM
Higher being=God (to some people)
I think God had it planned that humans would be the smartest race on Earth.
ditto, but you wonder, is it egotistical to think that it was all based around us?

[Link04]

Originally posted by Jimmy Mac@Dec 31 2004, 06:31 AM
So i've been really pondering the whole bla bla bla meaning of existence thing... there are those that say we are nothing more than the pinnacle of evolution, and they are probably right, but think about this. Why are we the only species that can think based on non-instinct? And be intelligent enough to speak, and create the things we have created? it is mind boggling that this is the pure product of evolution. My opinion is that there is a higher being that had us in mind when he started the whole big picture... man its so confusing. Thoughts are welcome.
Well, there can't be a "pinnacle" to evolution, it's completely contradicting to what evolution is; the constant changing and evolving of specimens over time, implying that they are always evolving, as we still are today. Now, I get what you're saying, right now we think we are at the "pinnacle", but that's only relative to what we've seen in the past, not accounting for the future evolution of our species.

And yes, advanced thought is the one thing that determines human personhood. I'm not too sure WHY we have the capability of such thought though and nothing else.

[Dedicated]

Everything can speak, and if we were that evolved, we'd be able to understand what other animals are saying. :mellow:


And... if it was all based around us, then there wouldn't be any need for anything else, would there?

But don't get anyone started on god, people never settle arguements based on religion, even though I personally believe god is a figment of peoples imagination, made up just so that people think they have something to live for when really, they don't... ;)

[Unforgiver]

Originally posted by Dedicated@Dec 31 2004, 03:01 PM
Everything can speak, and if we were that evolved, we'd be able to understand what other animals are saying.
agree.

animals communicate to each other in a different way than humans, just because humans can't understand what animals are saying doesn't mean animals can't communicate between each other, and i think we can create this things we have created because of how we are. I mean, you can't put a squirrel to build a building, its(squirrel's) size wouldn't help.

[Whimsicality]

Originally posted by UN4G!V3R+Dec 31 2004, 04:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (UN4G!V3R @ Dec 31 2004, 04:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Dedicated@Dec 31 2004, 03:01 PM
Everything can speak, and if we were that evolved, we'd be able to understand what other animals are saying.
agree.

animals communicate to each other in a different way than humans, just because humans can't understand what animals are saying doesn't mean animals can't communicate between each other, and i think we can create this things we have created because of how we are. I mean, you can't put a squirrel to build a building, its(squirrel's) size wouldn't help. [/b][/quote]
Yep. I see animals "speaking" every day. Ever watch two dogs together? How about a herd of horses? There is obvious communication in all of that.

Evolution is more or less undeniable, from what we know now--maybe twenty years from now we'll find evidence we were wrong and we really popped into existance exactly as we are now. Or maybe not.

There was a really great article in National Geographic about evolution. It was a fairly recent issue, October I think. It's got some kind of reptile on the cover.

Anyway. I think I've gotten off the subject.

While some of our actions, especially "morally righteous" ones may seem counter productive to the species, think about how many humans there are in the world. I'd say we're doing a pretty good job at procreating, wouldn't you?

[Holiday]

Originally posted by Dedicated@Dec 31 2004, 08:01 PM
Everything can speak, and if we were that evolved, we'd be able to understand what other animals are saying. :mellow:


And... if it was all based around us, then there wouldn't be any need for anything else, would there?

But don't get anyone started on god, people never settle arguements based on religion, even though I personally believe god is a figment of peoples imagination, made up just so that people think they have something to live for when really, they don't... ;)
i agree w/ everything you said. :P

[emmmers]

Originally posted by Jimmy Mac@Dec 30 2004, 10:31 PM
And be intelligent enough to speak, and create the things we have created?
Yeah i agree with what Dedicated said. And besides, is speaking really a sign of intelligence? Maybe some animals out there can communicate telepathically.

