0 members (),
289
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560 |
Good! No doubt those aliens recieving our radio signals are saying similar things to what we say about chimps... Don't you think? -And so, the worlds most praised genius is about as unique as a cell that is very good at doing it's job, whatever that may be.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Sorry jjw but you are incorrect yet again when you write: "but we are the only writing and talking animals."
The above statement is not correct. Provably not correct when considered with the planet's current inhabitants and quite impossibly incorrect over many millions of years prior.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375 |
Originally posted by jjw004: DA:
What little thing in your tirade relates to the point of my statement? So we are animals- some more then others- but we are the only writing and talking animals. We are the only animals drivig cars and inventing computers and rockets. If you see nothing unique about people animals then try talking to the rest of the animals that evolution produced. jjw Yes, evolution in most cases does not lead to bigger and bigger brains. An antilope with a slightly larger brain would have no use for it. It would gain the abilty to become depressed about a pointless life for the price of a larger energy consumption
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636 |
Count: Well put.
DA: How about those others learnig more than ecribbles and grunts, where are they, tour ancestors? jjw
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Count Iblis II wrote: "Yes, evolution in most cases does not lead to bigger and bigger brains. An antilope with a slightly larger brain would have no use for it."
Interestingly enough one of the current theories about the size of our brain relates to the fact that it allows us to hunt during the hottest part of the day when leopards and lions sleep ... Simple Darwinian evolution ... the organ within then filled the available room ... and we used that extra gray matter ... well at least some of us did. ;-)
I'm not saying I buy it but it is viewed favorably by many who are the experts in biology.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 49
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 49 |
Assuming that evolution is correct, and that it works on the principle of the survival of the fittest, where does mercy come in, mercy never helped anybody survive?
y
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 49
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 49 |
if a scientist had the same chemical elements that were around when life began, and a scientist also had the same environmental conditions that were around when life began, and that scientist had the time to try out all combinations of elements and environmental conditions, would that scientist be able to create life?
y
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414 |
Originally posted by y: Assuming that evolution is correct, and that it works on the principle of the survival of the fittest, where does mercy come in, mercy never helped anybody survive? What do you mean by mercy ? Survival of the fittest (which might better be stated, "survival of the fit enough") isn't about putting animals in a ring and letting them fight it out. It's about how well a creature can collect the necessary resources from the environment that it needs in order to live and reproduce. Some creatures, including humans, find that personal survival is enhanced when they cooperate with members of their own species.
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." --S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414 |
Originally posted by y: if a scientist had the same chemical elements that were around when life began, and a scientist also had the same environmental conditions that were around when life began, and that scientist had the time to try out all combinations of elements and environmental conditions, would that scientist be able to create life? That's my assumption. What you are describing, though, is abiogenesis and not evolution.
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." --S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Originally posted by y: Assuming that evolution is correct, and that it works on the principle of the survival of the fittest, where does mercy come in, mercy never helped anybody survive? Mercy and compassion may be useful in helping one's relatives, whose genes are shared by the one being merciful, thus serving to pass on one's genes by proxy.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
y asks: "mercy never helped anybody survive"
This is provably not correct. Mercy builds alliances and alliances prevent conflict. Mercy is self-serving for the one that is merciful and a benefit to the society as a whole.
One simple example: Following WWII the western allies cold have been mericiless toward the Germans and Japanese. They could have marched those countries into the dustbin of history with some moral justification.
Luckily intelligent minds prevailed that studied the failure of the armistice following WWI and they were incredibly merciful rebuilding both countries.
Today there is little doubt that both Germany and Japan have better relationships with the western allies than some of the western allies have with each other.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560 |
Social mammals learn from each other. A dead mammal (of the same species) is a wasted source of knowledge, knowledge that is essential for survival. Notice how when a human is given power most of their mercy goes to the dogs. Sad to say, not literally -dogs are victims too.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901 |
Luckily intelligent minds prevailed that studied the failure of the armistice following WWI and they were incredibly merciful rebuilding both countries.
- Substitute 'sensible' for 'merciful. Mercy becomes mercenary.
Blacknad.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
And consult is a concatentation of Convict and Insult.
They were both sensible and incredibly merciful.
But I'm not sure the two words are mutually exclusive in their definition. One overlaps the other.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560 |
Hey, hey! Let's keep on topic. (don't mid me, just practicing to be a moderator) The more intelligent an animal gets, the more understanding it has of things. That's why mercy seems silly -because you are looking at it from the simplest point of view. Look at mercy as a human does and you will realise that it is a very complex matter.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Or a very simple matter.
