Forums > Off Topic > Question on Evolution...
Indra was here (20752) on 10/8/2007 8:11 PM · Permalink · Report
Bored and my brain is asking me questions I can't seem to answer of yet. Can anyone point me to the direction (on the net) of any scientific explanation to why human's are the only species to evolve in having the capablity of reason?
Indra was here (20752) on 10/8/2007 9:24 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start NatsFan wrote--]My answer is that humans are the only ones that have intelligent souls, but no one likes bringing religion into these things. As for a completely secular answer, I can't give one. [/Q --end NatsFan wrote--]
It's not a matter of religion but more a matter the ability to prove one's argument's with undisputed evidence, mate. Like Norseman believing in Thor the Thundergod after one of their chiefs got blasted by an excited lightning bolt.
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's there either.
God made us a brain with the possible intention of us using it. Or maybe not.
NatsFan (68) on 10/9/2007 9:20 PM · Permalink · Report
Actually, it is a matter of religion (or lack thereof), because an argument like "God gave humans souls" should be reasonable for a person who believes in souls and God. On the other hand, some Darwinist argument would not work on someone who believes in literal interpretation of the Bible. What is "undisputed evidence" for one person may not be for another.
(I personally think that there's no contradiction between creationism and evolution, but no one else seems to see it that way.)
Corn Popper (69019) on 10/9/2007 9:54 PM · Permalink · Report
I would say creationism and adaptation
Indra was here (20752) on 10/9/2007 9:54 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start NatsFan wrote--]Actually, it is a matter of religion (or lack thereof), because an argument like "God gave humans souls" should be reasonable for a person who believes in souls and God. On the other hand, some Darwinist argument would not work on someone who believes in literal interpretation of the Bible. What is "undisputed evidence" for one person may not be for another.
(I personally think that there's no contradiction between creationism and evolution, but no one else seems to see it that way.) [/Q --end NatsFan wrote--]
Well, yes. But you forget one thing. Regardless of what a person believes to be the an absolute truth, logic cannot fight against the terrifying evidence of "fact". Both followers of creationsim and evolution tend to forget that its explicitly called a "theory". Though based on facts, the evolution dudes have better supporting evidence and arguments than the creationists, I'd have to admit. Simply because if I said that the God I believed in was a purple cow with 3 horns, 4 wings, 5 legs and a dental plan, I would be called an idiot, but no one could prove me wrong either, due to lack of fact or evidence (from both sides).
Study a bit more about theology, and you'll understand why creationism and evolution (or whatchamacallit) don't see eye-to-eye, and never will. Fascinating subject.
Personally I'd prefer if God made 90% of the human population into Japanese schoolgirls, but He lacks a sense of humor sometimes. :p
NatsFan (68) on 10/12/2007 1:51 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Study a bit more about theology, and you'll understand why creationism and evolution (or whatchamacallit) don't see eye-to-eye, and never will. Fascinating subject. [/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]
Explain to me why evolution and creationism don't see eye to eye. I believe that evolution was simply the way that God decided to develop life, and that the story about Him making the world in 6 days is a way of saying that vast amounts of time are not in any way big to Him.
DJP Mom (11333) on 10/12/2007 2:10 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start NatsFan wrote--] [Q2 --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Study a bit more about theology, and you'll understand why creationism and evolution (or whatchamacallit) don't see eye-to-eye, and never will. Fascinating subject. [/Q2 --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]
Explain to me why evolution and creationism don't see eye to eye. I believe that evolution was simply the way that God decided to develop life, and that the story about Him making the world in 6 days is a way of saying that vast amounts of time are not in any way big to Him. [/Q --end NatsFan wrote--] Creationism says that God created life. Evolution doesn't.
