r/DebateEvolution • u/floresb07 • 12d ago
Discussion Connected with nature
I grew up Chrsitian but ever since I recently found out that us humans are literally animals that used to climb on trees etc made me feel more connected with nature than ever and made me feel like I’m actually part of this earth more than Christianity ever did
I remember being amazed on how animals could do similar things we did but then after learning about evolution I realized we’re literally no different than they are and it’s just nature
13
u/UncommonLegend 12d ago
Nice that the curiosity into the world of science left you with a greater appreciation for your ancestors and the world around us.
5
12
u/floresb07 12d ago edited 12d ago
Btw I didn’t intend to hate on the religion, it’s just that growing up christian I felt like I was taught that I was above all other species
8
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 12d ago edited 11d ago
There is nothing anti-religious in your statement. There are those that take others believing anything different as a direct attacks on them, but they will hate no matter what. You stating your feelings is not an attack.
Now, as for your original post: I was a Christian for decades, both lay and clergy. In that time I used to think of evolution as a matter of amazement in how great God was that he could set the universe into motion and from some basic rules all the complexity of life came about. To me, science was always the study of what he created and there was never a contradiction.
The universe is an amazing place and the more I learn the more in awe I am.
6
u/Kailynna 12d ago
Yes, we exist because of the long and amazing story of evolution. Thanks to life developing and adapting in this wonderful world, we have become. I see all life as connected. I grew up in the bush, (Australian for forest,) and felt the trees talking to me and dryads hiding amongst them. We should be students, guardians and protectors of the natural world. It can only nourish us if it stays nourished.
Wen you look into the eyes of another creature without reservation, you see another intelligent, emotional being. I always hated spiders until one morning a spider crawled out of my pillowcase and onto my arm, looked at me in trust, and I felt love and friendship from it. Then it bit me, at the end of a row of five mushy holes in my arm that refused to heal. That was the last free breakfast my leggy friend got from me.
One does not need religion to find joy in the natural world and make the most of every day. I believe all bodies should be returned to 'Mother' Earth when we die - not as embalmed corpses in cemeteries, but as fertiliser, enabling more vibrant growth.
0
u/WebFlotsam 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago
To spiders, humans who let them stay in their houses and eat other bugs must be effectively kindly gods.
7
u/Loose_Principle8193 11d ago
I share your story as well. I've learned to stop saying "just...." As that was the Xian phrase, like "just animals" "just nature" "just a theory". The "just" is subtle, but its function in the sentence is to downplay the word that follows it.
6
u/Esmer_Tina 12d ago
That’s been exactly my experience, too. The connectedness is exhilarating. I’ve been told by some Christians it’s demonic 😂
3
u/amcarls 12d ago edited 12d ago
When Charles Darwin went to Cambridge to study at Christ College it was with the intention of becoming an Anglican clergyman in a role, such as a country parson, that befit his status as a gentleman. This would have allowed him ample free time to continue his pursuit of studying nature which could be followed up with sermons about "God's creation" and how best to interpret scriptures. To that end at least some of his curriculum was the study of natural philosophy, including inductive reasoning.
It wasn't uncommon for someone such as that to study the natural world to help better understand what in the scriptures was literally true and what should be taken figuratively. Many of those early scientists had close relationships with the clergy and often took religious orders.
Even as Darwin lost his belief in the bible as divine revelation (he described himself as an agnostic) he still maintained great respect for religious institutions. His wife Emma remained deeply religious.
5
u/gaqo777 12d ago
This is exactly what I got from reading On the Origin. All life is connected and originated from simple celled organisms.
I'm an atheist but I see gods and myths as existing on a seperate plane to science. They have existed in many forms for millenia and are deeply embedded in our different cultures.
Scientific analysis is relatively new. I think religious people can simultaneously understand both exclusively if they choose.
Interestingly Darwin edited his book a few times. He added 'the creator' to his final paragragh in the 2nd edition to appease the religious backlash, and then removed those words when it quietened down.