[Unforgiver]

Originally posted by When.Karma.Attacks+Dec 31 2004, 10:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (When.Karma.Attacks @ Dec 31 2004, 10:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jimmy Mac@Dec 30 2004, 10:31 PM
And be intelligent enough to speak, and create the things we have created?
Yeah i agree with what Dedicated said. And besides, is speaking really a sign of intelligence? Maybe some animals out there can communicate telepathically. [/b][/quote]
and if they communicate telepathically, then they would be smarter than humans :o

[Danielle]

Wouldn't you actually have to define intelligence to define which species was the most intelligent?
But how can you define intelligence? Everyone is intelligent in different ways and thats just in humans, For example look at dogs, there are loads of types of dogs and they are all intelligent in different ways.

[Link04]

Originally posted by Danielle@Jan 1 2005, 03:34 PM
Wouldn't you actually have to define intelligence to define which species was the most intelligent?
But how can you define intelligence? Everyone is intelligent in different ways and thats just in humans, For example look at dogs, there are loads of types of dogs and they are all intelligent in different ways.
Well, let's look simply at problem solving and thought process. As far as I'm aware, human's have the most superior problem solving skills of any animal. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[goso88]

Every sepcies has some characteristic to help them compete and survive on this planet. We certainly aren't taller that giraffes. We aren't as strong as bears. We aren't as fast as cheetas. We can't swim and leap in the water like dolphins. What we have is our thinking skills. Without our superior thinking skills, we wouldn't stand a chance against, say, a lion. Intelligence is our way of surviving, just as superior sight is the owl's way of surviving. We're only special when it comes to our thinking skills in the way the owl is special for its ability to see.

[Glenn]

Maybe other species are as smart as us and we don't know it. Squirrels are out of the question since they run across roads for the 'fun' of being smashed to little squirrel pieces.

[Whimsicality]

Originally posted by Link04+Jan 1 2005, 01:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Link04 @ Jan 1 2005, 01:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Danielle@Jan 1 2005, 03:34 PM
Wouldn't you actually have to define intelligence to define which species was the most intelligent?
But how can you define intelligence? Everyone is intelligent in different ways and thats just in humans, For example look at dogs, there are loads of types of dogs and they are all intelligent in different ways.
Well, let's look simply at problem solving and thought process. As far as I'm aware, human's have the most superior problem solving skills of any animal. Correct me if I'm wrong. [/b][/quote]
I'm 90% sure that's correct.

[Jila]

goso: i was going to say that exact same thing. well, not exactly, but you know what i mean :lol:

and yeah, i basically agree with dedicated

duffy: maybe they want to get to the other side of the road ;)

Why are we the only species that can think based on non-instinct?
i think thats what pretty much screws us over most of the time.

create the things we have created?
the opposable thumb helps a lot :lol:


well, if you really think about it, people might not even be that smart. i mean we do a lot of stupid, pointless shit. like how many people think violence is entertaining, how they dont care about pollution, how they damage their bodies with drugs, etc. etc. i mean, its pretty ridiculous. sure we might be smarter in problem solving, but we dont really see the bigger picture. to me, thats not really being so smart. i think i would rather call humans the most selfish of the animal kingdom, rather than the smartest. i mean, to think that everything created is for humans to use is ludicrous. if it were, why would animals have their own minds, personalities, or even have nervous systems? let alone there even being a food chain. if we were, in fact, responsible enough to be in charge of everything in the world, there wouldnt be so many problems going on, and we wouldnt ruin the earth or the living things inhabiting it with us as well (which we have already accoplished).

but hey, thats just my opinion :lol:

oh, and obviously i dont mean every human being is like that. im just saying the selfish ones by far exceed the selfless ones.

[Whimsicality]

Originally posted by PyRoMaNiaK@Jan 1 2005, 08:31 PM
goso: i was going to say that exact same thing. well, not exactly, but you know what i mean :lol:

and yeah, i basically agree with dedicated

duffy: maybe they want to get to the other side of the road ;)

Why are we the only species that can think based on non-instinct?
i think thats what pretty much screws us over most of the time.

create the things we have created?
the opposable thumb helps a lot :lol:


well, if you really think about it, people might not even be that smart. i mean we do a lot of stupid, pointless shit. like how many people think violence is entertaining, how they dont care about pollution, how they damage their bodies with drugs, etc. etc. i mean, its pretty ridiculous. sure we might be smarter in problem solving, but we dont really see the bigger picture. to me, thats not really being so smart. i think i would rather call humans the most selfish of the animal kingdom, rather than the smartest. i mean, to think that everything created is for humans to use is ludicrous. if it were, why would animals have their own minds, personalities, or even have nervous systems? let alone there even being a food chain. if we were, in fact, responsible enough to be in charge of everything in the world, there wouldnt be so many problems going on, and we wouldnt ruin the earth or the living things inhabiting it with us as well (which we have already accoplished).

