The Evolution of Mankind

[Walter]

Due to some recent discussions I am curious what you all think about the evolution of mankind.

If there is enough interest, I would like to examine and discuss the biological, cultural and social evolution of mankind from it's earliest beginnings - probably some 4.4 millions of years ago - until today.

[Celebthôl]

LOL Gee i wonder where this idea came from :D

Well i believe that our bodies and how we think were created by evolution, but our souls were the process of God...kinda hard to explain...

[Beleg]

God created Mankind as an original, and entirely seperate entity from the other beasts, [in a matter of speaking]

And from where did you get this reference that Mankind was created about 4.4 Million years ago?

[Celebthôl]

From evolution, the first men appeared about thenish...

[Eriol]

My opinion (as you know :D) is a mix of option 1 and option 3. We actually evolved from animals into Homo sapiens; and there was a supernatural influence at some point (bridging the metaphysical gap between man and animal)

The two opinions can be held simultaneously because there is no biological gap. The biological evolution of man was according to the laws of evolution, I think. But when it comes to spiritual concepts, evolution is not enough -- some supernatural influence is required to explain what we see.

[Lhunithiliel]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
LOL Gee i wonder where this idea came from :D

Well i believe that our bodies and how we think were created by evolution, but our souls were the process of God...kinda hard to explain...
I'd accept this only if someone will be so kind as to tell me:

1/And where did God come from in order to create our souls?

2/ What is a soul?

Then, I guess, I could possible dare post one or two of my points of view.

:rolleyes:

[Elendil3119]

I believe that God created mankind in His image, as explained in a literal (*cough*Eriol*cough*;)) interpretation of Genesis in the Bible.
1/And where did God come from in order to create our souls?
According to belief systems such as Christianity and Islam, God is, was, and will be forever. God has been 'in existance', so to speak, forever.

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
I'd accept this only if someone will be so kind as to tell me:

1/And where did God come from in order to create our souls?

2/ What is a soul?

Then, I guess, I could possible dare post one or two of my points of view.

These answers would take ages...put in short, we are all God...

[Lhunithiliel]

Sorry, Elendil and Celebthol!

NOT a satisfactory explanation! :rolleyes:

NOT AT ALL !!!!!

See, I'm not trying to oppose views! I am just curious to learn about it all.

Something cannot be created by other something just because the second something "was, is and will be here forever".

The "second" something (let's call it a Creator for cenvenience) must exist in order to produce the first something (let's call this one - the Creation)

All right!

But the Creator itself (I'm not putting it in any gender) must exist because of the simple reason that it comes as a Creation of yet another thing...!:confused:

So, where did God = the Creator of souls come from? Who created God? And if you claim God was not created , but God just exists, then define existence!

[Eriol]

Lhun, take a look at the Origin of the Universe thread in the GoP. I summarized one of St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments there. Your reasoning is precisely why God must be. For there are only two options -- either there is a First Being, or there is an infinite chain of beings. But an infinite chain of beings is a contradiction in our mind. We can't accept it. We can't imagine it. We can put it into words, of course -- but when we try to figure out what those words of ours meant, we always come back to a first being.

In other words -- there is no series without a first term. That is an empirical observation -- and one which is corroborated by our minds. No one ever saw or heard of a series without a first term. Therefore, the series of "creations" that you are alluding to must have a first term -- and that is acknowledged by everybody as God.

[Lhunithiliel]

I understand you perfectly, Eriol :D

To trace back this series was a favourite "game " I used to make my poor mind play years ago... It all used to end with a terrible headache and frustrastion of not being able to understand.

One thing I did understand however - that the human mind, this part that we know how to master, is limited by our own ignorance...
But we are not to blame for this! After all, we are still "young"! When we are able to go far out in space and explore it, then our mind can probably make another step on the track of tracing the series we are both speaking about.
It's logical!

The thing is perhaps - shall we understand this sequence as a straight line or as a closed curve.

And I will read that thread for sure :D Would you provide a link, please?

I remember we both met in another, kind of a simillar thread a couple of months ago... Interesting it was, but abandoned.

But if we are to get back to the specific topic the present thread, I think that the human being should be viewd at from two "corners" - material and mental.
The material aspect of evolution is however not interesting, because it was long ago researched and documented. I am speaking about the body

That is why I made that step away from the material and focused on the mental. For it is true, I believe, that every human feels the presence of the immaterial in him/herself. We, humans, have called this with many names. Yet, no explanation we have of what it is.
Therefore, I assume, comes the maxima: "I don't understand it. Therefore, it must have come from God"
This psychology (if I may call it this way) comes from ages ago.

