"Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

I had a conversation with a stubborn creationist today. (My grandma! :P) Her basic argument against evolution is: if we humans evolved out of apes because it was an evolutionary advantage to be more intelligent, and have self-awareness, how come other animals - and especially other monkeys - aren't evolving in that way “anymore”?

My basic explanation was that evolution takes a VERY LONG time, so if she just gives evolution enough time, they eventually too will evolve higher intelligence and human-like self-awareness. Another one is that modern chimpanzees survive just fine in their jungles these days according to evolutionary standards, and therefore further increases in intelligence aren't needed. In our ancestor's time, enviromental preassure may have forced the perticular “human-to-be”-apes to develop intelligence beyond what was common back then, and hence they did.

Are these valid explanations, or do you have additional good things I could bring to the furious dinner debates?

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

No one who have like, studied evolution a little bit who knows about this?

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Your answer in the initial post covered the question to my satisfaction.  :)

An interesting related question would be: Since evolution takes so much damn time, and humans could really use others to talk with, should we uplift other species to human-level intelligence?  More fun than a barrel of (non-gene-mod) monkeys.

spirals,
Arthur

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

“Since evolution takes so much damn time, and humans could really use others to talk with, should we uplift other species to human-level intelligence”

I think robots are within a more promising timeframe for such a noble goal. :P

And that's an awesome picture by the way, Adastra. Haha

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Hmmm… yeah, interesting question. It also reminds me of something Siona said in another thread about the difference between “development” and “evolution”. The discussion didn't really go anywhere in that thread because it was off-topic, so maybe we can talk some more about it here.

Essentially, Siona's view, as far as I understand it, is that development has directionality and is more of a dualistic concept, whereas evolution does not have directionality and is more of a non-dual, infinite kind of concept. At first, I balked at that distinction, but the more I think about it, the more it kinda makes sense.

So let's see if we can apply that to our question here. It occurs to me that maybe rather than the “non-directionality” of evolution, it might make more sense to talk about the “omni-directionality” of evolution, i.e. gradual change in any of an infinite number of directions and generally “towards” (for lack of a better word) a “fuller embodiment” of Spirit in all forms and all directions. So we wouldn't necessarily have to assume that all species should be evolving “upward” toward ever-increasing intelligence and our anthropocentric idea of “higher” enlightenment.

Maybe a given species will tend to “develop” more in certain lines, while other species develop more in others. The human species happened to develop the most intellectually, for example, but we haven't done that great physically. Other primates haven't done all that bad intellectually, but we could say that they've done better in certain physical (and maybe other) aspects than we have.

So any given species might tend to “develop” in a certain direction, but “evolution” on the whole doesn't mandate that all species evolve with the same sort of directionality. I mean, if all species had the potential of evolving as far as humans (i.e. to second or third-tier or wherever), then wouldn't we, spiritually speaking, have a certain responsibility to help them do that? So in Buddhist terms, should we wait for all species to be fully enlightened before we reach nirvana? Doesn't feel right to me for some reason, but maybe that's just me being anthropocentric….

Anyway, I'm no expert in evolutionary theory or biology, so these are just the musings of a layman….

Actually, yeah, what about the general directionality of increasing complexity? Again, maybe it's a case of different potential for different species in different lines/aspects? But is that “development” or “evolution”? And would any of these musings help convince a creationist? Hmmm….

Cheers,
Grey

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

evolution is so widely and thoroughly misunderstood… sigh

i vote for uplift! let's start with the dolphins, ok, arthur? :)

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

So let's see if we can apply that to our question here. It occurs to me that maybe rather than the “non-directionality” of evolution, it might make more sense to talk about the “omni-directionality” of evolution, i.e. gradual change in any of an infinite number of directions and generally “towards” (for lack of a better word) a “fuller embodiment” of Spirit in all forms and all directions.

Ooh. I like this addition, Grey. I'd add, though, that evolution does not always “move forward” to greater complexity, but (at least if increased complexity is the measure) will be just as likely to go sideways or diagonally or backwards. Certain bacteria have gotten simpler and less complex over time; we human beings presumably lost our tails; the eyes of cave fish disappear. For me it makes more sense to conceive of evoution is adapation to an environment (and as our environment gets more complex, our means of interacting with it develop correspondingly), not a “fuller embodiment of Spirit.” Of course this leaves open the question of why this push toward life, this eruptive and enthusiastic Eros drive… but this might be like asking “why gravity”? ;)

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

It's interesting, Grey, that what Siona said has been really percolating in me as well.

