Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
the sad clown

A Dialogue With Rahimi

Recommended Posts

Rahimi wished to have a discussion about sadness and science, and while I think it is a very good topic, the original thread was in the poetry and story forum and transplanting the discussion here seemed more appropriate.

 

OK, I'm kind of lost track of the conversations so let's get off the poetry mode for a second & let me rephrase my contentions to you.

Firstly, I insist that you show me and prove to me the existence of 'sadness'. Not just any proof but a scientific one i.e an empirical evidence. While you are at it, you can also show me the proof and evidence of the existence of sincerity, compassion, mercy etc etc.. DO you see how ludicrous that is? Firstly, science is not equipped to deal nor prove such a thing and secondly science is not the ONLY way we can prove things.

Scientific evidence for any sensation that is related to a brain state is going to be partially bound up in the individuals self reporting of that sensation. Hence, if we were wondering which part of the brain might be involved in memory, one test could be to apply a light electrical stimulation while the subject is alert and have them report what they are experiencing. Neurons are only electrical through part of the signal transmission process, with the other part being chemical, at the point called the synaptic cleft. Hence, not only can we study which neurons and by extrapolation which parts of the brain are associated with sadness, but we can also look for chemicals that are used for inducing and maintaining a state of sorrow and also which are used to signal an end to such a state. But is any of this sadness itself? Are the neurons involved sadness, the chemicals? No, for sadness is not a physical object, but a feeling, an experience, just as a memory is. But again, does this mean that there is no empirical evidence for sadness? No, for we are aware of accompanying physical changes that occur with sadness. We can indirectly track it, and so it too is an empirical phenomena. And perhaps this is where the confusion lies. Sadness isn't a thing to be held or looked at. It is a state, a phenomena. Can we see magnetic attraction? No, all we can do is observe it indirectly through the effects it has on physical objects. But does that mean magnetic attraction does not exist, or that there is no empirical evidence for magnetic attraction? Of course not.

 

Secondly: You believe that humans are more evolved and more sophisticated that other creatures right? What do you think create this imbalance? Why monkeys still live in zoos and jungles? What prevented the monkeys in your local zoos from registering and purchase the latest smartphone to call their long lost relatives in Africa? After all ,they drink the same water, breath the same air as we humans do..Yet look at us humans, we can hang out on trees like monkeys, we can swim in the sea like fish, we can fly in the sky like birds and of course we can use smartphones etc. So for no reason, no justifications, no motivations, nature and evolution does all that?

No, I do not believe humans are more evolved or sophisticated than other creatures. Cephalopods have a superior eye structure to us, without any blindspot in their visual field. Birds of prey likewise have superior acuity of vision. Many animals smell better than us, hear better than us, are stronger and faster than us. The only thing that we likely have superiority in is some elements of cognition. As for what created this imbalance, evolution, the selection of random mutations in genetic code in accordance with improved fitness for the environment the organism with the mutation finds itself in. One could just as easily ask why was there such an imbalance when the dinosaurs seemingly ruled the world. There were many other creatures, including mammals, and yet they were by and large incapable of bettering these large beasts for millions of years.

 

Animals were selected for or against certain traits because they were able to better survive in their environment. A monkey in the zoo is much better adapted to its arboreal environment that we are because the environmental pressures they lived with pushed them in that direction. Our ancestors faced different pressures, once that pressured them to abandon the forest and begin a process of encephalization. Once this began, it resulted in a positive feedback loop, for smarter bipedal primates did better than dumber bipedal primates, and so the push to become smarter and smarter continued, even to this day. I suspect the primary environmental pressure was either the social structure of our human ancestors developed in such a way that greater intelligence granted them an advantage. The other option might be the development of a particular mating preference that induced increased intelligence. This goes into greater detail than I can here in this post:

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Scientific evidence for any sensation that is related to a brain state is going to be partially bound up in the individuals self reporting of that sensation. Hence, if we were wondering which part of the brain might be involved in memory, one test could be to apply a light electrical stimulation while the subject is alert and have them report what they are experiencing. Neurons are only electrical through part of the signal transmission process, with the other part being chemical, at the point called the synaptic cleft. Hence, not only can we study which neurons and by extrapolation which parts of the brain are associated with sadness, but we can also look for chemicals that are used for inducing and maintaining a state of sorrow and also which are used to signal an end to such a state. But is any of this sadness itself? Are the neurons involved sadness, the chemicals? No, for sadness is not a physical object, but a feeling, an experience, just as a memory is. But again, does this mean that there is no empirical evidence for sadness? No, for we are aware of accompanying physical changes that occur with sadness. We can indirectly track it, and so it too is an empirical phenomena. And perhaps this is where the confusion lies. Sadness isn't a thing to be held or looked at. It is a state, a phenomena. Can we see magnetic attraction? No, all we can do is observe it indirectly through the effects it has on physical objects. But does that mean magnetic attraction does not exist, or that there is no empirical evidence for magnetic attraction? Of course not.

So I take it you can actually provide or show me a scientific proof of the existence of your sadness by sticking a couple of electrodes into your brain and show me the blip on the computer screen as ‘sadness’,, oookayyy…Perhaps I need to rephrase my question..Let say we have a rather exceptional person, say Mother Theresa, well known for her kindness and compassion for the poor, now I don’t believe that she is a kind person at all and I want you to show me scientific proof of her kindness..how are you going to do that? She’s dead btw, so sticking electrodes into her brain is not going to do much..

No, I do not believe humans are more evolved or sophisticated than other creatures. Cephalopods have a superior eye structure to us, without any blindspot in their visual field. Birds of prey likewise have superior acuity of vision. Many animals smell better than us, hear better than us, are stronger and faster than us. The only thing that we likely have superiority in is some elements of cognition. As for what created this imbalance, evolution, the selection of random mutations in genetic code in accordance with improved fitness for the environment the organism with the mutation finds itself in. One could just as easily ask why was there such an imbalance when the dinosaurs seemingly ruled the world. There were many other creatures, including mammals, and yet they were by and large incapable of bettering these large beasts for millions of years.

