Evolution Since Human Intervention

[Lloyd Gillespie]

This is an odd statement. We are Mammals(sorry, meant animals). What your really saying here is that it is a given that we are 'greater in some aspect or ability', what else can it possibly mean ? This is a presumption without evidence(no, it's not a presumption. Animals don't build sky-scrapers__we do.).... you are stating this 'a priori'.(a priori about a posteriori, yes.) A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example 'All bachelors are unmarried')(Aristotlean logic is pure syllogistic tautology, usually. I don't use it__too invalid. I use mathematical logic, i.e., rational calculations. Also, you'll find there's more to a priori logic than you may be familiar with if you studied more of history's logic since George Boole, who proved the tautologousness of Aristotlean logic. The modern world has two schools on this_the old classical logic_and the new Boolean and many other mathematical logics. Here's my e-mail signature to explain further: The Triadic Maxim___Any Idea; “Arithmetically check all possible effects, against all possible premises, and the combined results will be the total actions of the idea.” This has been the logic of many mathematical logicians since Boole, Peirce and N.Vasiliev of Russia...)

A priori knowledge is not completely independent of experience__Our experience of knowing how to state it, or recognize it, is necessary. A posteriori knowledge is also partially independent of experience__sort of. A posteriori is the knowledge we learn from the intelligence and object creations of other minds and ideas through habits, and ours as well, i.e., we see a city(experience built)__how does it function(experience)__we study it objectively, with direct external and internal perception, and direct perception of the concepts and habits of, and we learn__again back to experience. This debate could go on forever__only the mathematical logic settles and justifies the differences__fundamentally.

Here's your definitions of a priori and a posteriori: The terms a priori ("from the former") and a posteriori ("from the latter") are used in philosophy (epistemology) to distinguish two types of knowledge, justifications or arguments. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example 'All bachelors are unmarried'); a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example 'Some bachelors are very happy'). A priori justification makes reference to experience; but the issue concerns how one knows the proposition or claim in question—what justifies or grounds one's belief in it. Galen Strawson wrote that an a priori argument is one of which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."[1] There are many points of view on these two types of assertion, and their relationship is one of the oldest problems in modern philosophy.

I do not completely agree with the above, as fundamental direct perception is necessary in all logics, and our experiential knowledge of how to use perception to understand logic. That's still the reason I only accept maths as proofs and justifications of all truths or non-truths. We can see them, and prove them, externally on paper, and also prove them to any other individual, anywhere in the world by sending our proofs over the web. "All bachelors are unmarried."__What to hell does that prove? How dumb Aristotle or his predecessors were? That's just stating the obvious redundancy as a tautology__real bright. And I know that's not your statement__It's some dumb Greek's...

Can you provide an example of anything, any trait, that is uniquely human, that no other mammal or creature can demonstrably possess?

That's easy__Sophistocated intellect to do complex mathematics__Talking and writing with real verbalized language. Where you been living, in the trees...?

I will try to show you that this trait exists in other mammals, or even other species.

Yeah, good luck...

You see Man as on a road of descent, having fallen from some previous high ...

Now, who's the one with presumptions? Man evolves from the cave, fist and club mentality, to the highest rational intellects__We're still on that path__Low to high. Honestly Greg, I think you're blind to think this of my thinking...

I see Man as in total ascent, at this moment having reached our highest pinnacle given our starting condition.

Stealing my ideas again, haa...? I can't even see where you get such foolish ideas of my thinking, and btw, I don't believe in consciousness. I only accept direct perception externally; and internally of abstracts, judgments and imagination, plus direct perception of concepts, memories and feelings.

cool bananas ... greg

Greg, you need a few more lessons...

P.s.
You know, come to think of it, this major mis-understanding of even science minds, is probably the major missing link, the Missing Link thread is looking for. I tried to let everybody know about the historical problems of relativity mis-interpretations two years ago, but there wasn't the interest. Einstein's own words are still in my signature. There's no such animal as relative truth__Only relative measurement. Further, the major problem in science and intellect of, is the major logic change of the late 1800's to today. Relativity took all rational scientific and most common sensical truth into obscurity, by all the mis-interpretations of informations of this period. Logic's history from 1850 on must be seriously studied to see where it changed from Aristotle's syllogistic logic, to Boole's forward algebraic logic, i.e., mathematical. It's a little complex to wade through it, but no-one can truly understand the modern world of linguistics, unless one does wade through this entire history of mentalities and ideas. There's a whole other story waiting for ya, when ya do...

To put it simply; Aristotlean logic is intellectual paganism, and Boolean forward, algebraic logic, is the real truth of all truths. Even Antoneo uses algebraic logic__It's the oldest logic around, from the Assyrians and Pythagoreans, all the way up to today. It's even Einstein's language, plus most other physicists__But, there's a lot more to it than most people think...

