Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At what point did we become human and it was wrong to kill each other?
When did human beings evolve a soul?
I'm going to try and address these two questions and these two questions only as it seems this thread has been heavily saturated with deflected answers, questions, and the like. So, here's my answer and I think many will agree with me although I will only take credit and speak for myself - not everyone else.
At what point did we become human?
Since the title of the thread is called "Evolution Question of the Day," I am assuming you are asking from an evolutionary perspective at what point did we become human beings as opposed to being classified as a different ape-like ancestor and/or creature.
Although I think the theory of evolution is one of the simplest scientific explanations we have in comparison to many other branches of science, I think this is probably the most difficult concept of evolution for people to grasp because all too often I fear we look at evolution as an individual change rather than one that happens on a species level. It's almost as if we have this image of a hairy, primitive ape giving birth to a modern day human being - which is not the case.
I think it was Richard Dawkins, in his book The Ancestor's Tale, who covered this misconception of evolution. In it, he spoke of the English language and how it has clearly evolved from other more primitive languages such as Latin and some Greek. But, his point was that if we ask when did humans become human or who did the first humans breed with, it is much likened to asking "If the English language evolved, who did the first English speakers speak with?"
I think this is a wonderful analogy because it shows a keen description of how things such as language change on a more "speciatic" level than on an individual level. This should also make it very prevalent in our minds that trying to pinpoint precisely when humans became humans is much like asking when the modern-day English language became the modern-day English language.
While we may not and probably won't ever have a precise date that says exactly when humans supplanted their predecessors, we can examine through paleo-archaeological findings the remnants of our great-great-ancestors to determine that it was most likely within the last 100,000 to 200,000 years that we really began to emerge as the species we know it as.
When did human beings evolve a soul?
I must admit that I think you are trying to troll and incite a flame war with this question but I will answer it giving you the benefit of the doubt that this is not what you meant.
In so much as this question goes, I think you really need to give us a more definite description of what it is you mean by 'soul'. When I think of soul, I don't think of the wispy, smoky figure of deified religions that rattles around in our skull. If this is what you mean by 'soul' than I can only presume you are putting the cart before the horse and definitively trying to troll this board.
However, if by 'soul' you are talking about the emotional level of repose that we humans seem to have, our vigor for understanding, our yearning for love, our compassion, our lust, and of course, our misgivings as well than I don't think you're going to find a place in the dirt where we can say that based on the skull-size of certain remains we can make a clear and distinguishing case that 'X' remain had all of those features whereas 'Y' remain didn't.
What I can say is this. Archaeologists did find a necklace (I believe in Africa) that was dated to almost 80,000 years ago. This is an extremely important find because it tells us something about the man (or woman) wearing it all those years ago - He/She cared what others thought of him/her. This, if anything, should clue us in on the broad range of emotional needs required even of primitive man some 80,000 years ago.
I can also say this: Many primates in the wild display a very keen sense of emotion over the loss of loved ones, the protection of their young, companionship and kinship, etc... Which are, in many ways, almost, if not completely, things we would consider 'human' in nature. Because these apes are not our 'ancestors' but our 'cousins' we should be able to recognize that the developed pre-cursors for these traits must have come long before man was completely man; chimp was completely chimp; and so on and so forth.
In other words, if human beings, chimpanzees, gorillas, and the like share a common trait of emotional suffering over the loss of a loved one we should presumably be able to find a common ancestor that all of us derived from and that would probably give us a very good clue as to where that particular trait stemmed from.
However, I also think that because other animals (such as my dog) show a clear despondency when I leave for an extended period of time that they too feel something - which could just mean they evolved that on an independently different level or it could mean that those emotions stem from a much, much earlier point of origin (though, I am somewhat doubtful of this).
If you are looking for absolute answers you will not find them, kdbrich. I can't give you the day, week, and month of a certain year that humans turned into humans or when precisely we developed our emotional needs because they are evolved just as the English language has evolved. What I can give you are very plausible explanations based on a wide range of scientific evidence, some speculation and a hope for further research.
My whole point is that we, as human beings, agree that it is immoral and wrong to murder human beings. If we evolved, then evolution must account for that.
I would like to know how. One poster told me it's because we have a "right to life". I'd like to know why they feel that way. What is that based on?
If you guys can't tell me, just say so.
I supose it does account for it, but only because it allowed us the ability and down-time to sit around and think about our behavior. Better minds through enhanced physiology I think. What's so unlikely about that. Perhaps you just attribute the ability to think morally with a Creator. Evolutionists, stuck with this question, might well answer, morality follows comprehensibility follows physiology follows genetic chemistry.