but hey, thats just my opinion :lol:

oh, and obviously i dont mean every human being is like that. im just saying the selfish ones by far exceed the selfless ones.
I more or less agree with you, except on one thing.

sure we might be smarter in problem solving, but we dont really see the bigger picture. to me, thats not really being so smart

But can non-human animals see the bigger picture? I don't think they have the imagination for that (and I mean that in a non-demeaning way). I think our problem solving ability is what's gotten us into trouble. Horse society doesn't change much over the generations, at least not in ways that we can see. But humans want faster and easier ways to travel long distances, so we invent cars. We invent non-degradable plastics and then throw then throw them in land fills. So really problems you mentioned, like pollution (not the violence one though, I can't answer that) come from the fact that we are smart enough to create things.

[Jila]

yes, but i mean the bigger picture as health and environmental-wise. we want better transportation for ourselves, we have power plants to do things, but its still polluting the atmosphere and the air, and other living things breathe. and instead of constantly working on better ways to fix this problem, we work on inventing things like indoor grills that get rid of 80% of the fat in your burger. non-human animals, they dont just go out and destroy the earth, they just mind their own business, whereas humans feel they need to controll everything and benefit themselves, even though destroying the environment will eventually hurt us even more than it already is.

global warming is not cool :lol:

[Link04]

Originally posted by PyRoMaNiaK@Jan 2 2005, 01:05 AM
yes, but i mean the bigger picture as health and environmental-wise. we want better transportation for ourselves, we have power plants to do things, but its still polluting the atmosphere and the air, and other living things breathe. and instead of constantly working on better ways to fix this problem, we work on inventing things like indoor grills that get rid of 80% of the fat in your burger. non-human animals, they dont just go out and destroy the earth, they just mind their own business, whereas humans feel they need to controll everything and benefit themselves, even though destroying the environment will eventually hurt us even more than it already is.

global warming is not cool :lol:
We are more efficient than animals. Our advanced thought process has created civilization, that, in a way, removes us from nature (figuratively). Because of this, we can attain resources much faster and more efficiently, and live without the constant fear of predator or constant struggle of our next meal. Now, this alone does not mean that we are "smarter." But what I'm driving at is that we, through our advanced thought, have created the ability to go "against nature" in these ways. Animals have no choice but to conform to the laws set by nature and instinctively carry out their means of survival.

Now, I can most certainly see your gripe, we as a race are irresponsible, and largely destructive. But I believe if we took the time and effort to fix things, we could. (Greed may prevent that, but that's another story). Animals work in harmony with nature, but they have no option to do otherwise. If they do, they will immedeately die. We, through our civilization brought on by thought, can go against nature, and find ways to prolong our dieing off in the process.

Is this good? Is this bad? It's both. But the bottom line is, generally, we have a far more advanced thought process than animals (or the ability to have such a thought process). Most would count this as "smarter."


One last tidbit, through your rhetoric you'd have to ask yourself this:

Let's say rabbits had opposable thumbs, longer legs, and an advanced thought process. Would they do the same thing to the earth after thousands of years of civilization? Probably. Humans just happen to be the ones with the tools.



Edit: And is selfishness really that bad of a thing?

[Whimsicality]

Originally posted by Link04+Jan 1 2005, 09:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Link04 @ Jan 1 2005, 09:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--PyRoMaNiaK@Jan 2 2005, 01:05 AM
yes, but i mean the bigger picture as health and environmental-wise. we want better transportation for ourselves, we have power plants to do things, but its still polluting the atmosphere and the air, and other living things breathe. and instead of constantly working on better ways to fix this problem, we work on inventing things like indoor grills that get rid of 80% of the fat in your burger. non-human animals, they dont just go out and destroy the earth, they just mind their own business, whereas humans feel they need to controll everything and benefit themselves, even though destroying the environment will eventually hurt us even more than it already is.

global warming is not cool :lol:
We are more efficient than animals. Our advanced thought process has created civilization, that, in a way, removes us from nature (figuratively). Because of this, we can attain resources much faster and more efficiently, and live without the constant fear of predator or constant struggle of our next meal. Now, this alone does not mean that we are "smarter." But what I'm driving at is that we, through our advanced thought, have created the ability to go "against nature" in these ways. Animals have no choice but to conform to the laws set by nature and instinctively carry out their means of survival.

