Are humans somehow "unnatural"?

[beenherebeforeagain]

Proto-man was just one of many animal species fighting for survival over the millennia. If his brain could evolve through processes of natural selection, then why did the brains of other creatures not similarly evolve - at least a little? The fact is that the brains of other creatures have remained practically the same size while man’s has “evolved”. This is inconsistent, and it will be recalled that the hallmark of the objective universe - and deistic proof of God - is its consistency. By the law of averages - which applies to natural selection as much as to anything else - there should have been at least some species other than man evolving in intelligence at least partway to the human level. There is none.

By the laws of nature that we have observed over time, by all accounts another species should have developed at least a brain remotely close to ours. And none have, for the most part every single surviving creature has remained exactly the same except us.
So what has taken place?

We are left with the explanation: Deliberate Cause
And this implies an isolate intelligence working through our physical being (brain / body)

That is one conclusion one can reach, but your evidence is not true. You assert that other species haven't changed (they have) and repeat that humans are in some way different. Yes, we are--it improved our survival as a species to have a bigger brain along with manipulating hands, social relationships, language, and so on. That makes us unique, but it is in no way unnatural.

As for the argument that no other brains are like ours: nonsense. The other great apes also have brains larger and more complicated than most other animals, and are significantly more intelligent than most other similarly-sized mammals. Dolphins and other cetaceans have brains as big as or larger than, and at least as complex as, human brains--and they show considerable signs of intelligence and language use. Elephants and their now-extinct relatives also have (and had) large, complex brains and apparently use language.

While there is debate about the measurements, etc., (and even moreso the relevance and meaning) in biology it's well established that brains of vertebrates have generally increased in size over time, especially among larger body sizes in the mammals.

Your assertion that "by all accounts another species should have developed," is incorrect. By what "accounts," exactly, do you base this assertion on? There is no imperative in evolution that implies any species "should" have a large brain, or appendages that can manipulate things, or so on. That we humans do is a lovely accident of evolution--our ancestors survived because they had those traits, and we inherited them. We appear to be the only line of species SO FAR on earth that combine these traits--but that in itself does not mean we "should" have them, or that any other species "should" develop them. Nature shows us there are lots of ways for living creatures to survive; we're just lucky to have the traits we do.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Neanderthals had bigger brains than us, too.

 

[1137]

You did? Because it doesn't seem that way, from what you've posted.

Really? It wasn't clear when I said:

"I Only view animals as "less that human" in the same way as I view us as "less than tigers" because they are stronger than us."

"For the final time, my position is not human superiority, and if other species have a mind like our it does nothing to change my position. Humans don't need to be special."

"As I've already explained, there is objective proof for the human mind being "unnatural" as understood by Setianism, which also shares the definition of "unnatural" give by the great god Google."

"Humans are just the only example we know of with such a mind. Perhaps other species have one similar, or other life in the universe."

"If I try to wrestle a tiger it will tear me to shreds. It has superior physical strength"

"Unnatural doesn't imply that something is somehow separate from nature, it implies that it's abnormal within nature, contrary to the statistical average of how nature acts."

"Further, just because humans are the only ones we are sure are like this, it doesn't mean other species or life out there can't have a similar mind."

 

[Thief]

What I mean is, is there anything about humans that could not have come about through natural evolutionary processes?

Some claim that the minds and abilities of humans are so advanced and complex to the point that they could not have come about through natural processes alone. Some view this complexity as the result of aliens or mysterious deities.

I disagree with this opinion and think there was no intervention, agreeing with the current scientific evidence that humans are merely the product of evolution as all species on Earth are.

What say you? Present evidence and state your reasoning, if you can be so obliged.

I see Chapter Two of Genesis as that intervention

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Really? It wasn't clear when I said:

"I Only view animals as "less that human" in the same way as I view us as "less than tigers" because they are stronger than us."

"For the final time, my position is not human superiority, and if other species have a mind like our it does nothing to change my position. Humans don't need to be special."

"As I've already explained, there is objective proof for the human mind being "unnatural" as understood by Setianism, which also shares the definition of "unnatural" give by the great god Google."

"Humans are just the only example we know of with such a mind. Perhaps other species have one similar, or other life in the universe."

"If I try to wrestle a tiger it will tear me to shreds. It has superior physical strength"

"Unnatural doesn't imply that something is somehow separate from nature, it implies that it's abnormal within nature, contrary to the statistical average of how nature acts."

