| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
7th June 2009, 08:41 PM
|  | Veteran
59    
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,297
Blessings: 124,547
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson  I am a theistic evolutionist - although I believe we evolved from ape-like ancesors, I also believe humans to be above nature and evolution.
I believe that what makes us human is our "plastic brain": Neuroplasticity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Put bluntly (very blunty), having a 'plastic brain' means that our thoughts and actions physically change the way our brains work.
Having only recently heard of this myself, there are undoubtedly many questions that need to be answered.
What do other people think of this idea, or of what makes us human?
I have tried this. The conclusion is: we can not prove that we are human. We are still apes. In other words, humans are apes. So your OP is void.
As a TE, are you happy about this conclusion? |
8th June 2009, 02:38 PM
| | Loudmouth
   
| | Join Date: 3rd July 2008
Posts: 1,746
Blessings: 81,977 My Mood 
Reps: 50,526,895,060,156,744 (power: 50,526,895,060,161) | | Originally Posted by Mallon And why do you think humans are "above evolution"?
Natural selection is harsh - the basis of natural selection is that the stronger members pass on their genes by eliminating the weaker ones. When our current concept of evolution was published it lead to "Social Darwinism": Social Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although we are not totally above and removed from evolution, we are not (or rather, should not be) completly ruled by the laws of natural selection. One of the arguments against eugentics, and occassionally abortion, is that we don't have the right to decide which traits are desireable and which are not. Originally Posted by adimus I believe that the "image of God" is a reference to man's spiritual nature alone.
Same here. Originally Posted by gluadys I see that a considerable amount of the research is done using monkeys. Would not neuroplasticity apply to any animal that learns?
That's a very good point. Possibly the reason I missed such an obvious conclusion was because some of the evidence and arguments for the 'plastic brain' (that I discovered) were based on therapies used on brain-damaged patients. 
Although I haven't fully-explored the 'plastic brain' yet, a trait which could further seperate us from other animals capable of learning is that our own thoughts (rather than instructions from others) are what change the way our brains work. Originally Posted by juvenissum I have tried this. The conclusion is: we can not prove that we are human. We are still apes. In other words, humans are apes. So your OP is void.
That's like saying "All humans are animals therefore there is no difference between the animal brain and the human brain." Humans are animals (in that we are not rocks or plants) but we are a special animal, as we are "made in God's image".
Also, thanks to the ironically-named "Peace4ever" for screwing up every post on Origins Theology.  |
8th June 2009, 02:54 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
29   
 | | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,548
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson Natural selection is harsh - the basis of natural selection is that the stronger members pass on their genes by eliminating the weaker ones.
Not quite. Natural selection simply means that the "more fit" individuals will tend to out-compete "less fit" individuals for resources. But being fit doesn't necessarily mean being strong or aggressive. Increased fitness can result from cooperation between individuals. Thus, social darwinism is a misappropriation of natural selection. Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive.
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
8th June 2009, 06:59 PM
|  | Legend
 
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson Natural selection is harsh - the basis of natural selection is that the stronger members pass on their genes by eliminating the weaker ones. When our current concept of evolution was published it lead to "Social Darwinism": Social Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No, that is not the basis of natural selection. And it is not actually a current conception of evolution but a much outdated one. Fitness is measured by reproductivity, not by strength or any other such quality. The genes that account for a better adaptation to one's ecological niche are the ones that will, on average (there are always individual exceptions) be passed on to the next generation, because better adapted individuals are more likely to reproduce.
When we confuse this meaning of fitness with being physically fit, we get the incorrect picture that a plant or animal has to challenge other members of its species and win contests of some sort to evolve. But evolution does not happen because one fights to evolve or desires to evolve. It happens automatically without any action on the part of individuals.
That confusion was part of what was wrong with Social Darwinism. Another part of what was wrong with it was the assumption that poverty is genetically based instead of a function of an unjust social distribution of resources. That is why the eugenicists mistakenly thought you could get rid of poverty by sterilizing the poor.
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
8th June 2009, 08:34 PM
| | Veteran
59
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,297
Blessings: 124,547
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson I am a theistic evolutionist - although I believe we evolved from ape-like ancesors, I also believe humans to be above nature and evolution.
I believe that what makes us human is our "plastic brain": Neuroplasticity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Put bluntly (very blunty), having a 'plastic brain' means that our thoughts and actions physically change the way our brains work.
Having only recently heard of this myself, there are undoubtedly many questions that need to be answered.
What do other people think of this idea, or of what makes us human?
In another thread, I said: human knows how to make a fire.