Now, I can most certainly see your gripe, we as a race are irresponsible, and largely destructive. But I believe if we took the time and effort to fix things, we could. (Greed may prevent that, but that's another story). Animals work in harmony with nature, but they have no option to do otherwise. If they do, they will immedeately die. We, through our civilization brought on by thought, can go against nature, and find ways to prolong our dieing off in the process.

Is this good? Is this bad? It's both. But the bottom line is, generally, we have a far more advanced thought process than animals (or the ability to have such a thought process). Most would count this as "smarter."


One last tidbit, through your rhetoric you'd have to ask yourself this:

Let's say rabbits had opposable thumbs, longer legs, and an advanced thought process. Would they do the same thing to the earth after thousands of years of civilization? Probably. Humans just happen to be the ones with the tools. [/b][/quote]
That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

[Jila]

yeah, i agree we are more advanced with thought process, but i was just saying that just because we go against nature, does not mean its a good thing.

and yes, i do think selfishness is a bad thing.

[Link04]

Selfishness, like it or not, is what makes the United States, and other capitalist nations, thrive (or you might call it regression in other ways, but I'm talking economic principle). Without selfishness there can be no competition. If you don't put your own needs, future, and well-fare before that of others, our economy goes no where because everyone stays home and thinks that other people deserve the money that they'd be making more than they do. Selfishness is a virtue, and a demonized one at that. Without selfishness, one does not care enough about the one person they can control in the world; themselves. WIthout selfishness, people have no will to make themselves better or improve things on a whole, for THEIR OWN benefit. Selfishness makes the humans go round.

[Whimsicality]

Originally posted by Link04@Jan 5 2005, 10:45 PM
Selfishness, like it or not, is what makes the United States, and other capitalist nations, thrive (or you might call it regression in other ways, but I'm talking economic principle).* Without selfishness there can be no competition.* If you don't put your own needs, future, and well-fare before that of others, our economy goes no where because everyone stays home and thinks that other people deserve the money that they'd be making more than they do.* Selfishness is a virtue, and a demonized one at that.* Without selfishness, one does not care enough about the one person they can control in the world; themselves.* WIthout selfishness, people have no will to make themselves better or improve things on a whole, for THEIR OWN benefit.* Selfishness makes the humans go round.
You are very right and brave for saying it, but there needs to be a balance between selfishness and selflessness. If everyone has the survival of the fittest mentality, then the people who physically cannot fight to be the best (disabled, elderly, etc) get shoved aside. Perhaps evolution wants that to happen, but maybe not. The species, overall, wants to survive and increase the population, and whatever the hell we're doing now is obviously working.

Also, it's not always complete selfishness that makes people go out and make as much money as they can. People want to take care of their families.

[~LP-MEOWMIX~]

So i've been really pondering the whole bla bla bla meaning of existence thing... there are those that say we are nothing more than the pinnacle of evolution, and they are probably right, but think about this. Why are we the only species that can think based on non-instinct? And be intelligent enough to speak, and create the things we have created? it is mind boggling that this is the pure product of evolution. My opinion is that there is a higher being that had us in mind when he started the whole big picture... man its so confusing. Thoughts are welcome.



ok, this is what i think..

yes it is mind boggling to think about! but if you think about it , how did we get here, how was man and woman made, there has to be a higher being out there, but how was he made? and what was beyond that, and beyond that....so on and so forth.... i understaind what your saying, but we wont know, i think, until we die, but when we die, we cant tell anyone, that is liveing, because we have died! so that is what i think! :hypno:

[sickcycle]

I was wondering about if we did evolve, why on earth we would have emotions, society and so forth. It benefits us in no way to have remorse, anger and so on. Animals don’t really have them, sure they are territorial, but they lack real emotions. I was asking a psychology major where all the rules came from, why don’t you defecate in the road, or piss on any tree you see? She says society, well, where did society come from, did one human one day make all these rules up and try and pass it down through all generations?

