stuff evolution i am a human being not an ape!

[_Z_]

stuff evolution i am human not an ape! [just balme dawkins for all these threads lols].
.
we are the same as apes? genes are genes and nature is nature, yet as soon as you add language to a species then the animal world and evolution is no longer fundamental. humanity builds a holistic network of meaning and artificial environments ~ and possesses imagination! it is not therefore completely driven by evolution. perhaps we can say;
.
the day the word exists is the day natural evolution ends.
.
sure we still evolve but it is by our own means as well as by nature. the more we understand about evolution and genes, the more we can escape their clutches.
.
i cannot think of anything which could make us more different to the rest of the animal kingdom. so are we apes or are we whatever we freekin want ourselves to be!
.
when science goes on about survivalism and the selfish gene [in its correct context], they speak as if we are still driven by them, that all of our emotions and responses [etc] arise from that. yet even though this is true, it is base. we have a layer on top of that and the ability to understand it and change it as we see fit. we have increasingly artificialised [for want of a better term right now] our condition and environment, much of which is a result of the holistic human entity we have become.
.
what are we slave or master of our world?
.
Q. You are your genes, your genes decide everything you think.

A. no room for subjective interpretation then!
our genes give us a given disposition towards religion etc, there is no way such things can be accurately manifest from genetic code, as it doesn’t contain holistic notions like church, god, type of religion etc! your genes don’t know much about the holistic reality at all. they are, are they not, a set of instructions, our every action is not coded within that would be impossible, only directions are coded.

Q. our brains may be like quantum computers but even they are limited by their hardware in what they can discover and know and how fast.

A. indeed. does thought operate in/by other perimeters too? where is infinite potential in all this, linked to probability surely ~ unless we say that is limited rather than random. so the quantum computer [that may be able to perform quantum mirroring, who knows!] is linked to the processes involved in any quantum operation, they have the ability to act randomly or at least with implied randomness.
how does dreaming or imagining occur on the objective and subjective level? we take e.g. two objects [say sphere and pyramid] and can make an almost infinite amount of shapes from it, maybe the same in terms of ideas?

secondly; is there anything outside our understanding whatever its level? it strikes me that everything comes down to simple concepts which build up into complex arrays of those concepts, further that the way things build are also governed by simple concepts. its all like trees of logic, one for say evolution, another for atomic evolution [growth through the periodic table], another for galaxy formations and geology etc etc.
________________________________

in short then aside from spirituality, does humanity build a holistic reality?

[juantoo3]

OK, I'll bite.

Deliberately provocative title...designed to get people to look?

Here's the thing...whether a person limits their realm of understanding to science or religion, they are limiting their understanding.

Are people *just* apes? No. And I don't require a religious text to support my position in saying this.

There is a very deeply ingrained misperception regarding genetics, most people think it is all about gene count. Oh, we share almost all of our genes with bonobos. So?

Human genes are not the same as the genes of other animals, including bonobos. No surprize...bonobo genes are not the same as chimpanzee genes, which are not the same as gorilla genes, etc.

Francis Collins pointed out that the difference between a mouse and a human is *only* a few hundred genes. That's how close the head of the genome mapping project says our genetics is to that of a rodent. Betcha don't hear much about that in the news.

But there's a catch. Collins continues: "you can't just replace those genes and expect a mouse to start listening to Mozart or playing golf." Human genes "multi-task" (-Collins) and code to make specific proteins, proteins specific to the development of a human. When something goes wrong with one of those coding processes whether at birth or through deterioration by age, those proteins start misforming, eventually leading to various disease processes like cancer and diabetes. A person can't expect a bonobo gene that codes to make bonobo proteins to perform in a human anatomical environment. So humans and bonobos are *not* the same, but they are related because of the position the genes take on the genetic string. In other words, its about quality, not quantity. So what if we're 99.999% like bonobos? We are not bonobos, and bonobos are not human.

Now, as for language I think you are attempting to elevate humans to a position of superiority that in many respects and from certain scientific and philosophical POVs can be seriously challenged. There is the presumption there that language is unique to humans...a presumption I will argue is erroneous all day long. Other creatures have a language, even trees and carrots have been *proven* scientifically to communicate. So language is not at all limited to humans. Whales and porpoises *speak* words, so does their natural evolution end too? How about parrots, crows, mynah birds?

Another erroneous position I frequently see, is that of *believing* that a person is limited by their genetics, that they are predestined by their genetics, that they are the sum of their genes and nothing more. This totally ignores the input and influence of epigenetics. Likewise, it ignores the *nurture* part of the nature/nurture equation.

