1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Please welcome Irisado and Borgnine to the Moderation team! They have proved themselves invaluable for the past few years and now they may make their efforts to make this forum a great place direct!
  3. The General's handbook has been updated, what fun awaits the undying hordes?

Are humans animals?

Discussion in 'The Beast Within' started by Aren, Nov 15, 2013.

  1. Deathless Dreamer

    Deathless Dreamer Ghoul

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2013
    Messages:
    138
    Please provide a link for that because it sounds interesting, though I've never heard of humans losing the ability to speak over time.
     
  2. Bullhax

    Bullhax Vampire Count True Blood

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,052
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/article2606775.ece


    Of course they've put up some hopeless payment wall but the other site I was reading was quoting this :)

    Foxnews covered it as well I believe..

    Ofcourse this is a single incident so with everything on a single case basis haste be taken with a grain of salt. They could be lying to get attention or other reason like that, or she could've hit her head and gotten amnesia, had a stroke or the like.. Non the less it is very possible to think that not needing a language makes you devolve that part of the brain.

    People who are born blind take over the spot in the brain where sight is processed and use it to enhance other senses. Very interesting stuff.
     
  3. Menkeroth

    Menkeroth A Knight of Blood

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    723
    It's interesting indeed.

    And there're lots of such cases, 'cause humans're indeed animals and can live with them - just returning to the basic instincts, that are made dominant. Just as it was before the dawn of the mankind.

    Losing the ability to speak is as well logical and simple - as everything is lost when the need for it is no longer needed. When something we don't practice, it becomes not that useful and eventually is lost. Constant practice is always an anchor.

    In other words, I believe it happens when the animalistic side of our soul takes hold of us. Something like transforming / skinshifting into an animal but without returning...
     
  4. Lynks

    Lynks Lord of RAW Staff Member True Blood

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,260
    Going way back @Deathless Dreamer- it is commonly accepted that there are 6 'basic' human emotions (and many more complex ones that come from these. They are anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise.


    @Shareya, there are a decent amount of religious scientists, mostly those who acknowledge/ practice Stephen Jay Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisteria"- the concept that science and religion share different domains of knowledge/ understanding and that there is no real reason for them to be in conflict.
     
  5. Aren

    Aren Crypt Horror

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    513
    Wow, too many posts to keep up with. I can't reply to all of them so I'll just say this - a cat would not contemplate its existence and would not have an emotional breakdown if said cat can't find a reason for its existence. Humans do. The largest difference really, also the reason we are talking about this. If nothing else that puts humans on a completely different level for me. Plus my first argument still hasn't been contested and it still stands, the first post.

    Shareya - do you understand the concept of random? Basically, random means it has no cause, there is no reason. This applies only to matter and energy. Rolling a die is not random, it is the result of the die turning a particular way. So nope, even if someone is depressed and chemicals leak in their brain or what you're implying, that has still been caused and is not random. Plus we get random thoughts, emotions without any sort of emotional breakdown.

    Great to see people coming forward for both sides of the argument, Corien - don't just spectate! Join in the fun!!!! ;)
     
  6. Shareya

    Shareya Vampire Count True Blood

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,381
    Uhm I am pretty sure we misunderstood each other at some point but ah well x)
     
  7. Aren

    Aren Crypt Horror

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    513
    Probably xD a forum may not be the best place for discussing the mysteries of the universe, there is nothing like a good conversation over a digestive or ten ;) .
     
  8. John Rainbow

    John Rainbow Vargheist

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    600
    The Bloodhound Gang seem to think so.
     
  9. John Rainbow

    John Rainbow Vargheist

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    600
    Haven't thought of that song in ages. Lol.
     
  10. Menkeroth

    Menkeroth A Knight of Blood

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    723
    To begin with, we can't know what and how they think ;)
    We're talking of this just 'cause we live in a society. Cats don't, they're all individuals. Animals that do live (esp. insects) have all of this and more efficient besides.
    Argument that we develop ourselves and other animals not? It really ain't an argument at all, why? 'Cause the nature gifted other animals with lots of what they need to survive and live and they than need no development, what for, when they have fangs/wings/venom/supervision/etc. and that's enough? We were given intelligence 'cause nothing else was given and it was the reason for such development. Chain reaction. Other animals have everything they need to live and we not, that's why we constantly develop ourselves to withstand all the living conditions as we try to live everywhere. Price for being universal.
     
