This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Process : Creation of Human

Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by Judzfell, Feb 8, 2010.

  1. Judzfell

    Judzfell Schadenfreude

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Ontario
    I have thought long and hard about this, but why have we ended up the way we have?

    As a race, we are jealous, hateful, ignorant, and sadistic.. We are unintelligent to the extreme. I'm just fornicating ideas here.

    We are also made pretty shitty. Our vision gives away with age... our teeth are non replaceable, Limbs cannot regenerate.

    If you look at other species, like a bird. It can see something a mile away with ease. If evolution was our reason, (Which I don't partake in it's theory) you'd think it would make us more durable as a species, hell, we only live a century at most.

    You could say that we are magnificent and intelligent, but who do we have to compare to but ourselves? There are many proofs of how stupid we are, but nothing that we are aware of orknow is smarter.

    My theory is that we were created. by godlike people... but not, "god" from the bible.. more of an omniscient ET species who have been splicing genes, Evolution of humans, the conception of it is too ... well, it leaves too many questions unanswered. existence is complex.
     
  2. hexwind

    hexwind Creepiness Och Terrorism

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    9,791
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Psychedelic Planet
    Okay, you compare us to bird, did you compare their knowledge to ours? We simply don't need to target things miles away from us in order to survive. We need other things (like thumbs) in order to survive... or at least, by time, we found out that we need them.
    The fact that you think that we are the worst of the creatures makes us, we humans, better than other species because I doubt they think the way you do haha
     
  3. Einherjar86

    Einherjar86 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    13,245
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vheissu
    Birds don't live nearly as long as humans do. Furthermore, a bird sees so well because it's necessary in order for it to survive. We don't need great sight for survival. We've created technological advancements that have obivated the need for any evolutionary change.

    I'm not sure what you're referring to by "stupid." I mean, we know that we only use a small portion of our brains- is this what you mean? Otherwise, "stupid" is a pretty relative term. A large portion of society might be considered "stupid" by the results of any common standardized test; but that doesn't mean those people are necessarily unintelligent. Or, perhaps you're arguing that we are inherently unintelligent because of the way we envision ourselves and act in the world. If this is the case, I'd ask you to provide some examples of so-called "stupid" behavior.
     
  4. BlackMetalWhiteGuy

    BlackMetalWhiteGuy Manly Man!

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Cooperstown and Oswego, NY
    It makes sense if you understand our evolutionary history. All upper primates are social to some degree and violence between groups evolved as a necessary strategy in competition over resources. We're the first species that actually discovered the ability to harvest and control the production of our own resources, but that only happened within the past several thousand years. Compare that to the few million years that hominids have been around, several million more that primates have existed, millions upon millions more that mammals have existed, about 500 million or so that vertebrates have existed and over a billion that multi-cellular organisms have existed and it's pretty easy to see that any way you look at it, species are hard-wire to compete aggressively, even amongst themselves, over resources. We're just better at it.
    As hexwind pointed out, your ability to notice unintelligence says otherwise.
    Considering human evolutionary history and the purpose of vision, there really wasn't much selection pressure for elderly people to retain their vision. They were no longer hunting, no longer reproducing, and certainly were not spending any time reading for the majority of hominid existence. Once you're beyond the age of peak fertility, secondary competitive characterists begin to lose their value.
    Our teeth to not need to be replaced because our teeth do not use them to catch struggling prey. Additionally, we're so proficient with tool use, that we're unlikely to lose teeth due to injury, either. We also have a relatively soft diet that does not result in excessive tooth decay (historically, anyway).
    Exactly how many limbs have you lost? How many other people do you know who've lost limbs? Probably very few, so in the grand scheme of things, regeneration is not a characteristic that would have been selected for, because the need for it would have been virtually negligible.
    A few bird species, such as hawks and eagles can see detail at great distances. This is because it's necessary for their survival, and consequently, those birds that with superior vision, would also be superior hunters. This would increase the probability that they would survive long enough to reproduce, and considering that birds care for their offspring, it would directly affect their ability to keep their nestlings alive. Humans haven't evolved this feature, because it has never been necessary to our survival.
    I suppose it's easy to reject a theory if you don't understand it.

    Evolution doesn't care how "durable" you are. The only thing that matters is the ability to increase your fitness by leaving the greatest genetic legacy. If you can produce more offspring, and healthier offspring, and if they in turn produce viable offspring, then evolution considers you to be successful.
    It's actually more adaptive for most species to live a short time, because it prevents elderly members of the population from inhibiting the success of younger generations. It also increases the number of generations that can occur within a specific amount of time, and therefore also increases the rate of mutation and the genetic variability within a population, which are the driving forces of evolution.
    Every other species.
    "Proofs" are things that we invented. The fact that we even have the ability implies that we're not that stupid after all.
    That's not a theory. In fact, that's not even a hypothesis, it's just an idea. A theory is an explanation that has been substantiated by the scientific process, which involves, experimentation, peer review, retestability, and the possibility to be disproven. Evolution is still a theory after 150 years, because it has proven itself against even the most rigorous scientific scrutiny.
    On the contrary. It doesn't leave many questions unanswered, it merely provides answers that you, personally, don't understand or haven't taken the time to learn about yet. That's not evolution's fault. It's yours.
     