In other words, just because a person might have genes that create a greater susceptibility to diabetes, doesn't necessarily mean he will get diabetes; if the other genes he inherits somehow mitigate, or if he leads a *proper* lifestyle and/or environment: or if he does get diabetes he can still minimize the effects again through lifestyle and environment choices.

Genes have little to no bearing on what you think. So the implication that genetics predetermines how you will think and behave is just rubbish.

The whole quantum computer thing is irrelevent. You become what you will yourself to become, genes bedamned. The genetic blueprint serves as a foundation, the body you were born into is the vehicle you have to operate with, and your will determines where you will steer your vehicle to...how many crashes you will endure...how well the chrome stays polished...and what junkyard you end up in. In the end, it is your will that will determine what your life has been.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by _Z_

in short then aside from spirituality, does humanity build a holistic reality?

Nope, although most I've met believe they do.

The best any can build is a holistic *perception* of reality.

[_Z_]

juantoo3, hi

Deliberately provocative title...designed to get people to look?

hehe just my way, the ‘stuff evolution’ part is to say that we can change it even though i believe in evolution.

Here’s the thing...whether a person limits their realm of understanding to science or religion, they are limiting their understanding.
Are people *just* apes? No. And I don’t require a religious text to support my position in saying this.

yup we are only limited by ourselves. yes, the whole point is to say that religion or not we arent apes as we can change ourselves and do so.

Human genes are not the same as the genes of other animals, including bonobos. No surprize...bonobo genes are not the same as chimpanzee genes, which are not the same as gorilla genes, etc.

apparently we can still breed with apes, so this puts us in the same brackets according to some.

There is the presumption there that language is unique to humans...a presumption I will argue is erroneous all day long.

oh i agree, all creatures have language of some sort, in a sense they can all elevate themselves above their current genes, that is how they evolve to some degree. i would say that the realm of human thought puts us way ahead and that the artificiality of the human environment [in part at least] and the fact that we can directly change genes, means that we are completely in ‘command’ over what made us. even tiny creatures at the bottom of the ocean communicate via light/colour ~ what kind of ‘mind’ must they have to do that, when they don’t even have a brain.

Genes have little to no bearing on what you think. So the implication that genetics predetermines how you will think and behave is just rubbish.

at other forums i got the complete opposite opinion, but i agree with you.

The whole quantum computer thing is irrelevent. You become what you will yourself to become, genes bedamned. The genetic blueprint serves as a foundation, the body you were born into is the vehicle you have to operate with, and your will determines where you will steer your vehicle to...how many crashes you will endure...how well the chrome stays polished...and what junkyard you end up in. In the end, it is your will that will determine what your life has been.

i agree with this too ~ nice post. i think there is a balance between free will and input, but yes overall its our choice. if not then we cannot blame any criminal for what they do, which is not a very good basis for morality.
.

Nope, although most I’ve met believe they do.
The best any can build is a holistic *perception* of reality.

seams like a contradiction, if we say that we are not ‘entirely controled’ by our genes and that we have free will, it stands to reason that we do build a holistic reality. genes = a portion of what we do, what = the rest?
thanks
Z

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by _Z_

apparently we can still breed with apes, so this puts us in the same brackets according to some.

OK, but this runs into the great speculation of the Jurassic Park series...that the fragmented dino genetics could be spliced with that of a frog to render a *new* version of an old critter. Michael Crieghton himself in an interview I heard noted that that was a big leap of faith in order to create the story...in other words, it wasn't confirmed in the lab as being *actually* doable.

The point of my comment returns to Collins statement that one cannot *simply* replace those differing genes in a mouse and expect to get a human...human genes code for human proteins.

While I fully agree that closely related critters can sometimes interbreed, including the *hush-hush* hint that humans may be able to interbreed with bonobos, it isn't as simple as swapping genes between the two in order to get the other. Look at Dolly the sheep...that wonderful example held out of cloning. The trouble is, she was so riddled with disease she had to be put down at a very young age...and that's the rest of the story.

Originally Posted by _Z_

even tiny creatures at the bottom of the ocean communicate via light/colour ~ what kind of ‘mind’ must they have to do that, when they don’t even have a brain.

I would suspect they have the kind of "mind" that at a minimum allows them the "fight or flight" and "procreation" responses, and whatever other survival needs. What is referred to in the psych and biology texts as the reptilian brain...which appears to be the core of all animal brains (as far as I know).