NatsFan (68) on 10/12/2007 2:23 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start DJP Mom wrote--] [Q2 --start NatsFan wrote--] [Q3 --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Study a bit more about theology, and you'll understand why creationism and evolution (or whatchamacallit) don't see eye-to-eye, and never will. Fascinating subject. [/Q3 --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]
Explain to me why evolution and creationism don't see eye to eye. I believe that evolution was simply the way that God decided to develop life, and that the story about Him making the world in 6 days is a way of saying that vast amounts of time are not in any way big to Him. [/Q2 --end NatsFan wrote--] Creationism says that God created life. Evolution doesn't. [/Q --end DJP Mom wrote--] From what I've heard, evolution does not say that God didn't create life. I could be wrong, but I think that evolution only says that species evolve through genetic mutations, there's nothing to say that those mutations were not caused by God.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 10/12/2007 6:48 AM · Permalink · Report
When making bold claims, it's best to stick to conventionally held beliefs rather than incorporating one's personal views into definitions. Creationism posits the origin of life; evolution posits a mechanism for how it arrived in its present form. In their pure forms, neither is necessarily mutually exclusive; evolution for instance has no strong contender for a competing "origin of life" theory (with many of its adherents I suspect subscribing to Newton's Deistic "clockmaker" theory -- that some benign God-ly cosmic intelligence or force pre-arranged all the conditions necessary for things to eventually unwind how they have.) Many creationists choose to go the extra step and reject evolution (and vice versa), however that is particular to how it is practiced regionally and not intrinsic to the ideology.
Maw (832) on 10/12/2007 10:01 AM · Permalink · Report
In it's pure form, creationism does preclude evolution. It states that God created everything ready-made, not that it evolved over time. Sure, there are biologists who think God fired off the first spark that created life, but that's not creationism as I understand it.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 10/12/2007 11:03 AM · Permalink · Report
In it's pure form, creationism does preclude evolution. It states that God created everything ready-made
I don't believe that all creationists (or even necessarily a majority of them) are scriptural literalists, but perhaps only because such a thing is too chilling to take seriously.
DJP Mom (11333) on 10/12/2007 11:15 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]When making bold claims, it's best to stick to conventionally held beliefs rather than incorporating one's personal views into definitions. Creationism posits the origin of life; evolution posits a mechanism for how it arrived in its present form. In their pure forms, neither is necessarily mutually exclusive; evolution for instance has no strong contender for a competing "origin of life" theory (with many of its adherents I suspect subscribing to Newton's Deistic "clockmaker" theory -- that some benign God-ly cosmic intelligence or force pre-arranged all the conditions necessary for things to eventually unwind how they have.) Many creationists choose to go the extra step and reject evolution (and vice versa), however that is particular to how it is practiced regionally and not intrinsic to the ideology. [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] You're right - I was stating my own personal belief rather than defining (probably the reason why such debates often descend into flamewar category in other forums!)
NatsFan (68) on 10/12/2007 10:58 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start DJP Mom wrote--] [Q2 --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]When making bold claims, it's best to stick to conventionally held beliefs rather than incorporating one's personal views into definitions. Creationism posits the origin of life; evolution posits a mechanism for how it arrived in its present form. In their pure forms, neither is necessarily mutually exclusive; evolution for instance has no strong contender for a competing "origin of life" theory (with many of its adherents I suspect subscribing to Newton's Deistic "clockmaker" theory -- that some benign God-ly cosmic intelligence or force pre-arranged all the conditions necessary for things to eventually unwind how they have.) Many creationists choose to go the extra step and reject evolution (and vice versa), however that is particular to how it is practiced regionally and not intrinsic to the ideology. [/Q2 --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] You're right - I was stating my own personal belief rather than defining (probably the reason why such debates often descend into flamewar category in other forums!) [/Q --end DJP Mom wrote--] This one seems nice and unflamey, I'm impressed.
Indra was here (20752) on 10/18/2007 8:24 PM · Permalink · Report
Does depend on what type of creationism we're talking about. Seems to be a lot of versions out there. You may see yourself agreeing with one version, but not all versions. See the wiki article for a quick look-see.