Like I said, if we are just evolved animals and nothing more, why do we have these unnecessary traits [unnecessary to survive] If we keep getting better, why did we loose instinct, claws, tough skin, we seemed more programmed to think than to, fight to live.

Not to mention when I was studying evolution back a few years ago, they had animals evolving into others slowly, like a rodent into a bat I think, in the process according to Darwin it couldn’t happen, well while the animal is transforming, survival of the fittest would take place and that animal would die, simply because while mid-way through the process he has wings but cant use them and is slow, in no shape to fight off prey.

Also while studying botany, I see so many designs and so many things that are alike, and have systems and are very ingenious, it simply looks like someone or something sat down and mapped it all out, it becomes hard to believe it just happened over billions of years.

[Link04]

Originally posted by sickcycle@Jan 6 2005, 05:09 PM
I was wondering about if we did evolve, why on earth we would have emotions, society and so forth. It benefits us in no way to have remorse, anger and so on. Animals don’t really have them, sure they are territorial, but they lack real emotions. I was asking a psychology major where all the rules came from, why don’t you defecate in the road, or piss on any tree you see? She says society, well, where did society come from, did one human one day make all these rules up and try and pass it down through all generations?

Like I said, if we are just evolved animals and nothing more, why do we have these unnecessary traits [unnecessary to survive] If we keep getting better, why did we loose instinct, claws, tough skin, we seemed more programmed to think than to, fight to live.

Not to mention when I was studying evolution back a few years ago, they had animals evolving into others slowly, like a rodent into a bat I think, in the process according to Darwin it couldn’t happen, well while the animal is transforming, survival of the fittest would take place and that animal would die, simply because while mid-way through the process he has wings but cant use them and is slow, in no shape to fight off prey.

Also while studying botany, I see so many designs and so many things that are alike, and have systems and are very ingenious, it simply looks like someone or something sat down and mapped it all out, it becomes hard to believe it just happened over billions of years.
Well, this all comes from advanced thought. Many people believe this, too, was a thing that evolved. But anyway, advanced thought gives human beings the epiphany, the realization, that they, generally, have command over the world's resources and the large amount of the plant and animal life on the planet. Because of this "manifested superiority", we hold ourselves to a higher standard than animals, and anything less than what society has set as that standard is considered barbaric, uncivilized, and inappropriate.

Every emotion, I believe, is necessary. This is because, again, as I believe, is relative. Without goodness, there can be no evil. Without happiness, there can be no sorrow, because there is nothing to differentiate, or compare a feeling to. Without anger, which may seem nothing but negative, there can be no feeling of love or compassion.

We, through this society and civilization, have, in a way, removed ourselves from nature. We no longer need to hunt for food constantly, fear about predators, or living quarters (this is all generally, as a species). This has allowed us more free time to develop society, art, music, literature, language, ect. all things that make up culture and society. We live in such relative comfort, we no longer need these features to survive or thrive.

I think you'd find Phi interesting, in relation to intricate mapping of the body or other things in nature.

[Jila]

sickcycle: how exactly would you know if animals dont have "real" emotions? they have, in fact, done studies and found that dogs have a great variety of emotions. i mean, when you come home to your dog, it wags its tail and wants you to pet it, it whipers when it wants food. if you dont think thats emotion, then i dont know what is.

like goso said, certain animals have different traits. like an animals advantage might be excellent scent, ours is knowledge.

darwins theory of natural selection was tested by the finches, it occured in a short period of time, not millions of years. therefore, you cant really compare the two so closely.

i find it illogical to think that "someone" decided to make every complex being on the face of this earth by themself. then decided that humans would be the rulers, while everything else out there is made especially for them. frankly, i dont see the point in dinosaurs then, they dont really fit in the "higher being" theory.

anyways, the way i look at it is, if humans became extict, then the world would be orderly, but if anything else became extinct, then everything would be off balance. like when people decided to kill sharks because of a few shark attacks, the fish they ate grew highly in numbers and ate the smaller fish humans eat (then they stopped of course because of that reason alone, another example of human selfishness.. but thats another story). and if there were no humans, there would be no unnatural destruction. actually, humans dont even have any natural preditors, so if we did die out, then the food chain wont even be affected.