I still think it is a very good answer. |
8th June 2009, 09:42 PM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 15th April 2006
Posts: 454
Blessings: 95,332
Reps: 162,057,471,836 (power: 162,057,477) | | Originally Posted by juvenissun I have tried this. The conclusion is: we can not prove that we are human. We are still apes. In other words, humans are apes. So your OP is void.
As a TE, are you happy about this conclusion?
That's like saying; "turtles are humans" so your OP is void.  Sorry but semantics can't determine reality.  |
11th June 2009, 02:09 AM
|  | Member
| | Join Date: 4th November 2008
Posts: 1,195
Blessings: 80,503 My Mood 
Reps: 2,303,137,087,325,443 (power: 2,303,137,087,330) | | Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson I am a theistic evolutionist - although I believe we evolved from ape-like ancesors, I also believe humans to be above nature and evolution.
I believe that what makes us human is our "plastic brain": Neuroplasticity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Put bluntly (very blunty), having a 'plastic brain' means that our thoughts and actions physically change the way our brains work.
Having only recently heard of this myself, there are undoubtedly many questions that need to be answered.
What do other people think of this idea, or of what makes us human? I feel that as long as we have breath and live in this Creation, it's impossible to separate us out from Nature and Evolution in any way, shape or form. .
__________________ The Universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects - Thomas Berry The most excellent being in the universe is the universe itself. - Thomas Berry |
21st June 2009, 08:20 PM
|  | redeemed waste
55  
| | Join Date: 9th January 2004 Location: Darwin, Australia
Posts: 1,806
Blessings: 45,273
Reps: 2,568,795,385,755,541 (power: 2,568,795,385,765) | | Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson I am a theistic evolutionist - although I believe we evolved from ape-like ancesors, I also believe humans to be above nature and evolution.
I believe that what makes us human is our "plastic brain": Neuroplasticity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Put bluntly (very blunty), having a 'plastic brain' means that our thoughts and actions physically change the way our brains work.
Having only recently heard of this myself, there are undoubtedly many questions that need to be answered.
What do other people think of this idea, or of what makes us human?
Our soul is what makes us human. It is uniquely created in the "image and likeness" of God. (Gen.1:26&27)
The image refers to shadow image. Just as God is unseen, so is our soul. The likeness refers to personhood. It is from our soul that our personalities are formed. There are both male and female souls.
It was this soul (Adam) created in Gen.1:27 that God breathed into the body He formed in Gen.2:7. In this way Adam (unseen soul) became a "living soul", ie. alive to space and time and visible.
Animals also have "soul" but it is not like people. The word generally translated soul is "nephesh". It has a basic root meaning of "breath (of life)". The "nephesh" in animals is in the blood (Deut.12:23). It is not created separate in the image or likeness of God but is formed from the earth as part of their biology. (Gen.2:19)
Humans are not related to animals except by virtue of both being created by God. Although it should be noted that we have a biological affiliation with land animals as both Adam's body and land animals came from the earth, but our humanity is not in our biological life but in our soul life.
peace |
22nd June 2009, 01:42 PM
| | Legend
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by sawdust Our soul is what makes us human. It is uniquely created in the "image and likeness" of God. (Gen.1:26&27)
The image refers to shadow image. Just as God is unseen, so is our soul. The likeness refers to personhood. It is from our soul that our personalities are formed. There are both male and female souls.
It was this soul (Adam) created in Gen.1:27 that God breathed into the body He formed in Gen.2:7. In this way Adam (unseen soul) became a "living soul", ie. alive to space and time and visible.
peace
What astonishes me is that some people can present a far-fetched interpretation of the text like this and still insist it is a literal reading and not an interpretation.
I know this particular poster has not made that claim, so I am not trying to put words into her mouth. But I do ask those who claim to adhere to a literal hermeneutic to really look at what they present. If it looks like this, it is NOT a literal reading.
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
22nd June 2009, 07:23 PM
| | redeemed waste
55
| | Join Date: 9th January 2004 Location: Darwin, Australia
Posts: 1,806
Blessings: 45,273
Reps: 2,568,795,385,755,541 (power: 2,568,795,385,765) | | Originally Posted by gluadys What astonishes me is that some people can present a far-fetched interpretation of the text like this and still insist it is a literal reading and not an interpretation.
I know this particular poster has not made that claim, so I am not trying to put words into her mouth. But I do ask those who claim to adhere to a literal hermeneutic to really look at what they present. If it looks like this, it is NOT a literal reading.
There is nothing far fetched about what I said. It is based upon teaching received from those who know the original languages. Unless one knows the original language, one cannot determine what it literally means. 
peace | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