And of course, we have no idea if monkeys are evolving into a higher intelligence, do we? Or where evolutionary pressures will lead.

We do know that Tasmanian Devils are evolving rapidly, in response to a viral cancer that strikes around age 2-3. They used to reproduce almost exclusively in their 2-4th years. Now, 16% are reproducing in the first year. This has all happened within the past few years, not over millenia. Still, scientists are working on a vaccine. Um, and you know how well those work. Measles has been all but eradicated, right?? My money is on evolution.

Siona is right. There's no directionality to evolution. That is, there's no pattern that we can reliably follow. In general, there is a trend toward complexity, but there is no way to predict where or when that will happen. We still have single-celled organisms, after all, and viruses are the most successful way of replicating ever evolved.

In my mind, the problem is when we take the general toward the specific, and plunk it down into integral theory. There is a tendency towards magical thinking, where people entertain the idea that somehow God wants there to be humans, and planned for it. There's no plan, in that sense. There's only–and this is a big thing, actually–the tendency to create new things. This leads to complexity and, on at least one occasion, intelligence. But it also leads to tapeworms and such. This is not to devalue self-awareness evolving. In a sense, I think that's inevitable, and as such, could be seen as God's will, but not in the simplistic way that people interpret that.

We're getting into stuff that makes me sit and ponder the universe. And that tends to stop me from writing anything. ;o).

Liz

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

This is ponderiffic stuff, alright.  Evolutionary devlopment goes towards both freedom and fullness.  Fullness - the glorious, playful radiance of all possible permutations going madly off in all directions.  Freedom - increasing depth, greater identification with the Ground of Being.  I'm not sure that's the distinction Siona is making…we may just be using the words a bit differently, or there could be something more to her point that I'm not getting yet.

Damn, I keep starting to right more and then - well, like Liz said:

We're getting into stuff that makes me sit and ponder the universe. And that tends to stop me from writing anything. ;o)

Yar.

Damn, it's happening again.  Writing, then going “yeah, but, um…” followed by rewriting and deleting and starting over.

Ponderiffic indeed.

Gotta get ready to go to the Biennial Conference volunteer orientation.

love2all,
Arthur

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Evolutionary devlopment goes towards both freedom and fullness.  Fullness - the glorious, playful radiance of all possible permutations going madly off in all directions.  Freedom - increasing depth, greater identification with the Ground of Being.  I'm not sure that's the distinction Siona is making…we may just be using the words a bit differently, or there could be something more to her point that I'm not getting yet.

Arthur: I'm not clear what you mean by 'evolutionary development.' My point was merely that, in my view, evolution is infinite and non-(or all)-directional, while development is directional (that is, it involves a 'high point') and finite (after this high point is attained, decline and death follow). I think the two processes get confused a bit in much integral theorizing.

I wish I still lived in SF. JFKU isn't that far from my old digs.

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Yeah, that's the ticket, Like where does 'thought' come from?

Or what will the next thought be?

What is the source of that creative process?…this little me? hummm…

Do 'my' thoughts come from someplace different from yours or yours?

What does Eckhart Tolle say about the cat sitting very still watching the 'mouse hole' waiting for the mouse to 'emerge'.

Fun stuff, eh?

Cheers,
Doug

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Well, my answer to this question is that monkeys are busy being monkeys.

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Eckhart Tolle has made an interesting statement about nature. He was saying as humans become more “conscious”, moving away from unconsciousness, i.e. awareness, presence, enlightenment, that nature senses your consciousness, wants to have your attention and that attention of presence when in union with nature actually assists nature to become more aware of itself as you in your expanded consciousness becomes aware of nature on more and more subtle levels. We become conscious co-creators with nature on level of non-dual awareness (at least on the subtle levels, and maybe causal as well. Not sure if any impact on the genetics level has any bearing unless you consider scientific interference by geneticists). Tolle thinks that nature loves this attention of heightened human consciousness. How this may pan out in evolution if true I am not sure. It sounds like a comment on nature mysticism.

Daniel

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Hm. Not exactly much in the way of confirmation we can get on that, is there? I like the idea, mind you, but that sort of statement just seems like one of those “well, that is nice, if it's true” things that doesn't really have much practical application in an argument with someone's grandma or anyone else.

Liz

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

It also seems to me that the evolutionary impulse of the Kosmos is that K wants to 'see' itself.

So evolution is just divine narcissism. Awesome. ;)

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

“divine narcissism” ….you make me laugh!  Still if I had all this going on, I would be curious to have a little look-see myself…..I am curious anyway, to be honest.  