"Further, just because humans are the only ones we are sure are like this, it doesn't mean other species or life out there can't have a similar mind."

You also claimed that animals don't think and posted a quote saying that the universe would be useless without humans.

 

[1137]

You also claimed that animals don't think and posted a quote saying that the universe would be useless without humans.

I claimed that animals don't think to the same extent that we do, at least as far as I know. I also asked you to provide evidence otherwise. I also informed you that if they do think like us it only strengths my attention. Please take some time, cool down, get your emotions in check, and then try reading what I've actually said.

 

[Father Heathen]

In my experience, the sorts of people who can entertain this sort of idea have several things going on:

• They have been raised in a culture whose mythology teaches them that humans are categorically distinct from other animals. Often there are other dualistic teachings in these same cultures, such as presuming that spirit/gods are divorced from matter/nature.
• They hold to a value system that puts humans on a pedestal above other animals, other non-animal organisms, and abiotic aspects of reality. They believe humans are an "apex" and "better" than everything else; hierarchical thinking is emphasized over holism and interrelation.
• They are unfamiliar with the reams of literature in the sciences that completely destroy the idea that humans are categorically distinct from other animals, much less nature. Often they are on the whole unfamiliar with biology, and in particular biodiversity and ecology.

That said, I don't think any of this is incompatible with the idea of deities, at least not with respect to my theology where the gods are the stuff of reality. But I hail from a non-dualistic view of the world that doesn't put that wedge between spirit/gods and matter/nature...

Well, there are a few minor difference between us and the other animals, such as our ability to reason, to understand abstract concepts, to create and understand written languages, to build civilizations, to split atoms, and to explore space, just to name a few. We are "better" if you measure by capability, but we're still very much animals.

 

[Etritonakin]

What I mean is, is there anything about humans that could not have come about through natural evolutionary processes?

Some claim that the minds and abilities of humans are so advanced and complex to the point that they could not have come about through natural processes alone. Some view this complexity as the result of aliens or mysterious deities.

I disagree with this opinion and think there was no intervention, agreeing with the current scientific evidence that humans are merely the product of evolution as all species on Earth are.

What say you? Present evidence and state your reasoning, if you can be so obliged.

Finding evidence of intervention would be rather difficult -even if we knew what to look for.

If a human was produced by synthesizing DNA or modifying existing material/DNA to produce specific characteristics -and then allowed to grow up and reproduce with other humans -what sort of evidence would exist then and later -and how would we find it?

If something similar to what happened in the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey actually happened, how would we know?

If Adam was directly created -we would not know exactly how -or what that might mean in terms of DNA. If Adam's line reproduced with other humans in existence -as Cain apparently did when he found a wife in Nod -how could we know? Was Adam's line different in physical terms than others?

It is possible for intervention to occur -as we intervene -but finding scientific evidence of previous intervention would likely require vast amounts of data.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

As scientists dig deeper into DNA, it's discoveries are simply too complex

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

And this arose.....by chance?

And keep in mind, Saint, that evidence can be read different ways (Perry Mason taught me that), and some evidence is downplayed, such as the Cambrian Explosion.

Take care, my friend.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well, there are a few minor difference between us and the other animals, such as our ability to reason, to understand abstract concepts, to create and understand written languages, to build civilizations, to split atoms, and to explore space, just to name a few. We are "better" if you measure by capability, but we're still very much animals.

"our ability to reason, to understand abstract concepts, to create and understand written languages, to build civilizations, to split atoms, and to explore space......"

These are not "minor" differences!

In addition, there are many more!

 

[1137]

They have been raised in a culture whose mythology teaches them that humans are categorically distinct from other animals. Often there are other dualistic teachings in these same cultures, such as presuming that spirit/gods are divorced from matter/nature.

There is no need for such a duality. Those with mental disabilities are statistically abnormal, but they are still humans. At least, I think so. Same with humans having superior intelligence to other animals. Is a shark not an animal just because it swims better than other animals?

They hold to a value system that puts humans on a pedestal above other animals, other non-animal organisms, and abiotic aspects of reality. They believe humans are an "apex" and "better" than everything else; hierarchical thinking is emphasized over holism and interrelation.