Creationism.
Evolution.
Creationsim vs Evolution controversy.
Indra was here (20752) on 10/18/2007 8:45 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start NatsFan wrote--] Explain to me why evolution and creationism don't see eye to eye. I believe that evolution was simply the way that God decided to develop life, and that the story about Him making the world in 6 days is a way of saying that vast amounts of time are not in any way big to Him. [/Q --end NatsFan wrote--]
Well, historically, the problem is that "evolution" did not exist until one dude called Darwin came up with this blashphemious stupid idea that creatures change physically and mentally from time to time, instead of the religious doctrine that explicitely states that every creature was created in the first week God woke up and (not so explictely) hasn't changed since.
Which is why you won't find any religious texts saying anything about microbes or dinosaurs either.
Ever notice that God created trees/plants before He created the sun? MegaDude flunked Science 101. He also created birds before land animals. Based on Palaeobiology, birds evolved from land dinosaurs.
Игги Друге (46653) on 10/12/2007 3:35 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Personally I'd prefer if God made 90% of the human population into Japanese schoolgirls, but He lacks a sense of humor sometimes. :p [/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] How can you say that about someone who puts sexual organs where we urinate?
Indra was here (20752) on 10/18/2007 8:04 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--] [Q2 --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Personally I'd prefer if God made 90% of the human population into Japanese schoolgirls, but He lacks a sense of humor sometimes. :p [/Q2 --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] How can you say that about someone who puts sexual organs where we urinate? [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--]
Haha. I don't even want to think about how many sleepless nights you spent thinking about that, Iggy. :p
chirinea (47507) on 10/8/2007 8:46 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]Bored and my brain is asking me questions I can't seem to answer of yet. Can anyone point me to the direction (on the net) of any scientific explanation to why human's are the only species to evolve in having the capablity of reason? [/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Oh boy, that's a tough one. For starters, what do you mean by "capability of reason"?
Indra was here (20752) on 10/8/2007 9:03 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start chirinea wrote--] [Q2 --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]Bored and my brain is asking me questions I can't seem to answer of yet. Can anyone point me to the direction (on the net) of any scientific explanation to why human's are the only species to evolve in having the capablity of reason? [/Q2 --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Oh boy, that's a tough one. For starters, what do you mean by "capability of reason"? [/Q --end chirinea wrote--]
Well put it this way. When you compare the animals in the animal kingdom, let's say most of the species invovled have similar defense mechanisms. Most easiest one's are the those physical apparent: Horns, tough skin, tusks, bright colors to warn off predators (which is quite odd considering most animals are color blind -including the Spanish bull...another stumper), offensive smells (like the skunk and many insects).
All of these are theoritically assumed as an evolutionary form of survival to one's surroundings and/or geographical setting.
Human's have almost none of these (except fron carnivore teeth and a useless short tail bone), which technically means we needed something else to adapt to our surroundings, or else our ancestors a a siting duck (and extinct) everytime a Sabre Tooth Tiger is looking for a drive-in fast food stand.
Reason in this sense back in Captain Caveman's days were probably the ability to use and equip tools (for hunting and other neccesities for survial ie. fur clothing), and the ability to re-modernize those tools.
Though many animals are capable of manipulating objects like humans (birds usings rocks to crack open shells, chimps, etc.), none of them to my knowledge were able to "enhance" those tools.
So "reason" in this sense may originally be referred to those "simple" original uses. The more complex use of reason of course, is the discovery of tentacle porn. :p
Игги Друге (46653) on 10/8/2007 9:36 PM · Permalink · Report
Humans are good at oppressing competing species. And humans were the first intelligent species, so that evolutionary niche is now occupied.
Indra was here (20752) on 10/8/2007 9:54 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Nope. Not good enough, Iggy. Why? Because humans failed miserbly in commiting genocide to each other for thousands of years. With a couple of exceptions of course. Almost every other species as a similiar distant cousin somewhere in the corners of the earth. If man had competing species with similar early forms of reason, that species would technically have spread (considering escaping/retreat is one natural instinct for many creatures).