[Link04]

Yep :) Humans are the most unnatural thing in nature.

And you made a very good point about the creationist theory. In that way, the human virtue, and vice, of selfishness, it seems more realistic that humans would "create God" to justify their superiority. Then again, is it because of God that the humans he supposedly created are so selfish? God, in reality, is the most selfish being of all, both ways seem to fit in different ways.

[sickcycle]

Originally posted by PyRoMaNiaK@Jan 7 2005, 02:12 AM
sickcycle: how exactly would you know if animals dont have "real" emotions? they have, in fact, done studies and found that dogs have a great variety of emotions. i mean, when you come home to your dog, it wags its tail and wants you to pet it, it whipers when it wants food. if you dont think thats emotion, then i dont know what is.

like goso said, certain animals have different traits. like an animals advantage might be excellent scent, ours is knowledge.

darwins theory of natural selection was tested by the finches, it occured in a short period of time, not millions of years. therefore, you cant really compare the two so closely.

i find it illogical to think that "someone" decided to make every complex being on the face of this earth by themself. then decided that humans would be the rulers, while everything else out there is made especially for them. frankly, i dont see the point in dinosaurs then, they dont really fit in the "higher being" theory.

anyways, the way i look at it is, if humans became extict, then the world would be orderly, but if anything else became extinct, then everything would be off balance. like when people decided to kill sharks because of a few shark attacks, the fish they ate grew highly in numbers and ate the smaller fish humans eat (then they stopped of course because of that reason alone, another example of human selfishness.. but thats another story). and if there were no humans, there would be no unnatural destruction. actually, humans dont even have any natural preditors, so if we did die out, then the food chain wont even be affected.
By real emotion I mean regret and deeper ones than just anger, happy, sad, the basics 'feel' you get, or ones when you are hurt, pain and such [ones that require you to have a moral code and complicated thought process]

Now the Darwin thing I can see a bit better, but still I find it hard to see a fish living for more than a few minutes while growing legs or what have you.

In the last paragraph it almost seems like you think humans are pointless, when in fact the reason we don’t interrupt the food chain is because we are set apart, we were made to be rulers over the creation. The last part supports that idea.

[Anthony.]

I swear by Dawin's theory... We're meant to be the kickass people :lol: . Honestly, I think that everything happens is what had to happen, what was meant to happen. And I do believe there's a superior power out there.

[Jila]

you still havent explained how you know animals dont have "deep" thoughts. unless you are, in fact, an elephant, or any other non-human animal, i dont think you can conclude something like that.

i dont exactly get what youre saying in the second paragraph. but i suppose ill explain a little theory. say theres one certain species of fish a long time ago. the stronger ones progress into more advanced ones while the others remain the same. so basically they just keep getting more and more advanced to the point of modern fish. the different kinds of fish have special traits they develop to help them live in their environment (thats like the part that darwin tested with the finches on the island).

not necessarily. dinosaurs were powerful, they became extict. whats there to say that wont eventually happen to us? who knows, maybe humans could be what went wrong in evolution. or maybe our high level of knowledge was a mistake, like how mutations occur. there could be good mutations and bad ones. it does seem like a good thing, but if you look at the overall outcome, i think its a bad one. i think were too isolated from the rest of the animal kingdom.

[Whimsicality]

Originally posted by sickcycle@Jan 6 2005, 10:53 PM
I was wondering about if we did evolve, why on earth we would have emotions, society and so forth.
Why would we have society? Because our society has made us the dominant species on the planet. I don't see how society contradicts evolution at all. If we had a dog-eat-dog world where we were without order, do you think there would be billions of human beings? I don't. Functioning as a society is a survival trait.