I am however quite content to see and to witness more and more people getting rid of this primitivism in thinking. "I don't understand it. So, I have to find out !"

THAT I call an evolution in mind.
******

I would like to apologize if by a word or in some other way I may have offended the strong God believers.! As I said, I do not direspect your views. I am trying to understand them.
:rolleyes:

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
"I don't understand it. Therefore, it must have come from God"
This psychology (if I may call it this way) comes from ages ago.

I am however quite content to see and to witness more and more people getting rid of this primitivism in thinking. "I don't understand it. So, I have to find out !"

And what if I told you that I had to find out, and I did -- and the answer is that it came from God?

:)

For that is what happened. I'm glad you call it an evolution in mind. Do you agree that "I don't understand it; therefore, it CAN NOT have come from God" is nonsensical? I hope so. God is one among the possibilities. Once you check the possibilities and God is the only one left, well, then it was God.

By the way, am I right in assuming that you agreed with the Aquinas proof? That you agreed that there had to be a First Being? (Note, we are not talking about God the Father, and not even about God the Creator, as a personal force; we are talking about The First Being, and he can be an impersonal force -- we have to explore that hypothesis. But in anyway it seems to me that you agree that The First Being must be accepted).

[Walter]

I'm glad to see there is some interest in this topic :)

I too believe in a Creator/God, but nonetheless I think that we can explain the evolution of mankind - including our social and cultural evolution - quite well without having to postulate a supernatural or extraterrestrial influence at any point.

I shall post a brief sketch of palaeoanthropology (that's how scientific research about the origins and early developments of mankind is called) within the next days and then we could try to discuss what the important steps in our development were.

----

P.S.: Of course everyone is welcome to contribute to this thread as long as it is constructive in any way! :) Temper tantrums and personal insults will not be considered "constructive"....

[Malbeth]

I answered option 3... but I really think it is all of them... man's body evolved naturally, God created man in his image by giving him a soul during this process of evolution...

[Lhunithiliel]

Originally posted by Eriol
And what if I told you that I had to find out, and I did -- and the answer is that it came from God? :)

For that is what happened. I'm glad you call it an evolution in mind. Do you agree that "I don't understand it; therefore, it CAN NOT have come from God" is nonsensical? I hope so. God is one among the possibilities. Once you check the possibilities and God is the only one left, well, then it was God.
I can absolutely agree that God is one of the possibilities! :) But I can't say the only one.
I might if I get an answer to: "What is God? How did he come to existence?" So far there has been not one single theologist who could explain it to me. And I just cannot be satisfied with "Believe me, he is the one and only!"

By the way, am I right in assuming that you agreed with the Aquinas proof? That you agreed that there had to be a First Being? (Note, we are not talking about God the Father, and not even about God the Creator, as a personal force; we are talking about The First Being, and he can be an impersonal force -- we have to explore that hypothesis. But in anyway it seems to me that you agree that The First Being must be accepted).
Well, you see, there is the problem! We, humans, have the notion of the things around us that every and each thing has its beginning and its end. But isn't this showing the boundaries our mind operates within?
I am not a mathematician but I remember the Maths classes at school when we learned about the infinity-values :rolleyes: ;) A complex matter and vague...... But it also proves that we, humans do try to cross the boundaries! Isn't it evolution?

It's just the same as the classical example of how people once used to believe that the Earth was flat, or that the Sun went around the Earth.... The moment mankind knew more about it, these views changed!
The demonstation of evolution however is to me not that people started understanding the earth as a globe etc.
The true evolution was manifested by the one who questioned the dogmas !!!

So, when humans start questioning the "beginning-emd" theory, maybe we shall discover new data about the world we live in.
It will be a step on the road called evolution.

:rolleyes:

[Walter]

Seeing how this thread develops, I think I shall open another thread dealing with the "scientifical" aspects of the evolution of mankind and leave this one for the discussion of it's "philosophical" aspects.

Here we could go on musing about such things whether or not series must have a first term - though I should like to think that a brief look into a book of basic algebra or mathematics might save us a lot of time on that issue (integers, for example, are the most obvious form, the series goes from -(infinity symbol) to +(infinity symbol)) - or whether there actually is a way to prove Gods existence and what consequences this would have...

