Does evolution devalue humanity??

created by a series of alleged mutations, accident after accident, no different to any species on the planet..

Does that demean humanity as a species??

 

HOW do you keep on dreaming up this incomprehensible pseudo-academic nonsense of yours, oh thee of little scientific intellect knee-high to a grasshopper ???




 ::ftlcheer::

Don't be plank all your life GIG.

so how did human life start...

or all life if you are brave enough...  

Give it a rest, you're become a bore.

Sassy wrote:Give it a rest, you're become a bore.

so you can't answer, as usual..lol

Molecules

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:created by a series of alleged mutations, accident after accident, no different to any species on the planet..

Does that demean humanity as a species??

Primordial ooze, perhaps off a meteor; I don't think they have found anything conclusive yet. Then bacteria and molecules; slimy land creatures coming out of the sea; development over hundreds of millions of years to the ancestor we share with modern apes; to homoerectus and eventually to us today. All natural selection and yes no different to any other species on the planet- only we evolved consciousness.

Does it demean humanity? Of course not, why would it? We have evolved to be the planets superior species and can control the elements to an almost unlimited effect. We are the product of a long (and ongoing) process of life- what could be more incredible?

Oh for pities sake don't answer him and get him started again, we have had so many threads about this LOL

It was Mutagen Ooze! we are all turtles!

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:so how did human life start...

or all life if you are brave enough...  

No one knows exactly how the first Animus came into existence.

But Humans or Hominids that's easy, surly you got taught this is school or did you really not go to High school?        I am starting to suspect you spent to much time smoking the wacky tobaccy when you should have been paying attention in class.       


Basically...
North Africa was once dense Forest and Lots of species of Monkeys lived there.
There was a Massive Volcanic Eruption in what is now the Mediterranean, this changed the climate of north Africa creating the what is now (Sahara desert)
As the Trees died (so the gaps between them became larger) the monkey need to work out how to get around. Some Started Knuckle walking over millions of years these have become Chimps, Gorillas and Baboons. Others started Bipedal walking, at first this would have just been short distances between trees but over time became longer and longer distances until they could move around on two legs like modern Humans.

This Created a Natural Advantage as all the great apes and Hominids use Objects(weapons) for defence, bipedal movement allowed Hominids to Carry their weapons allowing us to move Further from the remaining trees and rocky outcrops.

As the Forests turned to desert those with larger Brains found it easier to survive  as they could remember or work out where water was.

You then Multiple have large brained bipedal hominids that use tools including fire wandering around, Isolation then Completion between the hominids leads to the genetic arms race that culminates in Sapien and Neanderthal competition for Europe. the result of which is modern humans

Well you were taught differently to us Veya:


Humans did not evolve from apes such as gorillas and chimps. Instead, humans and apes share a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago. This common ancestor diverged over time to form many different species of hominid, only one of which survived to become modern humans. All the rest of the hominids, including early humans, became extinct.  Apes and gorillas evolved from that ancestor, but down a different path.

This thread is making pretty much the exact same point we've hashed over in my thread about whether atheism is arrogant. Yes, scientific fact relegates us from godlike status to mere animals. It's the mark of a tiny, tiny ego if you have to believe you were created by a supreme being in order to feel like your life has any worth.

Let me put it another way -- let's say somebody tells me a bottle of pig shit is the finest cologne in the world, so I smear it all over myself and parade around. Someone else tells me I have pig shit on my face.

Did the second person "demean" me or just clue me in??

Sassy wrote:Well you were taught differently to us Veya:


Humans did not evolve from apes such as gorillas and chimps. Instead, humans and apes share a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago. This common ancestor diverged over time to form many different species of hominid, only one of which survived to become modern humans. All the rest of the hominids, including early humans, became extinct.  Apes and gorillas evolved from that ancestor, but down a different path.

I didn't say we evolved from Apes both APES and HUMAN came from the same event we were both monkeys before that. All the Great apes also originate in Africa. Other Hominids were around till about 30,000 years ago at some points in time they were a dozen different species alive.

We most definitely did NOT evolve from monkeys:

1. Did we evolve from monkeys?
Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

Ben_Reilly wrote:This thread is making pretty much the exact same point we've hashed over in my thread about whether atheism is arrogant. Yes, scientific fact relegates us from godlike status to mere animals. It's the mark of a tiny, tiny ego if you have to believe you were created by a supreme being in order to feel like your life has any worth.

