Well, of course, because it obviously couldn’t have come from small, asteroid-sized planetessimals smacking into one another until they built up a clump big enough to have significant gravity, whereupon the big clump drew other planetessimals to it and kept on growing thereby until it had sucked up most of the planetessimals from its neighborhood. (And then got hit by a Mars-sized planetessimal which blasted a huge chunk out of it that went on to form the Moon, but let’s not go there.)
Oh, and before you ask: The initial piles of space rocks that made up the planetessimals came from an earlier super-nova that fused lighter elements into heavier elements (like silicon) in its core and then blasted them out into space. And the first supernovae came from interstellar clouds of hydrogen gas collapsing in on themselves due to their own gravitation. And the hydrogen atoms came from high-energy quark plasma that quickly cooled and condensed out into protons (hydrogen nuclei) and electrons by processes similar to those we’ve observed in particle accelerators. And the quark plasma came from the big bang.
And the big bang came from zero-point quantum vacuum fluctuations.
No logical problems there. You’re free to disagree, but I have not engaged in any fallacies.
You’re changing the topic from the OP a bit, to discuss the origins of the universe rather than of human beings. I don’t know what the customs are here, but it may be polite to address the beginning of the universe in a different thread from the origin of human beings.
If it’s alright with everyone else, I’ll address the issue briefly here, and we can take it up in another thread if that’s not sufficient.
Things creating themselves out of nothing: we do not know whether this is possible or not, given our limited knowledge of the beginning of the universe. We also do not know whether there was “nothing” before the beginning of the universe. Your assertion that I claimed it was a fact that things created themselves out of nothing is false. I have said no such thing.
We don’t want to consider where everything came from: Also false. I have said no such thing. AFAIK, there is no evidence about where everything came from before the Big Bang. We can speculate, if we like, but there is no way to falsify any hypothesis prior to the Big Bang because there is no evidence.
Again, now you are addressing the beginnings of life rather than the beginnings of the human species, but I’ll humor you. Abiogenesis is the development of living matter from non-living matter. It is a hypothesis, not a fact (you really should read up on scientific terminology).
Actually, I never mentioned abiogenesis until this post. My posts were about the origin of human beings, like the OP. You’re the one who brought it up.
So why exclude the intelligent design arguement? I’ll respond with a question: Unless there is objective evidence for an intelligent designer, why consider the intelligent designer arguement? Why consider the Invisible Pink Unicorn hypothesis unless there is objective evidence for an Invisible Pink Unicorn? Why consider the Santa Claus hypothesis unless there is objective evidence for Santa Claus? I could go on…
“…Dark Matter, every pound of which weighs ten thousand pounds” -Futurama
I think the other posters on this OP have satisfactorily argued against the idea that man has taken himself out of the predator/prey cycle, but I think the statement started out with a valid point, but was diverted by a bad example. The point that humans do not fit into the system is not characterized by our being in or out of the food chain, but by our being aware of ourselves as unique entities and the desire to understand where we came from and where we are going, something no other species seems to possess. Are humans “extra” in this regards?
We can speculate where we got our opposable thumbs but there seems to be no trail back in history showing us where we got our self-awareness. Are humans “extra”?
Thank you Iswote for clarifying for me…this is what I meant to say to begin with.
People can say that we are very similar to primates, but when you consider HOW much different we are from them technologically, mentally, etc etc…there really is no comparison.
Also, I think the biome would function perfectly on its own without us. We are the only lifeform on Earth whose population growth is unchecked. I know other lifeforms like roaches’ populations grow and grow and grow, but there is always a ‘check’: be it for supply, predators, etc. In this respect, I feel we have ‘beaten the system’…any thoughts?
That isn’t what the question becomes at all. Certainly you are trolling or just being cantankerous. The question is, “Physically we have roots in history with other species, but only our species has sentience. Why is ours the only known species with it?”
Why are we the only sentient species? Why not? Maybe we are just the first (on this planet), but given enough time other species may develop higher intelligence also. Assuming we don’t prevent them from doing so.
If Neanderthals were a separate species, then we certainly have not been the only sentients.
I often wonder about a related question – why didn’t the dinosaurs develop a technology-capable intelligence? They had more than twice as much time (150M vs. 65M yrs) and bipedalism.
a couple of facts that you all might find useful for this debate.
the popular term for what used to be known as the food chain is now “trophic web”
Harold Urey and Stanley Miller (an astronomer at the U. of Chicago and one of his grad students, respectively) were the ones that performed the abiogenesis experiments demonstrating that the basic building blocks of life (Amino Acids) could arise from a “lifeless” environment with the addition of a little external energy (lightning)
current theories like for this reaction to have occurred in bubbles on the surface of the primordial ocean, thus allowing for convient membrane synthesis (these little hypothetical critters are called protobionts)
chimps and humans share ~98.4% of their nuclear DNA, on par with what is normally observed when comparing species in the same genus.
-ellis
(facts gleaned from my recent biology education, and a basic bio text i have lying around, “Biology” by P. Raven and G. Johnson, pub. by McGraw Hill, 1999)
In an attempt to answer the OP. Currently humans appear very distanced and detached from nature. It helps to look in the past and at the whole picture. Humans are the only animal that has the ability to consciously change it’s environment. Like all other animals we are products of our environment, we can not rise above it. We can however alter it. Once it is altered, our environment has a different effect on us, we can alter it more, it alters us more, on and on until… we feel that we are separate from our environment and our extra. Now this doesn’t answer the question of exactly how we got here, but it skirts around it saying that what we do and who we are is perfectly natural given the circumstances. True no other species has com close, but we have only come close recently. There were millennia where we were trapped in the same cycle.
In response to
Again you are looking at it in a slightly colored manner. Sometimes other species grow so much that the only thing that checks them is starvation. That is certainly a check for us. Since we are able to * alter* our environment, we can skirt around that. I would not say we have beaten the system, we are as much a part of the natural world as anything else.
There are limits to our growth. The Earth has some (as yet unquantified… some people believe that it may be as high as 100 billion, most believe much, much less) carrying capacity for human beings. We just haven’t hit those limits. So far, humans monopolize about 40% of the productivity of the Earth’s terrestrial biosphere and about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the Earth’s ice-free land surface (see Vitousek, P. M., 1994. Beyond Global Warming: Ecology and Global Change. Ecology Vol. 75(7):1861-1876.). These resources are limited and can prevent our growth in the future.
If we move out into space to colonize/terraform, like in science fiction, then we’ll be less limited.
“It seemed like a good idea at the time
…but then again, so did the atomic bomb.” -Charles Sismondo
The “extra” argument can be thought of as humans specialising in the cognitive niche: (to paraphrase Dawkins) consciousness gives us the advantage of attacking organisms in this generation that can only respond in subsequent ones. Rather than developing superior predatory behaviours via natural selection, reasoning power enables us to figure it out now and eat rather well. This does require huge costs and we may turn out not to be as dominant as it now seems: simple little organisms adapt quickly and may yet trump us. Vancomyacin is our most powerful antibiotic, yet it is already superceded by the little buggers. Don’t get too cocky, as yet we’re just a blip.
