Thoughts from after last night's Jenny Vaudeville show:
Item 1:
It seems to me that the belief that humans and apes share a common ancestor is as much a matter of faith as is the belief in intelligent design. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that evolution isn't real. "Evolution" is a vague term that describes a very basic concept - the change of the genetic makeup of a population through new generations being introduced and old ones dying out. We know it happens in the wild and we can produce the same results in controlled conditions. Not believing in that is like not believing in electricity - and I don't even mean not believing that electrons are conducted through wires, but not believing that you can make light by flipping a switch.
The implication - and the simple fact of the matter - is that humans as a species do not have the same characteristics as they once did, nor does any other species. However, we know very little about the specifics of humanity's ancestry - much less than evolutionary theorists like to believe. What we have to go on is genetic similarities - DNA, embrionic development, and things like that - which is entirely circumstantial. Sure, humans are primates, and share the qualities of that classification of creature, but the classifications are not by ancestry. To ensure survival, different creatures can develop similar characteristics independent of each other. For example, flamingos and penguins are both birds; does that mean that they shared an ancestor? Also, eagles and tigers both have claws; do they have a common ancestor? (Honestly, I don't know, but I do know that the missing eagle/tiger link must have been AWESOME.)
Even the arguement that previous generations of humans showed characteristics that we usually associate with apes does not really prove anything. A predecessor to both apes and humans would not necessarily have the specific adaptations of either. What some people seem to forget is that there wasn't a point at which apes stopped in their evolutionary tracks while humans continued to develop. Even if previous generations of humans were more apelike, that doesn't really mean anything unless previous generations of apes were more humanlike. Until a definite link is found, it's all hearsay anyway.
My point is that the arguement that the similarities between apes and men are so great that it is very unlikely that they developed independently is the same arguement as the mechanisms required for consciousness being so complex that they are very unlikely have happened by chance. They both have valid points, but I'm sick of the assumption that reality is the result of only the most likely events having happened.
Item 2:
Molly said that my hair reminded her of Veronica Lake.
...
...
Molly is awesome.
Item 3:
The problem with personal interactions is that people won't let you know what they really want from you. You have to guess. I'm guilty of that, too. The sad fact is that most people don't really want anything from you, least of all a discussion about the problems with personal interactions. Still, there is often something you can do - the other person might not even be aware of it - something that will make someone else's life just a little bit nicer. It would be nice if I could figure out what that was more often.
Item 4:
If Jen Dziura ever needs a slogan along the lines of "I like Ike" or "I'm Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs," I think a good one would be "I Desire Dziura." What do you think? You know, it doesn't matter what you think. It's brilliant. I need to get an "I Desire Dziura" t-shirt.
Item 1:
It seems to me that the belief that humans and apes share a common ancestor is as much a matter of faith as is the belief in intelligent design. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that evolution isn't real. "Evolution" is a vague term that describes a very basic concept - the change of the genetic makeup of a population through new generations being introduced and old ones dying out. We know it happens in the wild and we can produce the same results in controlled conditions. Not believing in that is like not believing in electricity - and I don't even mean not believing that electrons are conducted through wires, but not believing that you can make light by flipping a switch.
The implication - and the simple fact of the matter - is that humans as a species do not have the same characteristics as they once did, nor does any other species. However, we know very little about the specifics of humanity's ancestry - much less than evolutionary theorists like to believe. What we have to go on is genetic similarities - DNA, embrionic development, and things like that - which is entirely circumstantial. Sure, humans are primates, and share the qualities of that classification of creature, but the classifications are not by ancestry. To ensure survival, different creatures can develop similar characteristics independent of each other. For example, flamingos and penguins are both birds; does that mean that they shared an ancestor? Also, eagles and tigers both have claws; do they have a common ancestor? (Honestly, I don't know, but I do know that the missing eagle/tiger link must have been AWESOME.)
Even the arguement that previous generations of humans showed characteristics that we usually associate with apes does not really prove anything. A predecessor to both apes and humans would not necessarily have the specific adaptations of either. What some people seem to forget is that there wasn't a point at which apes stopped in their evolutionary tracks while humans continued to develop. Even if previous generations of humans were more apelike, that doesn't really mean anything unless previous generations of apes were more humanlike. Until a definite link is found, it's all hearsay anyway.
My point is that the arguement that the similarities between apes and men are so great that it is very unlikely that they developed independently is the same arguement as the mechanisms required for consciousness being so complex that they are very unlikely have happened by chance. They both have valid points, but I'm sick of the assumption that reality is the result of only the most likely events having happened.
Item 2:
Molly said that my hair reminded her of Veronica Lake.
...
...
Molly is awesome.
Item 3:
The problem with personal interactions is that people won't let you know what they really want from you. You have to guess. I'm guilty of that, too. The sad fact is that most people don't really want anything from you, least of all a discussion about the problems with personal interactions. Still, there is often something you can do - the other person might not even be aware of it - something that will make someone else's life just a little bit nicer. It would be nice if I could figure out what that was more often.
Item 4:
If Jen Dziura ever needs a slogan along the lines of "I like Ike" or "I'm Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs," I think a good one would be "I Desire Dziura." What do you think? You know, it doesn't matter what you think. It's brilliant. I need to get an "I Desire Dziura" t-shirt.
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
illstabyou:
You lie like a rug -- I thought your screenname was Sid (or Syd). Either way great chatting with you last night!
southernbelle:
Wow...that's very deep!!!