Firstly: as others have pointed out, a clear definition of ‘good’ is needed before this aspect of the debate can proceed.
Secondly: it’s not at all a trivial issue. If we claim that, by some objective standard of ‘good’, humans have done great works of good, what are they?
I would say that, with regards to the earth’s biology as a unified macrosystem, human beings have been the most destrucive, ergo the most inferior species on the planet. Homo Sapiens is the only species that has not only the ability but also the will to destroy the entire system. For all we know, we’re the only planet in the universe with life on it and we could hardly have a worse species in control of its destiny. Dinosaurs lived for millions of years without fucking up the earth. The humans have done it in just a few centuries. Give me the dinosaurs any day.
I’ve started a poll in IMHO.
Define “good” re: things that humans have done as a species. Cite examples.
I’ll throw out one total off the cuff “good” thing here.
The Golden Gate Bridge
If you haven’t seen it, you should.
How is that good? Why is it good?
It is good because humans find it aesthetically appealing? That seems rather circular… much like the argument that the purpose of human life is to aid other humans.
Also, as defined by whom? Ask a human if humans have done good, and you’ll get a biased response.
If you think that humans are the noblest creatures ever to grace this planet, I know a number of cats that will disagree with you.
I think the whole point of the question is answered by this statement, only a human can conceive the question and provide an answer, biased or not.
Some people do not believe in evolution because:
A) They refuse to believe it for religous reasons
B) They think that evolution is not an exact science.
Personally, I think that natural selction occures, and so does adaptation, but only to a degree. In school biology textbooks, it is tought that whales evolved from dog-like creatures after several billion years. That is crap. There are instinces, however, where minor evolutionary jumps occure, like the european pepper moth event during the industrial revolution.
So to sum it all up I think that evolution is true, but not nearly to the degree to which it is accepted by modern scientists.
Here is my problem with the religous people. Now, bear in mind that I am moderatly religous myself.
In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve. From the first two humans all other humans were made. Today, however, we see that there are a varity of types of humans. No person can deny that black people are different than white people in both genotype and phenotype. The same concept applies for oriental people as well. Therfore humans, between the time of creation and now, have evolved somewhat, and you cannot deny that even if you are religous.
My two cents.
Such a claim was not included in any text I’ve ever read, but the concept of signifigant and visible changes in morphology is a workable argument supported by the fossil record. The problems arise with how the argument is presented and described. “Dog-like” in what way? Were they using a size comparison? This might illustrate the caution that must be taken when describing these ideas. The “ape like” common ancesters of humans, as they were first described by scientists, resulted in the misconception that we evolved from the apes that we see at the zoo. Real-world comparisons are tempting to use when describing evolution, but their use also risks misinterpretation of the data.
Without digging through some texts, I won’t be able to tell you what is currently believed to be the morphology of the common mammalian ancestor to whales and dogs, but I’m fairly certain that it does not closely resemble either group.
My bad…my first sentence should read:
“Such a claim was not included in any text I’ve ever read, but the concept of signifigant and visible changes in morphology [over time] is a workable argument supported by the fossil record.”
Dostromin, how do you explain retrogenes?
True, but the fact that humans have this ability is of little importance to other creatures. Convince a beaver that you can ask and answer questions, and I’m sure its response would be “Yeah, and? I can build dams with my ass. At least that’s useful.”
I’m not saying that humans are inferior, but that those qualities that make us feel superior are qualities to which only humans give value.
Well, then the only logical path I can see for you is immediate suicide so you’ll no longer have the responsibility of being a member of the most destrutive species on Earth.
Alternately, you could take it as a noble mission to exterminate as many humans as possible, thus protecting the Earth from their evil influence.
As a bonus, their carcasses and yours will provide a good meal to the relatively noble worms and flies.
Precisely.
Unfortunately, humans’ self-preservation instincts makes it virtually impossible to convince them that they should be destroyed.
Why “only to a degree”? What prevents adaptation from occuring on a larger scale, Dostromin?
Causing thousands of useless animals to become extinct.
What’s that about stupid questions, again?
“So many people”? Is this really a widespread problem?
10000 years is a good rough figure for the start of civilization, and so I guess you COULD say “modern Man” started then.
Are we really arguing here? My point is the beaver ain’t never going to “say” anything. So of course, when you ask what is valuable only a human can answer.
So if a person was able to operate on reason alone they would just off themselves right there and then? :dubious:
Seems like that could be formulated into an argument for having faith, at least on an emotional level…