Is there any evidence of their intelligence? To which extent?
Is the evidence of homosapiens intelligence enough for proving they were anything near human?
Primates: an animal order including lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, apes and human beings.
Homo means man and sapiens means to be wise. Homo sapiens means therefor: a wise man.
You could always do an internet search, there is quite some information over there.
Could it be that we have a different purpose? ….or serve a particular function?
Also I think you would find if there was any way to find out that we contain far more “conscious bodies” that allow us to have the “Personality and Awareness” that we do.
I find that scientist that say we are related to apes or came out of the sea, are not really very able, it’s like their mind can not conceive anything larger then what they see before their eyes, so for example, because they have not seen god, at least in this life, nor have they looked for it, the conclude that it does not exist, so, they have to formulate all these dogmas to some how be able to come to grips with what they are seeing or think they are seeing,and so they sprout all these tenets and gather all the proof, only to die and return to their own higher self…. (An interface with god)…. it is ridiculous….
Anyway, something more fascinating to me than ape V's human is the flagella motor.
So, what the bleep do we know!
haha nice closing comment (the people who made that one are a whole other topic)survivor wrote:If man evolved from ape, then why do ape's still exist? Next people will suggest they exist because human re-incarnate into animal. I'm at the understanding that humans cannot or at least do not jump life forms..ie: human to animal..and visa versa.
Anyway, something more fascinating to me than ape V's human is the flagella motor.
So, what the bleep do we know!
I am not an expert on the theory by any means, but I am under the impression that there are no certainties, but rather many assumptions which go into the evolutionary models...
Bringing in the idea of transmigration, or rather, spiritual evolution was an eye opener for me. It makes me look at it a whole new way.
According to the dictionary we are primates. The word, however, is simply a container in which we stuff everything which resembles an ape. But to actually prove that we are not descendents from the apes.... Why and what for?? Sorry, but I hardly see any relevance in that. We are descendents from the apes, or we are not... what is the difference??Robanan wrote:Is there any way to prove that human beings are not primates?
But regardless of importance, I don't think you can prove, beyound doubt, that human beings are in fact not primates. The only way this could be possible would be because of new evidence. So yes, it is possible to find evidence which proves we are infact not primates. But it will probably take at least a couple of decades, if not a century, before it all becomes a consensus. Are you willing to spend that much time on something so much insignificant? I rather propose a passive search: just keep your eyes open.
‘The Bakaratinians had explored all of the planet Earth before establishing their
bases, and were absolutely persuaded that no human life existed before their
arrival. Often they thought they had located a humanoid form of life, but on
closer inspection, realised they had made contact with a species of large apes.
From my understanding, evolution doesn't state we evolved from apes rather humans and apes have a common ancestor, and over millions of years that ancestor branched into different speciessurvivor wrote:If man evolved from ape, then why do ape's still exist?
One thing that puzzled me is how there is no mention of evolution when Thao describes how the creator created the universe through the 4 forces; I used to think intelligent design and evolution were compatible but now I'm not so sure
It seemed kind of logical that intelligent design could explain how the universe and life originated, and then evolution can be the process that the creator installed to make the universe self-perfecting not only spiritually but also biological as species need to change in order to better adapt to their environment
But pretty much every creationist/intelligent design argument has been debunked as you can see from this link
That 4 forces have built the universe are Mu's scientific theory as well -- you can see a symbolic image of them in Shezmear's current avatar image, which comes from James Churchward's books on Mu. The cross is actually an ancient symbol for the 4 forces emanating from a single point -- the Creator. The forces are also known under various other names, such as "The Four Sacred Ones", "The Four Great Pillars", "The Four Genii", etc. From the Naacal tablets Churchward supposedly had access to and his very considerable subsequent research, he found out that the people of Mu had been confident that there is no macroevolution.
About 2 years ago, I had unsuccessfully argued with a former forum participant, Meedan, about the theory of evolution (see the topic "The Theory of Evolution") -- he supplied a link to http://www.talkorigins.org, and the one InfoSource does now provides a nice list of claims and counterclaims. But bear carefully in mind that a lot of additional information outside the site needs to be examined carefully beside the web site if one is to convince oneself of the quality and sufficiency of the answers. One needs to dig up many of the sources, read them and carefully note the scientific methodology used in them, before thinking "Yes, every talkorigins.org has really shot down creationist claims and it really supports the theory of evolution".