But then again the platypus is somewhat out of place.
Yes, it assumed that humans were the first intelligent species, the question is why? Considering our species (among the mammals) developed quite late in the game. Why didn't we grow horns like the other animals?
mobiusclimber (235) on 10/8/2007 10:05 PM · Permalink · Report
we didn't grow horns b/c we evolved from apes, a species not known for having horns. once you travel down one evolutionary path, it's difficult if not impossible to jump the tracks onto a different one.
i believe the partial answer to your question is that it's all a matter of some amazing coincidences. natural disasters led to the construction of tools to hunt game which led to refining those tools, other natural disasters led to great migrations and inbreeding which caused (oddly enough) the greatest amount of favorable traits to be passed along. it would seem that the animals that could have caught up w/ us in terms of brain size, use of tools, use of speech, etc, didn't need to develop the defense mechanisms and capabilities that we did (dolphins for instance didn't need to develop tools). i'm no scientist, and i haven't done much study/research into this area, so i can't give a definite answer on this one, if there even IS a definite answer.
DJP Mom (11333) on 10/8/2007 10:47 PM · Permalink · Report
Take a look at Donald Johanson's site, Becoming Human - its a good place to start or to refresh your knowledge/thoughts on the subject. Nice documentary film on site, too. Donald Johanson is the guy who discovered the ancient "Lucy" skeleton in Ethiopia some thirty-odd years ago...
Игги Друге (46653) on 10/9/2007 12:51 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]Yes, it assumed that humans were the first intelligent species, the question is why? [/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Because arguing against facts is pointless. We were first, and what is early and what is late is a matter of when you are alive. Four billion years from now, we will be early.
Indra was here (20752) on 10/9/2007 6:23 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--] Because arguing against facts is pointless. [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--]
Once upon a time the world was flat and the sun goes around the moon was considered fact too...
Accepting facts (which by the way are not facts) since these are only theories based on preliminary archeological evidence is doing the same mistake our ancestors did one too many times. If they made a mistake once, twice, one billion times, who says that we won't?
I do believed good ol'Darwin mentioned something called the "missing link"...which has yet to be discovered by archeologists.
Facts. Huh.
Игги Друге (46653) on 10/9/2007 8:06 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] [Q2 --start Игги Друге wrote--] Because arguing against facts is pointless. [/Q2 --end Игги Друге wrote--]
Once upon a time the world was flat and the sun goes around the moon was considered fact too...
Accepting facts (which by the way are not facts) since these are only theories based on preliminary archeological evidence is doing the same mistake our ancestors did one too many times. If they made a mistake once, twice, one billion times, who says that we won't? [/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] If you insist on becoming pseudo-philosophical and dispute the facts that there are facts, we can never have a discussion, don't you agree?
Ace of Sevens (4479) on 10/9/2007 9:16 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]
I do believed good ol'Darwin mentioned something called the "missing link"...which has yet to be discovered by archeologists.
[/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]
Darwin didn't base his theory on the fossil record. It was all living animals. There have been thousands of missing links found since then. If you want every step in the process filled in, that will never happen because not everythign fossilizes and humans' immediate ancestors didn't live in good conditions for fossilization.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 10/9/2007 10:43 AM · Permalink · Report
humans were the first intelligent species
Are we lumping in cro magnons and neanderthals together here?
Игги Друге (46653) on 10/9/2007 8:09 PM · Permalink · Report
We may, and we may not. At least neanderthals give some support to claim that we as a species are good at oppressing other species.
Maw (832) on 10/9/2007 10:45 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
My (not entirely original) answer is that we're the big budget sequel to monkeys. Other animals have already exhibited the rudiments of logic, humans are not special or unique. We're just a bit smarter.
To anyone who says animals can't reason: how do you know? Shouldn't we work from the evidence available to us?