Animals were selected for or against certain traits because they were able to better survive in their environment. A monkey in the zoo is much better adapted to its arboreal environment that we are because the environmental pressures they lived with pushed them in that direction. Our ancestors faced different pressures, once that pressured them to abandon the forest and begin a process of encephalization. Once this began, it resulted in a positive feedback loop, for smarter bipedal primates did better than dumber bipedal primates, and so the push to become smarter and smarter continued, even to this day. I suspect the primary environmental pressure was either the social structure of our human ancestors developed in such a way that greater intelligence granted them an advantage. The other option might be the development of a particular mating preference that induced increased intelligence. This goes into greater detail than I can here in this post:

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence[/url]

That’s the thing, there are many creatures that can see better that us, yet we can create and build binoculars, telescopes and microscopes that enable us to see the tiniest of bacteria and the furthest of stars that would beat all of them. There are creatures stronger and bigger than us, yet we can build machines that can lift the biggest of them and tame the strongest of them. Why do we have a sense of conscience and morality and none of the other creatures have them? If a person kills another person, we would arrest the killer, put him on trial and punish him. Your answer would be because we are driven by the so called ‘survival instinct’. But we also find humans routinely killed and destroy animals on grand scale, in some cases wiping out the entire species. Why then we don’t find find monkeys or other creatures for that matter, for example, evolve and acquire the skill to design and produce bazookas to deter the oppressive /abusive humans. Surely that is part of the ‘survival instincts’ as well and they should be well capable to evolve into that given that they breath the same air, drink the same water, eat the same food as us humans? I found this “Once this began, it resulted in a positive feedback loop, for smarter bipedal primates did better than dumber bipedal primates, and so the push to become smarter and smarter continued, even to this day.†a little hard to swallow, for there is a clear line defining what a human is and what the rest of the creatures /animals are. How can I buy that we humans evolve from monkeys, then nature somehow selected and allow us to copy birds and build planes to fly or copy fish to build submarine to swim and yet the very same nature prevented monkeys that we evolved from, to at least copy our way of speaking, dressing, walking , using cell phones etc..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I take it you can actually provide or show me a scientific proof of the existence of your sadness by sticking a couple of electrodes into your brain and show me the blip on the computer screen as ‘sadness’,, oookayyy…Perhaps I need to rephrase my question..Let say we have a rather exceptional person, say Mother Theresa, well known for her kindness and compassion for the poor, now I don’t believe that she is a kind person at all and I want you to show me scientific proof of her kindness..how are you going to do that? She’s dead btw, so sticking electrodes into her brain is not going to do much..

Yes, in that there are particular areas of the brain that specifically handle emotions, and no, I doubt the computer screen would show "sadness". I would show electrical activity and perhaps detect the chemicals that are released upon being stimulated by these electrical pulses. I think I mentioned all of this already.

 

How would I show you scientific proof of anything that is no longer present to be evaluated? I am fairly certain that Julius Caesar was human, but can I prove it scientifically? No, I merely have to trust that the observations recorded of him, which are in accordance with being biologically human, are accurate. I do not have his body to examine, his DNA to test, or anything else for that matter. Mother Theresa's case would be similar. Reported behavior that corresponded to sadness would be accepted unless there was stronger evidence to the contrary.

 

That’s the thing, there are many creatures that can see better that us, yet we can create and build binoculars, telescopes and microscopes that enable us to see the tiniest of bacteria and the furthest of stars that would beat all of them. There are creatures stronger and bigger than us, yet we can build machines that can lift the biggest of them and tame the strongest of them. Why do we have a sense of conscience and morality and none of the other creatures have them? If a person kills another person, we would arrest the killer, put him on trial and punish him. Your answer would be because we are driven by the so called ‘survival instinct’. But we also find humans routinely killed and destroy animals on grand scale, in some cases wiping out the entire species. Why then we don’t find find monkeys or other creatures for that matter, for example, evolve and acquire the skill to design and produce bazookas to deter the oppressive /abusive humans. Surely that is part of the ‘survival instincts’ as well and they should be well capable to evolve into that given that they breath the same air, drink the same water, eat the same food as us humans? I found this “Once this began, it resulted in a positive feedback loop, for smarter bipedal primates did better than dumber bipedal primates, and so the push to become smarter and smarter continued, even to this day.” a little hard to swallow, for there is a clear line defining what a human is and what the rest of the creatures /animals are. How can I buy that we humans evolve from monkeys, then nature somehow selected and allow us to copy birds and build planes to fly or copy fish to build submarine to swim and yet the very same nature prevented monkeys that we evolved from, to at least copy our way of speaking, dressing, walking , using cell phones etc..?

You are confusing technological superiority with biological superiority. Technological superiority in vision, hearing, strength and the like is a relatively recent phenomena, but I am certain that you do not think humans that existed prior to these inventions were inferior, so this doesn't really support your argument. Are you superior to Muhammad because you can fly, see bacteria, and operate a forklift?

 

Having a sense of morality is derived from having developed our intelligence within (and possibly because of) a social group. Morality are the inherited (both biological and cultural) rules governing our social experience and are based on successful group dynamic (unsuccessful dynamics are weeded out either by the society itself or by the failure of the social group to compete with other, better organized social groups).

 

As for monkeys and the like dying at the hands of humans, large scale competition with humans is a relatively recent evolutionary phenomena. Most animals have simply not had sufficient time to adapt to the rapid environmental changes wrought by humans, and so die. Those that do survive are in fact evolving. A common characteristic of animals that have survived human contact is a cautious avoidance of humans, one of the more effective strategies that is also one of the most readily available adaptions for a species to achieve. Evolution can only modify what is already there. Your hypothetical ape that would fight against us would have to go through a process similar to what humans did in order to create weaponry like that. The time scale necessary for something like that is in the millions of years, not within a couple generations. Most of your other arguments also seem to come from ignoring the sorts of time scales involved in evolutionary change.

 

On the other hand, I am sorry to say, but there is certainly no clear line separating humans from other animals, at least not any clearer a line than that which separates any species from another. Evolutionary models have traced much of the evolution of humans, and the earlier fossils clearly demonstrate a greater similarity the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees than later fossils. Why can't you believe we evolved from primates? Our body design, skeletal, organ, and musculature are all incredibly similar to other primates. DNA is also remarkably similar, especially with the great apes whose ancestors split from ours at a later period than other primates. And I've already offered an explanation for why we developed this way and our nearest animal relatives did not, because selective pressures on us were different than they were for them. An important difference is the size and nature of hominid social groupings, that may have encouraged encephalization in order to compete and cooperate within the group as well as influence characteristics of sexual selection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alsalamo alykom, brothers

i feel i like to share in that nice thread, i did study Darwin theory in school as a non-proven weak theory, we are in Islamic country. i like to have some discussion about it, if thats ok. if you like to transfer it into a new thread will be ok too.

