What is a Man? Points to ponder...

[mashman]

Geeepurrs....and they say women are bitches......

Fixed it for ya and yes, we do

My point is that it doesn't have to be that way. Animals have no control over their fate, Man does. (if we ignore the asteroid scenario for a minute). So it's not evolution, it is choice. Evolution syas it's going to happen no matter what. Man can change "evolution".

Of course animals have control over their own fate. They don't have to move and fight for new territory ya know... yet they do... If food becomes VERY scarce i think you'll see a drastic change in how animals react... they will make the choice to eat anything and everything they can before being stomped on by "something" else... and not necessarily just by humans.

The only way man can change the evolution of any species is by direct genetic manipulation... but even after that manipulation, evolution will just keep on doing the same thing that it has since the start of time... You can't stop it and you can't really change it...

[Winston001]

I contend that Man is not subject to evolution. He is master of his own destiny and can either save or destroy himself at his own will. While we may all grow old reproduce and die, the ultimate truth is that it is not evolution at play here, it is man's greed and avarice and it is solely his choice as to whether he survives as a species or destroys himself and this planet.

Therefore, "right" is to exercise his rulership for the good of the planet and all life on it, "wrong" is to proceed as he is and destroy the planet and himself. What is the difference? Selfishness and discontent, or love and altruism, placing need before greed, or vice versa.

Aha! Voila, the nub of the argument is revealed. FWIW man's genetic lineage first emerged about 7 million years ago in an ape which took a slightly different evolutionary track to other apes. About 2.3 million years ago early hominids began to appear. Modern man, called Homo Sapien, began to impact on the world 100,000 years ago. There were other hominids about but Sapien was the most successful and the others died out by 50,000.

Clever tool usage dates from 300,000 years ago and proto language from 1.2 million but the ability to talk and communicate really launched with Homo Sapien 100,000 years ago. The development of language is considered to be the defining characteristic of our success as a species. Communicating information and ideas stimulated brain function and we grew ever more intelligent.

As for selfishness, altruism, etc evolutionary psychology has a lot to tell us about our modern behaviours. We might think we are very civilised and sophisticated but our reptilian brain just above the spinal column still provides our most primal responses - and actions. Fight or flight. Sexual connection. Protection of our young, and self preservation.

I appreciate you probably won't read this Ed so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Edbear]

Aha! Voila, the nub of the argument is revealed. FWIW man's genetic lineage first emerged about 7 million years ago in an ape which took a slightly different evolutionary track to other apes. About 2.3 million years ago early hominids began to appear. Modern man, called Homo Sapien, began to impact on the world 100,000 years ago. There were other hominids about but Sapien was the most successful and the others died out by 50,000.

Clever tool usage dates from 300,000 years ago and proto language from 1.2 million but the ability to talk and communicate really launched with Homo Sapien 100,000 years ago. The development of language is considered to be the defining characteristic of our success as a species. Communicating information and ideas stimulated brain function and we grew ever more intelligent.

As for selfishness, altruism, etc evolutionary psychology has a lot to tell us about our modern behaviours. We might think we are very civilised and sophisticated but our reptilian brain just above the spinal column still provides our most primal responses - and actions. Fight or flight. Sexual connection. Protection of our young, and self preservation.

I appreciate you probably won't read this Ed so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I read everything, mate. But this argument has been done to death in another thread and I'm not interested in getting back into it here.

[bogan]

Has the scottish thread been getting a bit boring lately guys?

But I see the point Ed is trying to make (last few pages anyway, rest is tldr), humans posses the intelligence to think ahead, and thus remove the evolutionary criteria (death) by realizing such is a bad idea before trying it. However for most it seems they are unwilling to consider people outside their 'monkey sphere' (a nice term regardless of our origins).

I still reckon its time we indulged in a little creationalism of our own, someone should make an AI and program it to have a huge 'monkey sphere' problem solved!

[Edbear]

Has the scottish thread been getting a bit boring lately guys?

But I see the point Ed is trying to make (last few pages anyway, rest is tldr), humans posses the intelligence to think ahead, and thus remove the evolutionary criteria (death) by realizing such is a bad idea before trying it. However for most it seems they are unwilling to consider people outside their 'monkey sphere' (a nice term regardless of our origins).

I still reckon its time we indulged in a little creationalism of our own, someone should make an AI and program it to have a huge 'monkey sphere' problem solved!

\
\
Pretty much. Only humans possess the brain required to choose and create his own destiny. Some have completely missed the point in arguing we are no more than animals. If we were, we would have been extinct before we started.

We don't breed fast enough, or mature fast enough, (man has a disproportionately long maturing period for his lifespan), or possess any superiority of strength that would ensure our survival. Humans would be nourishing and easy prey for most, if not all carnivorous animals.

Humans possess two things animals don't, a superior brain and an intangible quality that has animals instinctively wary and subject to him. Not saying a big enough animal won't attack a human, that is not in question, but think about particularly domestic animals, which are by nature subject to Man and ask why? Why is there a difference between wild and domestic animals as far as Man is concerned?

[Headbanger]

Animals are instinctively wary of all animals, even the ones they hunt for food, and only very few animals allow themselves to be subject to man, and this has been nurtured into them by thousands of years of breeding and conditioning.