Look at other animals, for example. Wolf packs fuction as a society. Horse function as a society. Dolphin pods function as a society. etc.


dictionary.com says...
so·ci·e·ty
The totality of social relationships among humans.
A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.
An organization or association of persons engaged in a common profession, activity, or interest: a folklore society; a society of bird watchers.
The rich, privileged, and fashionable social class.
The socially dominant members of a community.
Companionship; company: enjoys the society of friends and family members.
Biology. A colony or community of organisms, usually of the same species: an insect society.




edit: Jila, I agree with you that we're fucking with the enviorment, but that doesn't change the fact that from the point of view of the species we're doing quite well: lots of babies are being born and surviving long enough to have more babies to continute surviving and have babies...

[Jila]

<s>honestly, i think</s> we are overpopulating the world. maybe having so many babies isnt exactly a good thing either. survival isnt really an issue for humans at the moment.

[Whimsicality]

Originally posted by PyRoMaNiaK@Jan 6 2005, 11:34 PM
<s>honestly, i think</s> we are overpopulating the world. maybe having so many babies isnt exactly a good thing either. survival isnt really an issue for humans at the moment.
We are quite overpopulated. And no survival isn't really an issue, but animals (and humans are included in this catogory) don't stop having babies just because they're overpopulated. The sex drive, and more importantly, the deeper desire to have offspring does not go away. Each set of genes (i.e. creature) wants it's line to continue, regardless of overpopulation. And in nature if alls going well things level themselves out--if there are too many rabbits the coyotes feast, increase their population, and eventually there aren't enough rabbits to go round and coyotes start dying off, rabbit population rises again...obviously that's over simplified and ignores other factors, but my point is that nature is supposed to balance out.

But humans have no natural predators anymore unless you count diseases (like AIDS), but we've even got enough of a handle on that that it's not hurting the population much. So we just keep having more and more babies the way our instincts are telling us too, and THEY have babies, etc.

[Jila]

oh i know, i was just saying we dont have to worry about everyone having babies that have babies that have babies etc. to survive :lol:

and also, i meant predators as in the food chain, because all animals are prone to sickness. ive never really thought about insects though. i mean, i cant imagine such a small creature like an ant to even have a nervous system. but whatev, im going to confuse myself. i dont know enough about bugs to conclude something. :lol:

[Whimsicality]

Originally posted by PyRoMaNiaK@Jan 6 2005, 11:57 PM
oh i know, i was just saying we dont have to worry about everyone having babies that have babies that have babies etc. to survive :lol:

and also, i meant predators as in the food chain, because all animals are prone to sickness. ive never really thought about insects though. i mean, i cant imagine such a small creature like an ant to even have a nervous system. but whatev, im going to confuse myself. i dont know enough about bugs to conclude something. :lol:
Radioactive! B)







:lol:

[Jila]

:lol:

oh yeah, totally radioactive. man, i saw people making up new "cool" words like "thats so mega". i was like what the hell?

anyways, human life.. yeah.

[Link04]

Originally posted by PyRoMaNiaK@Jan 7 2005, 03:34 AM
<s>honestly, i think</s> we are overpopulating the world. maybe having so many babies isnt exactly a good thing either. survival isnt really an issue for humans at the moment.
Well, "overpopulation" isn't really the effect of too many people. It's generally used to display a lack of sufficient resources for said species of people. Here's the good news; there's plenty of resources on the earth to support a much larger population than the one we have now. Here's the bad news, it's overconsumption and the inequality of consumption that gives the illusion of overpopulation. The rich minority consumes the majority of the resources on earth, while the poorer masses get less than is needed to live (check my overconsumption thread for facts). What's worse is that the minority keeps the masses from attaining their riches. But that's beside the point. Generally, what I'm saying is, if we had more equality in the consumption of resources, "overpopulation" wouldn't be NEARLY as big of a problem as it seems.


But if you mean relatively, to animals, yeah, it seems kinda rediculous sometimes. Then again, look at insects and bacteria. Even though, again, they work in harmony with nature.

[Jila]

well compared to insects and bacteria, yeah, were seriously outnumbered (i think the insect:human ratio is a billion to one), but then again, you can kill a bug by stepping on it. killing a human is more difficult especially considering modern medicine helped us live even longer.

[Jon[athan]]

i think that we were created by God. we are too complex to have evovled from a fish...or a monkey. and about the monkey thing. if we really evovled from them, why dont we see half monkey/half men beings because they are still evolving? i really dont believe in the evolution thing...or the big bang theory or anything else scientist are gonna through at me.