 

Yes, in that there are particular areas of the brain that specifically handle emotions, and no, I doubt the computer screen would show "sadness". I would show electrical activity and perhaps detect the chemicals that are released upon being stimulated by these electrical pulses. I think I mentioned all of this already.

While it can't tell you more than what you told it, programmed it (previously). Yes it's faster but limited capability, from point of view of imagining, inventing and creating

 

How would I show you scientific proof of anything that is no longer present to be evaluated? I am fairly certain that Julius Caesar was human, but can I prove it scientifically? No, I merely have to trust that the observations recorded of him, which are in accordance with being biologically human, are accurate. I do not have his body to examine, his DNA to test, or anything else for that matter. Mother Theresa's case would be similar. Reported behavior that corresponded to sadness would be accepted unless there was stronger evidence to the contrary.

I believe, we have 100s if not 1000s of the Pharaohnic period in Egypt (7000BC to 300 BC), they still have the skin, hair and some tissues, is that may help?

 

You are confusing technological superiority with biological superiority. Technological superiority in vision, hearing, strength and the like is a relatively recent phenomena, but I am certain that you do not think humans that existed prior to these inventions were inferior, so this doesn't really support your argument. Are you superior to Muhammad because you can fly, see bacteria, and operate a forklift?

Yes the human being is more advanced, acquiring and transferring accumulated knowledge and inventing a new magnificent inventions than the time of the prophet (pbuh).

Do you believe the Bactiria did the same?

 

Having a sense of morality is derived from having developed our intelligence within (and possibly because of) a social group. Morality are the inherited (both biological and cultural) rules governing our social experience and are based on successful group dynamic (unsuccessful dynamics are weeded out either by the society itself or by the failure of the social group to compete with other, better organized social groups).

Do any other creature group have developed a similar moral system?

 

As for monkeys and the like dying at the hands of humans, large scale competition with humans is a relatively recent evolutionary phenomena. Most animals have simply not had sufficient time to adapt to the rapid environmental changes wrought by humans, and so die. Those that do survive are in fact evolving. A common characteristic of animals that have survived human contact is a cautious avoidance of humans, one of the more effective strategies that is also one of the most readily available adaptions for a species to achieve. Evolution can only modify what is already there. Your hypothetical ape that would fight against us would have to go through a process similar to what humans did in order to create weaponry like that. The time scale necessary for something like that is in the millions of years, not within a couple generations.

I believe the known classified species, on this earth, between 100,000s and millions and so we suppose to see an evolutionary action and transient forms every year or few years at maximum.

 

On the other hand, I am sorry to say, but there is certainly no clear line separating humans from other animals,

Mind, reasoning, acquiring, accumulating and transferring knowledge and inventing. Walking head up just straight. what could be the main benifit of walking straight and why no other species could do it?

 

Evolutionary models have traced much of the evolution of humans, and the earlier fossils clearly demonstrate a greater similarity the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees than later fossils.

How to prove these (ancestors are ancestors) not and distinct creatures?

Do you believe that all the human stemmed out from some where in Africa, not from many places on this earth?

 

Why can't you believe we evolved from primates?

Because we aren't

 

Our body design, skeletal, organ, and musculature are all incredibly similar to other primates. DNA is also remarkably similar, especially with the great apes whose ancestors split from ours at a later period than other primates.

That gives me another indication, which is the one professional designer. And the ability to give every thing his form that supports his function in life.

 

020.050 Y: He said: "Our Lord is He Who gave to each (created) thing its form and nature, and further, gave (it) guidance."

 

Here I have a question, what may cause that difference in the human baby, why he seems less evolved than any other species; he is fully dependant on his pairents for years. He can'y walk tell almost 12 months? And do you believe that, long time ago, the mother of the human when get a baby, just few hours and he be able to walk and take care of himself?

 

Evolutionary models have traced much of the evolution of humans, and the earlier fossils clearly demonstrate a greater similarity the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees than later fossils. Why can't you believe we evolved from primates? Our body design, skeletal, organ, and musculature are all incredibly similar to other primates. DNA is also remarkably similar, especially with the great apes whose ancestors split from ours at a later period than other primates. And I've already offered an explanation for why we developed this way and our nearest animal relatives did not, because selective pressures on us were different than they were for them. An important difference is the size and nature of hominid social groupings, that may have encouraged encephalization in order to compete and cooperate within the group as well as influence characteristics of sexual selection.

Evolution mechanism:

Do You think, one day, we will get up in the morning to find the news talks about that town on the sea shower, whose people like to swim too much, the whole people began to have fish scales on their skin to have lower water resistance. Or they may have 2 more fingers in their hands to have higher driving force during swimming?

i hear my wife hopes all the time to have extra two hands (in fact she tells that after burning the food!!) so she can do extra work at time. do you think i may get up one day to find here with four hands? and what i have to do at the time?

 

And if that will happen first to the alive persons or the next generation?

If that will happen to the man's sperm and how? or the woman egg and how?

I can't imagine how the physical requirements will be able to change DNA?

If that happened to one person, how can he multiply with others then?

I believe that any change in the DNA indicates an illness?

 

Can you explain that to me?

 

have a nice day/night

Edited by AHMAD_73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl: & :sl: to br. Ahmad_73 for your excellent input on evolution..

 

How would I show you scientific proof of anything that is no longer present to be evaluated? I am fairly certain that Julius Caesar was human, but can I prove it scientifically? No, I merely have to trust that the observations recorded of him, which are in accordance with being biologically human, are accurate. I do not have his body to examine, his DNA to test, or anything else for that matter. Mother Theresa's case would be similar. Reported behavior that corresponded to sadness would be accepted unless there was stronger evidence to the contrary.

That's right, science is equipped to deal and prove only certain things. The fact that numerous people from various unrelated sources tells us that Julius Caesar was human and Mother Theresa was a great person with a kind heart, is proof enough for us to establish the fact that Caesar was human and mother theresa was a real person with a kind heart.. agree? Is there anything scientific in establishing that fact? None that I can see, yet we have successfully established the facts. We can also easily establish the fact that each of us has a set of great great grand parents that lived over 1000 years ago without any scientific mean, yet we can establish that fact because we are here. Is it a little baffling when it comes to God, people still insisting on scientific evidence and empirical evidence?