Further more all animals react to changes in conditions/environment and take steps to ensure their destiny, obviously limited by capacity but the basic pattern is there. Wild animals are obvuisly going to be better at it then sheep (and most people are sheep)

You can't on one hand say that humans have been granted an elevated position due to evolution and then claim humans are immune from evolution. Lets see what happens with the next ice age and how people react to harsh conditions in what are currently considered to be the civilised parts of the world.

[Headbanger]

Pretty much. Only humans possess the brain required to choose and create his own destiny. Some have completely missed the point in arguing we are no more than animals. If we were, we would have been extinct before we started.

Lions have teeth and claws, dogs hunt in packs, Badgers live in burrows, Humans have bigger brains.....That's our evolutionary path, and just like every other living animal we developed a trait that allowed us to have a niche to live in.

And we lived for millions of years at the same or lesser level of many other species in the animal kingdom, as pointed out in the post made by Winston.

Quite frankly the claim we are special or we would never have survived is absurd, and not backed up by anything but wishful thinking.

[Edbear]

Animals are instinctively wary of all animals, even the ones they hunt for food, and only very few animals allow themselves to be subject to man, and this has been nurtured into them by thousands of years of breeding and conditioning.

Further more all animals react to changes in conditions/environment and take steps to ensure their destiny, obviously limited by capacity but the basic pattern is there. Wild animals are obvuisly going to be better at it then sheep (and most people are sheep)

You can't on one hand say that humans have been granted an elevated position due to evolution and then claim humans are immune from evolution. Lets see what happens with the next ice age and how people react to harsh conditions in what are currently considered to be the civilised parts of the world.

You still aren't getting it. As far back in history as you can go, there have always been both domestic and wild animals. They haven't changed and wild animals cannot be conditioned to be domestic or vice versa. Sheep will never be but domestic and tigers will never be a domestic species. Ask a Zoologist to explain the difference between domestic and wild to you.

You are confusing the definition of evolution as well. If it were survival of the fittest or the strongest, you would not have the diversity of life you see around you. The very weak are happlily living alongside the very strong, herbivore cohabits with carnivore and the pecking order of nature is in symbiotic harmony. Nature is a beautiful and delicate balance from the four primary forces, to the teeming life of the oceans with nothing but mankind to stuff it all up or enhance it.

[Headbanger]

You do realise a goat is a wild sheep? One has just been domesticated and bred into a very docile meat machine.

And that wild sheep (sheep in the modern form you recognise them) are found wild all over the world?

Me thinks your in denial of whatever doesn't suit your mankind being put on this earth in an advanced state theory.

[mashman]

Pretty much. Only humans possess the brain required to choose and create his own destiny. Some have completely missed the point in arguing we are no more than animals. If we were, we would have been extinct before we started.

So how have so many animals survived? If we couldn't have survived due to limited intellectual capacity, and we're superfuckinbrainy, then how did all of these inferior mindless creatures you speak of? there's billions of them out there... What you're saying doesn't make sense.

[Edbear]

You do realise a goat is a wild sheep? One has just been domesticated and bred into a very docile meat machine.

And that wild sheep (sheep in the modern form you recognise them) are found wild all over the world?

Me thinks your in denial of whatever doesn't suit your mankind being put on this earth in an advanced state theory.

Like I said, you need to consult a Zoologist, or even Google it.

So how have so many animals survived? If we couldn't have survived due to limited intellectual capacity, and we're superfuckinbrainy, then how did all of these inferior mindless creatures you speak of? there's billions of them out there... What you're saying doesn't make sense.

As an animal, mankind would make a very poor one, far less capable of surviving than pretty much any other. Limited in his inherent ability to adapt to change and the enviroment, (he survives by changing his environment to suit his limited physicality), limited physical powers to capture and kill food, mainly being a herbivore needing to grow crops - this requires intelligence beyond the animal - have a think about it.

[huff3r]

Look its a banana!

[Headbanger]

As an animal, mankind would make a very poor one, .

Look around, we done awesome as an animal.

[Headbanger]

You are confusing the definition of evolution as well. If it were survival of the fittest or the strongest, you would not have the diversity of life you see around you. .

Untill mankind wrecked the balance evolutionary differences were the deciding factor on the survival of a species, and this in no way rules out evolutionary diversity, the opposite in fact.

[mashman]

As an animal, mankind would make a very poor one, far less capable of surviving than pretty much any other. Limited in his inherent ability to adapt to change and the enviroment, (he survives by changing his environment to suit his limited physicality), limited physical powers to capture and kill food, mainly being a herbivore needing to grow crops - this requires intelligence beyond the animal - have a think about it.

We've done ok so far... Even if our mental capacity had not evolved, we still would have survived... we learned how to make fire, steered clear of the dominant predator of the millenia, caught some monsterous animals for food, carved drawings into walls, developed the ability to survive in some of the most hostile environments that the planet has ever had... everything you have mentioned above, humans have been able to achieve without being anywhere near as domesticated/intelligent as we are today...

What makes you so sure we couldn't have survived? I can't understand why you are so sure that we would have died off?