But IMO there would be much more interesting and less futile issues about, like what is the human soul, has it evolved or not, do animals have it, can it be described or not, do we need religion to describe it or not, etc...

[Lhunithiliel]

No need, Walt!

I guess, it's my fault to have shifted the subject. Sorry!:o
I'll withdraw.

[Eriol]

Well, if you will withdraw, I will not try to answer your questions, Lhun...

:(

[Walter]

Please do not withdraw, Lhun, your contributions are very much appreciated here! :)

Since this "Aquinas"-issue seems so important to Eriol, that he seemingly chooses to come up with it in many threads, but IMO doesn't really belong into this thread, maybe he will open a thread dedicated to this issue (or maybe write a book), where everyone can spend a couple hours becoming convinced how St. Thomas has been able to present us with an irrefutible almost-scientifical proof of God's existance... ;)

[Eriol]

I thought it was important to Lhun -- I was answering her questions. But thanks for your constructive contribution, Walter.

I like your Deep Thoughts, by the way.

[Walter]

I am sorry, I wasn't aware that Lhun had asked you to prove God's existence to her, but opening a separate thread for that issue should be a constructive suggestion, then...

[Eriol]

I don't think that's really necessary, do you? I mean, there is the Origin of the Universe thread in the GoP (to which I directed Lhun) which pretty much deals with the cosmological argument.

But if you think it is needed, I'll do it -- and I hope you will come around.

[Lhunithiliel]

Boys, boys, boys !!!

Don't fight!!!

Can't you two make peace? :eek: :D PLEASE DO!!!

All right, I will not leave but I won't be around for a few days anyway, so ....if i have time I'll study some mathematics ;) and some physics and about the Big Bang... ;)

And then...... BEWARE when I return!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D

Until then, PLEASE behave and be good to each other! :D

[Walter]

It's good to hear that you will not leave the thread, Lhun :)

Eriol, I'll leave the decision whether or not to open such a thread to you, but if you did you could easily direct people there without having to repeat your line of reasoning in every thread you want to mention the issue, and also without the risc of being accused of off-topic posts in those other threads...

As for me taking part there, I am not sure I have much to contribute to this issue and what little I have to say about Thomas of Aquinas' proofs you know already...

[Rangerdave]

Why must every effect necessitate a cause?

Most Anthropologists and Archaeologists agree that while the biological chain for the evolution of man reaches back some four millions years or so, what is now known as Homo Sapiens came around shortly after the last major ice age.

What is more interesting to my mind is that most Anthropologists are beginning to agree that man has only been self aware for a fraction of his time here on earth.

Although we cannot prove directly that prehistoric man and his hominid predecessors were self aware, anthropologists consider that art and burial of the dead are both indications of consciousness. The first known burial was of a Neanderthal about 200,000 years ago, and cave paintings and clay figures were first produced about 20,000 years ago. Self-awareness leads to the anticipation of death, which in turn led to the development of religion.
So from this we gather that Man has been actively tying to understand the world and his place it for at least 20,000 years. And I don't have to tell you that that is a sod of a long time.

Now, most biblical scholars place the time/date of God's creation of (excuse the reference) Life, the Universe and Everything as happening between 4 and 8 thousand years ago. Bishop James Ussher, a 17th century Irish archbishop, arrived at an estimate of 4004-OCT-22 BCE for the beginning of the Universe. Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge in the 19th century refined the calculations and arrived at 4004-OCT-23 BCE, at 9 AM. (which, of course, makes the Earth a Scorpio)

One side of the argument says that thinking man is at least 20,000 years old, while the other says that he is 6005 years 3 months and a few days old.

Somebody has seriously failed math class. But who?



So the question still remains.
Did God create the Universe in seven days and put lots of nifty archaeological evidence under a bunch of rocks and ice just to have a bit of fun with archaeologists?
Or did man rise up out the level of beasts all by his little lonesome without any help from some metaphysical father figure?

Or is it both? Did God one-day show up; perhaps as a 1x3x9 shiny black monolith, and grace our early ancestors with the gift of thought.

Or is our ancestry and history yet to be discovered?