There's this thing called "anthropocentrism", which basically means the belief that humans are in any way different to animals. It's pretty ingrained in our culture, but the facts are that we aren't really that different to the rest of the animal kingdom, and just happen to be further evolved (I'm religious but not a creationist).
You've heard of those guys in Africa who are campaigning for apes to share equal rights with humans? That people are finding it so hard to refute them only proves my point.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 10/9/2007 10:48 AM · Permalink · Report
this thing called "anthropomorphism", which basically means the belief that humans are in any way different to animals.
that's, um, an interesting definition. I'm used to it meaning a certain projection of perceived human qualities and characteristics into non-human subjects.
Indra was here (20752) on 10/9/2007 6:44 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Maw wrote--]To anyone who says animals can't reason: how do you know? [/Q --end Maw wrote--]
Agreed. No argument there.
In layman's terms my question spesifically refers to suspicious evidence (subjective theories of course) as the following:
[1] Any ability (eg. physical defensive/offensive mechanisms) that any single species has, one or more species also has in a similar degree with variations:
[2] More than one species has various types of horns, claws, armor plating or thick hydes, poison, sonar capabilities, sensitive hearing, heat-seeking, internal light source, etc.
But when it comes to humans with "reason" (or whatever the definition I suspect you know what I'm trying to describe here, due to my limitations of scientific english words), in comparison to "other species" on this planet is like:
- A cheetah that can move at Mach 1 or at least a very fast BMW
- A rhino with adamantium horns
- Rabbits that can breed everyday. Yay!
The comparsion between humans (homo sapiens) with the next species on the list with the highest level of brain activity in this sense, let's say a Chimpanze or a Dolphin, is too wide a gap, compared to other species with similar mechanisms.
Indra was here (20752) on 10/9/2007 7:56 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Paul Black wrote--]We adapted best... [/Q --end Paul Black wrote--]
Actually we weren't. Insects are the dominant species of this planet. Around 90% of the world's weight (or was it the weight of living creatures? Something I watched on National Geograhic) are from insects.
Which by the way are the only species can that survive nuclear radiation, due to an outer exoskeleton. At least the ants can.
PolB (55) on 10/9/2007 8:04 PM · Permalink · Report
We did. Cause insect cannot cause an atomic nuke. It's question of viewpoint but we can concentrate and do something, insect cannot. It's dragged by our decisions. (Of which we are less or more aware)
Let say we have currently an action point, which specify us for being adapted best - not from all aspects though.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 10/9/2007 10:43 AM · Permalink · Report
why human's are the only species to evolve in having the capablity of reason?
I think that what you're looking for is a certain capacity for abstract thought.
Ace of Sevens (4479) on 10/9/2007 9:13 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]Bored and my brain is asking me questions I can't seem to answer of yet. Can anyone point me to the direction (on the net) of any scientific explanation to why human's are the only species to evolve in having the capablity of reason? [/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]
The quick answer is it's a fallacy of definition. We unconsciously redefine reason to always be whatever only humans have. It used to be tool use, then we found out everything from otters to finches use tools. Then, it was tool-making, but chimps make tools. Self-awareness was also suggested, but great apes and elephants seem to have this facult as well.
Even if there were an objective definition, there's the anthropic principle. Someone had to get it first.
Beyond that, it may not be as generally useful to survival of the genes as you seem to assume.
Indra was here (20752) on 10/18/2007 8:15 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Rensch wrote--]Well, perhaps other animals will evolve into beings with reason. We're just the first one. [/Q --end Rensch wrote--]
Perhaps. But what I'm trying to stress is that our "us" being the first "animals" to evolve having reason, is much, much more accelerated than other animals. Too accelerated in fact, if you compare the other defense mechanisms among the animal kingdom.
Fastest land animal: Cheetah. Are there other animals close to the this speed. Yes, not as fast, but fast enough. Especially when your dog rides on the backseat of your truck.