  11. ElectricPaladin

    ElectricPaladin Skeleton

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    52
    The problem here lies in your definition of the word "animal." In fact, the only disagreement we can really have is based on that distinction.

    If you define animal in the conventional way - lesser mortal being - then humans are not animals. In fact, this definition is in some ways the opposite of human. Human vs. animal. Animalistic as the opposite of human. Even from a scientific perspective, humans are unique among animals. We have the most complex language, the most complex social structures, the most complex language, the best tools... we're pretty damn weird. We certainly deserve a special category. If, linguistically, you want to put the word "human" into a different category from the word "animal," no one would debate you. We are certainly unique among creatures that are otherwise similar.

    Scientifically, however, there is also no debate. We are members of the kingdom Animalia. We are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms. Our body plans become fixed as we develop, so that we begin our lives as blobs of cells and end up fixed into a certain shape. Our bodies are made of different kinds of cells differentiated into layers of tissue. Our bodies are also - basically - complex and tangled tubes with an opening for taking stuff in and an opening for letting stuff out. We don't do photosynthesis, which means that we get our chemical energy by stealing it from other living things - eating. We are animals.

    Now, if the question you are asking is "which definition is the best?" I think the conversation is doomed from the start. There isn't a "best." These definitions serve different purposes because they mean different things. If you were to give an impassioned speech about the inhumanity, the barbarism, the animalistic nature of - say - genocide, it would be stupid for some smarmy git to get up and say "but sir, we are animals." They would be missing the point. Similarly, if I were to point out some interesting fact about genetics - like, say, that humans and chickens are 60% similar, and isn't that neat? - you'd be similarly missing the point if you responded "but that's not possible because humans aren't animals!" Because it is possible, because it's true.

    Actually, you know, our cells are practically identical. You could put human DNA into a turtle cell and the turtle cell could read the DNA and live quite well for a long time operating with that set of instructions rather than its own. Even more weirdly, you can do the same thing with a tree cell. It's totally crazy.

    Sorry. I'm a science teacher by trade, and I've been having a hard time resisting adding that little tidbit.

    Anyway, the tl;dr version is this - these definitions occupy different spaces. Rhetorically, we have proven ourselves to be very different from most animals, and as a result it's linguistically appropriate to refer to us as other than animals. Scientifically - and evolutionarily - the facts are the facts, and those facts are that we are extraordinarily successful primates, members of the Kingdom Animalia... animals. But these two different spaces are distinct - though they can certainly be informed from each other - and the search for a "best" definition is ultimately a waste of time.
     
  12. Aren

    Aren Crypt Horror

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    513
    Paladin - wow, now that is what I call a post! I agree with everything you say....well, maybe for a tiny difference.

    I would say that physically we are animal then, in a scientific definition. However, I would also argue humans have a soul and so are fundamentally different from animals. Note, humans can still be put in the animal bracket due to our bodies but I believe the soul exists and drives us to do what we do so other than scientifically, linguistically I would offer one last definition: philosophically.

    That at the core of our existence there is something that no other animal has and which makes us fundamentally different to animals. Humans can still be classified as animals but in the same way as a book full of words is compared to a blank book. Both are books, there is not a shadow of a doubt there but there is something fundamentally different about the book with words, something meaningful. That I would say is the difference between humans and animals, we are the books full of words which can be used to change the world whereas animals are books that are blank, or maybe only have a title and nothing else.

    Sure the blank books may have a nicer cover than our, they may have a stronger spine, be larger, smaller, heavier, lighter, be written on better quality paper but we are full of words, we are meaningful.

    Scientifically the books are still books. They have spines, covers, have a mass.

    Linguistically there is a world of a difference.

    Philosophically there is something at the core of the books with words that makes them different, their reason to be.

    Yeah, I think that analogy works.


    So, my conclusion, a little different from the start because Paladin's comment swayed me is this : humans have an animalistic part, so it CAN be said that we are animals. However, we also have a different part to us, something unique, which means we are also not animals. We have both animal and not animal parts to us. There.

    Thanks Paladin, +1 rep for amazing post!
     