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Heh. We are the holy (pun only partially intended) bellybutton of the cosmos. Sacred navel-gazing is our goal…

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

I think we have a doctor on board here, right? Pelle, no?
Anyway, I think I have a firm grip on evolution, but before I befuddle a mediocre explaination of it, I'll just post this link to the wiki.
I will say that just reading through some of the posts, I see a few misconceptions about the process.
Disclaimer: I am just streaming live thought here…

Evolution in the short term(millions of years even) is in many ways an accident. The science doesn't show much evidence for developing something because it would be useful. It shows more that mutations and natural selection randomly differenciate species into empty habitats(or unsaturated mini ecosystems) over time. So that potentially cancerous sunburn may prove useful for future generations. Evolution is more correctly defined as a bunch of misfits and mistakes that over a really long time a few surivive better than their predecessors.  On the short run its like school children laughing at the kid with big ears or being awed by the man with 6 fingers…in the long run, their progeny may be laughing at us…
Anyway, a bit extreme and wholly incomplete, I encourage one to read the wiki.
One thought experiment however. I want to use the word consciousness but since that means so many things nowadays, I will use the word Tao only because I think it is a word that covers this territory, non-dual whatever if you prefer…. Let's say that all of creation is a result of the manifestation of the Tao through a dualistic means. Evolution is just a mechanism and creationists have a lot of trouble with humans being a result of chance.  For a bit wider view though, Evolution doesn't discredit creation, it only provides a mechanism. Why couldn't God/Tao have choosen evolution as that mechanism?
Also, about those robots, I like some of Kurzwiel's ideas. Building on some of those ideas is that what we call consciousness, this cool thing that separates us from the rest, is just the manifestation of the Tao at our holonic level. With technology, the process of evolution has accidently(and possibly) created a process that works much faster, although not necessarily as efficient yet. For the Tao to continue manifesting, human consciousness is now working in bulk to make “the internet” and the hardware, robots, etc. to make the next level…we ask, can the internet be conscious, can a robot be conscious. consciousness in that sense seems to only apply to humans. its not a condition for robots. what do you call the Tao in a rock, in an amoeba, or in a robot?

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

First - h. sapiens did not evolve from monkeys.  Humans, apes, and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.  It would be just as ludicrous to expect humans to evolve into tree dwelling and poop throwing monkeys as it would be to expect monkeys to evolve into energy-wasting above-ground homes and throwing bombs.

Monkeys and humans have evolved into specific niches, and there's little reason that I can tell for either to change what they have become.

Second- I think development is part and parcel of evolution.  Development is growth and progress, but to what end?  Evolution is development, and I think the distinction Wilber is trying to make, into something new.  When red becomes blue, it just does not develop, but becomes a new mindset or a new worldview.  I think he may have avoided “development” since improvements can be made on the model, but it is still the same model. 

Our society has certainly developed even in the last 200 years.  A development is that we espouse to have left behind “magical thinking.”  Yet, theory in practice is that as a society we still maintain mythical roots (good vs bad, God and Devil, Black and White, right and wrong- hence need for debate to “prove”). 

Perhaps the evolution occurs when we depart mythical in both practice and espoused values.

I would posit that Wilber believes development very critical within memes to reach an evolutionary breakthrough to the next new level.    I get this from Wilber's stated view there “is an enormous difference between the experience of a higher state of consciousness and the actual attainment of a higher stage of development.”

Out of the 20 tenets, Wilber makes it clear that -

Evolution has directionality:
a. increasing complexity.
b. increasing differentiation/integration.
c. increasing organization/structuration.
d. increasing relative autonomy.
e. increasing telos.

I have never gathered in any of Wilber's writings that evolution is a given - it is an aspiration.  Yet, evolution does have directionality, which perhaps is another distinction and why development could be a subset of evolution. 

Finally, while not critical to the point I am trying to make but important in this whole “judgement” bit of second tier, is that one of Wilber's 20 tenets is that “the lower sets the possibilities of the higher; the higher sets the probabilities of the lower.”  No determination, no definitive cause and effect; merely a difference in capabilities and abilities.  I think that is an important distinction.

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Our society has certainly developed even in the last 200 years.  A development is that we espouse to have left behind “magical thinking.”  Yet, theory in practice is that as a society we still maintain mythical roots (good vs bad, God and Devil, Black and White, right and wrong- hence need for debate to “prove”).