[Mikal]

"A 3rd Way" - James Shapiro's 21st century view of evolution
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shap...7.ThirdWay.pdf

Regards Mikal

[labelwench]

A sounder perspective on the history of science would be very helpful to all concerned. For
example, a parallel has been drawn by Allen Orr and others between criticisms of Darwinian
orthodoxy and assaults on the Law of Gravity, presenting them as equally deplorable examples
of anti-science obscurantism. Yet, if truth be told, gravity is far from a settled matter. The
relativistic Law of Gravity at the end of the 20th century is not the same as the classical Law of
Gravity at the end of the 19th century, and discovering how the continuous descriptions of
general relativity can be integrated into a single theory with the discrete accounts of quantum
physics is still an active field of research. From a scientific point of view, then, the Law of
Gravity has quite properly been under continuous challenge. Dogmas and taboos may be
suitable for religion, but they have no place in science. No theory or viewpoint should ever
become sacrosanct because experience tells us that even the most elegant Laws of Nature
ultimately succumb to the inexorable progress of scientific thinking and technological
innovation. The present debate over Darwinism will be more productive if it takes place in
recognition of the fact that scientific advances are made not by canonizing our predecessors but
by creating intellectual and technical opportunities for our successors.

The above is the closing paragraph from the link posted by Mikal.

Thank you for posting a very interesting piece of work, Mikal.

[labelwench]

Perhaps the best example of a distinctly 'human' trait, is the intense curiosity our species has for wanting to know our origins, and the origins of all that we are able to perceive.

None of the other creatures that I have shared my life with or done research on, seem possessed of such.

Animals are fascinating to me. It would be incredible to have more knowledge of all that they comprehend, and the means by which they are often more attuned to natural events, than we, even with our technology, are able to predict.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The above is the closing paragraph from the link posted by Mikal.

Thank you for posting a very interesting piece of work, Mikal.

Lorrina, here's what wiki has to say:

James A. Shapiro is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago. His research interests include natural genetic engineering, the ways by which organisms actively restructure their genetic material in response to environmental stresses. His view that it presents a 'third way' in evolution between what he calls "neo-darwinian orthodoxy" and creationism, however, is not agreed upon within academia[1].

[Mikal]

Newsweek Magazine: "Was Darwin Wrong About Evolution?"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103


LW....Here is another article thats interesting and reveals that the evolution equation is anything
but settled....


Regards Mikal

[labelwench]

I am delighted that several are engaging in the discussion. Each of you brings a unique perspective and knowledge to our thoughts on evolution, and I am impressed by parts of everyone's postings. With none do I agree in entirety, nor do I feel that such is even necessarily desirable.

Diversity is required for continued evolution, and this includes diversity of perspective and opinion, to my way of thinking.

If we all thought and acted of the same accord, we would fall easy prey to the challenges that are change.

Nothing without purpose,......even if we yet cannot fathom the purpose, the origin or the outcome.

[labelwench]

Newsweek Magazine: "Was Darwin Wrong About Evolution?"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103


LW....Here is another article thats interesting and reveals that the evolution equation is anything
but settled....

Regards Mikal

Some interesting stuff there, certainly. As an aside, may I remark that there are fewer successful births among domestic horses, and a higher rate of leg deformities and birth abnormalities, than among horses born in the 'wild' or at least, a more natural environment.

Our tendency to overfeed a mono-culture diet and supplement with products that would not be encountered in nature, as well as our desire to have the creatures in our care 'overweight' by Mother Nature's standards, may all be contributing factors. On the positive side, those animals which are born healthy often live longer productive lives because we provide protection from predators and harsh environmental conditions. Everything is a trade-off.

We would seem to be having considerable influence on those species that have opted to share our lives, or that we have domesticated, depending on one's point of view in that regard, lol.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de la Marck (1 August 1744, Bazentin, Somme – 18 December 1829), often just known as 'Lamarck', was a French soldier, naturalist, academic and an early proponent of the idea that evolution occurred and proceeded in accordance with natural laws.

[Graybeard]

If I were to suggest an example, it would be that we are a mammalian species with the ability to create new species by inserting the genes of one into another.

Nearly all species do this ? I believe your referring to the technicalities involved ... i don't see that as a trait.

they don't construct Cathedrals or write books.

Termites and many other species construct vast cathedrals ..... Skyscrapers even ..... Bees and many other species create maps ... and all books and language is related to mapping or measurement

I believe there is a BIG difference between Man and "dumb" animals Greg, which I think is obvious.

Only obvious to you because your perception is egocentric.


cool bananas ... greg