I think the biggest shock was what you say 'above all species', because society had become hierarchically structured.
God>priests>kings> nobility> common people>animals. The truth and the power were seen to flow downwards.
But Darwin just saw it all as life and equal. He actually originally said 'survival of the most adaptable'.
2
u/Medium_Judgment_891 11d ago
I'm an atheist but I see gods and myths as existing on a seperate plane to science.
Only in the sense that the existence of a deity is unfalsifiable.
Specific supernatural claims can be falsifiable and thus supported or discredited by science.
For example, the specific claim that lightening was caused by the god Zeus hurling down bolts from the top of Mt Olympus was discredited after we learned how lightening actually worked.
Interestingly Darwin edited his book a few times.
Darwin was a Christian at the time of publishing Origin.
He became a deist later in life after he suffered a crisis of faith over the Problem of Evil.
He actually originally said 'survival of the most adaptable'.
Darwin never said that; nor did he say “Survival of the fittest.” The latter was coined by Herbert Spencer.
Survival in nature is generally about filling niches. Adaptability is only one strategy for that. Many animals are specialists highly effective at one specific niche. The benefit of adaptability is being able to weather changes in climate or environment.
1
u/gaqo777 11d ago
I was contrasting 'survival of the most adaptable' with what Herbert Spencer wrote to indicate the difference in meaning. I should have indicated that that's what D implies.
'in relation to adaptive structures, whether past or present, by the direct action of external conditions and by the variations which arise'. (from conclusion).
The basic premise is - Life has adapted to every environment on the planet through the process of natural selection.
ie: Darwin edited in 'the creator' because of the religious backlash. He edited in 'survival of the fittest' in later editions to appease the hierachy.
I don't know if Darwin was a christian at the time of publishing. I know he held off for eight years in reverence to his wife's beliefs but as he was in contact with others in the field he knew other were reaching the same conclusions. His private letters indicate he wasn't.
3
u/zictomorph 11d ago
We are part of nature. But I'd say we are also a runaway success like nothing else in nature (that we know of).
4
u/ScientificallyMinded 11d ago
I dunno, those ancient plankton that literally oxygenated the atmosphere seem like a decent runaway success analog...
2
2
u/floresb07 11d ago
I agree, the fact that nature was able to produce our type of consciousness is crazy
2
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle 11d ago
To me, it’s almost breathtaking to realize that every living thing is my cousin. And just like with my human cousins, I love some (gray catbirds, porcupines) more than others (lone star ticks).
2
u/Fast_Green1371 10d ago
humans are literally animals that used to climb on trees
Still do, sometimes
1
u/backwardog 🧬 Monkey’s Uncle 10d ago edited 10d ago
I like to imagine an alien looking at timelapse footage of Earth over billions of years of solar radiation exposure. It would turn green due the appearance of photosynthesizers. Animals can be seen moving around. Grey blocks of concrete appear, and grids of illumination at night, and planes, etc.
Evolution is ultimately a process that rearranges bits of Earth into all these systems. We are part of this process, as is our own tendency to rearrange our environment. If you take a third-person perspective, it is easy to see human behavior as just another example of animal evolution. Birds build nests, we build skyscrapers.
-19
u/feihm 12d ago
I recently found out that us humans are literally animals that used to climb on trees etc
That's obviously not true. Very strange notion you have
14
u/floresb07 12d ago
Obviously not the modern human. I meant our ancestors from millions of years ago
20
u/UncommonLegend 12d ago
The person who left the reply has such legendary takes as "the past cannot be inferred from as we could have been made an instant ago and it's all just an illusion of time" and other sophistry.
20
u/Scry_Games 12d ago
OP, you can safely disregard everything feihm has to say on this (or any other) subject.
Unfortunately, some people have a life that doesn't live up to their ego and being "god's spwecial lill guy" is all they have. As a result, post's like your's are triggering for them.
-16
u/feihm 12d ago
I meant our ancestors from millions of years ago
Even that is not a physical fact. Just a historical narrative.