  5. BlackMetalWhiteGuy

    BlackMetalWhiteGuy Manly Man!

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Cooperstown and Oswego, NY
    This is actually a misconception that originated in the 1940s. At the time, a popular psychologist was public with the fact that humans have more cognitive abilities than we use, and neurologists in general admitted that they still didn't know what the entire brain did. A man named Dale Carnegie misrepresented these facts to boost sales of his self-help books and he fabricated the 10% statistic in an attempt to legitimize his credentials by making him sound more "scientific."
    Even then, those people are only stupid by comparison to other people, not to other species, so his point is irrelevant.
     
  6. Einherjar86

    Einherjar86 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    13,245
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vheissu
    I never knew that. I thought it was more than 10% (that just sounds asinine), but I didn't know the idea of not using our brains to their full capacity was a myth. So thank you!

    As to your other point, I was just emphasizing that calling people stupid, even in comparison to other people, is still a very relative accusation.
     
  7. Blowtus

    Blowtus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Straya
    Humans are stupid, and yet, nothing is smarter. Your inherent pessimism is rather clear there :) We have *every other form of life known about* to compare ourselves to.
     
  8. Citizen Erased

    Citizen Erased Jamie Lenman <3

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Scotland
    Humans can also be compassionate, loving, caring and selfless. Humans are also the most intelligent race on the planet. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at. There is no shade without light. You can't just list the extremely negative attributes to humans and ignore the good parts.
     
  9. monoxide_child

    monoxide_child New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,247
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    all of this info was taught to me in highschool biology, why was the thread starter not familiar with any of this?
     
  10. Badbird

    Badbird Never banned

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    4,293
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Ayn Rand is dead hahahahaha
    We are both intelligent and unintlligent. You can't compare birds to humans either.
     
  11. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    We out live most other species, how long do you want to live ? There comes a point in life when enough is enough. We currently have denied natural selection and live decades longer than we are supposed to. We should be fertilizer by 40.

    Our teeth rot away due to being meat eaters that turned to junk food

    we are stupid because we are destructive, meddleing, discontents

    we will be humbled for our actions by the earth
     
  12. Blowtus

    Blowtus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Straya
    Two points:

    Giving up and dying is hardly 'natural'.

    'Natural' doesn't mean 'good', it in fact doesn't really mean anything when used regarding humans. Either everything we do is 'natural' or nothing is, this business about applying the 'natural' label to actions one finds good and wholesome is plain and simple bullshit.
     
  13. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    do you think perhaps there is two definitions for natural ?
     
  14. Blowtus

    Blowtus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Straya
    I think there are probably heaps. Do you want to have a shot at a logically consistent one that lets you argue humans are acting unnaturally?
     
  15. BlackMetalWhiteGuy

    BlackMetalWhiteGuy Manly Man!

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Cooperstown and Oswego, NY
    Yes we can.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62U44520100331
     
  16. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    acting naturally to defy natural selection, very good

    those that couldnt make it now do from human desire for monetary satisfaction, laws also protected the weak a product of self preservation, bleeding heart another factor but is that innate or is that also a product of "brain washing", all other species turn their back to the weak and move on

    my belief is that in the beginning there were good hunters, industrious and resourceful workers, then there was the theifs

    The theifs became Doctors, lawyers, law makers, politicians, insurance agents and stock brokers. The problem is today it would still be natural to kill them but they are protected by their means of self preservation, creating laws and false beliefs that they are saviors, but they just want the money.

    The workers still get what needs to be done... done

    "religious beliefs" may have been the initial tool used by theifs to protect themselves, fear mongering. I say this because it was the first means of repression, slavery, how Kings became Kings and protectionism of such types, all would fear them and by their accumulation of power would be untouchable
     
  17. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
  18. Blowtus

    Blowtus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Straya
    No, they don't.



    Was anything you said intended to support the notion that humans don't act naturally?
     
  19. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I'll break it down to the key points of the artical

    "may shed light" (we need more money)

    "which means the tiny bird should serve as a valuable model for understanding human learning and memory."(see why we need more money)

    "who was involved in the research."(has nice bank account)

    "The zebra finch genome provides a tool that allows this exploration,"(actually its your money, thanks but this way sounds better)

    "is only the second bird to have its genome sequenced, after the chicken in 2004."(hey it takes alot of money, but thanks again)

    "Baby finches, like human infants, start off by "babbling" before the young males learn to imitate their father's song and eventually pass it on to the next generation." (arent we profound)

    "finches could provide a window onto the origins of speech disorders" (we wont know untill we make more money)

    "reported"(its the least we can do, thanks)

    "will not be easy."(hey, this takes alot of time... and money)

    "Experts previously thought there might be around 100 genes involved in zebra finch singing, however, the fact that at least 800 genes exist underlines the sheer complexity of learning." (learning is complex and this kind takes alot of money... see we are profound... BTW, thanks)

    "Significantly"(a great money pit to be involved in)

    "They may have two birds in the bag," (whats a few billion per bird, we're having fun)

    "but scientists still want to learn more about these feathered descendants of the dinosaurs." Oh me too

    Next up is the parrot genome, which researchers hope to complete by the end of this year.(we hope to maintain our financial security, send us the money)

    :rolleyes:
     
  20. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    not to your comprehension... naturally
     

Share This Page