Claes Persson wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: al winslow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 8:03 PM
> Subject: RE: {W&P} SV: SV: SV: SV: Poem
>
>
> >
> > Claes Persson wrote:
> >
> > > --We, and all others, have, from time to time, asked ourselves those
> > > questions. I think it started long before Sumeria.
> > >
> > > I do think that the evolutionary explanation of how life was created is
> > > a lot more possible than the different religions poetic explanations of
> > > a higher entity. This "soup" egnited life. The rest is "trial and
> > > error", kind of. That goes for humans too.
> > >
> > > 3.5 million years ago there was no humans but there was an ape that had
> > > chosen the habit of walking on two legs to the extent that the pelvis
> > > and the necks attachment to the head had changed to the position of the
> > > humans of to day. It's brain was still of monkey-size, 400 cc.
> > >
> > > But 2 million years ago lived "Lucy". Still of small size compared to
> > > us, but with a brain-size of about 700 cc. Other types of upright going
> > > apes also excisted but, as far as one knows, never made it very long (if
> > >
> > > not the neanderthal man was an offspring of some of those).
> > >
> > > What had happened during those 1.5 million years? The guess is that the
> > > reason the brain started growing was that the upright walking, instead
> > > of walking on all four, left the front legs - arms - free for carrying
> > > and manipulating things and that triggered the growth of the brain.
> > >
> > > Why start walking upright in the first place? We can see that many
> > > animals are using this (try to raise the head as much as possible) in
> > > order to have a better look out for preditors. An ape, half human size,
> > > had many enemies and I think that the moments on all four legs became
> > > scarce in the end.
> > >
> > > The other question that you come back to constantly is really:
> > >
> > > "What is the meaning of life"? Even if you fraze it a little bit
> > > different, that's the meaning of it.
> > >
> > > From an evolution perspective the answere is really two:
> > >
> > > 1. The genetic perspective to multiply. To make sure the your genes live
> > >
> > > on into the future, and when that is done...
> > >
> > > 2. To make as sure as possible that the offspring "make it"! That the
> > > children grows up and become a good member in the community. The rest of
> > >
> > > the time you are occupied keeping your self alive as long as possible,
> > > spend your time with occupational therapies like writing e-mails like
> > > those we now are exchanging or whatever.
> > >
> > > I don't think that there to this can be added a "higher meaning" (no
> > > matter how eager you are to try to find one) like the religions like to
> > > preach. The above should be enought to fill the time. Then it's up to
> > > you what you do with your time. If you will create something that can
> > > live on in the minds of the people living after you. But no living
> > > thing, man or beast, have any reason to dream of a life after this.
> > >
> > > Claes Persson
> > > SWEDEN
> > > §( :8-)
> > ------------------------------------
> > I have no dreams of life after this life.
> > There's no reason to believe either way.
> >
> > I'm not eager to find a "higher" meaning. Some are eager to find that
> > there is NOT a higher meaning. I'm eager to know the truth. Not as eager
> >
> > as I was when much younger. But still not ready to accept any guesses
> > based on either religion or science-as-religion. Many cling to
> > scientific theories as tightly as religionists cling to their simpler
> > fairy-tales. "Theory" is just another word for "guess."
> >
> > BTW, "Lucy" might turn out to be yesterday's fairy tale. Some other
> > fellows have found some bones that they think throw the Lucy theory out
> > the window. Lucy may have already used up her 15 minutes of fame.
> >
> > The evolutionary path that led to us is still very much an unknown.
> > There are theories based on extremely scanty evidence. That man evolved
> > from an ancestor common to apes is as good a guess as any, but it's not
> > a proven fact.
> >
>
> Sorry, but...
>
> Theory is not "guessing". It's based on facts. Not facts that covers
> every generation since time begun, but reasonable conclutions.
>
> This theory is a whole lot closer to "proof" than anything that the
> different religions have put forward as an explanation to our beeing
> here.
>
> What kind of proof do you want? Timetravel so you can go and see for
> your self?
>
> Everything starts with a "theory". Then this will be considdered more
> and more probable as indications is found, but given the time this
> theory span it maybe never will be "proof". At least not for the
> religious people that will accept nothing as "proof", not even
> timetravel, as they will loose their work.
>
> There will always be people that think otherwise. That's the academic
> world for you. But still it's accepted to day that the world is round
> like a ball (althoug a little flattend). That the earth is cirling the
> sun and not the opposite (thanks Kopernikus) and that we are not in the
> center of the universe but just a little ball cirkling around a small
> yellow midget sun in the outskirts of a smaller galaxy that's one of
> million galaxys.
>
> Given time, I think some more missing links will be found (as there has
> been up till now) and that this "theory" will be accepted (eventually
> adjusted according to the finds) as the truth, no matter what the
> religious fantasys tell us.
>
> My mind is not locked in any religious frame that makes me want facts to
> fit the story in the bible, or koran or any of the hundreds of storys of
> creation that has been told ignorant people the last 10.000 years.
> However, there will always be people that want "proof" of that the earth
> is not flat.
>
> Claes Persson
> SWEDEN
> §( :8-)
>
>
>
------------------------
Which is all just fine and mostly true, though it has little to do with
whether there is or is not a greater purpose in all of it than science
can discern. That's something science can't deal with.
I would add that while scientific guesses -- theories, if you prefer --
are supposed to be based on facts, it IS a fact that scientists of equal
credentials often come to very different conclusions working with the
same facts, particularly when the facts are as skimpy as they are in
paleontology.
Certain ones of the many converging theories that are presented to the
public as _the_ Theory of Evolution are based on very few facts, yet
certain scientists will cling religiously to those facts and the guesses
that they have manufacured out of those facts even when new facts are
discovered by their rivals that tend to prove their guesses wrong.
Again, none of which touches the yearning of some human beings for
greater understanding of the meaning and purpose of it all and the
mysteries of death and human consciousness.
I offer no guesses about the nature of God or about life-after-death or
any of the rest of it. I offer only the comment that it
demonstrates a remarkable lack of intellectual
curiosity about a large
component of the innner forces that have driven many great lives and
shaped much of human history.
Al Winslow
USA
___________________________________________________________
Check out http://clik.to/sf for other lists to join.
A93MR48T18
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dhdK.b1tdRU
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
