Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [Arlo] > Evolution occurs on both micro and macro scales, with the macro usually > evidencing the greatest leaps and changes. Macro-level evolution, such as the > evolution of species, is typically only ever inferred by witnessing that > things > were different in the long ago than they are now.
Isn't there something in critical thinking about the dangers of inference? I don't know. I'm asking. > At any given point in time an > observer would of course be led to think, this is "it", evolution has now > stopped. Neanderthal man would have little to observe to indicate that one day > "he" would evolve into "us". I get your point, but technically I don't think Neanderthals evolved into Homo Sapiens Sapiens. I believe their line died out. > From his vantage, he was as good as it gets. > Should you time-travel back 300 billion years, and witness the simply algaes > and bacteria that constituted the entire biological level, you would see > "nothing" that would indicate that one day these simply single-celled things > would evolve into "people" and fly to the moon. Evolution, on the macro-scale, > can only ever be viewed retrospectively, and although we can infer that a > natural process that has been active since the beginning will continue to be > active, we can't predict where "we" will be in another 300 billion years. > Maybe, like the Ousters in Dan Simmons' Hyperion quadrilogy, we will evolve > into beings capable of inhabiting the vacuum of space. Maybe we will, like the > Gamesters of Triskelion in Star Trek, evolve into pure thought energy. Who > knows. But the illusion of the present is always, in every age and every time, > to appear to be "the pinnacle of evolution". Is it possible we will not evolve at all, but like the Neanderthals, become extinct? > We appear to suffer the same illusion. Incapable of accepting that "man" is > part > of "nature", we exempt him from the natural processes we see around us, > historically and in the immediate now. In an effort to divinify him, we > consider his existence to have sprung into being, fully formed, the result of > some also-external "god". Proof, this is, that "man" is uniquely separate, > apart and rules over nature. I don't know who the "we" are you're referring to. Muslims perhaps? In any case you can exclude me. But, like Pirsig, I do believe in a higher power that "creates this world in which we live." (Lila, 9) ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