 

You are confusing technological superiority with biological superiority. Technological superiority in vision, hearing, strength and the like is a relatively recent phenomena, but I am certain that you do not think humans that existed prior to these inventions were inferior, so this doesn't really support your argument. Are you superior to Muhammad because you can fly, see bacteria, and operate a forklift?

You miss understood what I said, I simply lump the entire human race on one side and other creatures on another. FWIW, IMO, humans in the entirety of their existence, always think of themselves as the latest and greatest, just pick any point in history..

As per the rest of the 'nature' and 'evolution' points, Br. Ahmad had addressed just about all of them..

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i did study Darwin theory in school as a non-proven weak theory, we are in Islamic country. i like to have some discussion about it, if thats ok. if you like to transfer it into a new thread will be ok too.

And I learned that evolution is a well documented and thoroughly tested theory explaining the present diversity of life on Earth. My question is why would the be teaching such a theory in every major university if it was such a weak and non-proven theory? I suppose you could think it is a global conspiracy, but it just seems easier to me to believe that it in fact is a fairly well documented and successful theory. It seems like too much work to try and concoct a vast global conspiracy that just so happens to include the vast majority of scientists who specialize in biology.

 

Yes the human being is more advanced, acquiring and transferring accumulated knowledge and inventing a new magnificent inventions than the time of the prophet (pbuh). Do you believe the Bactiria did the same?

Yes, I do believe bacteria have done the same. This is why we now have drug resistant bacteria, because they evolved to adapt to modern medicine and overcome the antibacterial drugs we were using to kill them.

 

Do any other creature group have developed a similar moral system?

Yes, many social animals have something similar to a moral system, albeit simpler, commensurate with their intellectual capacity for handling complex social interaction. Many of the basic rules of human morality can be found exhibited in other animals.

 

I believe the known classified species, on this earth, between 100,000s and millions and so we suppose to see an evolutionary action and transient forms every year or few years at maximum.

The rapidity of evolutionary change is largely dependent on the degree of environmental change the organism experiences coupled with time it takes to reproduce. Bacteria are a clear example of evolution at work, as the example I gave above demonstrates. Another is rats that are now resistant to the poison warfarin. Additionally there is the well known example of moths that changed color in order to adapt to tree bark coloration. One more example that is a little less happy is the evolution of the HIV virus, which mutated from a virus that infected chimpanzees into one that could infect humans.

 

Mind, reasoning, acquiring, accumulating and transferring knowledge and inventing. Walking head up just straight. what could be the main benifit of walking straight and why no other species could do it?

Everything you mentioned is all connected to intellectual capacity. I don't know why you would list them separately. As for walking upright, it has two advantages. It allowed our ancestors to adapt from an arboreal environment to a savanna environment where the need to see above grasses was an advantage. The second advantage is that it freed up the upper limbs to develop finer motion which allowed for more sophisticated manipulation of objects. We are not the only animals that are bipedal, however. Nearly all birds, as well as kangaroos and similar animals are all bipedal.

 

How to prove these (ancestors are ancestors) not and distinct creatures?

Because they exhibit structural similarities that display a gradual transformation from arboreal animals that we evolved from to the bipedal large cranium animals that we are today. Not all of these may have been our direct evolutionary ancestor. Some of them may have been closely related species like the neanderthal was to our human ancestors. However, even these demonstrate that there was at least something looking like that when they were around, which also supports the theory that we evolved along those lines.

 

Do you believe that all the human stemmed out from some where in Africa, not from many places on this earth?

Yes, I do believe this. There is genetic evidence that seems to clearly show a single source ancestry for all humans, although there has been evidence recently that these humans may have had limited admixture with closely related species (Neanderthal and Denisovan).

 

Here I have a question, what may cause that difference in the human baby, why he seems less evolved than any other species; he is fully dependant on his pairents for years. He can'y walk tell almost 12 months? And do you believe that, long time ago, the mother of the human when get a baby, just few hours and he be able to walk and take care of himself?

I believe that our distant evolutionary ancestors did indeed have neonates that were much more self-sufficient at a faster rate than humans. The reason human babies are so dependent is that much of the brain structure is still being developed after birth. This is necessary in order to fit the neonate through the birth canal. If birthing was done after this development, the head of the neonate would be too large to make this passage.

 

Evolution mechanism:

Do You think, one day, we will get up in the morning to find the news talks about that town on the sea shower, whose people like to swim too much, the whole people began to have fish scales on their skin to have lower water resistance. Or they may have 2 more fingers in their hands to have higher driving force during swimming?

i hear my wife hopes all the time to have extra two hands (in fact she tells that after burning the food!!) so she can do extra work at time. do you think i may get up one day to find here with four hands? and what i have to do at the time?

 

And if that will happen first to the alive persons or the next generation?

I don't know if any of these things will happen. It depends on evolutionary pressures that come to bear upon humans. Given our technological advantage most of those things will happen, since humans will develop technology that can handle the situation faster than evolutionary changes to the human body could happen. However, some things are less likely. Additional limbs are unlikely, since evolution tends to modify what an animal has and not give it completely new structures (this is why birds didn't develop wings in addition to the four limbs their ancestors had, but simply modified the front pair of limbs to become wings).

 

Evolution does not occur on an individual basis, but at a population level. Thus an individual will not evolve in the course of its life.

 

If that will happen to the man's sperm and how? or the woman egg and how?

I can't imagine how the physical requirements will be able to change DNA?

If that happened to one person, how can he multiply with others then?

I believe that any change in the DNA indicates an illness?

Changes are random mutation. It can be a copying error in the reproductive process, damage to the DNA from radiation, or some other process. Environmental pressures do not make changes to the DNA, there are already changes in the DNA. The environment simply creates and situation in which some changes are advantageous and others are not. Initial changes in DNA do not make a new species, but simply a variation within the species. In order to create a separate species, something else must occur, isolation of the variation from the rest of the population. Without this, the change will simply spread throughout the species (or not if it is disadvantageous).