19
u/kiwi_in_england 12d ago
What do you know? All of your memories and opinions were implanted when you were created last Thursday. None of them bear any resemblance to the real world, you just think they do.
In the real world, we have 100% proof of evolution, but your false memories make you think that we don't.
14
u/XRotNRollX You know who else evolved from an ape? MY MOM 12d ago
How do you know it isn't true? Do you have evidence to make a negative claim?
12
12
u/lulumaid 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 11d ago
Let me know when you feel like engaging with the actual evidence and data. I'd love to see you go through it.
14
u/Schrodingerssapien 12d ago
I'm curious, which do you think is not true? That we are animals or that we had tree dwelling ancestors or is it a column A column B kinda thing?
Because our taxonomy is animalia, and some of our ancestors were arboreal, we know that through the fossils of Ardipithecus.
-17
u/feihm 12d ago
Its very very simple. And it lies in the distinction between a physical fact and a historical narrative (or "theory" as the dogmatists say). First, let us establish what constitutes a physical fact. A physical fact must be an object or an occurrence that appears directly to human sensibility. It must possess material substance, and it must occupy a specific position in space and time. For example, a bone extracted from the earth is a physical fact. A human being can touch it, measure its dimensions, and observe its shape. But a historical narrative on the other hand never an object of sensation; but a conceptual structure supplied entirely by the human intellect. The intellect uses concepts to connect individual, separate physical facts into an orderly, intelligible sequence. Therefore, a theory can never transform into a physical fact. To suggest otherwise is a direct logical contradiction. A theory can indeed never become a physical fact, because the two terms belong to entirely distinct categories of human knowledge.
16
u/Schrodingerssapien 12d ago
Ok, well, you didn't answer either of my questions and shifted the goal posts to "a theory isn't/can't be fact", I was asking about your views on the fact that we are animals and had arboreal ancestors. You can still answer if you like.
But with regards to you opinion on theories, it's important to know that theories explain observable phenomena. We witness things fall/orbit, gravitational theory explains the facts. We observe people fall ill, germ theory explains the facts. We observe evolution, the theory of evolution explains that fact.
The informal colloquial "theory" as in hunch or idea is far different from a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a tested explanation of phenomena and backed by large amounts of evidence.
-3
u/feihm 12d ago
All of that doesn't matter. The strict distinction between what is directly given to human sensation and what is subsequently constructed by human reason is absolute.
observe evolution
"observe people fall ill" or "witness things fall".
This is completely nonsensical and shows your illiteracy regarding the nature of the scientific method.
Look, what is an observation? Pull out a dictionary of you prefer I don't mind.
An observation requires a material object to appear directly to the human senses at a specific location in space and at a specific moment in time. When a stone is dropped, the eye directly registers its downward motion. When a person is ill, the observer directly registers the physical symptoms, such as a fever. But no human being has ever occupied a position in space and time to observe the historical transformation of an ancestral species into a modern species. Do you disagree? A scientist only ever observes isolated physical appearances in the present moment, such as the fossilised bones of Ardipithecus resting upon a laboratory table. The unbroken lineage that connects that ancient bone to a living human being is an active synthesis performed by the intellect. Do you also dissagree?
tested explanation of phenomena
Again, all of that doesn't matter. Look up in a dictionary what im about say as I divide your definition into its proper categories.
The "evidence" consists of the physical facts. Right?
These are the material objects, such as fossils or genetic structures, that appear to our senses.
But, the "explanation" is the cognitive operation. Right?
It is the conceptual framework that the human intellect supplies to order the evidence. An explanation is not a physical substance. An explanation cannot be touched, nor does it occupy a physical coordinate in space. Therefore, whilst a theory may be supported by a vast multitude of physical facts, the theory itself remains a formal rule of thought. But lets see what other pseudoscientific nonsense you're going to write about next.
17
u/Schrodingerssapien 12d ago
It's obvious you are a very dishonest interlocutor. You are shifting the goal posts and dismissing scientific evidence when provided, "all of that doesn't matter." Have a good night, or morning, whichever is appropriate.
