I've started this topic in response to the following post from ElDiablo over at "Birds are Theropod Dinosaurs" in "Earth Sciences":

ElDiablo wrote:

CharlieM wrote:
I have presented evidence that evolution is directed towards emancipation from earthly forces which in popular terms is called Mother Nature. This involves the move towards bipedalism, towards internal self regulation of temperature in the organism, towards consciousness and then on to self-consciousness.

This topic should be a thread unto itself, would you mind starting it so we can explore your concept?
The Emancipation from Earthly Forces would be an excellent title.

Here is an expansion of my comments above:

Steven Gould said the following in "Life's Granduer" Page 175:

If we could replay the game of life again and again, always starting at the left wall and expanding thereafter in diversity, we would get a right tail almost every time, but the inhabitants of this region of greatest complexity would be wildly and unpredictably different in each rendition - and the vast majority of replays would never produce (on the finite scale of the planet's lifetime) a creature with self-consciousness. Humans are here by the luck of the draw, not the inevitability of life's direction or evolution's mechanism.

Obviously I disagree with Gould on this point. We can discern a direction in evolution and it is not just a consequence of the inevitable shift away from his left wall. Life is the process where nature builds herself up to the point where she can contemplate her own existence and this is no accident. The path to the human form is the path to self-consciousness. The path can only be laid due to forms remaining behind and being cast off from the onward stream.

There are many wise sayings from the past that seem very simple, but if we think about them deeply enough they reveal a great deal more than we first imagined they would. Two relevant sayings are, "As above so below", and "The whole is reflected in the parts". Blake said the same thing in the first verse of his poem, "Auguries of Innocence". Each life is contained in the seed or egg, it can be modified or prevented from developing by external factors but its identity is there from the start. It is the same with life as a whole. Look at spermatazoa, one will reach its target at the expense of all the others falling by the wayside. Its the same with life as a whole, plenty of forms had to fall by the wayside in order for one to reach the target of self-consciousness. What we see with all the other animal forms is a radiating away from the human form. The tetrapod form, bipedalism, the pentadactyl limb, inner heat regulation all such attributes must appear at the right time in order to achieve the outcome of a self-conscious, reflective nature. When these processes happen out of place the animal form becomes fixed and its particular evolution can go no further.

Humans are not just another species of animal, they are a stage up from the animal kingdom. An animal, from its own volition, has no option but to follow its set nature. Humans, by nature gregarious, can become hermits, we can overcome our instinct for survival and deliberately end our own life, we are taking control away from nature. We can only go against nature by becoming free from it. This is an ongoing process that we can have a closer look at. Consider breathing and circulation, we have more control over one than the other at this present time. There are very few people who can control their heart rate, but we can consciously take control of our breathing. Although if we forget about our breathing or fall asleep it reverts to an automatic function. No animal will consciously alter its rate of breathing just for the sake of it. When we blindly follow our passions and satiate our desires without regard for others or the consequence of our actions then we can be regarded as animals. But animals have an excuse because they no no better than to follow their own nature. We are, or should be, higher than that.

So I believe that evolution is an unfolding of consciousness and self conscious physical beings are the result of a very long process. At first there is growth, then comes a move towards individuality. Animals progress to the stage where they can express their feelings outwardly but they still just live in the moment. Any activity that is in preparation for the future such as nest building cannot be said to be done in full consciousness but is done instinctively. Not only do we humans convey our feelings outwardly but we can convey thoughts and abstract concepts to others. Only with human consciousness comes a real awareness of past and future, of how we have reached this point and where our actions will lead.

Looking at significant points in our escape out of nature and the similarity between life as a whole and individual development I see the following connections:

1. Cambrian period - the beginning of development just after conception
2. Devonian period - age of fishes, life in the womb
3. Permian period - age of amphibians, time of birth
4. Mesozoic era - crawling on all fours
5. Cenozoic era - walking on two legs, freeing the upper limbs from a role of support to a creative role.
6. Present time - self-consciousness developing.

