Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Are homosapiens the crownprince of the evolution?

  1. #1 Are homosapiens the crownprince of the evolution? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    74
    Many people speak of rights. For me there's no rights, just lawsthat was implemented by humans. If someone break the law than someone can make some action like going to the police, revenge and such stuffs. But that is only a defence mechanism. I can also do that stuff even if I am rong myself or even if someone didn't broke any laws. So there are no things that should be called 'rights'.

    After that cleared up, if there's no rights left than humanism is total BS and I cant see why we shouldn't create supersapiens that can take over the world after us and design the whole universe.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    There is no "crownpiece of evolution." The phrase itself is absurd.

    If the crownpice of evolution is measured by genetic complexity, we aren't even close to some other species in numbers of base-pairs in our chromosomes, or in the total number of genes.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Evolution is about organisms taking advantage of environmental niches that offer the best advantages to procreate. Those organisms which can procreate the most efficiently in their niche will dominate it.

    It just so happens that man is the creature on the planet able to artificially and consciously adapt himself to a wider variety of environmental niches. We can put on clothes, create fire, and transport ourselves better than any other organism on the whole. But if you take away our clothes, our fire, and our airplanes ... we would find ourselves limited to a very small environmental niche that is fast disappearing along the equator.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Laws are not rights first of all. Rights are what most people should be given just because they are people. The right to work, get educated, vote, persue happiness and to love are a few rights which we humans have. Laws are made to insure people understand that if they go against them they will be punished or fined most of the time. Then there are scientific laws that say certain things will happen in a given way and can be proven with the scientific methold. Then there are religons laws which mandate that those wanting to conform to certain religions they must obey them or be cast out or some other religious happening they are subject to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by silylene
    There is no "crownpiece of evolution." The phrase itself is absurd.

    If the crownpice of evolution is measured by genetic complexity, we aren't even close to some other species in numbers of base-pairs in our chromosomes, or in the total number of genes.
    Obviously, you didn't read my post. I was talking about how many people think that we(the homosapiens) is special creaturs that have 'rights'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
    Laws are not rights first of all. Rights are what most people should be given just because they are people. The right to work, get educated, vote, persue happiness and to love are a few rights which we humans have. Laws are made to insure people understand that if they go against them they will be punished or fined most of the time. Then there are scientific laws that say certain things will happen in a given way and can be proven with the scientific methold. Then there are religons laws which mandate that those wanting to conform to certain religions they must obey them or be cast out or some other religious happening they are subject to.
    I didn't say that laws was rights. Did I?
    How can we give others 'rights' when 'rights' don't exist? They can't exist because they can be broken, we can ignore them and so on..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by latehorn
    Quote Originally Posted by silylene
    There is no "crownpiece of evolution." The phrase itself is absurd.

    If the crownpice of evolution is measured by genetic complexity, we aren't even close to some other species in numbers of base-pairs in our chromosomes, or in the total number of genes.
    Obviously, you didn't read my post. I was talking about how many people think that we(the homosapiens) is special creaturs that have 'rights'.
    I read your post. I just thought your thread title was more interesting a subject to discuss.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by silylene
    Quote Originally Posted by latehorn
    Quote Originally Posted by silylene
    There is no "crownpiece of evolution." The phrase itself is absurd.

    If the crownpice of evolution is measured by genetic complexity, we aren't even close to some other species in numbers of base-pairs in our chromosomes, or in the total number of genes.
    Obviously, you didn't read my post. I was talking about how many people think that we(the homosapiens) is special creaturs that have 'rights'.
    I read your post. I just thought your thread title was more interesting a subject to discuss.
    First of all.. I said crownprice, not crownpiece

    Second.. You might think so.. actually I didn't agree with it but you can't disagree that many people thinks that homosapiens is somewhat a holy race(crownprince).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    I think Homo sapiens is a species designation, not a race. Moreover, it's two words not one.

    Beyond that, I'd have to agree that many people of many cultures believe they are, as a species, the pinnacle of evolution. That humanity is somehow more important than the remainder of the life on Earth. That the Earth belongs to us. We see this in Christian mythology where the god of Abraham gives man dominion over all life on the Earth. But in other mythologies, the Buddhist for example, holds that all life is sacred. Native American philosophies hold this to be true as well.

    The more primitive the culture, the more connected with nature the believers seem to be, with less delineation between the sacred and the secular. The more advanced the culture, the more separate the space between the sacred and the profane in the universe.

    Which begs the question, is advanced religious practice really progressive or simply more perverted? Are "primitive" religions, with their worldviews that see the universe itself as one holy continuity, more advanced in their sprirituality?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    In many ways "crown prince" is quite apt. A crown prince is not king yet but the potential is there. He is imature with plenty of power to throw around and not enough responsibility. It is also apt in the sense that the superiority of a prince over the people is a superficial one deriving mostly from power, while in reality there no essential difference between the prince and any other human. The human rights of which you speak do not exist objectively. They only exist within the context of the human community and are about how we govern our behavior towards one another.