 

You are correct that many, perhaps even most changes in DNA are disadvantageous within the parameters of the current environment we live in. One fairly recent change to humans was lactose tolerance. The vast majority of animals cannot tolerate milk after being weaned. Most humans show at least some tolerance of lactose even into adulthood however, and while this genetic variation is not universal among humans, it does seem to be spreading, perhaps from a Northern Europe origin since it seems to be dominant there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's right, science is equipped to deal and prove only certain things. The fact that numerous people from various unrelated sources tells us that Julius Caesar was human and Mother Theresa was a great person with a kind heart, is proof enough for us to establish the fact that Caesar was human and mother theresa was a real person with a kind heart.. agree?

As I said, it is in the absence of indications otherwise, although being kind-hearted is a little more subjective since it depends on the estimates of another.

 

Is there anything scientific in establishing that fact? None that I can see, yet we have successfully established the facts. We can also easily establish the fact that each of us has a set of great great grand parents that lived over 1000 years ago without any scientific mean, yet we can establish that fact because we are here. Is it a little baffling when it comes to God, people still insisting on scientific evidence and empirical evidence?

I suppose there would be supporting evidence for Julius Caesar, in that the people who are the modern day ancestors of the Romans are here with us and can be tested. Given that they are human, it is a reasonable assumption to conclude that the Romans, including Julius Caesar, were human. This cannot be conclusively demonstrated, of course, but without any countervailing evidence, that would seem to be sufficient for any scientist to proceed with the belief that Julius Caesar was human. This belief would be based on indirect empirical evidence. Likewise, there is empircal evidence for these ancestors, in that we can observe their artifacts, sometimes their remains, and can perform a variety of research (including in some cases DNA) to demonstrate the connection between the thousand year old individual and us.

 

As for your last question, when have I ever insisted on scientific evidence or empirical evidence for God? I don't recall doing so.

 

 

You miss understood what I said, I simply lump the entire human race on one side and other creatures on another. FWIW, IMO, humans in the entirety of their existence, always think of themselves as the latest and greatest, just pick any point in history..

As per the rest of the 'nature' and 'evolution' points, Br. Ahmad had addressed just about all of them..

No, I understood your point and disagreed with it. Humans can no more be justifiably lumped on one side and all other creatures on the other than any other species. We clearly are related to other primates and are clearly mammalian. We are more sophisticated in certain cognitive processes, but that is a difference of degree and not kind since other animals can display similar abilities on a lesser scale. One could just as easily say that cheetah's are lumped on one side and other creatures on another because no other creature runs as fast as a cheetah. I am sure that there is an animal that can fly higher than others, leap farther, swim deeper, live longer. The list can go on for just about any attribute a living animal can have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brother,

i know it's too long, feel free to answer whatever you like,

 

And I learned that evolution is a well documented and thoroughly tested theory explaining the present diversity of life on Earth. My question is why would the be teaching such a theory in every major university if it was such a weak and non-proven theory? [/code]

do you think every academic scholar, scientist, professional in the DNA field and the fields related to it is an Atheist?

If not why, do you think? what is the percentage do you think?

 

 I suppose you could think it is a global conspiracy, but it just seems easier to me to believe that it in fact is a fairly well documented and successful theory.  It seems like too much work to try and concoct a vast global conspiracy that just so happens to include the vast majority of scientists who specialize in biology.

In fact I have a question in this area, although it seems off subject

why do you think the president of the states took his civilized nation into unfair/unjustified/unfounded war some 10,000s of miles away to cause a big mess in such country and the whole area and in the his own country and people as well? what did the States gain?

Do you think Media (by the help of some scientists and speakers, whom proven later to be unaware of any thing) can processe the minds, and created a faked enimies?

Media can convert nations to be such unconscious followers, by the power of money bankers and military industry barons?

what J.F Kennidy meant by secret governments? and Iesenhour by Militery barons?and J.Bush the father by the new world order?

 

 Yes, I do believe bacteria have done the same.  This is why we now have drug resistant bacteria, because they evolved to adapt to modern medicine and overcome the antibacterial drugs we were using to kill them

I believe that may be compared to the human immunity system, or even to the human inherited features in DNA through multiplication. While acquiring, processing, accumulating and transferring knowledge through our mind and communication, far away from DNA is some thing unique for the human!!

 

 The rapidity of evolutionary change is largely dependent on the degree of environmental change the organism experiences coupled with time it takes to reproduce.  Bacteria are a clear example of evolution at work, as the example I gave above demonstrates.  Another is rats that are now resistant to the poison warfarin.  Additionally there is the well known example of moths that changed color in order to adapt to tree bark coloration.  One more example that is a little less happy is the evolution of the HIV virus, which mutated from a virus that infected chimpanzees into one that could infect humans.

Away from bacteria and viruses, any other clear form of evolution in the millions of species we have?

I believe some kinds of species began to distinct due to the global warming, the last decades, do the scientist noticed any signs of evolution at these species?

 

 Everything you mentioned is all connected to intellectual capacity.  I don't know why you would list them separately.  As for walking upright, it has two advantages.  It allowed our ancestors to adapt from an arboreal environment to a savanna environment where the need to see above grasses was an advantage. The second advantage is that it freed up the upper limbs to develop finer motion which allowed for more sophisticated manipulation of objects.

Is there any other species among the 10,000s those live in the grass needed to "see" or to "handle objects" other than the human?

 

We are not the only animals that are bipedal, however.  Nearly all birds, as well as kangaroos and similar animals are all bipedal.

My point wasn't about the bipedal only, but straight up. I believe the human is unique in the /structure/mechanism /stability system that allow him to walk just straight up.

 

 Because they exhibit structural similarities that display a gradual transformation from arboreal animals that we evolved from to the bipedal large cranium animals that we are today.  Not all of these may have been our direct evolutionary ancestor.  Some of them may have been closely related species like the neanderthal was to our human ancestors.  However, even these demonstrate that there was at least something looking like that when they were around, which also supports the theory that we evolved along those lines.

What I learned in school, 1990 that the monkeys are our ancestors, is it was the announced information by such time?

Is this still the case, or just we and the monkeys have the same ancestor?

 

 Yes, I do believe this.  There is genetic evidence that seems to clearly show a single source ancestry for all humans, although there has been evidence recently that these humans may have had limited admixture with closely related species (Neanderthal and Denisovan).

Which gives credit too, to the creation probability, is that right?