Largest life form: Blue whale. Are there other animals as big as the blue whale? Yes. Other whales. And extinct dinosours.
Biggest horns: Er, if tusks are considered horns, either elephants or one big ass rhino. Other animals have similar sizes/shapes.
Sonar capablitiy: Bats, whales, dolphins.
Reason (or whatever its called): Humans.
Closest animal to have reason are apes (eg. chimps and orangutans). More or less has the reason capability of a 6 year old child.
Yet, no animals with the reason capability of a 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, etc. year old child/person.
I find this "gap" somewhat disturbing in terms of evolution.
Maw (832) on 10/19/2007 10:05 PM · Permalink · Report
What helps us is that we have language (written and spoken), and therefore are able to pass our knowledge on to future generations. Basically everything we today know is based upon the experiences of thousands of past humans.
Animals don't have this advantage. Maybe one dolphin in a thousand is super-smart, but he will do his species no good because dolphins lack a way to preserve their thoughts in language. When he dies, his knowledge dies with him.
Indra was here (20752) on 10/21/2007 10:37 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Maw wrote--]What helps us is that we have language (written and spoken), and therefore are able to pass our knowledge on to future generations. Basically everything we today know is based upon the experiences of thousands of past humans. [/Q --end Maw wrote--]
Hardly mate, there was a time when humans lived in an era called "pre-history": when humans lacked the ability to write. Animals also have the ability to pass down information from their ancestors. It's called "collective memory", I believe. Let's just say, once upon a time, humans and animals were more or less similar a couple million years ago. Something propelled humans to evolve faster than animals.
Maw (832) on 10/22/2007 12:05 PM · Permalink · Report
I'm not just talking about writing. For thousands of years we were communicating orally, telling each other what plants and animals are safe to eat, what the names of the seaons are, and eventually how to grow things and use tools. Collective memory is rather different to having an actual language, where you can communicate ideas directly.
[quote]Let's just say, once upon a time, humans and animals were more or less similar a couple million years ago. Something propelled humans to evolve faster than animals.[/quote]
I don't think anyone has the answer to that question. Maybe we just had a few more neurons that monkeys, and that started us off on the road to civilization. Human progress seems to follow a bell curve. About 99% of our inventions were made in the last hundred years. We're not talking about humans suddenly being able to talk and walk upright and philosophize overnight.
chirinea (47507) on 10/22/2007 2:15 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]Hardly mate, there was a time when humans lived in an era called "pre-history": when humans lacked the ability to write. Animals also have the ability to pass down information from their ancestors. It's called "collective memory", I believe. Let's just say, once upon a time, humans and animals were more or less similar a couple million years ago. Something propelled humans to evolve faster than animals. [/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Maw is right, what "propelled" our "evolution" was exactly the advent of culture. There are 3 levels of behavior selection for the human species: phylogeny, ontogeny and culture. Phylogeny prepares the beings for living in environments similar to those where the first traits to be selected appeared. The environment selected those beings with those specific traits, but if the next beings have to face an environment different than that when the traits were selected, they face problems. That problem is corrected by the second level, where new behaviors are selected just like those traits were selected, i.e., by the environment. The problem with this selection is that it must wait for the variation, which can take too long. It is where the culture enters: by imitation and instruction, humans can learn directly from other humans' experiences, thus saving time when it comes to develop new behaviors.
I said "evolution" and not just evolution back there 'cause since humans achieved this level, our evolution is actually bound also to our cultural achievements. It is like the evolution had stopped or slowed down, as the variation (of biological traits) keeps happening, but the selection isn't performed by nature laws alone, but by human laws also (which, of course, are natural too, but that's another story).
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 10/22/2007 8:57 PM · Permalink · Report
our evolution is actually bound also to our cultural achievements. It is like the evolution had stopped or slowed down
I like to say that the difference is that for most species evolution means the species changes to adapt to its landscape; for humans, they adapt the landscape to better accommodate them 8)