    So much for the crown prince analogy. Now lets be more precise. All living things are essentially the same. There is no qualitative difference. But life is quantifiable. The simplest measurement to describe might be the speed of the learning process. In terms of any such quantitative measures of life Homo Sapiens is way ahead of any other species on this planet.

    However, the potential is there for being life on an entirely new level in two different ways. The first is the way that the human mind has much of the characteristics of a living organism in its own right, composed of dynamic structures of cyclical information flow (commony called things like concepts, ideals, values, philosophies, feelings, and personality) in the brain, rather than the dynamic structures in the cyclical flow and chemical reaction cycles of organic compounds, of which most living organisms are composed on this planet. The second is the way the human race is well on its way to forming a communal organism, changing the laws of evolution which governs its species by interdependence, technology, and protecting its weaker members. The status of these two developments are uncertain, but the potential seems to be there in both cases.

    The question of whether the human mind is truly alive is not certain. One of the defining criterion of life is that the dynamic structure must maintains itself with some independence from its environment (while fully interacting with the environment). In other words, something is only alive if its behavior cannot be fully explained by the changes in its environment (while it is still responsive to those changes). For a very simplistic example, a living mammal will maintain its internal temperature (by making appropriate responses) regardless of how the temperature of its environment changes - failure to do so is death. The environment of the mind is the chemical organism of the human body and brain, with all its hormones and messaging chemicals which certainly have their impact on the human mind. For most animals their behavior can almost always be explained by such chemicals, and this fact is usually represented by the term animal instinct. Often, however, human behavior (or so it seems) can only be undertood by taking into account the internal dynamic structures (ideals, values, etc..). Some of the internal structures like feelings are strongly intertwined with the chemical messaging in the body and cause and effect in these cases can be difficult to unravel, and yet they show that the mind is responsive to its environment. In simplistic terms, it is a matter of, which is truly in control, the body or the mind? Which needs are more proximate to our being? Is it the material and biological needs like hunger and sex, or is it the abstract and conceptual needs? Are we primarily blood and bones or are we more essentially thought and principles. When we call someone an animal, don't we mean that their behavior can be pretty well explained by the chemical drives in their body, to which whatever thoughts he may have are subservient? Anyway the point is, that there is an unswered question here about whether homo sapiens are primarily chemical life forms or whether they are primarily life in a completely different medium.

    The question of whether the human community can called alive is even less certain. Life is a delicate balance between the extremes of being dominated by the environment and being completely insensitive to the evironment. If the human community continues to operate in the zone of crisis management without looking ahead and planning for future then I think it can be described as by being dominated by the environment. If the human community remains insensitive to the ecosphere in which it lives, blundering blindly along without really being conscious of the impact it has on the earth then I think it is more properly described as a rolling stone than as a living organism. Abstracts like human rights are the internal dynamic structures of which the human community is composed. How seriously we take them, how much we believe in them, how much we breathe life into these abstracts is a measure of the life of the human community. When we can realistically put our faith in such abstract things as rights laws and justice, that is when the human community solidifies into a reality.

    The real roblem here is that evolution does not stand still. You adapt or you die. Homo Sapiens are at such a point. We must realize our potential for becoming something truly unique and alive, or become an evolutionary dead end, destined for extinction. The problem with a rolling stone is that it eventually reaches the bottom and then even the superficial appearance of life will disappear. The path to greater life is not an easy one, for both faith and doubt must play important roles.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    The real roblem here is that evolution does not stand still. You adapt or you die.
    The real problem is that humans are slowly killing themselves by polluting their environment, overpopulating and not trying to help with the problems but make them worse. Humans won't survive this type of onslaught to themselves as nature will die off and there won't be anything to adapt to but death and destruction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Rights do exist, but they are artificial. In the sense of the word, a right is a justified claim, which means that some instance decides whether you are justified in claiming something. Now, that instance might put conditions (like being a human being) on those rights, but even than, the justified part lies in subjectivity, in human perception. In this philosophy there is no 'God' to provide a legal system. Concepts like a 'right to live', do not exist in the formal sense that this right is provided by an objective institute to which one can appeal.
    Basically, I can appeal to you to my right for you to give me all of your money, but immediately you will be giving the money (or not), and so you will be the judge whether it is justified or not. Ergo, these rights are esoteric, and quite useless as an objective standard, and we can discard existentialism on this basis.