I would call that an 'evolution,' not a development. To my mind (and again, this comes mostly from working with living systems, from growing animals to dying adults) development reaches a high point, and then the process begins to crumble and collapse into itself.

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Oh, I think if we do not get out of this “magical” or “mythical” (tier 1 baseline) practice in our society, it will crumble and collapse.  Hence, why I described it as development.

Indeed, I think the crumbling and collapsing is already in progress.

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Indeed, I think the crumbling and collapsing is already in progress.

Well, of course it is; to be alive is to die. I can't imagine how many cells in my body peacefully pass on, daily, to the great tissue in the sky. It's more a question of the net result of this dying / birthing process, and indeed, a certain amount of destruction and rupture must occur for anything new to be born. This wasn't so much my point, though. I only wanted to say that in the cases of individual development, people reach a point and then gradually, naturally, decline and die (that is, there's no hope of 'development' such that you don't age). I'm not sure this process is mirrored or paralleled in evolution.

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Hm. Not exactly much in the way of confirmation we can get on that, is there?

There isn't any of course. I wouldn't expect that there would be. But then again, there isn't any for stuff like chakras or kundulini either. Even evolution for that matter. Lots of claims with supposed confirmed evidence. I took it as an entertaining small juncture in this discussion. I really could care a less about its authenticity. I certainly have more important issues to tackle than whether or not you can talk to a tree. Ents at this point are still a fictional concept from Tolkien.

Wilber does discuss nature mysticism to some extent,  whatever it means for whatever its worth.

Just saw an exhibit of primate skeletons along side of a human skeleton at the Smithsonian today. They are very similar. So why aren't monkeys evolving into humans. Perhaps they are evolving into something different. I saw “Planet Of The Apes” when I was a kid. I guess it might be possible.

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

I only wanted to say that in the cases of individual development, people reach a point and then gradually, naturally, decline and die (that is, there's no hope of 'development' such that you don't age). I'm not sure this process is mirrored or paralleled in evolution.

At a species level, there certainly is a model or a “mirror” to h.sapiens' success -

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_2.htm

At the individual level, I think it is quite possible to reach a point, decline, and “die.”  One can “evolve” to green meme, embody mean green, and be stuck there (decline, then cease to exist). 

It is certainly possible to “evolve” into a dead-end “mean turqouise,” which be an possibility of evolving  to a certain point then decline and die…

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

At the individual level, I think it is quite possible to reach a point, decline, and “die.”  One can “evolve” to green meme, embody mean green, and be stuck there (decline, then cease to exist). 


Isn't that development, then? How is this 'evolution'?


It is certainly possible to “evolve” into a dead-end “mean turqouise,” which be an possibility of evolving  to a certain point then decline and die…

Do you mean as a species? And if so, I'd take this merely to mean that 'turquoise' was not a great evironmental adaptation, and that some other direction might be (or have been) more conducive to the survival of the human race.

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

I believe reaching each meme, each tier, is an evolutionary process.  Merely because one or a group does not continue beyond that meme or tier does not mean the process to reach it was not evolution.

Evolutionary process was in place to create Neandertals, which was a dead-end evolutionary track.  We can't say “well, they didn't continue to evolve, hence their process to that point was not evolution, it was development.”

Do you mean as a species? And if so, I'd take this merely to mean that 'turquoise' was not a great evironmental adaptation, and that some other direction might be (or have been) more conducive to the survival of the human race.

In this context, I see no real difference between individual or species evolution.  It seems to me the process can apply to both.  Turquoise meme may not be the “best” or “epitome” of adaptation (indeed, it probably is not, since the spiral probably continues beyond that meme), but that hardly negates the process to reach that meme as being evolutionary.

Come to think of it, it appears I have little to no contextual understanding of how you differentiate between development and evolution.  It is probably best that I just quit typing and continue reading.

.

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Come to think of it, it appears I have little to no contextual understanding of how you differentiate between development and evolution. 

I think I've already laid out my personal means of distinguishing between the two. If you see them as the same, then I suppose I'd ask for your catch-all definition; perhaps that would help. :)

I don't think that having-a-dead-end (or a high or end point) is a sufficient condition of development, but it's a necessary one.

I was struggling to think of what 'evolution' would mean in the context of an individual, and thought that (given that evolution seems to be predominently shaped by environmental pressures–self-created or otherwise) it could be said that someone migh 'evolve' to live more comfortably in an urban setting. I think this would be a misuse of the word, though, and that 'adapt' would be more accurate.

