Re: The Watchermaker is Watching

On Apr 14, 10:09 am, Damaeus <no-m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reading from news:talk.origins,
"Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@xxxxxxxxx> posted:

On Apr 13, 2:39+AKA-pm, Damaeus <no-m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reading from news:talk.origins,

It's better than making us live all the way up to today's age looking like
the cast of Planet of the Apes. +AKA-You know, that idea literally disturbs me
to my core -- the idea of us having the features of the people of Planet
of the Apes. +AKA-Even those commercials with the ape-looking people --
nightmarishly disturbing to my psychology. +AKA-I can't watch them.

It wasn't so long ago that your ancestors did look like those people
in the commercials. Just because something disturbs you doesn't mean
it will go away by closing your eyes and trying to ignore it. You,
sir, are an ape. That doesn't mean that you're a gorilla, a chimp or
an orangutan. You are an ape of the human variety.

I do admit one ape-like characteristic.  I don't typically make eye
contact with other people because I don't want to be seen as threatening
to others.  I've read that monkeys, apes, chimps, etc... behave the same
way naturally.  They don't look into each others eyes because it's somehow
seen as a challenge.

That's both a cultural and contextual thing. Where I grew up, making
eye contact is important. It is a bad idea in prison though.

How do you explain the differences between the eloquences of communication
of humans as opposed to gorillas?  Gorillas seem articulate enough in the
ways of grunting and moving to live amongst each other, but how broad are
their topics?

They're gorillas, not humans. That is how I would explain the
difference, which is one of degree.

Does it also disturb you to think that you're a mammal?

The only thing that disturbs me about being a mammal is body hair.

I found this on the web:

 ,---- [ Why Mammal Body Hair Is an Evolutionary Enigma ]
|  Mammal body hair is a complex structure that involves several basic parts,
|  including a shaft, a root, and a follicle.  The most common theory
|  currently in vogue is that hair evolved from reptile scales.  Although
|  both scales and hair preserve well in the fossil record, especially in
|  amber, no evidence of hair evolution has been found after more than a
|  century of searching.  Another problem is that all primates have thick,
|  coarse hair called fur, and explanations as to how this fur was lost in
|  human evolution are deficient and contradictory.
|  
|  http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm
 `----

This is another area where I think humans are destined to preferential
immortality.  We have the ability to like or dislike our body hair.  Apes
don't seem to care.  They just live with what they have.  Most humans do,
too, but that could be because they would rather just live with it than go
through the trouble of shaving it off or having it removed with laser
technology.

Caring about body hair seems to be an American, and to a lesser
extent, European thing.

I do believe that we came from apes.  I'm not arguing that point at all..
But I think we're being pulled out of apehood into preferential, willful
evolution of our bodies as we live in them.

I've seen no evidence of this.

Someone projected the next stage of human evolution beyond homo sapiens.
I've seen it called homo spiritus, after humans discover the reality of a
real human spirit.

Whoever that is, I probably wouldn't like them and would think that
they are silly.

Sucks that you have to pay for knowledge:http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18278321

Gotta pay on New Scientist, too:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.076-the-big-questions-...

And science wonders why the world is ignorant.  People can't afford to be
smart.

I did find this, however:http://www.paep.ca/en/CIYL/2002/doc/peck_homo_sapiens.pdf

She calls the new species not homo spiritus, but homo sanctus.

 ,---- [ After Homo Sapiens, What Next? ]
|  "Any crisis is essentially a crisis of perception .  .  .  It derives from
|  the fact that we are trying to apply the concept of an outdated world view
|  - the mechanistic world view of science - to a reality that can no longer
|  be understood in terms of those concepts.  We live today in a globally
|  inter-connected world in which biological, psychological, social and
|  environmental phenomena are all interdependent."
|  --Fritjof Capra, Physicist
 `----

Damaeus

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why do humans have hairs on their legs....
    ... That humans have hair on their legs illustrates the difference between us ... great apes. ... but have a preference to not have body ... But I don't like my body hair. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Updated AAH Definition
    ... MC's facile point that as humans can do things like ride bikes we need ... *hairlessness as a result of shaving* causes drag in humans. ... Krueger et al did not show unequivocally that body hair causes ... it must have been due to drag reduction. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... that the hair would be lost most from the parts in the water, ... however and deal with facts about humans. ... > isn't it kind of possible that a gorilla that lost its body hair ... >> internally inconsistent a theory is, the more radical it is, and the ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Human body hair
    ... humans who really needed more body hair to help them ... That would apply to every species, ... primates are an exception to ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Updated AAH Definition
    ... the chimps or the humans ... Here's another Algis interjection. ... Krueger et al did not show unequivocally that body hair causes drag ... Of course fat makes you more buoyant, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)