Ok, I'll bite. Here's the post itself, plus my comments.
Tusko, thanks for your input, I like you already. (I remember your name but I don't think we've had many exchanges).
.
quote:
I agree, but isn't it also true to say that for 99% of the existence of the human race, these things were utterly unreachable by humans too? Its easy to forget that for that human societies that use agriculture and undergo industrialisation are not necessarily representative of the majority of human societies that have existed (and still exist)
That's true and I concede it. I've been thinking about this from a logical perspective, for some time and I think that there's something not in the equation at the moment, and that is ability.
We have to take the human species as a whole, and all the other species as a whole, with visualizing the fourth dimension of time as well. This is because abilities humans have in the present would still represent abilities in the past, but without any technological advancement, these abilities would still exist - they just wouldn't show.
This doesn't seem to mean anything. What abilities? How do you know this? You're not being specific or in any way detailed enough to describe your position.
Also, the quality of any differences can still be recognised because we know that life, and all species must take time to develop. (Think about this a bit)
So the question becomes, if we are judging between species, then shouldn't we ask what that species is capable of?
What differences? This variable has appeared literally from nowhere; what does it have to do with the development of life? Are you referring to the differences in biology, behaviour, habitat? What do you mean by quality? You're again being too vague - I have no idea what you're actually discussing.
Final thought;
We are, best described, as a WHOLE - as uniquely different from other animals.
Other organisms may well have unique differences - but we are uniquely different unlike any other organism, because other organisms are not - as a whole, uniquely different and also, their abilities have been shown to not be of equivalent value/quality to that of homo sapiens. To explain what I mean; A hammer head shark may well have a unique difference from other sharks, and all other none-sharks. The former it's hammer-head, the latter - it's a shark. And this can be said about all species.
I'm afraid I had trouble reading this. You are saying that organisms have unique differences, but are not uniquely different. This, as far as I am aware, is a contradiction. Again, the variable described only as 'differences' is introduced - and I still don't entirely know what you mean by it. Your explanation doesn't in fact explain anything.
But humans are uniquely different from all other organisms in a way that other animals aren't.
Example; Animals might be unique in what they can do. But we are unique in what we can't do. I think this fundamental difference is a big example of how we are uniquely different. If a shark cannot fly - then that's the end of that. If a rat can only run fast, then that's the end of that. But when it comes to what we can't do, then we have an ability to defy our very natural limits, and do it anyway. Example, if we can't fly - we make planes. If we can't go fast, we build vehicles.
This at least I can understand. You appear to be saying, in an odd and confused way, that humans are special because we can make objects - which, if I recall correctly, is essentially the idea that humans are special because we can make tools to make other tools.
(Aside: that idea is not mine, but I can't remember where I learned of it. As far as I know, it is the notion that humans developed into the advanced state we are today because, not only can we make tools to solve a particular problem, but we can also make tools to make more advanced tools. Apes can make tools - like using a branch to knock down bananas - but they don't use a sharpened stone to cut off a branch to start with. We can, like inventing a screwdriver to help make a car engine.
Of course, I would also say that the development of advanced communication played a huge part too, as it allowed complex ideas to be transmitted, and most importantly, allowed them to persist between generations.)
This is our invisible ability, and it is evidenced through the fourth dimension of time, because it is not tangeable. It is essentialy, our ability to think/design like no other organism, and THEN put it into the practicle, and mold the shapes in our heads, from the world around us. This is the clincher for me. Our minds can overcome our nature. Is that a qualititive difference? If not - then nothing will ever qualify for this illusive title.
Example; All homo sapiens can be taught to use advanced technology, and all homo sapiens, and/or 99%, have
the ability to do so, even if 99% haven't the means.
I shown this with the painter's analogy. Another example is time limitation, or not having the means to show your ability for lack of material/time.
Example; The first homo sapien could be as great as Leanardo Davinci, but his ability is rendered moot at that time in history, for lack of means/time and essentially knowledge, which is not an ability but rather an accumulation of gained information.
Einstein would have been just as brilliant thousands and thousands of years ago. His abilities might not have shown back then though, through lack of means. Our abilities don't change, but the times do. Time doesn't mean we don't have unique qualitative ability.
This is simply meandering, stream-of-thought musings that in essence repeat what you're already said. None of it is properly explained.
Mike, a POTM should be coherent, well-formed and concise. If someone reads one of your posts and doesn't grasp what you're trying to say
because you haven't explained yourself sufficiently, then it does not deserve a POTM nomination.
Neverhteless, I personally offer an objective comment - that people should read the thread for themselves, or try and understand message #60. And I hereby hope they can conclude for themselves, without me appealing to them.
I have tried and failed. Though I am not normally cruel, I feel I must be in this case.
Mike, I've read a lot of your posts. I had you on my list of posters-to-watch-out-for, because you generally had something interesting or insightful to say. But recently I have noticed too many snide comments and back-handed insults directed at evolutionists from you; in fact, it appears to have started when you posted your "I'm still a creationist" thread. You've changed from being a rational, pleasant YEC whose posts I enjoyed reading to being irrational, abrasive and sometimes downright rude.
For all I know, it's an entirely new person using your ID. Frankly I don't care. All I know is that this ridiculous act of arrogance - of nominating
one of your own posts for POTM - is the final straw; I am now convinced that your posts are not worth reading anymore. The Mike the Wiz that I once respected seems to be gone.
I am sorry.
The Rockhound
™ Version 4.2