Let me put it another way -- let's say somebody tells me a bottle of pig shit is the finest cologne in the world, so I smear it all over myself and parade around. Someone else tells me I have pig shit on my face.

Did the second person "demean" me or just clue me in??

Absolutely agree, which is why I suggested nobody reply. It didn't work though   

ooook

Sassy wrote:We most definitely did NOT evolve from monkeys:

1. Did we evolve from monkeys?
  Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

And what is that common ancestor? a Monkey or more correctly a Simian probably 'Proconsul africanus'

Catarrhini splits into 2 superfamilies, Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea) and apes (Hominoidea). Our trichromatic color vision had its genetic origins in this period.

Proconsul was an early genus of catarrhine primates. They had a mixture of Old World monkey and ape characteristics. Proconsul's monkey-like features include thin tooth enamel, a light build with a narrow chest and short forelimbs, and an arboreal quadrupedal lifestyle. Its ape-like features are its lack of a tail, ape-like elbows, and a slightly larger brain relative to body size.

Proconsul africanus is a possible ancestor of both great and lesser apes, including humans.

Proconsul africanus is an ape which lived from about 23 to 14 millions years ago during the Miocene epoch.

The 18-million-year-old fossil species has been considered a possible ancestor of both great and lesser apes, and of humans. The paleontologist Louis Leakey, who was one of the foremost fossil-hunters of the 20th century and a champion of evolution, said:
“

An especially important creature was Proconsul africanus. This, many authorities once concluded, gave us an indication of the common stock for apes and men. We have good forelimb bones for it, and in 1948 on Rusinga Island Louis [Leakey] discovered a skull, the first nearly complete specimen ever found. Its canine teeth suggest an ape's, while its forehead reminds us of our own. It seems to me, however, to be neither an ancestral ape, nor yet an ancestor of man, but a side branch with characteristics of both stocks..."
”

Leakey changed his mind a few times about the exact classification of Proconsul, as did most other palaeontologists. Opinion currently favors a position between the monkeys and the apes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proconsul_africanus

YES Apes only existing After Proconsul is either the first ape or the last monkey of his (our) genetic line.

And At the OP
NO it doesn't, A Mankind capable of considering and confirming these things is far more impressive that something a God Whipped up one day cause he was bored.

I'll definitely agree with that!

  

ENGLISH anthropologists and paleontogists suck big time...

Arrogant and self-righteous academics in the British Museum of Natural Histrory keep on refusing to return body remains, skeletons and parts stolen from their families in North America, Australia and the Pacific, Africa and the Indian sub-continent, over the 18th and 19th centuries..

Representatives from the respective "First Peoples" involved have to keep on taking the British Museum back to court each year to get more of their ancestors remains returned for proper burial, in "generous" little token dribs and drabs !

I WOULD be wary of anything half of those paleontologists, anthropoligists and archaeologists come out with over there, taking half their claims with that proverbial pound of salt..    

Louis Seymour Bazett Leakey

Paleontologist, archaeologist and anthropologist Louis Leakey was born at Kabete, Kenya on August 7, 1903. His British parents were missionaries sent to live among the Kikuyu, Kenya’s largest tribe. Leakey was the first white baby the Kikuyu had ever seen and he learned their language before he could understand English. He was secretly initiated as a member of the tribe at the age of thirteen and remained a champion of the Kikuyu (and an expert on their culture) for the rest of his life.

As a child, Leakey was interested in ornithology. While out looking for birds in the Kenyan wilderness, he instead discovered stone arrowheads and tools. These early finds became the impetus for what would prove to be a lifelong passion for the study of human origins. In 1924, while a student at Cambridge, Leakey was injured while playing Rugby; on medical advice he took a leave of absence. During this time away from his studies, he joined his first archaeological expedition. Following this experience, Leakey led four fossil-hunting expeditions in East Africa over the next ten years. Leakey’s decision to search in Africa was revolutionary. At that time, most authorities believed instead that Asia was the premier hunting ground for humanity’s origins. Leakey steadfastly held to his conviction on this point, and time has proven him correct.