  13. Zephyr

    Zephyr Master Necromancer True Blood

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Messages:
    2,524
    I believe man is just another animal. It's just our evolved brains that make us stand out for better AND worse.
    I used to be religious but even in Judaism humans are not that much greater than animals, just an extra soul-layer. I won't go into this because it's all very deep and these teachings will take you years to grasp but suffice to say; the soul is not one "blob" but is multi-layered and has many facets. Some parts aren't even eternal and will die.
    These teachings also imprinted unto me the importance of taking care of animals as they are our smaller brothers and sisters and weren't created to only entertain or feed us. See them as a sort of care-project so we could nourish the caring side of us and take responsibility.
    I cringe when religious people look down upon animals because it certainly wasn't intended this way. In Orthodox Judaism animal souls aren't believed to have an afterlife like humans do but that does make them somehow less than us. On the contrary; many stories even point to some animals outsmarting us silly humans and having better connections to the spiritual.
    Also, in Judaism there is no real spiritual afterlife anyway, just an in-between state, the future world where we will live is eternal BUT physical and that world includes animals too. The fact that they do not join us in the waiting room isn't 'downgrading' them in any way.
    But so far for the religious side, I'm an atheist now though everything together it has obviously colored my perspective.

    It is funny how art is being mentioned by several people on here. Being an artist I know the definition of art can be stretched, just look at some of the modern crap these days...
    Anyway, before I go off on my conformist-freaking-modern-artist-tangent, what I'm saying is that animals do create art if you see art as "environmental enrichment".
    I think some birds for instance make great art; they color-pick flowers, beads, bits of bark from trees, dead bugs and lay them in patterns.
    There's a pretty well-known Dobermann who lays his toys in amazing star-like patterns.
    Elephants who make paintings in their favorite colors; they are very picky about what colors and brushes they use.

    Science magazine had an article not long ago that creativity is not a human-only ability.
     
  14. Sanai

    Sanai Stylish Deviant True Blood

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    5,233
    Humans are part of the Animalia Kingdom. Hence, we are animals.
     
  15. Aren

    Aren Crypt Horror

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    513
    Science has been wrong in the past....we do not know the answer to everything and I truly believe some day we will discover the soul, in the same way many people believe we will be able to time-travel backwards.

    Zephyr- Catholicism has some similar beliefs to Judaism, after all it stems from it. The theological teaching is that animals also have souls but not spirits, as in everything alive has a soul, that is what makes it alive but only humans have an immortal spirit. We also believe in the afterlife of both the body and the soul so we will still have our bodies after death (which makes sense really, we were created with bodies so why shouldn't we have them after death, they are what makes us human) and many people believe there will be animals in Heaven, however the animals will be as they are on Earth, as in mortal whereas humans will be immortal.

    Sanai, a computer can be put into the calculator category, after all it also calculates. However it also does things no calculator could do. In the same way humans can be put into the animal kingdom category, however we are ALSO so much more.
     
  16. Theerteen

    Theerteen Cheerful Cranium True Blood

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,352
    I'm still unsure if to jump in or not...Main problem is that I am not sure if my english is good enough to express my point of view appropriatly
     
  17. Sanai

    Sanai Stylish Deviant True Blood

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    5,233
    A computer being a calculator disproves the point that no calculator can do the things a computer does, because a computer is a calculator and it can do the things a computer does.


    The word animal in its correct use (As opposed to the colloquial usage which is the source of confusion here) refers to all life on earth that is Eukaryotic, multicellular, heterotrophic, lacks solid cell walls and is motile.

    Humans are all of those things and that is what makes us an animal. If we had solid cell walls we would probably be plants or fungi.


    edit: the idea that humans are somehow separate from animals is pure human ego and vanity. We are less than 1% different to several species of primate. Heck, if we didn't evolve into "civilized" beings there would probably be some species of Mouse or Iguana or Cockroach debating this issue over the internet right now.
     
  18. Aren

    Aren Crypt Horror

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    513
    So why are they all lagging so far behind us? For example if there was so little difference between human and animal Id expect loads of animals to be almost as powerful as us, yet they are not. Like it or not humans are so much more of a powerful species than any animal, there is hardly any "power" difference between tigers and lions and wolves etc etc but humans are on a completely different, planet destroying plane. So if there is hardly any difference in our DNA then there must be something else which makes us different - the soul.
     
  19. Menkeroth

    Menkeroth A Knight of Blood

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    723
    I wrote of that before. Others were gifted with lots of what they need to survive, we - only intelligence. That's why it's so as it is. But why nature chose us and not anything else - it's another question.
     
