26
   

Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

 
 
brianjakub
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2019 11:52 am
@cicerone imposter,
what I am asking is why isn't man's intelligence considered natural if our intelligence comes from material (human brains) that naturally evolved. When a bird uses its brain to build a house it is natural. When a human uses his brain to build a house it's not natural. How do you make sense of that?
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2019 01:02 pm
@farmerman,
what I am asking is why isn't man's intelligence considered natural if our intelligence comes from material (human brains) that naturally evolved. When a bird uses its brain to build a house it is natural. When a human uses his brain to build a house it's not natural. How do you make sense of that?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2019 10:20 am
@brianjakub,
neither. but im sure they wont like that answer either
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2019 11:27 am
@brianjakub,
Im not sure even what your question is??
Assume man is natural, hen things of man are natural NO? Whats the argument?? Are you trying to insert the SUPERNATURAL??
There I dont agree because I see no evidence regarding anything supernatural
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2019 11:28 am
@Leadfoot,
wy not just join in with actual thoughts and stop being the passive- aggressive asshole that you are
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2019 11:45 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
When a bird uses its brain to build a house it is natural. When a human uses his brain to build a house it's not natural. How do you make sense of that?
. Oxymoron.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2019 01:13 pm
It might help if everyone just starts talking about "manmade" and "not-manmade", rather than what is "natural". Defining what is "natural" is going to get into philosophical semantics which you probably don't need for the original discussion.

Just my 2 cents.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2019 01:35 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

It might help if everyone just starts talking about "manmade" and "not-manmade", rather than what is "natural". Defining what is "natural" is going to get into philosophical semantics which you probably don't need for the original discussion.

Just my 2 cents.



Below is Robert Heinlein putting in his not two cents but as least a silver dollar.



Quote:
"There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature'". The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" -- but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the "Naturist" reveals his hatred for his own race -- i.e., his own self-hatred. In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate. As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women -- it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly "natural". Believe it or not, there were "Naturists" who opposed the first flight to old Earth's Moon as being "unnatural" and a "despoiling of Nature"." - Time Enough for Love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_for_Love), 1973, Robert A. Heinlein
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2019 02:24 pm
@BillRM,
Heinlein is Right as far as he went. It's all or nothing. We either follow the implications, or not. I'd say 90+ percent are happy to let it lie as an unanswerable question.

That leaves two other possible POV's. Some follow Heinlein's thought path and conclude it's all natural and Homo S. is top of the all natural pinnacle so screw those pitiful dirt worshiping tree huggers.

Or, we could wake up and smell the coffee and see the obvious. None of it is 'Natural'.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2019 02:46 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
It might help if everyone just starts talking about "manmade" and "not-manmade", rather than what is "natural". Defining what is "natural" is going to get into philosophical semantics which you probably don't need for the original discussion.

The OP would have no meaning if there were no philosophical implications. How could the subject of the 'Idea of Evolution possibly be 'Dangerous' if not for that kind of factor? It's not like we are talking about Einstein's linking Energy and Matter giving us the ability to physically annihilate ourselves.

It is no wonder that some here don't even see the question.

Or maybe it's just avoidance.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2019 03:39 pm
@rosborne979,
"Manmade" by definition means a creation of man. Examples? Cars, airplanes, tall buildings/structures, ships, tv, radio, internet, electric cars, etc, etc, etc, .......
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2019 06:59 pm
CI is always there on cue..
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2019 04:39 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

CI is always there on cue..
As are you...
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2019 07:19 am
i do try

not sure y
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2019 09:43 am
@Leadfoot,
I don't try; it comes natural. LOL After all, Robert invited me here.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2019 01:13 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Are you trying to insert the SUPERNATURAL??
There I dont agree because I see no evidence regarding anything supernatural
I am asking is a human creative while a bird is programmed when it comes to building houses because of the way the atoms are arranged in their brains or is it something else. Is it against the rules to discuss this? Or, is it like leadfoot implies, "intelligence is not a material thing in either one?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2019 02:21 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
I am asking is a human creative while a bird is programmed when it comes to building houses because of the way the atoms are arranged in their brains or is it something else.
It's all based on evolution.
Quote:
Details
When we hear “evolution”, we often think of a progressive change. In the general sense, evolution refers to some sort of development. In a biological context, evolution can be construed as the sequence of events depicting the gradual progression of changes in the genetic composition of a biological population over successive generations. Or, it may also pertain to the genetic change itself over time. Evolution may also pertain to the change in the genetic composition of biological populations over successive generations.

Key players
For evolution to proceed, there are vital key players: mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2019 10:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
It’s amazing how a bunch of Atoms can mutate into something that can create a skyscraper but the same group of atoms that created the skyscraper can’t create another group of Atoms that can live let alone create.. Why do you think that is?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2019 10:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I don't try; it comes natural. LOL After all, Robert invited me here.

He invited me, too, but hey, he was much younger back then.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2019 10:58 pm
@roger,
Yea, during his maturity, he may have regretted his invites to us old fogies.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/22/2019 at 02:54:49