 

 I believe that our distant evolutionary ancestors did indeed have neonates that were much more self-sufficient at a faster rate than humans.  The reason human babies are so dependent is that much of the brain structure is still being developed after birth.  This is necessary in order to fit the neonate through the birth canal.  If birthing was done after this development, the head of the neonate would be too large to make this passage.

While according to the life in the savanna time, which pressed the human to walk straight, That would be a great deficiency, great danger, you can't leave such baby any how for 3-6 years and you can't leave him alone for alone for almost 10-14 years? sure he will never survive!!

How many qualities the human different than his ancestors? And if all of it happened once or through stages? How many stages?

 

 I don't know if any of these things will happen.  It depends on evolutionary pressures that come to bear upon humans.  Given our technological advantage most of those things will happen, since humans will develop technology that can handle the situation faster than evolutionary changes to the human body could happen.

Some where in Africa, the forests exists their since the human been developed, some people decided to live in these forests, or some in Indonesia or Amazon later, didn't they should return back to walk on for since they don't need any more to stand?

 

 However, some things are less likely.  Additional limbs are unlikely, since evolution tends to modify what an animal has and not give it completely new structures (this is why birds didn't develop wings in addition to the four limbs their ancestors had, but simply modified the front pair of limbs to become wings).

During the modification period, what we can call them? How long it may take? how they can be fed without hands nor wings or half hand half?

What other systems had to be modified to be a real bird? Is all of them happened at the same time or one after another?

 

 Evolution does not occur on an individual basis, but at a population level.  Thus an individual will not evolve in the course of its life.

While there is a quite differences between male/female in many physical/psychological and functional capabilities, needs and jobs? And between the separate individuals too? Which suppose to lead to difference in response to pressures?!!

 

 Changes are random mutation.  It can be a copying error in the reproductive process, damage to the DNA from radiation, or some other process.  Environmental pressures do not make changes to the DNA, there are already changes in the DNA.  The environment simply creates and situation in which some changes are advantageous and others are not.  Initial changes in DNA do not make a new species, but simply a variation within the species.  In order to create a separate species, something else must occur, isolation of the variation from the rest of the population.  Without this, the change will simply spread throughout the species (or not if it is disadvantageous).

real estimated example:

after bleading the oil, no power and the death of most of animls, human gone towards see, swimming, fishing,.....after ...... years the whole people DNA began to feel the need of body scales, and/or tails and extra fingers or may be no need to the hands at all, and smaller heads , what system in the body will try to adapt to that? .....after ...... the the lungs began to deal with water and create O2......in the DNA of the body, or the sperm for the whole men and at the same millinuim/year/day for the women eggs and the new sons became a new species, while the old has been distinkt,.....

 

plz correct this example to me, that may clear many things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do you think every academic scholar, scientist, professional in the DNA field and the fields related to it is an Atheist?

If not why, do you think? what is the percentage do you think?

I don't know the percentage. I would think the more religious people there are, the greater support for my argument that evolution is a well supported theory and not the product of a global conspiracy.

 

In fact I have a question in this area, although it seems off subject

why do you think the president of the states took his civilized nation into unfair/unjustified/unfounded war some 10,000s of miles away to cause a big mess in such country and the whole area and in the his own country and people as well? what did the States gain?

Do you think Media (by the help of some scientists and speakers, whom proven later to be unaware of any thing) can processe the minds, and created a faked enimies?

Media can convert nations to be such unconscious followers, by the power of money bankers and military industry barons?

what J.F Kennidy meant by secret governments? and Iesenhour by Militery barons?and J.Bush the father by the new world order?

I do not know why Bush brought us to war in Iraq. He could have been devious or he could have believed his own propaganda. I don't know, although clearly the propaganda was mistaken. The media did play a role in not sufficiently questioning the reasons for going into that war, and this failure has been well covered in subsequent years. From what I recall, most of the rest of the world questioned the wisdom of the war much more than here in the United States, and there were people like myself who questioned the legitimacy of the action as well. This would seem to strongly indicate that there was not a global conspiracy. It is a matter of debate whether there was a conspiracy within the U.S. government. I don't have enough information to settle that question.

 

JFK was warning against secretive governments and the abuses they entail. Eisenhower warned against undue influence of the military and industry on government policy. George HW Bush new world order speech was describing the balance of power as the Cold War ended and the bipolar arrangement of countries supporting the USSR or the USA gave way to new political alignments across the globe. I can something of a relationship between Kennedy and Eisenhower, but honestly, each of these is really a separate subject.

 

I believe that may be compared to the human immunity system, or even to the human inherited features in DNA through multiplication. While acquiring, processing, accumulating and transferring knowledge through our mind and communication, far away from DNA is some thing unique for the human!!

No, because humans adapt to disease without any change to their DNA. Bacteria do not have such mechanisms. They adapted to these drugs because certain mutations that proved resistant were selected for in an environment where these drugs were prevalent. Also, other animals have social structure and can and do pass down knowledge to new generations, although at a much less sophisticated level.

 

Away from bacteria and viruses, any other clear form of evolution in the millions of species we have?

I believe some kinds of species began to distinct due to the global warming, the last decades, do the scientist noticed any signs of evolution at these species?

You realize that one of the largest group of species are bacteria, right? Why would you exclude them from your consideration? Besides, I also mentioned rats and moths.

Here are several examples of evolutionary change in response to global warming: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060701_warming"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060701_warming[/url]

 

Is there any other species among the 10,000s those live in the grass needed to "see" or to "handle objects" other than the human?

I'm sorry, are you asking if there are other species with primate-like hands that are bipedal? Why would you ask me if there are other animals with the specific combination of traits that are typically defining of humans? I can say that there used to be other species like this, but that at present there are only humans that meet the combination of traits you have mentioned.

 

My point wasn't about the bipedal only, but straight up. I believe the human is unique in the /structure/mechanism /stability system that allow him to walk just straight up.

Humans are unique among present species. There have been relatives, like neanderthals, that also walked upright. This has a lot to do with the inherited primate bone and musculature structure. It wouldn't be as effective for species with other body plans (like kangaroos and birds) to adapt this particular posture

 

What I learned in school, 1990 that the monkeys are our ancestors, is it was the announced information by such time?

Is this still the case, or just we and the monkeys have the same ancestor?

I don't know why they would tell you monkeys are our ancestors. This has never been a contention of evolution. It is the contention of evolution that we have a common ancestor with monkeys, and that from this common ancestor, our species diverged into the separate animals we see today.