  20. ElectricPaladin

    ElectricPaladin Skeleton

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    52
    "Lagging behind" is a highly suspect value judgment. Intelligence is one strategy for survival, but not the only one. Consider that, chronologically speaking, human history is incredibly brief. Given that, you'll see that many forms of life were doing just fine before we arrived, and are likely to continue in much the same way once we're gone. Tigers aren't "lagging behind." They are succeeding admirably according to a different metric.

    It isn't logically or rhetorically sound to create the rules of the game such that they favor you, then ask why everyone else is losing!

    Additionally, if you think that evolution has a "behind" and an "ahead," then you misunderstand it. Evolution just goes. Creatures get more complex, they get less complex, they get bigger, they get smaller, they get smarter, they get dumber. There's no "final form." There's no "goal." You aren't the culmination of a process, you are the current step in a long and rambling road going nowhere in particular.

    Now, it's true that we seem to have "planet-destroying power," but this isn't the first time this has happened. The first major die-off in Earth's history happened when our first photosynthesizing ancestors turned the Earth's carbon dioxide atmosphere into an oxygen atmosphere, poisoning themselves and creating conditions conducive to the arrival of the first animals… who ate the plants! That die-off was WAY bigger than the one we're causing, and the creatures that did it didn't have cell differentiation, let alone brains and intelligence!
     
  21. Zephyr

    Zephyr Master Necromancer True Blood

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Messages:
    2,524
    Cool, thanks for the info. Did not know that!

    And I agree with electricpaladin's comment about lagging behind; it depends on where you stand. Most animals are perfectly adapted to their habitats. We were just lucky mutations.

    I'm an avid bat-lover as these creatures are just wonders of evolution, also by working closely with them(and loads of reptiles too) I've come to appreciate their unique personalities and yes, each individual behaves different.
    I had a chameleon that sought me out to pet him whilst chams normally hate anything social or to do with touching. They are solitary normally, but this guy even slept on my shoulder and curled up against me whilst talking all the while(when chams communicate they "vibrate" ie. use ultrasound). This meant he wasn't simply using me as a perch or heating pad, he saw me as another individual.

    I have many more stories about animals doing some amazing and very 'human' things but people tend to focus on the negatives where animals attack people. The fact that humans sometimes behave worse than the most vicious of predators is forgotten or deemed to be psychotic and abnormal behavior...

    A good book I'd love to recommend with regards to this topic is "The greatest show on earth" by Richard Dawkins. It's all about evolution as fact but you get a real science-gasm from it.

    Nature did not so much as choose as, as we were just adapting to our environment. Our brains are a very logical step seeing how we had to hunt in small family groups first and then settled down in groups for protection and started to become gatherer-hunters.
    We had to have some way to communicate better so our speech developed in a certain way etc. etc. But do not feel superior as even bees communicate very complicated messages through the use of 'dancing' and pheromones.
     
  22. Aren

    Aren Crypt Horror

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    513
    Assuming we are animals then all the other animals are, putting it crudely, screwed. It means that they would have to compete with us for survival and we all know how that would turn out. There would probably be a news story of a few hundred people dying from animal attack before the extermination starts. Which would be quite sad really.

    We are way past adaptation for survival. Its not like humans were only given intellect and that's it. Even without our superior brains we are as good at survival as primates. We really don't need such powerful brains to survive. I suppose this is still my first point, a tiger desperately needs all its strength to be able to survive and compete. It needs all it's adaptations to be successful as a species. However, humans don't NEED the brains, our bodies are complex enough to be able to survive with minimal intellect. Giving wilful planetary destruction capabilities is not adaptation. Note, I mean that we could destroy the planet if we wanted to, whereas while plants could mess up their atmosphere they would not be aware of it whereas we are.

    Essentially, evolution has never given anything that an animal doesn't need to survive and live, as in no animal is over adapted, it just changes according to its environment. However, humans really didn't need to adapt from apes. Evolution is not like a constant stream of updates where everything keeps getting better and better, no, evolution makes animals adapt to the changes around them. Apes did not need to evolve to changes in their environment, and even so they didn't need to evolve so rapidly and drastically, they were already well adapted for their environment. We are much over adapted, we are too successful and if we behave like the rest of the animal kingdom then there wouldn't be any of the species we hunt left.

    Also, if you plot a graph of "success" (which means that the more successful you are the less you have to do to survive) then there will be a massive increase in the gradient at the time of human evolution, it would rocket up. Evolution works in small changes, not planetary leaps in the space of only a few thousand years. If it was just evolution that made us as we are then we would be much less intelligent and more muscular, plus less aware of our intelligence.