The right to life argument is possibly just a construct of convenience.
But what's your point of view, kdbrich? Tell us! You've kept us waiting long enough.
It's like that annoying kid that asks a question and then ends every single answer in "but why?"
Coos I agree with you that kdbrich is not entering the discussion he started himself, all he does is criticize the answers the others have offered ( probably because he doesn't like them).
But, never the less, the question why? is the beginning of any philosophy. And as far as I know this still is the philosophy section.
Most atheists are probably pissed off at kdbrich because they approach the op from a scientific corner while kdbrich isn't looking for a scientific answer at all.
To a philosopher the soul and the human consciousness are both abstract constructs which you can't touch or even measure, but are as real as human emotion or the concept of free will.
Originally Posted by kdbrich
Quote:
My whole point is that we, as human beings, agree that it is immoral and wrong to murder human beings. If we evolved, then evolution must account for that.
Unlike morality evolution is not a conscious act.
People can decide to be moral (or not), but we can't decide if we want to evolve or not simply because it is automatic. Like the Christian God the process of evolution isn't concerned at all with the wishes of humanity.
Most atheists are probably pissed off at kdbrich because they approach the op from a scientific corner while kdbrich isn't looking for a scientific answer at all.
.
If by "pissed off" you mean "laughing at", then yes.
As GCSTroop says the evolution of language is a good analogy to speciation. If you try to read 14th century Chaucer, you will find most of it incomprehensible, even though it was modern English at the time. If you go back further, you can find the common root languages that spawned all the different Germanic languages, cousins to modern English. Go back even further and you will find common ancestors to all languages.
But to ask the same question who were the first modern English speakers, it's impossible to give an exact date. The one thing you can be sure of is that the closer you get to more recent times, the more similar the language gets to modern English.
Language development goes through micro-evolution, much quicker than biological evolution. Macro-evolution is just a human invented construct that means the sum of all micro-evolution that finally makes the two diverged species\languages incompatible. Modern German and modern English are considered 2 different languages because native speakers can't understand each other. But there was no specific date in the distant past when this happened, it happened gradually. There would have been many generations that could understand each other, until for whatever reason, usually geographic isolation, they diverged enough for them to become incompatible.
Even from generation to generation we can see the changes in language, just listen to the dialogue of teenagers compared to their grandparents. Come back in another 1000 years time and 'new English' or whatever we call it, will be unintelligible to us now. But there will be no first speakers of the 'new English' language, it's a gradual process, but given enough time, that is how divergance happens, just like speciation.
As to the 2nd question, I would like to pose the same question for a different species. How come Piranhas seem to co operate and don't eat each other during a feeding frenzy. Are these morals? Is it because they have a soul? You could phrase the exact same question for the vast majority of animal behaviour on the planet.
One human could hunt down a rabbit (for example) and would have to feed himself and his offspring from said rabbit. Offspring die because they do not have enough food to sustain them.
A hunting party of humans, say four or five, could take down something bigger. A deer, turkey, etc. Larger game more often means food is more readily available, offspring thrive and the society - *gasp* - evolves!
If by "pissed off" you mean "laughing at", then yes.
How about vexed?
I see no reason to laugh at someone just because he has a different philosophy or believes in something I don't believe in. Then again, I don't know if I'm a theist, atheist or agnostic.
Nor do I care to find out.
Originally Posted by SuSuSushi How about vexed?
I see no reason to laugh at someone just because he has a different philosophy or believes in something I don't believe in. Then again, I don't know if I'm a theist, atheist or agnostic.
Nor do I care to find out.
All I try to be is as pragmatic as possible.
I'm not laughing about his differing philosophy, nor the fact that he believes something other than what I do. Far from it. I laugh because his modus operandi is always blatantly the same, and because he apparently thinks it's brilliantly intelligent to attempt side-step us every time we give him a straight answer to his questions. I laugh because as soon as I see a new thread posted by him, I know exactly how it's going to go.
Kind of like how everyone always laughs at "Ta-da! The aristocrats!" even though we already know the punchline.
One human could hunt down a rabbit (for example) and would have to feed himself and his offspring from said rabbit. Offspring die because they do not have enough food to sustain them.
A hunting party of humans, say four or five, could take down something bigger. A deer, turkey, etc. Larger game more often means food is more readily available, offspring thrive and the society - *gasp* - evolves!
5 people could even take down a mammoth and eat like kings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
probably because he doesn't like them).
And as far as I know this still is the philosophy section.
Unlike morality evolution is not a conscious act. 
Like the Christian God the process of evolution isn't concerned at all with the wishes of humanity.
How about vexed?
