At what Point in Evolutionary History....
Moderator: Moderators
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
At what Point in Evolutionary History....
Post #1At what point in evolutionary history was a specifically human essence instantiated? Was the generation before that first official human not essentially human because it lacked a certain attribute? So would the grandfather of the first human be rightfully shot down like Harambe if the baby got into his vicinity?
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: At what Point in Evolutionary History....
Post #2You would need to provide scientists with your precise definition of what you mean by "specifically human essence" before they could take a stab at trying to answer your question.Dimmesdale wrote: At what point in evolutionary history was a specifically human essence instantiated?
I'm pretty sure that scientists have not created such a fine line between species. Typically the rule of thumb is whether or not they can still procreate between themselves. Although even that is somewhat of an arbitrary definition.
I doubt that this kind of distinction would happen overnight.
In short, I would say that your very question suggests a grave misunderstanding of how evolution works. Not that it's a bad question, but rather the answer would basically be to learn more about how evolution works. Only then can you see why your question is fundamentally flawed.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
- ElCodeMonkey
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1587
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
- Contact:
Post #3
The question is essentially a common conundrum in philosophy akin to the Ship of Theseus Paradox. Not sure if there's a better term for it, but it ultimately comes down to drawing a line of distinction when one cannot be made. How much of something can be lost/replaced before it is no longer what it originally was? It's a kind of breakdown in definitions, really. What am "I" for example? Take away an arm and am I still me? We'd like to think so, but we're really not even the same person 5 minutes from now or the same person after reading or writing this response. If anything changes, it is no longer the same. And things are always changing. There is no human definition, just what we surmise in our minds. There are chimps more capable than certain humans yet we call one human and one chimp. I'm sure there are diseased bald chimps and super hairy humans and yet the distinction remains. But there is truly no way to ever define what is and isn't human and any such distinction would be inevitably argued by countless masses.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.
Re: At what Point in Evolutionary History....
Post #4Dimmesdale wrote: At what point in evolutionary history was a specifically human essence instantiated? Was the generation before that first official human not essentially human because it lacked a certain attribute? So would the grandfather of the first human be rightfully shot down like Harambe if the baby got into his vicinity?
At what point does a grain of sugar make one's coffee sweet? It is futile to seek a red line between beast and man for even today there seems to be an overlap, some dogs demonstrating more intelligence, more kindness than those who have been fortunate enough to be classified "human." I often wonder, given the choice of saving the life of a terrorist or that of a pet, which one we should choose.
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9200
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Re: At what Point in Evolutionary History....
Post #5[Replying to post 4 by marco]
As to the question, I think from an evolutionary perspective if you can breed with it you are the same thing is the correct answer.
In Australia, I honestly feel more people would choose to save their pet over their neighbour.I often wonder, given the choice of saving the life of a terrorist or that of a pet, which one we should choose.
As to the question, I think from an evolutionary perspective if you can breed with it you are the same thing is the correct answer.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image ."
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image ."
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: At what Point in Evolutionary History....
Post #6That's an interesting tidbit I suppose, but marco didn't ponder saving a neighbor over a pet. As can be clearly seen in the quote you provided, he introduced to idea of saving a terrorist rather than a pet.Wootah wrote: [Replying to post 4 by marco]
In Australia, I honestly feel more people would choose to save their pet over their neighbour.I often wonder, given the choice of saving the life of a terrorist or that of a pet, which one we should choose.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: At what Point in Evolutionary History....
Post #7[quote="Divine Insight"]
I doubt that this kind of distinction would happen overnight.
/quote]
It is still important, I think, because theoretically we could have two humanoid beings with only one of them being human, and we would have to make a moral decision of whom to save in a life or death situation say, where we could only save one of them.... I think it would still be controversial, and a decision would have to be made......
I doubt that this kind of distinction would happen overnight.
/quote]
It is still important, I think, because theoretically we could have two humanoid beings with only one of them being human, and we would have to make a moral decision of whom to save in a life or death situation say, where we could only save one of them.... I think it would still be controversial, and a decision would have to be made......
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: At what Point in Evolutionary History....
Post #8The problem is that there is no such line. It simply doesn't exist.Dimmesdale wrote:It is still important, I think, because theoretically we could have two humanoid beings with only one of them being human, and we would have to make a moral decision of whom to save in a life or death situation say, where we could only save one of them.... I think it would still be controversial, and a decision would have to be made......Divine Insight wrote: I doubt that this kind of distinction would happen overnight.
The whole idea is nothing more than a philosophical construction in your own mind. You are trying to imagine "perfection". Perfection simply doesn't exist in the real world. There was no time in the history of human evolution where you can say, "This baby is now human, while the mother wasn't".
It simply doesn't work like that. That's an unrealistic philosophical notion.
Humans slowly evolved. There was no line between an animal that wasn't human and one that was. All that exists are primates that slowly became more self-conscious, and more educated and intelligent over time.
That's all that exists. You can't point to a specific individual primate and say, "Hey that was the first actual human, and all the others are not human"
It just doesn't work that way.
Let's not forget that the very category of '[humans' is a category that humans themselves invented.
So the answer to your question is simple. You simply cannot apply the type of philosophical perfectionism that you imagine in your mind to the real world. It simply doesn't fit.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: At what Point in Evolutionary History....
Post #9[Replying to post 1 by Dimmesdale]
This is a bit like asking which snowflake caused a storm to be considered a blizzard.
No such single snowflake could be identified.
Tcg
This is a bit like asking which snowflake caused a storm to be considered a blizzard.
No such single snowflake could be identified.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9864
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: At what Point in Evolutionary History....
Post #10[Replying to post 7 by Dimmesdale]
If you can't tell which humanoid is more human at a glance then that shouldn't be a factor in deciding their relative worth.
If you can't tell which humanoid is more human at a glance then that shouldn't be a factor in deciding their relative worth.