Not all creatures develop in a balanced, harmonious way. Look at dinosaurs like the Abelisaurids, their forelimbs are freed from the duty of bearing the weight of the animal, but we see them beginning to atrophy. Why is this? I would say its because their cerebral make-up was not advanced enough to make the best use of these limbs. They didn't use their limbs for anything that their mouths couldn't do better. In other creatures the forelimbs are adapted to bearing the weight of the animal in a higher way, as we see in birds who are borne aloft on their wings. But this limits the use to which these limbs can be put. Humans became bipedal and because of our advanced brain power we were able to use our forelimbs for more creative pursuits.

Therefore evolution as I see it is a process of development towards the self-conscious, free human being and the animal forms are a radiation and a falling behind from this development. You can call me biased and my views anthropocentric but I think a careful look at life with all its forms past and present shows that this is not mere speculation.

And 160 million years of dinosaur evolution was just part of that precursor to human consciousness. We know this because though bipedal, T.Rex had poxy little arms, and no matter how good a brain, they were never going to get creative, just bite things.

CharlieM wrote:You can call me biased and my views anthropocentric but I think a careful look at life with all its forms past and present shows that this is not mere speculation.

No. Sheer stupidity would be more like it.

Yes, your views are biased and anthropocentric. There is no evidence that the universe exists just to create self-conscious beings.

It's possible that the human race could die out through nuclear war, a virus, or whatever. If that happens, then we're just another brief, interesting experiment in natural selection.

I could pick from many animals on earth with unique characteristics and make an argument that they are the end-all, be-all of the universe.

chairman bill wrote:And 160 million years of dinosaur evolution was just part of that precursor to human consciousness. We know this because though bipedal, T.Rex had poxy little arms, and no matter how good a brain, they were never going to get creative, just bite things.

You seem to be impressed by numbers. Here's a question the answer of which, if you can work it out, will really impress you I'm sure. How many of your cells have had to die just to keep you alive and functioning throughout your life?

If someone can supply any evidence of T.Rex, or any animal for that matter, knitting sweaters or anything similar please let me know.

Shagz wrote:
I could pick from many animals on earth with unique characteristics and make an argument that they are the end-all, be-all of the universe.

Go ahead and make your argument and then we can decide if your example is as unique as human beings are among other earthly life forms.

CharlieM wrote:

Shagz wrote:
I could pick from many animals on earth with unique characteristics and make an argument that they are the end-all, be-all of the universe.

Go ahead and make your argument and then we can decide if your example is as unique as human beings are among other earthly life forms.

First you need to explain how there can possibly be varying degrees of "uniqueness." We had a guy here who insisted there were various values of the number 0. Perhaps you studied math the same place he did?

Shrunk wrote:
First you need to explain how there can possibly be varying degrees of "uniqueness." We had a guy here who insisted there were various values of the number 0. Perhaps you studied math the same place he did?

I think you are just playing with words for the sake of it.

Let's take the Incredible Hulk as an example. He is unique among humans in that he is green. He is unique among humans in that his shape changes dramatically when he is angry. I could probably think of more ways but I can't be bothered. Can you now see how ways of being unique can be measured in some way?

CharlieM wrote:

Shagz wrote:
I could pick from many animals on earth with unique characteristics and make an argument that they are the end-all, be-all of the universe.

Go ahead and make your argument and then we can decide if your example is as unique as human beings are among other earthly life forms.

Okay, let's take a look at whales.

They've evolved from land mammals. Land mammals evolved from sea animals, so perhaps the universe wanted whales to return to the seas where they'll be happier. Plankton were evolved just to keep them well fed. They're highly social, with a language we don't understand. They're intelligent, but apparently not intelligent enough to build tools enabling them to destroy themselves, unlike us unfortunate humans with brains too big for our own good. So, clearly, they're the pinnacle of evolution, created by the universe to live a carefree existence in the earth's oceans.

What utter bullshit. I haven't read an assertion fest like this in some time.

RS

Charlie - that is a lovely fantasy.

It would logically proceed with mankind developing artificial intelligence so that consciousness could exist in a physical form that can tolerate the conditions of most of the universe - a frigid vacuum. We are merely a catalyst along the way of getting from the infintesimal planet earth to the infinity of the universe.

Not long to go and we will be obsolete.

Didn't PZ Myers deal with this sort of blather in the past? Oh yes he did.

CharlieM wrote:

chairman bill wrote:And 160 million years of dinosaur evolution was just part of that precursor to human consciousness. We know this because though bipedal, T.Rex had poxy little arms, and no matter how good a brain, they were never going to get creative, just bite things.

You seem to be impressed by numbers ...

Is that the best you can do? I mention the 160 million years of dinosaur presence on earth, and suddenly I'm impressed by numbers? Bloody hell ...

You seem to have missed the point. If evolution was set to inexorably move towards 'self-consciousness', why would it fail to produce it in dinosaurs over a 160 million year period? Do you really think it needed to await the evolution of a particular primate? Or could it just have been happenstance, a lucky mutation somewhere, bestowing a slight advantage, exploited in terms of survival & reproduction, and so on?

Wait until 'the singularity', then the last surviving human slaves can watch their robot masters discuss how biological evolution was just a directed path towards mechanical intelligence.

CharlieM wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
First you need to explain how there can possibly be varying degrees of "uniqueness." We had a guy here who insisted there were various values of the number 0. Perhaps you studied math the same place he did?

I think you are just playing with words for the sake of it.

Let's take the Incredible Hulk as an example. He is unique among humans in that he is green. He is unique among humans in that his shape changes dramatically when he is angry. I could probably think of more ways but I can't be bothered. Can you now see how ways of being unique can be measured in some way?

Way to miss the point.

Sure, The Hulk is unique. And so is, say, Spiderman, who can walk up vertical surfaces and has a unique "Spider sense". As is Wolverine, with his retractible claws and healing factor.

Now, show us how you plan to determine which is more "unique" than the other.

Shagz wrote:

CharlieM wrote:

Shagz wrote:
I could pick from many animals on earth with unique characteristics and make an argument that they are the end-all, be-all of the universe.

Go ahead and make your argument and then we can decide if your example is as unique as human beings are among other earthly life forms.

Okay, let's take a look at whales.

They've evolved from land mammals. Land mammals evolved from sea animals, so perhaps the universe wanted whales to return to the seas where they'll be happier. Plankton were evolved just to keep them well fed. They're highly social, with a language we don't understand. They're intelligent, but apparently not intelligent enough to build tools enabling them to destroy themselves, unlike us unfortunate humans with brains too big for our own good. So, clearly, they're the pinnacle of evolution, created by the universe to live a carefree existence in the earth's oceans.

Whales. Good choice. Animals whose hindlimbs have atrophied away from the pentadactyl limb of humans and whose forelimbs have reduced their function basically to paddles for steering themselves around their environment. Whale have lost something that humans have retained which agrees with what I said in my initial post.

Now let's look at your "unique characteristics". They are social with a language we don't understand. Well we are social and I'm sure we understand their language better than they understand ours. Living in the sea doesn't make them unique, many other mammals do this.

You argue that because they are incapable of destroying the planet makes them the pinnacle of evolution. By that argument babies are the pinnacle of humanity because they are less capable of destructive acts than adults.

Calilasseia wrote:Didn't PZ Myers deal with this sort of blather in the past? Oh yes he did.

PZ's argument in a nutshell is that I need to demonstrate that the human genome is the most complex on earth or explain why it isn't.

Why would I? Our genome is just a set of plans for ensuring our bodies are built to the right specifications. Our body plan is very similar to any mammal so why would the instructions have to be more complex? Why shouldn't the body of an insect be more complex than the body of a mammal?

The instructions for constructing an old radiogram with its valves, knobs, springs and things is far more complex than the instructions for constructing a modern computer. In other words complexity does not always equate to advancement.

CharlieM wrote:The instructions for constructing an old radiogram with its valves, knobs, springs and things is far more complex than the instructions for constructing a modern computer. In other words complexity does not always equate to advancement.

Very poor analogy.

The computer is made of components that are far more complex than anything in an old radiogram. If you were building a computer from scratch you would have to design and build the various microchips.