If we are human beings, we've always been. We've changed physically and will keep changing, but we've always been human beings. (Stand-Alone, not a derivative)

Thanks.

Human being is just a label that humans put on our species at some point in time. One point that Darwin made repeatably in this work ( I seem to recall a whole chapter just on this subject) was the difficulty in how animal and plant life was categorized and named by science up to his time. Such labeling and categorizing can in itself be in error and make tracking or showing evolutionary changes difficult or misleading in many cases. However you can call me hungry, it's dinner time.

Lefty

 

leftyretro,

Human being is just a label that humans put on our species at some point in time. ... Such labeling and categorizing can in itself be in error and make tracking or showing evolutionary changes difficult or misleading in many cases.

How can evolutionary changes be made when they don't exist? When were humans anything other than humans? Before you can rightly make those statements, you first have to first prove that the "evolutionary process" is viable. That means that you have to answer how a biological organism can changed into a different type of organism by a random process. So far it has not been show to happen. Darwin's gripes about name calling won't help with that aspect of evolution theory.

Ratch

 

Out of curiosity - at one time it can be demonstrated that there were no animals equipped to eat grass. Before there was grass, of course. After the grasses came into being, so did animals with silica coated teeth able to eat grass effectively. There is a fossil record that appears to bear this out - so what means to you evoke to describe the appearance of the grasses and then the animals equipped with grass-resistant teeth?

 

This tends to be a charged subject, especially around the southern states. We are still battling various attempts by state legislatures and school boards to discredit evolution, lately under the guise of intelligent design. All of this is driven by people wishing to impose their beliefs derived from faith as science. Of course, a lot of these same folks will tell you that the earth (and universe) is 6500 years old.

It is interesting that Islam also holds to a lot of these beliefs. It appears fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam have some common ground after all.

 

leftyretro,

That means that you have to answer how a biological organism can changed into a different type of organism by a random process.

Ratch

How can you confuse random process with natural selection? They are no where near being the same processes. Have you read Darwin's work on Species? He never stated that he had proof of his theories and indeed in his writing he was often his own worst critic at times, but he was honest about his observations and the logical conclusions he derived from them.

Lefty

 

There probably is a lot in misinformation about what he really said.

OK, since I am not sure what Darwin and only Darwin really said, I will agree with you that he should not be held responsible for the outlandish claims of those that try to extend his theory.

See post #11. It may be of help, or at least of interest.

 

Before you can rightly make those statements, you first have to first prove that the "evolutionary process" is viable. That means that you have to answer how a biological organism can changed into a different type of organism by a random process.

Not random. Responsive. Read his work before you deign to criticize things he never said. A link is provided in post #11.

Darwin's gripes about name calling won't help with that aspect of evolution theory.

Clarify, if you please. This statement has at least two meanings. Would you be so kind as to rephrase?

 

leftyretro,

How can you confuse random process with natural selection? They are no where near being the same processes. Have you read Darwin's work on Species? He never stated that he had proof of his theories and indeed in his writing he was often his own worst critic at times, but he was honest about his observations and the logical conclusions he derived from them.

Sorry, I should not have said random selection. I was not responding to Darwin so much as to your claim in post #22 that mankind at one time was not human. Natural selection will not change mankind into another type of creature that is not human. He already was human when he began to exist on Earth.

Ratch

 

thingmaker3,

See post #11. It may be of help, or at least of interest.

Yes, I saw and noted it, but did not thoroughly read it. It is a book, and I did not have time to do so.

Not random. Responsive. Read his work before you deign to criticize things he never said. A link is provided in post #11.

As I said in my answer to leftyretro, I was not answering Darwin so much as responding to a comment leftyretro made about mankind at one time not being human. Neither natural or random selection will change a organism to a different kind of organism.

Clarify, if you please. This statement has at least two meanings. Would you be so kind as to rephrase?

Yes, no matter what you call an organism or how you classify it, that will not show or prove that a organism can or has changed into something fundamentally different.

Ratch

 

Sorry, I should not have said random selection. I was not responding to Darwin so much as to your claim in post #22 that mankind at one time was not human.

No such claim was made in post #22. The claim was that we, at some point, began using the label "human," and that labels are often a source of confusion.

 

leftyretro,



Sorry, I should not have said random selection. I was not responding to Darwin so much as to your claim in post #22 that mankind at one time was not human. Natural selection will not change mankind into another type of creature that is not human. He already was human when he began to exist on Earth.

Ratch

I don't believe I stated that. However I will now, I do believe in evolution and the likelihood that all life on this earth evolved from a common source including what we call human. It seems to also have had to start almost from scratch all over again possibly several times due to major natural disasters like asteroid hits, etc. It, evolution, seems to work rather well in my opinion.

 

As I said in my answer to leftyretro, I was not answering Darwin so much as responding to a comment leftyretro made about mankind at one time not being human.

Please refer to posts #31 and #32.

Yes, no matter what you call an organism or how you classify it, that will not show or prove that a organism can or has changed into something fundamentally different.

