Human Evolution

[carlo]

What is your alternative theory to the evolution of the human animal?

[ QUOTE ]
From lightly woven and easily attainable thoughts like this, Bergson produces an idea of evolution that had been expressed previously in a profound mode of thought by W. H. Preuss in his book, Spirit and Matter (1882). Preuss also held that man has not developed from the other natural beings but is, from the beginning the fundamental entity, which had first to eject his preliminary stages into the other living beings before he could give himself the form appropriate for him on earth. We read in the above-mentioned book:

The time should have come . . . to establish a theory of origin of organic species that is not based solely on one-sidedly proclaimed theorems from descriptive natural science, but is also in agreement with the other natural laws that are at the same time the laws of human thinking. What is necessary is a theory that is free from all hypothesizing and that rests solely on strict conclusions from natural scientific observations in the widest sense of the word; a theory that saves the concept of the species according to the actual possibility, but at the same time adapts Darwin's concept of evolution to its own field and tries to make it fruitful. The center of this new theory is man, the species unique on our planet: [censored] sapiens. It is strange that the older observers began with the objects of nature and then went astray to such an extent that they did not find the way that leads to the human being. This aim had been attained by Darwin only in an insufficient and unsatisfactory way as he sought the ancestor of the lord of creation among the animals, while the naturalist should begin with himself as a human being in order to proceed through the entire realm of existence and of thinking and to return finally to humanity. . . . It was not by accident that the human nature resulted from the entire terrestrial evolution, but by necessity. Man is the aim of all telluric processes and every other form that occurs beside him has borrowed its traits from him. Man is the first-born being of the entire cosmos. . . . When his germinating state (man in his potentiality) had come into being, the remaining organic substance no longer had the power to produce further human possibilities. What developed thereafter became animal or plan. . . .

Such a view attempts to recognize man as placed on his ground by the development of modern world conception, that is to say, outside nature, in order to find something in such a knowledge of man that throws light on the world surrounding him. In the little known thinker from Elsfleth, W. H. Preuss, the ardent wish arises to gain a knowledge of the world at once through an insight into man. His forceful and significant ideas are immediately directed to the human being. He sees how this being struggles its way into existence. What it must leave behind on its way, what it must slough off, remains as nature with its entities on a lower stage of evolution surrounding man as his environment. The way toward the riddles of the world in modern philosophy must go through an investigation of the human entity manifested in the self-conscious ego. This becomes apparent through the development of this philosophy. The more one tries to enter into its striving and its search, the more one becomes aware of the fact that this search aims at such experiences in the human soul that do not only produce an insight into the human soul itself, but also kindles a light by means of which a certain knowledge concerning the world outside man can be secured. In looking at the views of Hegel and related thinkers, more recent philosophers came to doubt that there could be the power in the life of thought to spread its light beyond the realm of the soul itself. The element of thought seemed not strong enough to engender an activity that could explain the being and the meaning of the world. By contrast, the natural scientific mode of conception demanded a penetration into the core of the soul that rested on a firmer ground than thought can supply.


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

"Riddles of Philosophy" by Rudolph Steiner

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

how does this 'creating' work, exactly?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll ask Him and get back to you. He probably will want to know if you still blindly accept human evolution, without question, without proof. What should I tell Him?

[m_the0ry]

You were so close, NR.

You for a moment saw that science warmly embraces dissent when the dissent itself is scientific.

Why did you invest your argument in the first link? Does the research paper not stand alone and without crutches?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What is your alternative theory to the evolution of the human animal?


[/ QUOTE ]

Wait and see.

I'm still collating.

Insufficient data.

Does not compute.

All of the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it ironic that this pretty much what an atheist would say about a god?

It's true that there definitely are gaps in the fossil records and we can't nail down exactly when one species evolves into a new species. But when looked at in the overall big picture, evolution really is a given and sooner or later, EVERYONE is gonna have to come around to that fact.

Even putting DNA and genomes aside, visual evidence is all around us. I have nipples and an appendix I don't use. Some birds have feathers they no longer use. Some snakes have remnants of legs they no longer use. Some same type animals have evolved in different colors and sizes to adapt to their environment. Etc., etc., etc.

I really don't understand why evolution is so hard to accept. Even as a layman (who admittedly) doesn't understand all the technical aspects, it makes perfect sense to me. Unlike religion, there is certainly no reason to doubt the experts.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

how does this 'creating' work, exactly?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll ask Him and get back to you. He probably will want to know if you still blindly accept human evolution, without question, without proof. What should I tell Him?

[/ QUOTE ]


So you don't know then. I thought you had an alternative theory?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand why evolution is so hard to accept.


[/ QUOTE ]

I completely accept some forms of evolution - who doesn't? I require something besides myth and speculation for other aspects - anyone who doesn't is dreaming. And if that proof ever arrives, I will accept it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So you don't know then. I thought you had an alternative theory?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sitting with rapt attention at the feet of the great priests of science, eagerly awaiting for their ex cathedra explanation of our apish ancestry. Surely they can show us our daddy?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You for a moment saw that science warmly embraces dissent when the dissent itself is scientific.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no reason to believe that paper has been warmly embraced by the evolutionary community. Perhaps it has. It clearly hasn't been warmly embraced here.

I used the first link to direct Christians to a site that is worthwhile, to give others who didn't want the technical language of the original paper some indication of its meaning in layman's language, and to help state the thesis for debate with anyone who cares to actually debate.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So you don't know then. I thought you had an alternative theory?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sitting with rapt attention at the feet of the great priests of science, eagerly awaiting for their ex cathedra explanation of our apish ancestry. Surely they can show us our daddy?

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok, nevermind then.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Scientist A says human evolution is a fact. He proposes hominid B as the youngest human ancestor, a creature who is clearly not human but which A claims evolved into us.

How did A determine that B is our daddy? By placing him in line through morphology (cranium,jaw,teeth similarities mostly).



[/ QUOTE ]

How do you determine who’s your daddy? You can examine the fossil record and notice similarities, or you can use the Eddie Murphy method and take DNA tests. One can construct a phylogenetic tree using molecular information that matches amazingly well with observed morphological information.

Indeed, this is one of many ways to trivially disprove the theory of evolution. If independent molecular evidence did not match with the fossil record, evolution would be disproved.


link

link