 

While according to the life in the savanna time, which pressed the human to walk straight, That would be a great deficiency, great danger, you can't leave such baby any how for 3-6 years and you can't leave him alone for alone for almost 10-14 years? sure he will never survive!!

Which is why the development of the human brain occurred within the context of humans as a species forming comparatively large social groups that were capable of supporting such an intensive developmental process. However, you are correct that infant mortality was much higher for our ancestors than it is for modern humans. Many humans (and ancestors of humans) infants died before reaching adulthood.

 

Some where in Africa, the forests exists their since the human been developed, some people decided to live in these forests, or some in Indonesia or Amazon later, didn't they should return back to walk on for since they don't need any more to stand?

Actually, it would have been somewhat the other way around. Our ancestors didn't so much leave the forest as have the forest leave them do to climate change. As for why humans wouldn't change back to forest life, I suppose there are two reasons for this. First, there were already primates that were adapted to forest life, chimpanzees and gorillas among them. These humans would have had to compete in the same ecological niche as these and this would have been difficult against animals so similar to us. But perhaps more importantly, they would have lost some of the finer motor skills that having free upper limbs allows for and so would have been disadvantaged against other humans wielding tools and weapons. Trying to make such a transition would have been disadvantageous on both sides of the equation for any such human. Instead of biological adaptation, it was more efficient, and effective, to simply develop technological adaptations to handle these environments. As I said before, technology is much more easily adapted then biology.

 

During the modification period, what we can call them? How long it may take? how they can be fed without hands nor wings or half hand half?

What other systems had to be modified to be a real bird? Is all of them happened at the same time or one after another?

 

While there is a quite differences between male/female in many physical/psychological and functional capabilities, needs and jobs? And between the separate individuals too? Which suppose to lead to difference in response to pressures?!!

The difference is already present in the variation seen in each individual. The pressure is both environmental (some variations help you survive better than others) and sexual (some variations help you mate better than others). These variations are mostly created by the recombination of genes through sexual reproduction, but there are also mutations that can occur in the process that will also be passed down. As you said earlier, many (perhaps even most) of these are detrimental. These will either die or fail to be passed along to the next generation. But this also means that there is a chance for a more advantageous change to occur and be passed along.

 

I apologize if I didn't respond to something you wished I had. There is a limit to the number of quotations a post can have, and so I edited some of the out to meet this limitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I understood your point and disagreed with it. Humans can no more be justifiably lumped on one side and all other creatures on the other than any other species. We clearly are related to other primates and are clearly mammalian. We are more sophisticated in certain cognitive processes, but that is a difference of degree and not kind since other animals can display similar abilities on a lesser scale. One could just as easily say that cheetah's are lumped on one side and other creatures on another because no other creature runs as fast as a cheetah. I am sure that there is an animal that can fly higher than others, leap farther, swim deeper, live longer. The list can go on for just about any attribute a living animal can have.

 

So is it a mistake by nature that our particular pro is much more beneficial then other animals pro's? Because it's undeniable our particular attribute puts us far ahead any other animal. We can almost create nearly anything that is more efficient than any particular animal pro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So is it a mistake by nature that our particular pro is much more beneficial then other animals pro's? Because it's undeniable our particular attribute puts us far ahead any other animal. We can almost create nearly anything that is more efficient than any particular animal pro.

Mistake makes it sounds like there was an alternate goal. Something similar occured when the dinasaurs first evolved. The rapidly overcame other animals, including the ancestor to mammals and remained dominant, pushing all other animals to the margins until their mass extinction gave our ancestors a chance.

 

If you think about it, our advantage really isn't that big over other animals, it is only through millions of years of developing tools and other technology that we have arrived at our current state of complete dominance. Think of it is as two cars, one with a slight advantage in acceleration than the other. Initially, the difference would not have been that noticable, but the longer the race continued, the more noticable that slight advantage would become.

 

Strip away all of those years of technology built upon technology, and humans (or their ancestors) would barely impress you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know the percentage. I would think the more religious people there are, the greater support for my argument that evolution is a well supported theory and not the product of a global conspiracy.

 

I do not know why Bush brought us to war in Iraq. He could have been devious or he could have believed his own propaganda. I don't know, although clearly the propaganda was mistaken.

while i see invading Iraq and causing the kill of 500,000 to 1000,000 innocents some thing big can't be simply explained, i see the Media justification and supporting this event as some thing have no explanation too. it is not just a mistake, or for personal purpose. what could be the gain of bleeding the US economy and military of the states?

 

The media did play a role in not sufficiently questioning the reasons for going into that war, and this failure has been well covered in subsequent years. From what I recall, most of the rest of the world questioned the wisdom of the war much more than here in the United States, and there were people like myself who questioned the legitimacy of the action as well.

i don't see so. i can see only a completion of the same role of reliefing the mad people about the war. the crocodile tears.

wonna the real correction is to know the real involved persons, who gave the CIA reports, who allow the spread out of it as a real proven facts (in Media), who gave the orders (in military and president),..who shot the mouses in the sinate and congress.

 

if some one killed your beloved one by hand or help or probaganda, i believe you will not accept him just to weep beside you as a fair solution.

 

JFK was warning against secretive governments and the abuses they entail. Eisenhower warned against undue influence of the military and industry on government policy. George HW Bush new world order speech was describing the balance of power as the Cold War ended and the bipolar arrangement of countries supporting the USSR or the USA gave way to new political alignments across the globe. I can something of a relationship between Kennedy and Eisenhower, but honestly, each of these is really a separate subject.

 

I just wonder why did he used that expression "New World Order" not new power balance or new US force and power, or even new world system…..and if that has any relation to what been printed in back of the American Dollar bill " NOUVUS ORDO SECLORUM ", who design it?

 

BTW, what is the meaning of every symbol there:

The pyramid?

The eye?

The 13 ARROWS , 13 LEAVES, 13 WHITE/DARK COLORS, 13 STARS?

"ANNUIT CCEPTIS"?

THE GREAT SEAL?

E PLURIBUS UNUM?

In god we trust…and then a big "one"..., is that the god as the Jew see him or as the Christian see him?

I don't know what is this language? Latin? and if it represents any value in US history, and why to use it?

 

If the US Federal Reserve Bank, is a federal facility or private one?