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Nice, organized stream of thought, Christopher.
I think that within much of this talk about development, evolution and niches, we should talk about genes vs. memes. Memes seem to me a product of evolution and still within the mechanism as a whole, but “evolution” through memes changes the overall system so fast that evolution by gene adaption just doesn't cut it for many species. The death or survival of many of the larger species of life, for now, depends on the human meme machine in our consciousness and not on their genes or the genes of others as it were previously. “the lower sets the possibilities of the higher; the higher sets the probabilities of the lower.”

Siona,
“people reach a point and then gradually, naturally, decline and die (that is, there's no hope of 'development' such that you don't age).”
I think that is exactly the point. From a very mechanical point of view…the “how part”…the meme is incrypted in the gene. We are then just vessels to move it on. What does it matter to the overall process as long as we don't take everything down with us. If we can get the internet up and running and self repairing and developing, nature will have no more need for humans. A bit fatalistic, but I think there is tons of meaning to be had there. Maybe the universe is using us for its long term gain, but I don't think we are being paid poorly…that is if we take advantage of what is being offered. It isn't eternal life and we have to know what it is too. Another angle, would be to say that we are the universe, not just created by it or from it. We are not totally it, but it is totally us. What is dying except just a permanent state change within what we already are and were. Death should be, in that case, the Mt. Everest for an adrenaline state chasing junkie.

Overall, Jane's “the evolutionary impulse of the Kosmos is that K wants to 'see' itself”, I believe, is dead on. At least, maybe that is the best understanding we have of what the purpose of the Tao is at the moment. I like to think of it like how the bathroom mirror defogs after a hot shower, bit by bit until, wow, I see myself. In a little way, it really is a shock and really interesting every time. What is it about seeing oneself on the level of the Kosmos? The reuniting of the trinity, whether its Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or I, We, It(and Its). The big OM. The non-dual awareness….that is the answer to the big question WHY? Is creation a separation solely for the purpose of coming back together. Is it an Odyessy? A journey with the same starting place, doing it just because, to enrichen the whole thing. To leave home in order to come home? Is there more why to it? There is something special, unspeakable, but fully communicable about that feeling of coming home after a long trip…

Getting back on target…So, why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today? I think that is just the wrong question? Its like asking will the coffee be happy come Thursday?
Like, my physics professors told me, often strangely, there are no stupid questions, just stupid people. That did wonders for my self-esteem.

If you understand Spanish, this should be funny. If not, I think you might get the idea…
http://www.zinkho.com/blog/2008/05/20/cartoon-network-hacemos-lo-que-queremos/

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

“There isn't any of course. I wouldn't expect that there would be. But then again, there isn't any for stuff like chakras or kundulini either. Even evolution for that matter”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ (watch out for bad music)

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Ooh, what a great discovery this thread is, and I haven't had time to read the whole thing yet, but look forward to more about development vs evolution, as yes, it was off-topic in my thread that Grey linked to, but even there I said some things. And am sitting on more, awaiting time to devote to the topic.

However, I must jump in re the initial post here. Evolutionary science or theory does NOT say that humans evolved FROM monkeys OR apes. It appears they are diverging lines from a common ancestor that was neither. Thus, there would be no pressure for monkeys or apes in the direction of “greater intelligence” from the same genetic base. As someone said, environmental pressures have been different on the different lines, so evolution different. and yes, it's certainly true that evolution is generally (ah, but not always) a slow process.

But of course standard evolutionary theory about random mutations etc. is being challenged even within the scientific establishment !!

And come on, gang, surely we see there are huge other options besides standard materialistic evolution or creationism?????

Blessings,
OM Bastet

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

“It appears they are diverging lines from a common ancestor that was neither.”

You must surely agree that they are our closest evolutionary ancestor, though.

“And come on, gang, surely we see there are huge other options besides standard materialistic evolution or creationism?????”

Creationism: Believes that there is something that is not dependantly arisen.

Materialistic view: Believes that everything is dependantly arisen.

Since we can't know if something is not dependantly arisen, I tend to think that believing in Creationism (or any view responsible of that assertion) is quite irrelevant. Or, it's pragmatic value can be considered very low, hehe.

What other options are you speaking of, Vector? :) I'd suggest Madhyamaka or Zen as an example who, as you know, share the materialists view that everything indeed always arise depending on something else.