So when I make my point that tigers are stronger than me, I'm engaging in some form of Tigerism where tigers are above all else? Lol

They are unfamiliar with the reams of literature in the sciences that completely destroy the idea that humans are categorically distinct from other animals, much less nature. Often they are on the whole unfamiliar with biology, and in particular biodiversity and ecology. [

I think most low level classes of psychology, biology, anthropology, etc cover differences in other species compared to humans. As I've said numerous time, simply put forth your evidence of advanced shark languages, chimpanzee internet, elephant religious schisms. When explaining how the mind is unnatural in its proper definition, I proved support after support from such areas, whereas I never see people like you or @Saint Frankenstein providing evidence of all the billions of species you believe to be our intellectual equals.

And I'd ask both of you, would you really jump into a pit with only fists against an angry predatory animal? I mean, we're all equal ain't we? I'm sure you'd have a fair fight.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What I mean is, is there anything about humans that could not have come about through natural evolutionary processes?

Some claim that the minds and abilities of humans are so advanced and complex to the point that they could not have come about through natural processes alone. Some view this complexity as the result of aliens or mysterious deities.

I disagree with this opinion and think there was no intervention, agreeing with the current scientific evidence that humans are merely the product of evolution as all species on Earth are.

What say you? Present evidence and state your reasoning, if you can be so obliged.

Like an introduced species? Who knows?

It's not out of the realm of possibilities aside from supernatural suppositions.

I personally don't see how atm givin the immensity of space unless it's a natural introduction like something orginating from an asteroid or comet.

 

[Quintessence]

@1137 , I did not say that all things of reality are equal. I'm not going to argue for a strawperson position that I do not hold.

 

[1137]

@1137 , I did not say that all things of reality are equal. I'm not going to argue for a strawperson position that I do not hold.

Then you're fair to clarify, because that is certainly how it seems. You're also free to address all my other points. And as that entire post you ignored shows, your entire first post is a straw man, I'm assuming unintentionally.

See, I don't get it. You and @Saint Frankenstein are top tier members, then you guys get like this and won't even support your own position. I'm not sure what to do about it. I feel that if you hold a position, you should be able to argue and defend it.

 

[Quintessence]

Then you're fair to clarify, because that is certainly how it seems. You're also free to address all my other points. And as that entire post you ignored shows, your entire first post is a straw man, I'm assuming unintentionally.

I'm not sure how anything I wrote is a strawperson considering I was making general observations based on personal experience, not making a statement about any specific person's position (whether yours or someone else's).

I'll take a closer look at that post. I made that post very briefly before heading off to work - I didn't have time to write an essay, dude.

See, I don't get it. You and @Saint Frankenstein are top tier members, then you guys get like this and won't even support your own position. I'm not sure what to do about it. I feel that if you hold a position, you should be able to argue and defend it.

For the most part, be aware I'm really not into arguing, debating, and defending stuff. It's not my thing. I'll express a particular take on an issue, and people can take it or leave it. I'm more interested in learning about different perspectives... a reference to that that was in my signature for a long time, but I swapped that out for a Welsh triad I particularly like.

 

[Demonslayer]

You should see my Uncle Larry, drunk with his shirt of in the bleachers of a Red Sox game. Very unnatural indeed.

 

[Demonslayer]

strawperson

LOL, I haven't seen that particular brand of political correctness before.

 

[1137]

I'm not sure how anything I wrote is a strawperson considering I was making general observations based on personal experience, not making a statement about any specific person's position (whether yours or someone else's).

I'll take a closer look at that post. I made that post very briefly before heading off to work - I didn't have time to write an essay, dude.



For the most part, be aware I'm really not into arguing, debating, and defending stuff. It's not my thing. I'll express a particular take on an issue, and people can take it or leave it. I'm more interested in learning about different perspectives... a reference to that that was in my signature for a long time, but I swapped that out for a Welsh triad I particularly like.

So you're willing to make sweeping and inaccurate generalizations but then not address when they're incorrect? Like I said, it's out of character.

 

[Quintessence]

So you're willing to make sweeping and inaccurate generalizations but then not address when they're incorrect? Like I said, it's out of character.

I think you missed this part here:

I'll take a closer look at that post. I made that post very briefly before heading off to work - I didn't have time to write an essay, dude.

[sarcasm]But thanks for being patient and not making unnecessary assessments about character and everything because I have a job. I really appreciate it![/sarcasm]

Of course, I'm now feeling a little bit disinclined to revisit that post when I receive feedback like this... so the "I'll take a closer look at that post" is now a "maybe I'll take a closer look at that post."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's not surprising that something as ignorant and narcissistic as a human being would delude itself into thinking that it's far more special than it is. Most members of the species are little more than equal parts ego and fear.