why is it that humans think that they are the most evolved lifeforms on earth?

[zachsan]

whether or not humans will evolve any more, or what our "next form" will be, is anybody's guess.

[master splinter]

the bionic human...

[shaolinstylee]

some say the last steps of the evolution of man is the loss of wisdom teeth. As one of the things very closely looked at in the evolution of primates is the jaws and teeth formations. From what I understand the percentages of people born without wisdom teeth is slowly declining.

[master splinter]

well i dont have wisdom teeth...

does that mean im an evolved human?

yes, it does, im special...

[LeiYunFat]

It means you're not old enough for them to have grown out. I've taken mine out, but my mom got hers in her 40's.

[dogchow108]

Humans are still evolving, the question is how has Natural Selection changed regarding to humans as they have built a lifestyle which they choose not to define as "natural".

Flamestep, how old are you?

[master splinter]

It means you're not old enough for them to have grown out. I've taken mine out, but my mom got hers in her 40's.

no.

im special.

im 21

[onesp1ng]

flamestep..., you're special alright. VERY special.

g

[plumflower_pm]

I think the farther we pull ourselves away from being a part of nature the more dangerous it becomes to us, because it mutates to defeat our defenses. We may be evolving still, but many other organisms on this planet are far better at it than we are. Viruses being a prime example.

[shaolinstylee]

I think are evolution is just much more different to what we describe as the norm now, as far as humans go...

It'll be pushed much farther that way still as well. We create most of out own environment now, as opposed to adopting to the one handed to us.

[zachsan]

well dogchow said something interesting, namely that we choose not to define our lifestyles as natural.

but just because we choose to make a distinction between our own actions and nature doesn't mean that such a distinction exists in reality. our brains evolved naturally, and just like any other organism in nature, we're using those natural tools to pursue natural goals, namely security and proliferation of the species. the desire for wealth is just a natural extension of the desire for food and shelter. what would be unnatural is if that desire suddenly turned itself off because we had reached a certain level of comfort.

i think the fallacy lies in the assumption that an ecosystem should be perfectly balanced, and thus last indefinitely. maybe the true (uh, natural) function of any natural system is to create an organism within that system that eventually overpowers, and thus collapses, the system. this could be intelligent life, a super-virus or a giant cat, whatever. my point is, like any single life, any equilibrium within a system is only temporary. so, since humans now have surpassed by far all other life on the planet in our ability to compete for resources, maybe we're near the end of the earth's ecosystem (this one, at least). and that might be sad, but it's only natural.

this is why i think that the main lesson humans can learn from nature, if anything, is that "natural" does not equal "good". which i suppose would directly contradict a lot of buddhist and taoist ideas.

[master splinter]

well,

define natural, i believe that humans have broken away from the natural flow of things, the perfectly balanced ecosystem, thus throwing it off balance, resulting in the degeneration of natural resources. our brains have evolved since the beginning, giving us the ability to create not only tools, but weapons and advanced forms of shelter, cities, etc. to live naturally is to live without all of this(shelter excluded), to live off of the earth, but most of us humans cannot do this, most of us would not survive, so therefore we escape natural selection and evolution, hiding inside of our concrete homes with our guns. we have isolated our species from the ecosystem, but in result we battle each other for the top spot on the food chain, it seems that we have become a whole different world within a world. life has become too easy for us, and in the long run, our laziness and comfort is what will destroy not only us, but the world as well. our extension as you said for what we need such as food and survival (money) is the epitome of our downfall, and egotistical greed, nature is not greedy, it takes what it needs to get by and moves on. humans on the other hand, horde wealth, and even take it with them to their graves, eat when their not hungry, get fat, and corrupt women. we are too smart for our own good, since most of us dont use our intelligence for the greater good of man, but for greed, selfishness and evil.

[zachsan]

to live naturally is to live without all of this(shelter excluded), to live off of the earth, but most of us humans cannot do this, most of us would not survive, so therefore we escape natural selection and evolution, hiding inside of our concrete homes with our guns.

that's like saying that it would be natural for a tiger to refuse to use its claws, because they make things too easy for it. no animal in nature voluntarily gives up an advantage, just for the hell of it. besides humanity, that is, making it quite an unnatural thing to do.

nature is not greedy, it takes what it needs to get by and moves on.

that's not true at all. nature "needs" nothing, and thus creates and destroys arbitrarily (for instance, the tsunami). even living things within nature take what they can, and then reproduce, and then take more and more, until they're stopped. morality is a purely human invention.

define natural, i believe that humans have broken away from the natural flow of things, the perfectly balanced ecosystem, thus throwing it off balance, resulting in the degeneration of natural resources.

if this were in fact a "perfectly balanced" ecosystem, it could not have produced an organism within itself, capable of destroying that balance. the only way your reasoning makes any sense is if you believe that humans aren't a product of this ecosystem, and came from somewhere else.

[master splinter]

that's like saying that it would be natural for a tiger to refuse to use its claws, because they make things too easy for it. no animal in nature voluntarily gives up an advantage, just for the hell of it. besides humanity, that is, making it quite an unnatural thing to do. END QUOTE]

[REPLY=we do not live off of the earth, much like the american indians once did, take and give back, we just take take and take until its all gone. this explains why the u.s government is presently trying to overthrow other countries for their natural resources.]




QUOTE ZACHSAN= that's not true at all. nature "needs" nothing, and thus creates and destroys arbitrarily (for instance, the tsunami). even living things within nature take what they can, and then reproduce, and then take more and more, until they're stopped. morality is a purely human invention.END QUOTE]


REPLY=by nature i mean animals, such as the tiger, have you seen a tiger eat? he eats until he is full, then leaves the rest for the scavengers to eat, he doesnt try to eat all of it even if he is already full just so others cannot have any, out of greed like most humans do.
living things in nature take what they need, greed is purely a human invention, morality is a tool to maintain balance.







QUOTE=if this were in fact a "perfectly balanced" ecosystem, it could not have produced an organism within itself, capable of destroying that balance. the only way your reasoning makes any sense is if you believe that humans aren't a product of this ecosystem, and came from somewhere else.

REPLY=if this were not a perfectly balanced ecosystem, it could not have produced any organisms at all, or provided an environment for them to survive upon.

[zachsan]

tigers leave the leftovers for scavengers simply because they have no way of storing food. trying to protect decaying, useless food from scavengers is a pointless venture for them; they'd much rather take a nap. that hardly makes them selfless. they also like to kill babies and eat them.

if this were not a perfectly balanced ecosystem, it could not have produced any organisms at all, or provided an environment for them to survive upon.

sorry man, that makes no sense whatsoever. because of the planet's favorable conditions, organisms slowly evolved on earth and eventually became an ecosystem ("a system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their physical environment"), not the other way around. over time, the ecosystem became more and more stable, and (but?) eventually humans were produced. humans, being part of the ecosystem, are now theoretically poised to knock down that entire balance. thus, the ecosystem never was perfectly balanced at all. unless, again, you believe humans originated from outside the system.