Originally Posted by _Z_

at other forums i got the complete opposite opinion, but i agree with you.

i agree with this too ~ nice post. i think there is a balance between free will and input, but yes overall its our choice. if not then we cannot blame any criminal for what they do, which is not a very good basis for morality.

There is the danger of relinquishing self-responsibility. It is a political movement at its root.

Originally Posted by _Z_

seams like a contradiction, if we say that we are not ‘entirely controled’ by our genes and that we have free will, it stands to reason that we do build a holistic reality. genes = a portion of what we do, what = the rest?

The reasoning is fallacious because there is the presumption that we have any control over the construction of reality. Reality exists in spite of us, not because of us. If we no longer existed as a species, reality would continue happily along without us.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

reality exists in spite of us, not because of us. If we no longer existed as a species, reality would continue happily along without us.

qed !! :d:d:d:d

[_Z_]

The reasoning is fallacious because there is the presumption that we have any control over the construction of reality. Reality exists in spite of us, not because of us. If we no longer existed as a species, reality would continue happily along without us.

not control over reality, control over our genes. i am probably talking in future tense but it will be and is possible to change/control our genes.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by _Z_

seams like a contradiction, if we say that we are not ‘entirely controled’ by our genes and that we have free will, it stands to reason that we do build a holistic reality. genes = a portion of what we do, what = the rest?
thanks
Z

Originally Posted by _Z_

not control over reality, control over our genes. i am probably talking in future tense but it will be and is possible to change/control our genes.

OK, I think I better understand what you are getting at.

I mentioned before: epigenetics, and the nurture part of the nature/nurture equation.

Take a peek here:
Anybody hear of Epigenetics?

[_Z_]

thanks for the link, its an interesting post ~ it seams to agree entirely with this one as i see it. ...or at least what i was trying to achieve.

[Q2008]

Originally Posted by _Z_

oh i agree, all creatures have language of some sort, in a sense they can all elevate themselves above their current genes, that is how they evolve to some degree. i would say that the realm of human thought puts us way ahead and that the artificiality of the human environment [in part at least] and the fact that we can directly change genes, means that we are completely in ‘command’ over what made us. even tiny creatures at the bottom of the ocean communicate via light/colour ~ what kind of ‘mind’ must they have to do that, when they don’t even have a brain.

1+1 will always = 2, and never three. Where do you suppose our capacity for language, our capacity to develop to such an advanced, artificial stage as we have, comes from? Our genetic makeup is responsible, wholly, for what we (as a species) are capable of. If we are able to manipulate our genes, it is because we evolved to a point where we could develop the capacity to do so. It is not fair to say we're transcending evolution, when our evolution to this point is responsible for our ability to modify our world/selves.

[wil]

The thought is since we are beings that know we will eventually die and can talk we start making up stories as to what will happen afterword and where we came from.

Since now we have parrots/apes/porpoise counting and discerning (colors, shape, number, materials), as they lose mates/friends and as their vocubularies increase (which it appears multiple generations are once their parents start teaching the offspring) we will be able to ask them what they think about such things.

[mee]

stuff evolution i am a human being not an ape! very true

God has built into all living things a law to keep basic types separated. That law is what the Bible calls "according to their kinds."


An example of this is Genesis 1:24, which states: "God went on to say: ‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.’"

This is also true regarding all plants, insects, birds, fish and humans.

[_Z_]

Q2008, hi

Where do you suppose our capacity for language, our capacity to develop to such an advanced, artificial stage as we have, comes from?

indeed! ...and thence by what language does evolution and the universe go by/come from? all the way down the line there is something from which it all arises. eventually we get to the infinite intellect of god! the fact that we are made this was does not detract from the fact that we are beyond that mechanism.

wil, hi

we will be able to ask them what they think about such things

i wonder if animals will evolve accordingly and how quickly will they evolve to the human environment.

mee, hi

‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds’

indeed! in other words a means was created by which evolution would arise and lead to us. anything else and we would be puppets.

[Q2008]

Originally Posted by _Z_

indeed! ...and thence by what language does evolution and the universe go by/come from? all the way down the line there is something from which it all arises. eventually we get to the infinite intellect of god! the fact that we are made this was does not detract from the fact that we are beyond that mechanism.

But yes, it does. We are wholly a product of the mechanism, and are not "beyond" it.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Q2008

But yes, it does. We are wholly a product of the mechanism, and are not "beyond" it.

Because you say so?

tao