    I am not going to argue that animals are not complex, they are, they do things we do sometimes but we also do things animals wouldn't do (like this thread right here).
     
  23. Sanai

    Sanai Stylish Deviant True Blood

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    5,233
    Actually the whole view of darwinism as a competitive survival of the fittest system is a skewed misinterpretation caused by other people (such as Huxley) who popularised Darwins message, but only after putting undue emphasis on competition.

    Darwin was really more about co-operation. The natural state of nature is a balance between competition and co-operation. Modern society with its emphasis on the individual trying to outdo everyone else and everyone competing constantly (in sports, for wealth, for popularity, in education, etc) is highly unnatural. Mankind, like many animals, has very strong co-operative instincts. Humans, Dolphins, Primates, perhaps even Elephants- we all have a type of Neuron in the brain called mirror Neurons. These are neurons that when you see something happen to another, are triggered in the same kind of response that you would have it that thing happened to you. We are literally programmed for empathy and sympathy, for community and co-operation (which is mankinds greatest strength).


    Different species do compete, but a Lion only kills one gazelle. He does not seek to wipe out the entire herd, because he relies on the Gazelle to live. The lion needs the gazelle to live, and gazelle in a way relies on the Lion and the Cheetah and the Hyena to weed out the sick and weak gazelles and keep their numbers down. Nature seeks to reach a sort of equilibrium.



    Humans are animals, all of the things we do are just variations of things other species either do already or can do.
    Co-operation/Community- Primates do it. Wolves do it. Ants even do it.
    Art- Primates and even Elephants have been taught to do it. Dolphins probably could.
    Tool Use- Once again many primates do it. Spiders and some insects even build nets.
    Speech- Human speech is just a sophisticated form of the verbal communication that many mammals and avians use. Some species have extensive verbal languages with thousands of distinct sounds.


    History is littered with millions of species that took a wrong turn in evolution. Some evolutionary paths end up being dead ends, sometimes from over-adapting.

    If we behaved like the rest of the animal kingdom there would be plenty of species left. The other species of the animal kingdom only eat what they need. They don't wipe out species wholesale without good reason. They don't wipe out the species they depend upon to survive. We have done that regularly.

    We aren't really over adapted at all- Humans are a creature of compromise- we are not excessively good at any one thing, except thinking, and even then we actually would benefit a lot from further evolution in that area.

    Also, humans did not evolve rapidly or drastically. Ours, like all evolutions, was a slow process of changes in response to the environment. Tool use made life easier, so we evolved better hands. There was food to be had out in the plains, but we needed tools to hunt it, so we had to walk upright so our hands were free. Primates were never perfect for their environment- very few species ever reach a point where they dont need anymore evolution. The only species that is well known for doing that is sharks, which have existed more or less as they are since the time of the dinosaurs.



    Keep in mind also- eventually our sun will explode. Homo Sapiens is the only species to have evolved to a point where it has a chance of surviving that event. All other species are an evolutionary dead end when you factor in their inability to escape our planet.



    However, what a species can or cannot do does not define what Kingdom it belongs to. Its cellular and body structure do, and in that respect, we are Primate Mammals of the Animalia Kingdom.
     
  24. ElectricPaladin

    ElectricPaladin Skeleton

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    52
    There are a couple of things some folks don't get about evolution, so I'm going to go all science teacher on you and try to set you straight.

    First of all, there's this idea that evolution works as a series of small steps. This is not always true.

    Evolution works through taking advantage of beneficial traits. The more beneficial traits you have, the more babies you get to have, and the better those babies do (ie. the more babies they have). This is slow, boring, normal natural selection. However, there are also the occasional mutation, where an unusual and accidenta re-sequencing of some genes creates a brand new trait. If the new trait is good for you - and not, say, a third arm or a fatal inability to digest certain proteins or a tumor - then evolution can leap... well, forward still isn't a good term, because it implies that there's a forward and a backward. It can suddenly go more.

    The way DNA works, this happens more often then you'd think. There's a lot of blah blah blah here, but it basically comes down to this: DNA is made of discrete sections that do different things, and these sections can be altered by mutation in ways that coherently effects the entire section, rather than randomly scrambling bits and leading to fatal mutations and death.

    So, for example... the original animalian body plan was four limbs, one head, tube through the middle. Insects have six limbs. How did this happen? Some bug-ancestor came along with the "limb" section of DNA doubled, but this gave him an advantage. The extra set of limbs didn't have to start off as little nubbins that gave some kind of obscure advantage (I dunno, maybe they looked cute to the other bugs...). They may have just appeared and the bugs were like "woah, cool!"

