Evolution and Specialness of Humanity

I never understood why it matters how we got to be the way we are. Specialness seems like it would be an inherent quality of an object, not something that hinges on its origins.If we found out diamonds were made by a different process than the presently understood one, would it make them anyless special?

quote:

---

Specialness doesn't hinge directly on how a certain thing came to be, but in our case with humanity I feel that it mos def does. The process of survival eliminates a meaningful result of humanity's stuggles, relationships.

---

How so? A large part of our evolution is the result of differential reproductive success. Why does that affect my relationships?

quote:

---

If the world knew or thought that it was really about survival, I doubt people would bother caring about anything, and Huxley's imagination would run wild.

---

The world isn't really about survival. Just because "survival of the fittest" ( i don't like that phrase btw) is the mechanism by which we evolved doesn't tell us anything about how we should act. It shouldn't affect relationships at all. They are what they are regardless of how they came to be.

quote:

---

Say for a moment I believed you, I believed that evolution was what happened to produce man. Where is the purpose in our lives here? Is it in the stuggle to survive? I don't see purpose in survival, I see only the competing of indivuals.

---

Again, differential reproductive success is a mechanism by which you evolved. It has nothing to do with your"purpose".What do you think purpose is anyway? Do you think it is what you are "made for"?Let's say for instance evolution gives you no purpose. The other alternative is that God created you to clean up his magical horse's shit. In the one scenerio you would have no purpose because you weren't created for anything, in the latter you were created to clean up shit.Which one would you want?Another thought experiment. Say you are a result of evolution and have no purpose. You, then, create a robot to clean up your shit. You have no purpose but the robot does.Which one would you want to be?You may object, if I have no purpose than how can I give purpose to another being. It would be purposeless by virtue of myself being purposeless. This may be a reasonable stance to take, but it would be analogous to your relationship with God. God was not created, so has no purpose. You would have no purpose by virtue of God having no purpose.To me, purpose is much different than what you were designed or created to do. It is something a self conscious being must decide for itself. You give yourself a purpose, nobody else does. (And if you want a purpose that bad, you can come clean my house all the time. That might make you feel better.)This message has been edited by JustinC, 10-06-2005 09:18 PM

quote:

---

It's intentions of care and feeling behind them, become a mechanism for survival, and is felt no farther than beyond that. That's why I called it fake. It isn't as real as it should have been or really is; because of creation rather than evo.

---

Why does it matter if the feeling we call love is the result of natural selection or was created?Who cares if it is the result of differential reproductive success or it was created by the a whimsical fiat of a magical being? Please explain to me why the one is better than the other.It's the same fucking feeling anyway you look at it.This reminds me of a paper I wrote couple years ago. The question was""If we found out that we evolved by the mechanism of "survival of the kindest" rather than "survival of the fittest" (which was supposed to be synonomous with "survival of the selfish"), how would that affect society?"Besides the oversimplication of evolutionary biology, the answer was quite simple. Finding out how we evolved isn't going to the change what we are. The only people it would affect are those that want to live their lives in accordance with the mechanism by which they evolved (natural is good, i.e, the naturalistic fallacy). No one really does this, so it would have very little influence at all, besides intellectual circles.

quote:

---

Creo:

​

In the end what love I have shown to people is real, is about the moment, about me, and about anyone. The love means more to myself and the reciver/s. (excluding the creator for obvious reasons)

---

How can you call this a reply? You are begging the question. Why is it real? Why did God create love, and why is that reason better than it being evolved?Why would you rather the answer to be:Love is a feeling I have because a magical being created me to have it.

quote:

---

Evo:

​

In the end the love I have given is part of a series of social interaction to advance the species.

---

The end of what? Love is a feeling we all experience; that is the end of it.Why do we have this feeling? There are multiple explanations, but it will not change the fact that we have this feeling.It is real either way.

quote:

---

Love can't evolve.

---

Clap...Clap...Clap...Bravo. You've demolished my position once again. You must be some sort of a philosophy wizard.Here's my reply:Love can't be created by a magical being.See how easy it is to make bare assertions.

I didn't really say I have definitive evidence that love evolves. I would say that since it is clear we are evolved creatures, just like all life, then it is plausible that love (a feeling) evolved also.This is besides the point, though. Your whole argument was that if love is an evolved trait it would be fake compared to if it was created by a magical being.Humans experience a feeling called love. Two explanations are at our disposal:1.) It evolved just like all of our traits2.) It was created by a magical being.You initially argued that if (1) was true love would be fake, and if (2) was true love would be real. I asked to substantiate this claim several times, which you seem to be ignoring.Your last post was a bare assertion that love cannot evolve. Your argument seemed to be "(1) cannot be true because love cannot evolve" which amounts to tautology. The previous paragraph summarized what we were discussing.

quote:

---

Depends upon your initial perspective. The way I see it, two explanations are also possible:
1)Love as an emotion was imagined, defined, and quantified through human wisdom and learning. A finite, limited source.

---

I'm not sure people can just imagine an emotion. We are obviously describing something when we say "love", though maybe it is on a continuum of affection.

quote:

---

2) Love was initiated and imparted by the Holy God Who created this universe and Who Is the very source of definition for all words, ideas, concepts, and feelings. An infinite, eternal source.

---

This just sounds like the my second option in my previous post: A magical being created it.Also, those two options weren't meant to be the two exclusive choices, they were just the ones we were discussing.