[Link04]

Then how about reason?


If the universe is independant of any consciousness, which it is, how can it be created by some divine consciousness?

Let me elaborate. I am conscious. My consciousness tells me that the universe, without a doubt, exists. That is my perception. Did it exist before me? Yes. As is existed before everyone else, and as it exists before everyone else who is to come. I do not know that through my consciousness, but the consciousness of others. This being said, the universe's existance is independant of any consciousness. Now, therefore, how can a divine consciousness create something independant of consciousness?

Reason prevails.

[Whimsicality]

Originally posted by slipknot_fan@Jan 16 2005, 12:12 AM
i think that we were created by God. we are too complex to have evovled from a fish...or a monkey. and about the monkey thing. if we really evovled from them, why dont we see half monkey/half men beings because they are still evolving? i really dont believe in the evolution thing...or the big bang theory or anything else scientist are gonna through at me.
If it were that simple, do you think there would be any debate? No.


why dont we see half monkey/half men beings because they are still evolving?
I'm not sure I even understand what you mean by this. Elaborate, please.

[Doctor Manhattan]

"If evolution was true, why don't we still evolution happening to this day, like a monkey evolving into a man."

I think that's what he/she is trying to say.

[Dedicated]

Originally posted by Casey@Jan 16 2005, 09:25 PM
"If evolution was true, why don't we still evolution happening to this day, like a monkey evolving into a man."

I think that's what he/she is trying to say.
And the answer would be that the whole species evolved together instead of one after the other?

[Doctor Manhattan]

I guess, I don't know. I've often thought about this aswell, but in the end I remembered I don't give a shit about Evolution.

[maverik68]

we are somewhat evolved
i think we will never stop evolveing
i think us humans are somewhat surpier to other mammals and animals
to even make 1+1 is a sign of high intellagence
and even to make a building is a sign of extream intellegance
and even to make a language thats universal is unquestionable intellegance
even better
we have opposeable thumbs
thank god/higher being.

[Jila]

though we may have a higher thought process, there are so many other things non-human animals can do that humans cannot. saying humans are superior to other animals (just based on knowledge) completely takes away every other factor of a creatures special quality in the animal kingdom.

a human is superior to an elephant in thought process, but an elephant is superior to a human in strength.

saying one is superior to another in every way is quite egotistical.

p.s. dolphins and dogs have the ability to add 1+1 (as well as some other creatures)

[Link04]

I'd still like to see someone answer my inquiry about God on the last page.

[Jila]

well i, personally, dont believe in god, therefore, i find it impossible for a divine being to create something out of nothing, especially with some sort of "magical power" they have.

and im not sure of what most people think, but is it that god created the universe or just the world? but either way, i think that is logically and scientifically impossible.

[Whimsicality]

Originally posted by Casey@Jan 16 2005, 05:25 PM
"If evolution was true, why don't we still evolution happening to this day, like a monkey evolving into a man."

I think that's what he/she is trying to say.
Why would there be? Homo-sapians more or less as they are now have been on the Earth for thousands of years. The "monkey-men" evolved or died out literally ages ago.

Lots here on human evolution. (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/index.shtml)

[LP_Freak_2735]

Originally posted by Danielle@Jan 1 2005, 03:52 PM
Wouldn't you actually have to define intelligence to define which species was the most intelligent?
But how can you define intelligence? Everyone is intelligent in different ways and thats just in humans, For example look at dogs, there are loads of types of dogs and they are all intelligent in different ways.
5 entries found for intelligence.
in·tel·li·gence ( Pronunciation Key (n-tl-jns)
n.

A.The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
B.The faculty of thought and reason.
C.Superior powers of mind.


That is how The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company...Definies intelligence.

But you really have a point..everything is intelligent in its own way.
This argument could go on forever, couldn't it?

[User Name]

With that said, there's only one way to solve this:




FREESTYLE.RAP.BATTLE


:lol:

[Kate]

If that's the case, I'd lose.

[Jila]

Originally posted by Cameron@Jan 16 2005, 10:01 PM
With that said, there's only one way to solve this:




FREESTYLE.RAP.BATTLE


:lol:
psh, everyone knows dance offs are the real way to settle a dispute.