    I also touched on sexual selection here. A lot of people leave this out of their inner calculations about how fast evolution can go. Evolution doesn't just work based on survives, it also works on who gets to get busy. So let's say that our ancestors thought that brains were attractive, so only the smartest males and females got to make babies, because nobody wanted to breed with the dumb ones. This can seriously speed up the rate at which evolution... goes.

    You've got to remember that your sense of time and scale is incredibly skewed by your perspective. This is for two reasons. Firstly, looking back at human history, it's easy to think that the parts of our past that we know about are long - because they're filled with so much stuff that we know about! - while the stuff that came before it must have been short. After all, we don't know anything about it. Secondly, we like to look at our evolutionary history and draw a line, saying "here! This is the moment that we became human - everything before that doesn't count."

    What you've got to remember is that the period of time between "first primate ancestor" and "first tool-using, language-using human" is many, many times longer than the entirety of human "history" so far. You can't say "we accelerated to intelligence so quickly! How bizarre! Surely someone must have intervened!" when you don't really have a sense of how long it took. Primates first took off from other mammals 85 million years ago. The first hominids appeared 14 million years ago. The first tool users were 2.3 million years ago.

    We spent 85 million years getting to where we are now. Tell me again how our evolution was unnaturally fast?

    Finally - and this is the weird one - you've got to acknowledge the role culture plays in our "intelligence." In this age of gigabits of storage and Shakespeare being drawn with a laser on the butt of a dust mite, it's easy to forget that the amount of information on this page, right in front of you, is incredibly dense. I'd say I'm writing at roughly the level of one of my students, so it's fair to say that it probably took you about twelve years (maybe less - wargamers tend to be smartish) to get to the point that you could - at a glance - decode this information. How long do you think it took humanity to develop the systems and protocols that allowed you to do this? We know from the few "wild child" natural experiments - children abandoned in the woods or locked in closets and raised without language - that language is not natural to humans. It doesn't just boil up out of our brains - it's something we've learned how to do. Something we invented. And we invented it over a long time, organically. This parallel evolution of our meta-organism - language, culture, large-scale organization - is something that scientists still don't understand the history of.

    And this brings me to one final actual point - how we have evolved ourselves.

    It sounds like you understand the basics of natural selection evolution, and if you didn't understand sexual selection, you probably do now. What you need to get is that one humans started doing this "culture" thing (probably about 2.3 million years ago) we started to change our own environment. What do you think happened to all those humans or human-ancestors who couldn't hack it in our culture? Who weren't bright enough to get this weird new "language" thing? Who couldn't see past the urge to eat, fight, breed - wash, rinse, repeat?

    They died. They certainly didn't breed.

    Since the creation of culture, we have been evolving ourselves. We have been creating an environment that - rather aggressively - selects for certain social and psychological traits.

    This is certainly natural. Other animals do it, too. I mean, the wild and crazy dog that bites every dog who gets near it - male and female - doesn't get to help make baby dogs. The thing is that our culture became increasingly complex and increasingly picky, far more so than the culture of dogs, which accelerated the... uh... goingness of evolution (can't say "speed" - that would imply direction, and evolution hasn't got any).

    I mean, look, if what we're arguing about here is the correct rhetorical categorization of "human" and "animal," then there's a conversation. The fact is that there is no viable alternative to evolution at this time. I have seen no actual counter-arguments that are not based on deep misunderstandings of evolution or a failure to grasp the scale - in time and change - of the process. Although there are questions that we cannot answer, there is no data that actually supports any other theory. You can ask questions like "how did wings evolve?" or "what about eyes?" or "aren't we awfully smart?" but the inability of the answer to satisfy you does not equate to evidence for an alternative theory. Show me actual data for intervention - again, actual evidence, not a gap in evolution's understanding - and we'll talk.

    • • •​

     
  25. Deathless Dreamer

    Deathless Dreamer Ghoul

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2013
    Messages:
    138
    I fully agree with you ElectricPaladin, but you imply that it's normal and perfectly acceptable for humans to destroy their environment and the ecosystems around them, while inflicting pain and suffering on animals and other humans.

    Yes we can change our environment to suit our own needs, but now that adaptation is turning against us, because we're changing it too much, causing damage which could spell our end.
     

Share This Page