RD

[Walter]

Thanks for dropping in here, RD, your contributions are appreciated :)

Originally posted by Rangerdave
Why must every effect necessitate a cause?A good question indeed. The causality principle (as I believe it is called in English) is one of the pillars of "Classical" or "Newton's" mechanics and has since been much adopted by philosophy and religion. But it has to be remembered that it is an empirical theorem (gathered only by "observation"). We also know that it has no use - or better: no "applicability" in quantum mechanics. Whether or not it can be considered as one of the foundations of our universe is highly questionable, in fact quantum-physicians do not tend to approve of this assumption.

Most Anthropologists and Archaeologists agree that while the biological chain for the evolution of man reaches back some four millions years or so, what is now known as Homo Sapiens came around shortly after the last major ice age.

What is more interesting to my mind is that most Anthropologists are begining to agree that man has only been self aware for a fraction of his time here on earth.

Although we cannot prove directly that prehistoric man and his hominid predecessors were self aware, anthropologists consider that art and burial of the dead are both indications of consciousness. The first known burial was of a Neanderthal about 100,000 years ago, and cave paintings and clay figures were first produced about 20,000 years ago. Self awareness leads to the anticipation of death, which in turn led to the development of religion. Indeed, while the earliest remains of our antecestors can probably be dated between 5 and 10 millions of years back, we have no indication of symbolic thinking, self-awareness (expressed by some form of culture like art or religion) until some 20.000 years ago. I will try to elaborate a little further on that in the other - yet to be created - thread.

So the question still remains. Did God create the Universe in seven days and put lots of nifty archaeological evidence lying around just to have a bit of fun with archaeologists?
Or did man rise up out the level of beasts all by his little lonesome without any help from some metaphysical father figure?

Or is it both? Did God one day show up; perhaps as a 1x3x9 shiny black monolith, and grace our early ancestors with the gift of thought.

Or is our ancestory and history yet to be discovered?While Creationists are no longer taken seriously by scientists, those very same scientist are still mostly on speculative terms "how" we evolved, what the causes were that we started walking on two legs, left the trees, created tools, traps and weapons and started to use fire, learned symbolic thinking, speech and communication, developed the first arts: drawing (or painting) and music, started domesticate animals a.s.o.

Whether or not there was a supernatural - or as some authors like Däniken or Sitchin claim: an extraterrestrial - influence throughout this evolution, whether or not it is possible or probable, that we became what we are now on our own, without any help from outside, is still matter of discussion or debate, IMO. What is sure, IMO, is that we have no "bulletproof" evidence for either...

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Rangerdave
Why must every effect necessitate a cause?

Well, I sure don't know why. I guess we have to ask God for that; or accept it as it is, if we do not believe in God. One thing is for certain -- every effect most assuredly needs a cause. Even in quantum mechanics.

I am reminded of an anecdote, in which J.B.S. Haldane (a great British biologist) met a priest in a train, and they talked throughout the trip. At a point in the trip, the priest asked Haldane whether he could discern any characteristic of the Creator through his extensive study of Nature. "Is there anything that stands out of God's character in your opinion?", the priest asked -- "what is the clearest 'trait' of God in Nature?"

Haldane's answer -- "An inordinate fondness for beetles" (What a great answer!)

For those who do not know, there are more species of beetles than of all vertebrates together -- fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals. That's a LOT of beetles!

The answer of a physicist to that question of the priest could well be the principle of cause and effect. It's "God's style", perhaps. But it is here to stay :).

As for the evolution of mankind, my view is very close to RD's monolith :D. Except that it is a 1:4:9 monolith...

;)

[Malbeth]

Now, most biblical scholars place the time/date of God's creation of (excuse the reference) Life, the Universe and Everything as happening between 4 and 8 thousand years ago. Bishop James Ussher, a 17th century Irish archbishop, arrived at an estimate of 4004-OCT-22 BCE for the beginning of the Universe. Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge in the 19th century refined the calculations and arrived at 4004-OCT-23 BCE, at 9 AM. (which, of course, makes the Earth a Scorpio)

Hey Eriol, it's dad's birthday! :D

[Arebeth]

Really, that's a strange question. Maybe just the kind of question that makes me almost understand why atheists are ones. I mean, if you are Christian you have to accept that the Bible is full of symbols to give something like a sense to our lives. So when it says that God created mankind to his image, I don't think it's in this way. Religion is a matter of mind, not a matter of body. For me science and religion should be both accepted by believers. Mankind has just evoluted as science says, but God was at the first origin. Anyway, that's just my opinion.