    Creating a superhuman species would not be quite as easy as you would think. Sure, we might be able to cure some genetic diseases, but we might add others because of imperfect methods, and the real stuff that could really change something can not be truly altered. This superhuman species would still be inheritantly human. Possible more identical to the original specimen than we individually differ.
    Selective breeding is probably a more interesting approach. But again, why? What reason? If we have a higher processing ability, it won't mean that we certainly understand the universe. Merely because we can reason and other animals can not, it does not mean that improving the genetical structure will also change our ability to reason.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    I believe the earth keeps a through record of its past not just in the strata and DNA, but as a compendium of memories all woven together and existing as a field that constructs the fabric of reality.
    We then though naiveté assume this world we perceive is solely are own .


    Measuring the human contribution to this compendium from the first upright big brained Cro-Magnons to today’s modern man is puny in comparison to other more ancient life forms.
    If their were, and is, an existing a central compendium built from the sum total of all chordate memory, it will be more bird than human.
    After all they had mastered the skies while our ancestors were still being trampled under foot by their lumbering kinsmen the dinosaurs.


    Lynn Margulis-

    The idea that we are "stewards of the earth" is another symptom of human arrogance. Imagine yourself with the task of overseeing your body's physiological processes. Do you understand the way it works well enough to keep all its systems in operation?

    --------------------------------------------------

    Christopher Humphrey-


    At work in the field, I felt the wave from behind....... and then the shadow.

    The magnificent bird filled the sky.

    Its fierce nobility hit like a thunder bolt.
    A forgotten truth stirred within my memory.

    We are merely children newly born under the watchful eye of earthly kings.

    Then the voice called down to me, out of the heart of the woodpecker, in the tongue of the crow, from the beak of an eagle.

    Caw ! Caw !






    Caduceus of Thoth The Caduceus was originally a healing tool employed in the temples of Atlantis and Egypt. It had been brought into this realm by the Illumined Master, Thoth. The wings on the Caduceus are symbolic of the liberation of consciousness from the warp and weave of dual systems, once it moves up the staff between the serpents and further, beyond their reach. The Caduceus additionally represents the DNA helix, which contains the crystalline frequency of all morphogenetic fields. Morphogenetic fields connect all living being through a constant exchange of knowledge in the Language of Light. There is also a deeper symbology to the Caduceus, and that is the Christed Consciousness of the mind, once it is fully illumined through the heart which is the true Seat of the Soul. The actual "Thoth Staff" or "Paradma" contained only the heads of the serpents. This allowed the staff itself to be handled more easily and to have sent within it more specifically placed, certain stones and power symbols. The "wings" on the original staff acted somewhat like a satellite dish, as receptors for the energies of the body that the Paradma was engaging.
    http://www.crystalinks.com/caduceus.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Are homosapiens the crownprince of the evolution? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by latehorn
    After that cleared up, if there's no rights left than humanism is total BS and I cant see why we shouldn't create supersapiens that can take over the world after us and design the whole universe.
    As I recall the nazis had the same idea. Who is it that you think is superior to the rest of us? Who are you going kill off to make room for your friends? This pointless boring idea is repeated so often that I hope you don't think it is an original one. Every terrorist and two-bit dictator thinks that his superiority and his righteous violence will solve all the problems. A different excuse does not hide the truth that your solution is exactly the kind of behavior and thinking that the human race must put behind it, if it is going to survive.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    I believe the earth keeps a through record of its past not just in the strata and DNA, but as a compendium of memories all woven together and existing as field that constructs the fabric of reality.
    Indeed the central purpose of the universe is the creation of life, and therefore, naturally, life is everywhere (whether we recognized it as such or not). Wherever there is life, there is spirit and the spirit remembers. Our life may be particularly advanced and intense but that does not mean it outweighs all the rest. In the bible, after the flood, God said that never again would he destroy the earth for the sake of man. He may have thought us worth such a sacrifice once but not again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    We then though naiveté assume this world we perceive is solely are own .
    Our ideas of ownership has meaning only to ourselves. What is more important is whether we value the life it contains enough to preserve it, especially since in truth we cannot live without it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Measuring the human contribution to this compendium from the first upright big brained Cro-Magnons to today’s modern man is puny in comparison to other more ancient life forms.
    If their were, and is, an existing a central compendium built from the sum total of all chordate memory, it will be more bird than human.
    After all they had mastered the skies while our ancestors were still being trampled under foot by their lumbering kinsmen the dinosaurs.
    Failing to recognize human importance in the scheme of things makes it difficult to assign responsibility. Whether we have right to destroy the earth is somewhat moot, since our power to destroy the earth is undeniable. We must make a choice. That choice and the consequences which will follow are unavoidable. There will be a point at which the choice will be made for us and the earth or at least our part in it will end.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Are homosapiens the crownprince of the evolution? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by latehorn
    After that cleared up, if there's no rights left than humanism is total BS and I cant see why we shouldn't create supersapiens that can take over the world after us and design the whole universe.
    As I recall the nazis had the same idea. Who is it that you think is superior to the rest of us? Who are you going kill off to make room for your friends? This pointless boring idea is repeated so often that I hope you don't think it is an original one. Every terrorist and two-bit dictator thinks that his superiority and his righteous violence will solve all the problems. A different excuse does not hide the truth that your solution is exactly the kind of behavior and thinking that the human race must put behind it, if it is going to survive.
    Humans have no value in itself, we are the same decaying organic material as animals or bacteriums. I already proved it. However.. we don't have to kill any people to make this race, we can just modifie some genes(when we have the technology).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    In many ways "crown prince" is quite apt. A crown prince is not king yet but the potential is there. He is imature with plenty of power to throw around and not enough responsibility. It is also apt in the sense that the superiority of a prince over the people is a superficial one deriving mostly from power, while in reality there no essential difference between the prince and any other human. The human rights of which you speak do not exist objectively. They only exist within the context of the human community and are about how we govern our behavior towards one another.
    Your exactly right, we have not full controll of evolution yet.. thats why I wrote crownprince.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Are homosapiens the crownprince of the evolution? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by latehorn
    Humans have no value in itself (sic), we are the same decaying organic material as animals or bacteriums. I already proved it.
    Run that by me one more time please. I didn't get it the first time. I suspect you are shoehorning your argument into a proof, but let's see the details.


