So according to the religious, we humans are special and our ability to care for others is what makes us special and unlike those filthy disgusting animals, right?!? Well not so fast. It turns out we humans can trace our altruism to the animals and even some that aren't particularly close, like Elephants and Chimps.
I honestly don't know why being descendent from animals is so bad. I mean there is a ton of evidence to support this, Creationists might not like it and often ignore it, but it's there and you can't argue with the genes. Just because you believe your related to George Washington because your gran told you so doesn't mean it's so. To them, being specially created dirt or mud seems like e better plan. You know, if I was making something special I would maybe start out with something that didn't contain the shit from other animals... you know like gold or diamonds or maybe a flower... but the mud? Have you ever driven by actual wild mud? That is some foul wet dirt! I mean sure according to evolution we started out as muck as well, but that muck, through trial and error, evolved into all the life on the planet... To me that's way more special and awe inspiring than being blinked into existence by a magic Genie... and not even a hot one.
Best!
Brett
This just in, the mechanism for alturism in animals is called Kin Selection, been around for a bit actually.
9 comments:
I agree. Yes, my beliefs and yours differ, but I whole heartedly believe in Evolution(it's a non issue).
As you say, to just begin to imagine how minimal things were, one single atom, then in one fell swoop, a massive explosion whose effects are still being felt billions of years later, the beginnings of the universe came into being.
Then from the primordial ooze, a living, breathing organism which was to evolve into every creature that exists on this planet, including ourselves. I know the word 'miraculous' is something the scientific community hates, but it is the only way to percieve such an amazing series of events.
By the way, I know animals are capable of love. A video from Japan showing one dog who would not leave his injured dog companion shows just that. It's on youtube, and both dogs were rescued.
And may I also say RIP to the polar bear, Knut, who died either today, or yesterday.
Four years old, and one of the first polar bears to survive being raised by a human, in captivity, without any help from his mother. He was rejected by his mother as a cub.
I know this sounds odd to offer RIP's for a bear, but alot of artists used Knut for reference whenever drawing polar bears, be it cubs or adults, as he was one of the most photographed animals in the world. He had also become a celebrity to many of those who followed his progress. And heck, I like animals. So sue me. :)
(And if Brett dislikes my post he is free to delete it. It's his(and Jess's) blog.)
Again correlation, not causation; big diff. It is unscientific and does not prove evolution, it would fit just as well with a creationist perspective. It would only be possible proof if you could trace an evolutionary genetic pathway. Still it is an interesting observation.
@ Steve
I suppose one could say that the whole 'God made Adam out of Clay' premise, and the evolution 'We came from mud'fact have similar points of origin (mud) but that does not mean that Evolution is a total lie, it just means that those who wrote the Bible/ Torah/ Koran etc understood where life began.
I mean, as evidenced by Greek Mythology and the story of Prometheus, the Greeks knew that the liver regenerated itself when injured or when part of the organ had to be removed. But like a lecturer of mine told me, the dark ages came along, and for some unknown reason which has yet to be determined, an enormous amount of knowledge, be it medical, scientific, historical, artistic, musical (hell, the list goes on and on) was lost. It took us centuries to learn it again, and some of that knowledge we have only re-learned recently, again, I point to the liver. We now know that we can remove a section of a liver, give it to a compatible donor, and not only will the section grow into a new liver in the recipient, but the donor's liver will regenerate the removed area. They can then, depending on their health, donate again.
Good points M.O.R.,
I never really made the connection with the liver thing.
I think it gets confused on this blog sometimes what I believe about evolution. I disagree with materialistic neo-Darwinian evolution.
God could have guided evolutionary advances, that is a possibility. I don't know one way or the other.
I know a random unguided survival of the fittest gradual progression from the simple to more advance life forms through mutations is pretty much impossible from the known facts. The only way it becomes plausible is if you eliminate any and every other possibility. If it is the only one (which can only be done through faith in Naturalism) then and only then does it become plausible. At that point it could be called a scientific fact, but then the term “scientific fact” has been tainted, not the theory vindicated.
It is like taking a multiple choice question test where you are instructed to choose the best answer and your only option is:
A. Neo-Darwinian Evolution
M.O.R.
No worries, poor polar bear. I like polar bears. Did you ever see the wild polar bear/Grizzle hybrid? Cool!
Steve,
There is a clear evolutionairy pathway from monkeys, to apes to us. This is done with fossils, and genetics. You accept other genetic findings yet this one you ignore, covering your eyes and ears won't change the facts.
It's been proven beyond any doubt that things change over time. Even things like your religion. Why is it so hard to realize EVERYTHING changes, Nothing is stagnant. ALL the evidence shows this to be true, and all the hand waving and dancing you do around the facts won't change it. The only thing YOU can come up with is some sort of invisible, untestable outside force that's outside reality but supposedly loves us and refuses to confirm his existence with anyone who's lived in the last 2000 years.
Humans be trippin.
Best,
Brett-not going to debate; if you are referencing the monkeys to apes to us genetic paper published in 2006 it has been refuted; I can look for the link to the paper where they break down the actual genetic sequencing, kind of dry reading but still it was cool to see how the genetics showed both similarities and radical differences.
That is kind of the problem with most evolutionary papers/studies/articles. They get a whole lot of hoopla when they are announced, but no one makes a press story out of them when they fall apart under further investigation.
Totally off topic for the post, but I thought you might get a giggle about Pole Dancing for Jesus, as shared on HuffPo and YouTube: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/21/pole-dancing-for-jesus_n_838653.html
Steve,
Just because a few people disagree with a paper does not mean it's been refuted. The OVER WHELMING fact is that 99.99% of actual scientists support evolution. I'm not actually talking about a single paper Steve. I'm talking about LOTS and LOTS of papers. I wouldn't base ANY idea on a SINGLE paper.
For some reason you seem to think it you disagree with some science fact that that suddenly makes it false?!? And once again the people who you seem to rely on for their 'expert' scientific minds aren't biologists, and I'd hesitate to call a any of them scientists. A minority view and in this case a VERY minority view doesn't make it the correct view simply because it agrees with you. For crying out loud there are people who still think the earth is flat! That's a minority view, do you agree with them?
JL,
I'll have to check that out when I have a few free moments, but that does sound fun!
Best!
Brett
Post a Comment