Take for example http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html. The claim is "No new species have been observed", the counterclaim is that new species have actually appeared. As you can see from the references list at the bottom of the page, 20 books and/or papers are referred to. So, one ought to examine all of them before concluding something major from this web page itself. And one should not think that because the paper are said to be scientific, many or all of them may not have errors that invalidate them. What is more, most people should not think that because they have not already read a lot in the field and they are not officially recognised as biologists, geologists and paleontologists, they cannot spot problems in the papers, if they just read carefully, check the facts as much as they can through other books and the Internet, and think logically.
I am especially interested in those 20 sources and will examine them at the first opportunity, but I would certainly not try to argue again against evolution soon -- well, I can post the results of my examination. Evolution is a complex theory, and is also so entrenched in the minds of people, that to tear it down would take a very serious effort. I also think that if more people were sincerely practicing meditation, concentration and other parts of the yoga science, we would attain good and provable answers about evolution and creationism much faster than through the traditional and current approach of predominant materialistic scientific enquiry / research. Because of the few people who do that, they limit themselves only to the visible part of reality and/or the part measurable with external instruments. Few people are studying the mind, and very, very few are doing it directly. By directly, I mean, through methods such as meditation, rather than only observing external human behaviour and from that making indirect conclusions about the workings of the mind.
Consider the following:
The theory that the stages in an organism's embryonic development and differentiation correspond to the stages of evolutionary development characteristic of the species. Also called Haeckel's law, recapitulation theory.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
The abovementioned theory could be very valid indeed.
Two days ago if somebody would have asked me "Would you like to tear the evolution theory apart" I would have answered a strong yes. But now that I have been thinking about it I simply understood that the thory in itself is just another way to explain things. The only problem of this theory is that it has stopped evoluting so... For most people it is not that the whole thing makes so much sense, it is so easy to point to monkeys and answer the question that's where we come from... but are monkeys intelligent? Everyone would say yes, but I haven't met anyone who could properly answer the question... "Are monkeys intelligent enough to become humans?" if yes, what is the evidence of that?
@Alisima: Don't forget whom you are talking with when you adress something in my direction.
If is THESE arguments are what you are referring to. It means that you ignore the fact that you have no way to determine the features of the INTELLECT to which those bones belonged to.
P.S. I added a new field Undefinable to the poll.
@Infosource: have you been reading the Responses to the Intelligent Design claims? I will try to go more about them later. It seems that Intelligent Design as proposed by Tom J. Chalko in his article "Is Chance or Choice the essence of Nature" is the answer of all answers.
It might be possible that macroevolution could happen if monkeys were forced to swim instead of climbing up trees to procure food. But if to consider that monkeys are all happy to be monkeys they don't need, nor nature biologically imposes on them to develop their intellect to gain human like level of cognition and understanding.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Origins_of_the_concept wrote:Origins of the concept [of Intelligent Design]
For millennia, philosophers have argued that the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. The philosophical concept of the Logos, an inherent ordering in the universe, is typically credited to Heraclitus in the 5th century BC, and is briefly explained in his extant fragments. In the 4th century BC, Plato posited a natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover", in his work Metaphysics. In his de Natura Deorum, or "On the Nature of the Gods" (45 BC), Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature".
The use of this line of reasoning as applied to a supernatural designer has come to be known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, design being the fifth of Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence, and by William Paley in his book Natural Theology (1802), where he uses the watchmaker analogy, which is still used in intelligent design arguments. In the early 19th century such arguments led to the development of what was called Natural theology, the study of biology as a search to understand the "mind of God". This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens that ultimately led to Darwin's theory of the origin of species. ...
Taking the information from the Thiaoouba Prophecy book into consideration I don't believe that animals have the necessary set of bodies that could potentially enable them to gain Human like Intellectual features.
See Also: Critical Analysis of Evolution
If everything does evolve into humans, or other very intelligent species, then there would be no more microscopic organisms (bacteria) that is necessary to life, right? If so, then how can Nature recreate those microscopic things to balance biodiversity?