Who/when establish it?

Who own it initially and now?

What it's main authorities?

 

You may like to see this documentary, about money masters, and who changed the money from gold into paper and how he could domain the world banking ? then Media, then politics….

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
while i see invading Iraq and causing the kill of 500,000 to 1000,000 innocents some thing big can't be simply explained, i see the Media justification and supporting this event as some thing have no explanation too. it is not just a mistake, or for personal purpose. what could be the gain of bleeding the US economy and military of the states?

Sorry, I have to stick with my previous answer. I lack sufficient information to make offer you an answer. And while the media certainly did offer a lot of support early on, there was much criticism, of the Bush administration and of itself, in the aftermath of the war. You seem quite confident that there is a conspiracy. Unfortunately, I am unable to share in your confidence in this matter. I have too many doubts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means "new order of the ages".

 

Here is some information on its use in the Seal of the United States: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Novus_ordo_seclorum"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Novus_ordo_seclorum[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mistake makes it sounds like there was an alternate goal. Something similar occured when the dinasaurs first evolved. The rapidly overcame other animals, including the ancestor to mammals and remained dominant, pushing all other animals to the margins until their mass extinction gave our ancestors a chance.

 

If you think about it, our advantage really isn't that big over other animals, it is only through millions of years of developing tools and other technology that we have arrived at our current state of complete dominance. Think of it is as two cars, one with a slight advantage in acceleration than the other. Initially, the difference would not have been that noticable, but the longer the race continued, the more noticable that slight advantage would become.

 

Strip away all of those years of technology built upon technology, and humans (or their ancestors) would barely impress you.

 

The topic does show an certain anthropocentrism. If you were to take all the biomass in the world and weigh it, humans or whales wouldn't be the most proficient , it would be bacteria by a long shot. In the bible and the Quran it claims that man should have dominion over the world, but we obviously don't when cancer, typhoid, malaria, and the flu have had and continue to have dominion over us. It does remind me,though, of this poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley

 

Ozymandias

 

I met a traveller from an antique land

Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desart. Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:

And on the pedestal these words appear:

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.

 

 

That isn't to diminish man and womankind's hard earned and often arduous achievements, but to think that we are the pinnacle of everything in the universe or even the earth of which we haven't even explored a thousandth of it to wear the pants a bit big around the waist.

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It means "new order of the ages".

 

Here is some information on its use in the Seal of the United States: you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Novus_ordo_seclorum

 

can someone find me a translator online to translate ¨seclorum¨ none so far translate it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can someone find me a translator online to translate ¨seclorum¨ none so far translate it...

I just did on another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrase is taken from the fourth Eclogue of Virgil, which contains a passage (lines 5-8) that reads:

Latin English

Ultima Cumaei venit iam carminis ætas; Now comes the final era of the Sibyl's song;

Magnus ab integro sæclorum nascitur ordo. The great order of the ages is born afresh.

iam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna, And now justice returns, honored rules return;

iam nova progenies cælo demittitur alto. now a new lineage is sent down from high heaven.

 

The word seclorum does not mean "secular", as one might assume, but is the genitive (possessive) plural form of the word saeculum, meaning (in this context) generation, century, or age. Saeculum did come to mean "age, world" in late, Christian Latin, and "secular" is derived from it, through secularis. However, the adjective "secularis," meaning "worldly," is not equivalent to the genitive plural "seclorum," meaning "of the ages."[3]

 

 

Thus the motto Novus ordo seclorum can be translated as "A new order of the ages." It was proposed by Charles Thomson, the Latin expert who was involved in the design of the Great Seal of the United States, to signify "the beginning of the new American Era" as of the date of the Declaration of Independence.

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you add the link?

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=737624&st=20&p=1250613entry1250613"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic...p;#entry1250613[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The phrase is taken from the fourth Eclogue of Virgil, which contains a passage (lines 5-8) that reads:

Latin English

Ultima Cumaei venit iam carminis ætas; Now comes the final era of the Sibyl's song;

Magnus ab integro sæclorum nascitur ordo. The great order of the ages is born afresh.

iam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna, And now justice returns, honored rules return;

iam nova progenies cælo demittitur alto. now a new lineage is sent down from high heaven.

 

The word seclorum does not mean "secular", as one might assume, but is the genitive (possessive) plural form of the word saeculum, meaning (in this context) generation, century, or age. Saeculum did come to mean "age, world" in late, Christian Latin, and "secular" is derived from it, through secularis. However, the adjective "secularis," meaning "worldly," is not equivalent to the genitive plural "seclorum," meaning "of the ages."[3]

Thus the motto Novus ordo seclorum can be translated as "A new order of the ages." It was proposed by Charles Thomson, the Latin expert who was involved in the design of the Great Seal of the United States, to signify "the beginning of the new American Era" as of the date of the Declaration of Independence.

 

 

Very interesting, but let me ask something:

 

By "A new order of the ages" is it not understood as a ¨New Order¨ where all other nations will coexist united?

And if so, will it not also mean that a mentality to not mix-IN any Gods would be preferred to get the goal completed?

 

I mean Im assuming since seclorum also means world. Or rather: a new order where everyone thinks like US.

So, using media ¨let´s make the majority think how absurd religion is and how contradictory are one from the other, by us not being part of them¨

 

It´s just me thinking...... :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean Im assuming since seclorum also means world. Or rather: a new order where everyone thinks like US.

So, using media ¨let´s make the majority think how absurd religion is and how contradictory are one from the other, by us not being part of them¨

 

It´s just me thinking...... :sl:

No, it doesn't mean world. That is mundus in latin. Your conjecture is off as well. It is a remark that a new age had begun with the date MDCCLXXVI or 1776 (the signing of the Declaration of Independence).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The topic does show an certain anthropocentrism.

I can understand how it can seem like that, but I think there is something legitimate in noting the particular success humans have had, both in the population numbers achieved while considering the constraints on a land animal as large as humans are, and in the environmental changes wrought by humans on a global scale. I don't know of science having ever verified another biological agent having as large an impact on the surrounding flora and fauna as humans have. Our success could very well be the first biologically induced mass extinction event in the history of the planet. Even if we are not the first, it is at least a mark of incredible reproductive success that our multiplying is numbered among these mass extinction events, on par with large asteroids and mass vulcanism for changing the global environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×