Sigh!

Sassy wrote:Louis Seymour Bazett Leakey

Paleontologist, archaeologist and anthropologist Louis Leakey was born at Kabete, Kenya on August 7, 1903. His British parents were missionaries sent to live among the Kikuyu, Kenya’s largest tribe. Leakey was the first white baby the Kikuyu had ever seen and he learned their language before he could understand English. He was secretly initiated as a member of the tribe at the age of thirteen and remained a champion of the Kikuyu (and an expert on their culture) for the rest of his life.

As a child, Leakey was interested in ornithology. While out looking for birds in the Kenyan wilderness, he instead discovered stone arrowheads and tools. These early finds became the impetus for what would prove to be a lifelong passion for the study of human origins. In 1924, while a student at Cambridge, Leakey was injured while playing Rugby; on medical advice he took a leave of absence. During this time away from his studies, he joined his first archaeological expedition. Following this experience, Leakey led four fossil-hunting expeditions in East Africa over the next ten years. Leakey’s decision to search in Africa was revolutionary. At that time, most authorities believed instead that Asia was the premier hunting ground for humanity’s origins. Leakey steadfastly held to his conviction on this point, and time has proven him correct.


Sigh!

Amazing that it takes us so long to figure these things out Of course, now it looks obvious, seeing as our closest relatives are also from Africa (gorillas and chimpanzees).

On the other hand, modern science is still very young, and I'm sure there's still plenty to discover.

Bringing this back to the topic, I think that might be the reason religious people look down their noses at science -- because science does have to revise and admit when it's wrong, and it has to admit that it doesn't hold all the answers, where religion purports to have the answers and does not change. There's a certain type of person who can't deal with ambiguity, uncertainty and the notion that there's no all-knowing authority arranging things ...

Exactly, it like a great big jigsaw, you find one bit, fit it in, then you find three or four and the picture looks different, but all the time you are expanding your knowledge.

Eilzel wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:created by a series of alleged mutations, accident after accident, no different to any species on the planet..

Does that demean humanity as a species??

Primordial ooze, perhaps off a meteor; I don't think they have found anything conclusive yet. Then bacteria and molecules; slimy land creatures coming out of the sea; development over hundreds of millions of years to the ancestor we share with modern apes; to homoerectus and eventually to us today. All natural selection and yes no different to any other species on the planet- only we evolved consciousness.

Does it demean humanity? Of course not, why would it? We have evolved to be the planets superior species and can control the elements to an almost unlimited effect. We are the product of a long (and ongoing) process of life- what could be more incredible?

primordial ooze oh my...lol, I always loved that one...

We control nothing, not even our life span, remember the other day when you was bitching about suffering children and tsunamis killing people, does any of that show we are in control of anything....


A series of alleged mutational accidents, if things went differently this could be the planet of the apes...or of the dogs or of the guinea pigs..lol

so only by chance we have any more significance than a single cell organism...i think that is pretty demeaning...

Ok going to go through this slowly now, it will be easier;

Firstly, HOW is humanity being evolved demeaning?

Eilzel wrote:Ok going to go through this slowly now, it will be easier;

Firstly, HOW is humanity being evolved demeaning?

I struggled to get that too Eilzel.

He probably also thinks the drop of semen that helped create him is demeaning   

according to Zack [remember him] man was made out of clay!!

Actually nicko, THAT bit of biblical insight may be the ONLY accurate "fact" in the whole ridiculous book.

It is one (of many at the moment) theories for the "origins of life...albeit not quite the way the bible states.

given that life didnt arrive on a comet etc. It has been postulated (and demonstrated) that electrical discharges (lightening) in the early earth atmosphere (which was very different from today....) created the first amines and amino acids, Now these wre not "life" of course...merely organic compounds..
The role of clay is then considered and is rather interesting. Clay you see is very electrically charged due to the molecular structure of clay grains (which are very...very small), moreover clay suspended in water has a vast surface area. The charged surface is assumed to attract the organic molecules and "pull them close together" at which point they can react with each other in ways that they normally would not. these reactions produced all manner of unlikely organic compounds....some of which gained the ability to replicate...and the organic "soup" was born....from which all life arises....
So in a sense man ?(and every other living thing) is indeed "made from clay"