If one is intelligent enough to learn the lessons of history ... then one can also realize that no progress was made until the invention of mercy.
And yes I do mean the invention of mercy. Watch a cat with a mouse and you will not see mercy ... you will not see the quick clean kill. Look at human history and the vast majority of it demonstrates little if any regard for mercy. Since mercy became part of the equation the quality of human life has improved dramatically and though I hate the diversion ... isn't that the lesson of just a few philosophical/theological credos?
So I see it differently ... I see it as simple. I just don't think the average human being has yet evolved to the state of being able to think that far.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414 |
Originally posted by DA Morgan: So I see it differently ... I see it as simple. I just don't think the average human being has yet evolved to the state of being able to think that far. I agree that the reason(s) that mercy is a common human trait is simple: it benefits our survival. The mechanisms that might have resulted in the trait called mercy might not be all that simple, but so what?
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." --S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636 |
Blacknad offers:
?So as much as I would like it to be otherwise, I cannot really agree with you Jim. We are not a poke in the eye for evolution.?
Rep: I suspect that those adamant proponents of evolution like to think of it going backwards from now to then- when ever that was?
Evolution is intended to explain what we see now on the Earth. What part, if any, did evolution play in the origins of what we see now? Would any proponent argue that evolution had a hand in the initial origins of the life forms that got started on this planet? What is there in Darwin?s theory that serves to explain the beginning of so many forms of life as opposed to the possibility of their survival?
Let?s reconsider the Count?s idea that brain size is not useful to some animals, say a squirrel. This animal is essentially defenseless. May we conclude he is defenseless because he is intended to be eaten? Can we make the same conclusion about fish, many birds and all kinds of four legged animals? Did evolution decide which of us animals should be food and which should be dinners? Some fish have large teeth and others, like ells, have electric charges so they can resist being food. What happened to evolution for the rest of them that never in millions of years developed defenses to the most common source of extinction, being eaten? So you may suggest they relied on numbers. Produce more than the dinners can eat- is that a reasonable explanation when the ability to avoid being eaten would be more efficient?
My point is that while Evolution has a lot to offer it is not the Holly Grail that it is touted to be. Further more humanity is different, albeit our bodies are as animal as the rest of creation. We are aware. We can out wit the rest of the animals (some of which would love to have a larger brain, I?m sure) and that makes us the most dangerous of all the creatures. If evolution was deciding which animals were not to get the benefit of special defenses to avoid extinction and enhance survivability, then evolution is a creator of sorts with a grand plan up front to make sure this planet has a little of everything? The defenseless eaters and the eaten. Weird? jjw
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636 |
Error: The defenseless to be esten and the eaters. A grand plan from the very beginning? Weird? jjw
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414 |
Let?s reconsider the Count?s idea that brain size is not useful to some animals, say a squirrel. This animal is essentially defenseless. May we conclude he is defenseless because he is intended to be eaten?
Intended by what?
Can we make the same conclusion about fish, many birds and all kinds of four legged animals? Did evolution decide which of us animals should be food and which should be dinners?
The word "decide" implies an entity made a conscious decision. But if you ignore that implication, I suppose evolution does decide that.
Some fish have large teeth and others, like ells, have electric charges so they can resist being food. What happened to evolution for the rest of them that never in millions of years developed defenses to the most common source of extinction, being eaten?
I could be wrong, but I sincerely doubt "being eaten" is the most common cause of extinction.
So you may suggest they relied on numbers. Produce more than the dinners can eat- is that a reasonable explanation when the ability to avoid being eaten would be more efficient?
Can you show that it would be more efficient?
My point is that while Evolution has a lot to offer it is not the Holly Grail that it is touted to be.
I don't think you've established your point.
Further more humanity is different, albeit our bodies are as animal as the rest of creation. We are aware. We can out wit the rest of the animals (some of which would love to have a larger brain, I?m sure) and that makes us the most dangerous of all the creatures. If evolution was deciding which animals were not to get the benefit of special defenses to avoid extinction and enhance survivability, then evolution is a creator of sorts with a grand plan up front to make sure this planet has a little of everything?
Once again, the word decide is troublesome. And if evolution is a "creator of sorts with a grand plan up front," why would that grand plan include so many dead ends?
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." --S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|