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

I'm not sure how much creation is happening…Even in the Bible, creation is not made by making but by separating. Non-dual is like a bun and once you split the bun apart, you realize that there is a burger inside. WHOA, COOL! There was no creation, just a small patty. Either that or your world just has big buns.
A definition for Evolution: Reverse entropy.
Evolution is understood through movement of the genome. Within a lifetime, any “movement” would have to be called development. But maybe that just requires us to adjust the definition of evolution to something more accurate: the movement of information. With consciousness, Evolution now has 2 vehicles that we know of: genes and now memes. Meme evolution probably has similar anedotes in gene evolution. Turquiose, for example, as it is now, might be equivant to a gentic mutation that give me a tail. It might help me or it might not. Likely there will be a turquiose in the future but our understanding of it might be different. A lot depends on if meme niches are constant and preset or are detemined by the enviornment…That's a bit of a thought experiment that I don't want to do right now.
Genetically, most large species get to a certain point and branche off or die off. The original species doesn't exist anymore. The end of development is the beginning of another…end point…maybe, but not with the starting materials. i might have a bag of nails and a block of wood. i need a hammer, so i melt the nails and cut the wood to make a hammer…but now there are no nails or wood…i'd just have to hit myself in the head with it.

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

But my point, Is., is [sorry couldn't resist, the devil made me do it, ROTFL) monkeys/apes are not (as far as I know commonly regarded by scientists as) our “ancestors” at all. They are our cousins.

And while we do share a lot of genes with them, guess which animal is, inside its skin – so I have heard – the most similar to humans, essentially IDENTICAL, such that medical schools use them to teach anatomy? PIGS. That surely gives us pause for thought……

Those are not my definitions of Creationism, nor of materialistic evolution, my definition of the latter is is more narrowly, the generally accepted scientific view. Thus I see alternatives.

1. Aliens came in long ago and messed with some DNA during evolution, in order to produce humans (with certain predilections) and perhaps other species as well.

2. A number of alien species got together and formed Earth and at that time kinda planned out the general schematic of living species on this planet, so evolutionary tracks were laid down for pre-determined outcomes.

3. Evolutionary jumps have been produced by Lamarckian processes, such that mutations and their inheritance were not random given certain environmental conditions. There are increasing amounts of scientific evidence for and acceptance of the idea that mutations have not been random nor as slow as first thought.

4. The course of evolution has been shaped/tweaked in each moment by Spirit in the form of non-physical Creator Beings, who have certain what we might call spiritual purposes for this project or experiment. So to science it looks pretty sensible, except for the anomalies that get ignored in any scientific paradigm, but in fact there have been deeper causes operating.

I am NOT telling you the probabilities I personally assign to any of these alternatives. I am just pointing out that Creationism (a Deistic God created it all in 7 days and then left it alone) and standard scientific materialistic evolution (all chance and random mutations, we are an accidental product of certain attempts of DNA to adapt to certain environments) are not the only possible explanations for the history of living species on this planet.

Each view does have its proponents, and its evidence of various kinds, and #3. is actually making inroads in the current paradigm.

Current scientific evolutionary theory IS only a theory, IS only a paradigm, and has all the limitations of those.

Now time for a joke: Living things, bodies, of any plants and any animals, are only DNA's way of assuring the continuation of life of DNA.

Now THAT's a theory of evolution I can endorse wholeheartedly !!!! LOL !!!!!! I can think of no arguments against it !!!!! :))

And there could be much more useful and topic-focused comments for this thread, so I apologize if these are somewhat off-track. But there was some momentum in this direction. At least I am using the topic's terms…..

More later, and thanks for great discussion, all.

OM Bastet

     permalink

Re: "Then why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?"

Hi! Thanks for your response.

1. Aliens came in long ago and messed with some DNA during evolution, in order to produce humans (with certain predilections) and perhaps other species as well.

Aliens? Like if that explains anything.

2. A number of alien species got together and formed Earth and at that time kinda planned out the general schematic of living species on this planet, so evolutionary tracks were laid down for pre-determined outcomes.

See above.

3. Evolutionary jumps have been produced by Lamarckian processes, such that mutations and their inheritance were not random given certain environmental conditions. There are increasing amounts of scientific evidence for and acceptance of the idea that mutations have not been random nor as slow as first thought.

Could you send me some of this evidence? And is “something” according to you causing these evolutionary jumps, or are they random? If they are not random, what's causing it? If God is causing them, this is creationism.

4. The course of evolution has been shaped/tweaked in each moment by Spirit in the form of non-physical Creator Beings, who have certain what we might call spiritual purposes for this project or experiment. So to science it looks pretty sensible, except for the anomalies that get ignored in any scientific paradigm, but in fact there have been deeper causes operating.

This, too, is good ol' creationism.

     permalink