    Edited to correct problem with quotes pointed out by Mitchell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: Are homosapiens the crownprince of the evolution? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    74
    [quote="Ophiolite"]
    Quote Originally Posted by latehorn
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Humans have no value in itself (sic), we are the same decaying organic material as animals or bacteriums. I already proved it.
    Run that by me one more time please. I didn't get it the first time. I suspect you are shoehorning your argument into a proof, but let's see the details.
    ok.. we are the same decaying organic material as animals or bacteriums.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Stating that something is so does not make it so. Please prove, using standard logical methods, that because we are the same decaying organic material as animals or bacteriums that we have no value.

    I repeat, you have not proved this, merely stated it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    "Value" is a subjective concept. What has value to me might not have value to you.
    By what standard are you judging that humans have no value?
    If building blocks are your standard, and everything is made of the same building blocks - then what exactly DOES have value?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: Are homosapiens the crownprince of the evolution? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Humans have no value in itself (sic), we are the same decaying organic material as animals or bacteriums. I already proved it.
    Run that by me one more time please. I didn't get it the first time. I suspect you are shoehorning your argument into a proof, but let's see the details.
    You really messed up the quotes on this one Ophiolite. The correct quotation is,

    Quote Originally Posted by latehorn
    Humans have no value in itself (sic), we are the same decaying organic material as animals or bacteriums. I already proved it.
    I have made it clear that I find his viewpoint quite contemptable. This person finds no value in any life except what he in his pretentions to Godhood thinks that he can manage to create.

    My own point of view on the value of man is...
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    But considering how vast the universe is I think we can discount the incredible arrogance of man in supposing that the success of God in any way depends on this particular mote of dust we call the earth.

    But this is a far cry from saying that he is disinterested. Here is life, and in it is all potentiality for which he created the universe. Consider that one way or another everything we are comes from this creator. In us he cultivated the love and care we feel for each other. In us he grew the beauty that we see in each other. In us he raised the minds that judge the value we perceive in our fellow man. Is this a product of fantasy or delusion or could this be only smallest hint of the love and care that he feels for us, and the beauty and value that he sees in us. The fantasies and delusions of man are legion, but there is a foolish and childish feel to them. The foolish and childish things all seem to come out when we fail to care for and love each other, when we fail to see the value and beauty in other human beings.
    For some strange reason it adds an end quote here by itself when I end with the quote.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Stating that something is so does not make it so. Please prove, using standard logical methods, that because we are the same decaying organic material as animals or bacteriums that we have no value.

    I repeat, you have not proved this, merely stated it.
    We consists of the same decaying materials as other more 'low-value' creatures such as rats and bacteriums. We, human beeings comes from rats -> monkeys. We are the same thing. Think that the nature on this earth is a body and it's bodyparts consists of ecological groups.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by latehorn
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Stating that something is so does not make it so. Please prove, using standard logical methods, that because we are the same decaying organic material as animals or bacteriums that we have no value.

    I repeat, you have not proved this, merely stated it.
    We consists of the same decaying materials as other more 'low-value' creatures such as rats and bacteriums. We, human beeings comes from rats -> monkeys. We are the same thing. Think that the nature on this earth is a body and it's bodyparts consists of ecological groups.
    So what are you proposing to make these superior beings of yours out of? What makes one element any more valuable than another?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    74
    Since their is no proofs for any so called 'values' I will not believe in that. The only thing I think we should go for is the adventure because its more interesting than the normal way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •