Macro-evoloution
 

I just picked the title out of the air. Then I thought to myself, "I wonder if this is a term already in use?" So I ran it through a search engine and welp, low and behold, there is link on the differnce between micro and macro evoloution as defined by Darwin. I'm noting this because I've never heard of either of these terms before and yet it was the exact word phrase I thought best described the topic I want to delve into...It's seems like sometimes all those thoughts coming through here aren't all enitrely mine--But I dont want to get into that just yet.
Anyway, I'm wondering what are the substantial differences that sepearate the human personality from that of animals? Why is it that our path has diverged so far from any other on this planet?
I've come up with two differnces that radically disriminate the human experience from the others. First, our higher need for order has drastically changed the environment into a sophisticated society. Second, the divine impulse, has created thousands of unique religious movements creating a more abstract reality than what meets the eye.
If you can think of any more I'd love to hear your thoughts. I'm drawing off of topics I've been thinking about in the Movie Waking Life and some books, The Celestine Series, Ishmael, etc...

What, specifically are you reffering to? How are we so drastically different? I'm not specifically disagreeing with you here; maybe we are different, maybe we are not, but you really need to be specific when dealing with topics such as this.

This is just circular logic. Why the "higher need for order" in the first place?

Again what "divine impulse"? What is it? Why do we have it?

I think this is a great topic for a thread - though I have to wonder whether there really are many "substantial differences that sepearate the human personality from that of animals" - but would like to hear other opinions before I start wading in ;)

I believe he is referring to the fact that every culture up until present times has had a religion, or definition of a devine power(s)/being(s). Atheism on a large scale is a modern thing.

The usual explanation for this that I have heard is that humans have a natural need to follow "something", or believe that there is a higher "cause" that they are working for, or that can explain that which is not readily explainable by unscientific observations or experiments. As such every society has had some form of religion, be it a druidic worship of nature, a Roman or Greek pantheon of Gods and Godesses, a Monotheistic religion, or any of the eastern religions or small tribal religions that I don't know much of anything about.

So humans can in general be said to have a divine impulse, being an impulse to create/follow a divine power.

Why do we have it(in general)? I think it comes from a need for humans to feel that their life has a purpose, and many religions do provide a purpose for people.

You're missing my point: Why have we evolved this "divine impulse"?
If you claim that we create/follow religions in order to find meaning in life, then religion is socially rather than biologically driven, and hence we could not have a "divine impulse", further-more it fails to adress the even deeper question: why do humans have a need to find "meaning" in their lives AND why is it that specifically religion is able to address this need....and so on.

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the thread starter.

What I am saying is that simply plucking two seemingly arbitrary concepts out of thin air and declaring "THIS is the reason" is of no use to anybody and does not suffice as an explaination.

To illustrate my point:

"The reason that humans are so fundamentally different to animals is because humans make and wear clothes where as animals do not"

This is a worthless argument, because:
a)It assumes that humans are not animals
b)It assumes that humans and animals are fundamentally different
c)It assumes that "wearing clothes" is a sufficient explaination of the apparent 'fundamental differences' mentioned in b.
d)It fails to explain why humans wear clothes and animals do not.

a. Can be ignored on the account it it being mere pedantry b,c and d however are more serious objections.

I'd be happier saying that we have a natural curiosity, the ability to imagine and the tendency to anthropomorphise. Bundle these things up together and you start creating wild theories about the unexplainable. It's the same thing, whether you are a 5 year-old quaking under your bedclothes because of imagined bogeymen, or a Bishop handing out the Eucharist.

I can't help thinking that calling this hodgepodge of cognitive function a 'divine impulse' is elevating it somewhat beyond its station.

I don't see much difference between humans and animals - except that humans have a malfunctioning brain.

I'd have to agree with this a bit. We really aren't that much different from other animals. We're much closer to many types of animals in terms of behavior/geneology/etc than most people realize or would like to accept. People who think humans are any more than animals are deluted. The only reason we have been able to advance so far intellectually is due to only a couple things. Hands/fingers and the apposible thumb are major contributors. Afterall, what use would a dog have with advanced intelligence if it can't do anything about it?

Also, there is a part of the brain, specifically, that handles religion and religious thought (believe it or not). So that explains your "divine impulse".

First off, let me just say that I do believe that humans are just another animal, we are not anything special, nor are we more "evolved".

Second, I have to disagree with your statement that religion is JUST socially driven, it is driven by both society and biology. Without a meaning or a reason to live, or the idea that we are part of something "larger", depression and other issues begin to set in. People stop doing what needs to be done for survival and growth because all they can think is "What is the point? I'm just gonna die anyways, and none of this is going to matter me." So the "divine impulse" becomes a helping factor of survival.

With humans being the only species on the planet(as far as I know) that is actually aware that at some point it is going to die, the matter of finding a purpose to life became a biological and social need. Religion came about as a direct result of this need, suddenly instead of us just existing with no purpose or reason to survive in a harsh and painful world, there came the idea that there is a reason for us to be here, we do have a purpose and it is worth the effort to survive.

Of course that is all assuming that we did evolve the "divine impulse" and weren't created by god(s) and/or goddess(es).

MY objection was not to the conclusions of the argument. It was an objection to the methods of argument used. Those questions I posted were just random illustrations; which on reflection I shouldn't even have bothered posting. See the second half of my post for what I was really trying to say. (Humans are different from animals because we wear clothes).

we are 76% rRNA smiliar to lepers

We are african apes who like to believe we are special and different from other apes.

Well, we are different, just not special.

There's sort of a consensus among social scientists that what separates us from other animals is language. If you have a human child that is raised without learning a language (and it has happened), their cognitive and social development is severely stunted, and their behaviour does not become much more complex than a chimpanzee's. Language is the basis for everything that makes us human, in the narrowest sense of the term. I won't go into my spiritual beliefs, or fundamental aspects of "humanity", but suffice to say that language pretty much explains the vast majority of our differences.

TheKak, that's a huge oversimplification. My response was oversimplified as well (due to my tiredness and lack of inclination), but yours (not to be offensive) resembles a typical pseudo-intellectualist response. I don't presume to judge you in terms of how learned you are, or your intellect, but I found the parallels of your answer to a certain "type" of person's rather interesting. To contribute to the type of statement you just made, I may as well say that Earth is simply a glorified sphere, and nothing more. It is, in fact, much more than that, and the evidence is plain except to the senseless.

...far as I can tell, all animals communicate with each other.

That they do. I don't presume to know the intricacies of it, because I don't. I can only restate what I've seen from studies done. Anything more would be pure speculation, although if you want speculation, I'll be glad to provide some.

i don't believe that humans are the only animals on the planet that knows they're going to die. i think we're the only ones that have a habit of dwelling on it though.

and i think you're assertion that without finding meaning in a higher power we become depressed. many atheists and agnostics don't believe that and are not depressed. and as it is, depression is not biological in the sense that i think you mean. we get depressed either due to a 'sadness' of some sort like loss of a loved one, relationship break up, and we also get depressed by chemical imbalances in the brain. only the former would apply to becoming depressed by a lack of meaning in life.

i think we're social creatures that devoloped religion for 2 reasons. first, we did it to explain that which we could not otherwise find reasons for. why does it rain? god's crying. where are we going when we dream? the astral plane. etc. secondly, i think religion became organized in order to assert control over the masses. if you look at many tribes and ancient religions, a lot of the times the shaman doesn't lead the group, he's respected, but not the tribal cheif. it's not until you get into more 'sophisticated' societies that you see religion taking real roles of power like in the monothiestic religions.

Suave, that'd be your call.

I do, however, reject anthropocentric assertions.

Yes, but we do it differently. we can tell stories of the future, we can tell each other how the hunt will be. We are Pan Narrans the storytelling ape


The terms mirco and marco evolution are bollocks, the is no such thing.
Evolution is evolution.
It is the same as if you were pretending that there is a difference between "micro addition" and "marco addition".

Those terms, from what i've read so far, are mostly used by creationists. who, by using those terms, demonstrate their lack of understanding for scientific principles.

First I have to ask what "anthropocentric" refers to. Is that the belief that homo sapiens are special/better than other species?

Now for some speculation. While yes, all animals do communicate, their modes of communication are not as complex as language. Whether it is a cognitive advantage that has evolved, or a social one, humans appear to be the only species capable of communicating complex ideas through their mode of communication, which we call language. This idea does not argue that humans are better than other animals, only that we have developed a trait that, so far, is unique to our species on this planet.

from m-w.com:

Main Entry: an·thro·po·cen·tric
Pronunciation: "an(t)-thr&-p&-'sen-trik
Function: adjective
1 : considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe
2 : interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences

I think the second is most relevant. IMO, there is nothing we can say or think that's not conditioned by this prejudice.

bacteria send homoserine lactones to each other to communicate

Pacifier, I apologize if I offend you with my post-modern sarcasm lightly marinated in a condenscending sauce. I've never read those words in a book anywhere, I promise. Oh btw, Macro-economics and micro-economics.

zen_tom

CSfilm

I realize I was a bit vague about what I had in mind. I wasn't limiting the differences to two items but I wasn't trying to take the time to make the "we dress ourselves and they don't" statements. About halfway into the post, I was summoned. So I just finished it as fast as I could and was out the door. But now I should have time for a thoughtful response.
I like what you have to say zen_tom, you seem very intuitive. Lol, "Divine Impulse" does sound a tad glorified. I don't want to get into a 'does or doesn't god exist' debate as I loathe any one who feels overly-passionate about either speculation. My point was, any belief is something very abstract. Animals have extremely visible motives and the following behavior is driven by basic biological needs. We however have pretty much done it all in the name of an abstract entity (Building beautiful artifacts and murdering our own, for example). I'm not trying to augment this charicteristic into anything than it's not. Just take it for what it is for now.
Complexity for the sake of stupidity or Beauraucracy is a good example for the other item I mentioned. It's the compilation of social-contracts. What other species issues building permits? It's absurd sometimes if you think about it in the right mood; the steady increase of economic specialization has allowed rappers and comedians to do what they do for a living in society. As our population increases, we rely on bizzare system creating suitable employment. And it's this unique co-operation and co-ordination that allowed that growth in population. The cycle continues but to what?
My thread came out of an occasional feeling that nothing makes sense. The hustle out on the streets in the motion resembles wind-up toys. I want to yell out that it's all crazy but then it would seem like it's not them but me who has no sense reality. As I watch the new H2 commercials I think of a Modest Mouse song called "Bury me with it". I laugh at the other people who sing in their cars, because they know they are alone. That's the funny thing about the city, you have privacy. No one knows you or will remember you even if you did happen to see them again. Think about it, we spend so much time alone these days it's scary as hell. In the car your confined in a personal bubble. At home we are in seperate rooms preoccpied with video games, televisions, computers, blah blah blah... Sorry I just now realized I sound like a religious pamphlet. I apologize again.
In short, we are living in our own artifacts. There's too much dead time that we've forgotten what real human interaction is like. This is not a cry for help or a "why are we here?" plea. I guess im just hording bandwidth really.

What if this divine spark is a form of evolution? Maybe humans that evolved in the past had difficulty getting through a hard time such as a large climate change (I can think of one specifically which apparently drastically narrowed our genome). Those who were creating something greater than they were found they were stronger and more willing to endure through what they had to. These people perhaps had a genetic affinity to these kinds of thoughts. My thought is that this is the way it went and the fact that we have region of our brain that responds to religion only makes me think that we continue to evolve on these terms.

fuzyfuzer, I'm not convinced about this neural region for religion, would you mind posting more information about it?

Well of course not; we wouldn't be human otherwise. Of course, your saying that you wouldn't accept an anthropocentric explanation/response does you no good, because there is no way of avoiding it, and the mere fact that you do not want one would apply to your own anthropocentric tendencies (as defined in the latter way).

It's not all about me, though.

Sure it is. Not in the strictest sense of the term, but every thought, stimulus, and emotion you have, every communication you make, must be through yourself, whether you choose to directly acknowledge yourself or not.

Of course, that was my original point. I don't know what your previous comment was about unless you were simply agreeing with me:

"Of course, your saying that you wouldn't accept an anthropocentric explanation/response does you no good, because there is no way of avoiding it, and the mere fact that you do not want one would apply to your own anthropocentric tendencies (as defined in the latter way)."

I don't see what that comment added to the discussion. Being human and rejecting anthropomorphic conceptions regarding the differences between animals and humans is not problematic. As I read your response, I take it you think it is.

The supposed "God-centre" region of the brain is the temporal lobes.

More information here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...donbrain.shtml

I don't think it has the ability to account for religion in its entirity, it only provides an neuro-biological explaination for experinces of "feeling God's presence".
Identifying this feeling with "God" only happens with people who are religious in the first place. Other's treat it just as "someone is in the room with me", "I feel a mystical sensation" or some other interpretation along those lines...

It would be interesting to find out, and I don't know the answer, but I'd lay money on the fact that other mammals have similar regions in their brains too.

Scientific proof that all dogs really do go to heaven? ;) But this is interesting.

Well yes, what I'm saying is that if you're human, and we're following the second definition of anthropocentrism, then an anthropocentric answer is unavoidable. Therefore, rejecting anthropomorphic conceptions would require you to reject all conceptions, and would void any discussion on the matter. At least, that's how I perceive it.

Yes. When I brought up anthropocentrism, I was indicating what, for me, would be the last word on the subject of the differences between humans and animals.

It appears that our exchange has concluded. Good day to you, sir.