Thank you for your clarification. Your statement does not apply to Darwin, as he never suggested anything of the kind. I don't think Leftyretro said anything like that either. Against whom are you defending your assertion or addressing your rebuttal?

 

thingmaker3,

No such claim was made in post #22. The claim was that we, at some point, began using the label "human," and that labels are often a source of confusion.

So what does it mean? Does it mean that at one time mankind was not human, or does it mean that some naturalists got together at some time and decided to call our race human? I assumed the former meaning.

Please refer to posts #31 and #32.

I have seen and will answer them.

I don't think Leftyretro said anything like that either. Against whom are you defending your assertion or addressing your rebuttal?

There should not be any confusion about whom. I always put a header before someone's quotation or my comments.

Ratch

 

So what does it mean? Does it mean that at one time mankind was not human, or does it mean that some naturalists got together at some time and decided to call our race human? I assumed the former meaning.

It means that language evolves. It means we used to call ourselves "og" or "grunt grunt" and only later "man" or "hoo-man" and only recently "Homenoidea." It means indeed that some naturalists got together at some time and decided the terms. Obviosly, Hominini Homo Sapiens Sapiens has always been Hominini Homo Sapiens Sapiens - regarless of what birthed the first one of us.

I have seen and will answer them.

Cool. I'll read your answers later. It is past my bedtime.

There should not be any confusion about whom. I always put a header before someone's quotation or my comments.

Very well. You misquoted him. As he stands ready to debate the issue anyway, I will concede the point. As noted, I need to get to bed.

 

Human being is just a label that humans put on our species at some point in time.

Yes, you got it right.

Thanks.

 

It means that language evolves.

Yes, you got it right too.

Thanks.

 

thingmaker3,

It means that language evolves. It means we used to call ourselves "og" or "grunt grunt" and only later "man" or "hoo-man" and only recently "Homenoidea." It means indeed that some naturalists got together at some time and decided the terms. Obviosly, Hominini Homo Sapiens Sapiens has always been Hominini Homo Sapiens Sapiens - regarless of what birthed the first one of us.

Certainly language evolves. It is the product of intelligent beings. You have no basis in thinking that past first languages did not go much past the equivalent of ugh ugh. Why do most folks think that ancient peoples were grunting ignoramuses?

Very well. You misquoted him.

I usually cut and paste quotes. I did not misquote him. I misinterpreted him.

Ratch

 

A lot of the arguments against sound a lot like the disguised arguments I see locally to keep evolution out of the text books. Change can be random, but the selection process most definitely is not. Because people have (mostly) learned religion is not science, you see a lot of pussyfooting about why it required an intelligent designer in the background, but the core beliefs shine on through. Science is about observation, experimentation, and hypothesis. If there is a weakness in a theory the theory is changed, but only if the new one explains the facts better. Belief in Divine Intervention sidesteps all that, and stops all inquiry. It is the antithesis of science.

I believe in God, but I think his intelligent design was in the Big Bang. From there he is observing the results, much like a scientist. People try to limit his design because of their own limitations, which is their problem unless they try to impose those beliefs on others.

 

Very often I've noticed that people compare religion to science and vice versa, particularly when it comes to what happened in the past.

But from my point, I suggest to also think of the future, as the future is yet to be seen and is partly under our control, and we might very well witness it. I believe, if I were to have a chance from a religious perspective, I would suggest religious people to take up the idea of :- "What will happen to us at the time of death and after".

Science tends to explain things by finding what's the "relationship" between them rather than proving/discussing "absoluteness".
"Absoluteness" is a "full stop". (Absolute zero)

Thanks.

 

I'm often amazed at the capacity of people to mentally separate humans from the rest of the natural world.

For example, we talk about how humans are polluting and destroying the earth and using up natural resources and causing global warming. Yet, from the earth's perspective these things are nothing new. Life has radically altered the earth continuously for the past 3-4 billion years. The oxygen we breath is really a poisonous gas that plants polluted the atmosphere with billions of years ago. Yet, it is crucial for animal life now. Our bad habits might screw things up for ourselves, but the earth will be just fine in the end. Even a nuclear war would be a "stone dropped in the ocean" compared to the massive meteor collisions, volcanic eruptions, etc. etc. the earth has dealt with.

I could go on with many examples, but Darwin himself gives me a good example. He talks separately about artificial selection and natural selection, and even uses the former to convince us that the latter is plausible. However, from my point of view, artificial selection is just another form of natural selection. Humans, in their effort to survive, developed the instinct to partake in a symbiosis with various plants and animals, which we now refer to as "domesticated". Both man and the domesticated life forms evolved and changed to the point that one cannot survive without the other. It is now well understood that this was a necessary precursor for man to develop civilization. Our civilization is literally built on a handful of different types of domesticated plants and animals. Even today, if you take away those critical grains and farm animals, our society would implode, and centuries after the bloodbath, the remaining humans would be wandering hunter/gatherers again.

It sounds implausible I'm sure, but study it, and you'll see I'm right.