McCulloch wrote: What is it about humans that you believe is novel, as compared to the other primates?
I’ll quote Juan Luis Arsuaga:
We are unique and alone now in the world. There is no other animal species that truly resembles our own. A physical and mental chasm separates us from all other living creatures. There is no other bipedal mammal. No other mammal controls and uses fire, writes books, travels in space, paints portraits, or prays. This is not a question of degree. It is all or nothing; there is no semi-pedal animal, none that makes only small fires, writes only short sentences, builds only rudimentary spaceships, draws just a little bit, or prays just occasionally.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=325131#p325131
SailingCyclops wrote: Would you please define “man” as he exists in your model?
Mankind is the descendants of Adam and Eve.
Humans can only replicate with other humans.
There is no varying degrees of being a human. Either something is 100% human or 0% human.
What attributes must this being have to be considered man? The man which you claim is “above and apart from the animals”, and which was created by god “some tens of thousands of years ago” must have a set of unique features not present in any other animal. What are they?
It is not physical that really differentiates man from the animals (though there are some). Rather, the main things that differentiates man from animals are the immaterial aspects.
Humans have consciousness and are sentient beings. Humans are aware that they have awareness.
Humans have a moral sense. They have a sense of right and wrong. And they can decide between right and wrong. They feel guilt and shame when they do things wrong. They feel things are unfair and unjust when others do something wrong.
Humans can think deeply and create complex things. We have developed technology to overcome our physical limitations and can go do the deepest oceans, fly in the sky, and go to the moon.
Humans have complex languages. Our ability for complex languages it intimately tied with the ability to think and create complex things.
Humans have a bent towards the supernatural. Almost all cultures in history around the world have some sort of religion.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=326752#p326752
Scotracer wrote:
otseng wrote:
McCulloch wrote: What is it about humans that you believe is novel, as compared to the other primates?I’ll quote Juan Luis Arsuaga:
We are unique and alone now in the world. There is no other animal species that truly resembles our own. A physical and mental chasm separates us from all other living creatures. There is no other bipedal mammal. No other mammal controls and uses fire, writes books, travels in space, paints portraits, or prays. This is not a question of degree. It is all or nothing; there is no semi-pedal animal, none that makes only small fires, writes only short sentences, builds only rudimentary spaceships, draws just a little bit, or prays just occasionally.Well you’re wrong on the ‘semi-pedal’ comment straight off the bat given that almost all primates can move biped-ally to some degree. Some are very good at it, and others not.
Sure and we can walk on our hands and legs also. But we are classified as bipedal because that is our normal method of locomotion. What mammal walks with two feet normally and not just occasionally?
And again, many animals can draw/paint:
The rest of the statements are a bit ridiculous given that if an animal can’t use tools to any great extent, how are they to build spaceships? One follows the other.
You could create a list of features that are known only to itself, for just about any animal, really.
I knew that there would be disagreement from whoever I quoted from, so that’s why I decided to quote an evolutionist.
McCulloch wrote:
McCulloch wrote: What is it about humans that you believe is novel, as compared to the other primates?otseng wrote: I’ll quote Juan Luis Arsuaga:
We are unique and alone now in the world. There is no other animal species that truly resembles our own. A physical and mental chasm separates us from all other living creatures. There is no other bipedal mammal. No other mammal controls and uses fire, writes books, travels in space, paints portraits, or prays. This is not a question of degree. It is all or nothing; there is no semi-pedal animal, none that makes only small fires, writes only short sentences, builds only rudimentary spaceships, draws just a little bit, or prays just occasionally.OK, and I’ll quote the linked review of the same book
[font=Times New Roman]emphasis mine[/font]The Neanderthals provide a surprising mirror for modern-day humanity. They belonged to our evolutionary group and lived like the Cro-Magnons, our ancestors, did — worshipping, socializing, and hunting. The struggle between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons lasted thousands of years. The Cro-Magnons were not biologically fit for extreme cold weather, but their ingenuity allowed them to settle down, band together, and survive. In this tale of life, death, and the awakening of human awareness, Juan Luis Arsuaga, Spain’s most celebrated paleoanthropologist, depicts the dramatic struggle between two clashing species, of which only one survives.I contend that the distinctiveness of the human species is a matter of degree not that there are any qualities that are unique to us. Even the author you cite agrees that the apparent uniqueness of humanity is not sufficient to exclude an evolutionary explanation.
There is no other bipedal mammal. There are no other primarily bipedal mammals but other mammals do have bipedal abilities and bipedalism is rather common for birds. But, it is in our thinking and communication that we stand out from the other species. Yet, even there, there is less difference between the mental abilities of a typical human and a typical chimpanzee than there is between a typical chimpanzee and most invertebrates.
Yes, Juan Luis Arsuaga is an evolutionist. You asked for a list of differences and I supplied one. Strangely that even though I quote from an evolutionist that there’s an automatic disagreement with it. I submit that it’s because it reveals a bias against any source that I present.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=327932#p327932
Grumpy wrote: Juan Luis Arsuaga does not seem to know what he is talking about, almost everything in the cite is wrong.
He is a professor in the Paleontology Department at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid who is an evolutionist.
I’m glad to see that even you are willing to say that evolutionist professors do not seem to know what they are talking about.
Though I am glad to see you are finally admitting that the use of fire is an indication of being human. Man has used fire for over a million years and all creatures that use fire must be considered human. That’s progress.
Where did I ever say that animals can control fire?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=327936#p327936
McCulloch wrote:otseng wrote: Mankind is the descendants of Adam and Eve.This looks a whole lot like begging the question.
If this was the only definition of man that I offered, yes, it would be like begging the question. That is why I also offered other descriptions of what is a human.
otseng wrote: Humans can only replicate with other humans.Yes and cats can replicate with other cats. Speciation is impossible. The ark was really overcrowded. Or are you making the claim that only humans are exempt from evolution?
What do you mean speciation is impossible? I’ve certainly never said this.
As for what is exempt from evolution, since I don’t believe in macroevolution for anything, of course humans would not also not be able to macroevolve.
Evolutionists claim that mankind has existed for over 2 million years. The earliest is probably Homo habilis. Do you claim that it would’ve been able to replicate with modern humans if they ever met?
Do you see sentience as an all or nothing thing?
Depends on how one defines sentience. If it’s just experiencing pleasure and pain, yes, I would say that animals have this.
There are evolutionary explanations for humans’ moral sense.
I find it to be contradictory. But, go ahead and present your explanations if you wish.
Humans have a bent towards the supernatural. Almost all cultures in history around the world have some sort of religion.We love to tell stories. In fact, we prefer to explain stuff with stories. We personify inanimate forces.
And it is ironic that if we did evolve from physical stuff and that all the processes are natural, that the most intelligent creature would evolve to tend to believe in the supernatural and in religion.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=332543#p332543