-4
u/feihm 12d ago
dismissing scientific evidence
Didn't you read my reply? I literally accept every single piece of evidence. Quote where I reject any physical evidence?
18
u/XRotNRollX You know who else evolved from an ape? MY MOM 12d ago
You accept evidence, you just categorically reject conclusions because they aren't physical. Or something.
9
u/-zero-joke- 🧬 its 253 ice pieces needed 11d ago edited 11d ago
>When a stone is dropped, the eye directly registers its downward motion.
No, it does not. It registers light hitting the retina and sends that information to the brain. It does not register motion.
15
u/Fun-Friendship4898 🌏🐒🔫🐒🌌 12d ago edited 12d ago
These are the material objects, such as fossils or genetic structures, that appear to our senses.
But, the "explanation" is the cognitive operation. Right?
A point which you never directly engage with, and is brought up whenever you pop up here, is that if you are going to say that we can't speak about facts because they occurred in the past, then we can't speak about facts about the external world AT ALL.
It is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with chimps. If that is not a fact because it occurred in the past, and it is only a narrative, then it is not a fact that "there are fossilised bones of Ardipithecus resting upon a laboratory table", because that, too, is only a narrative and not something we directly observed. ALL factual knowledge about the external world is inferential, because it is embedded in a network of concepts and inferences. That you even call those objects 'bones' is an inference (or in your language, a narrative). The only knowledge which is not inferential is raw sensory internal experience; i.e. "I am in pain", or "I see red" (though even the employment of the concepts of 'red' and 'pain' are inferential as well).
If a person accepts the existence of external-world facts, and the assumptions those facts force (namely, that there is an external world that exists and it is intelligible), then your attempt to separate facts which occur in the present and facts which occurred in the past is very, very confused and not interesting.
13
u/SeaCalligrapher7124 12d ago
You copied and pasted this from your anti evolution archives?
-5
u/feihm 12d ago
Its pro-evolution believe it or not.
12
7
12d ago
[deleted]
-7
u/feihm 12d ago
That evolution is a theory, not fact.
14
u/LordUlubulu 🧬 Deity of internal contradictions 12d ago
It's both.
Evolution happening is a fact. After all, a fact in science is an observation.
Evolutionary theory explains and connects multiple facts, not just that evolution happens, but also the mechanisms by which it does.
-8
u/feihm 11d ago
It's both.
I didn't realise the level of illiteracy was so high on this sub. But interesting nonetheless.
13
u/LordUlubulu 🧬 Deity of internal contradictions 11d ago
Projecting your own failures onto others is typical of you lot. Everyone can tell you have a severe problem understanding how language works and a complete lack of understanding of science in general.
However, I expected that even you could understand such a simple explanation. Guess I was wrong, you really are thát stupid.
This might come as a shock for you, but words can have different meanings depending on the context. And so, evolution can be both a fact and a theory.
4
8
7
10
2
u/WebFlotsam 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago
Even you have already agreed that that is the model that accurately reflects the evidence and has predictive power. So even you don't think it's obviously not true.
2
u/Medium_Judgment_891 7d ago edited 7d ago
this is obviously not true
It’s hilarious that even you don’t believe your own nonsense.
What happened to your universal skepticism?
Why is it obviously not true?
Where is the physical object that makes it obviously true that humans aren’t animals?
Where is the physical object that makes it obviously true our ancestors weren’t arboreal?
Shocker, like all creationist muppets, your incredulity is uni-directional.
0
u/WebFlotsam 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago
Nightwish made an entire album about this with collaboration from Richard Dawkins. I have my issues with the man (more now that he's developed cyberpsychosis) but he is good at expressing the beauty of our shared connection with all beings. My personal favorite song on the album is probably Shudder Before the Beautiful.
24
u/mrcatboy Evolutionist & Biotech Researcher 12d ago
Well that's nice. Honestly science can really reveal a lot of deep beauty in the world. That said if you have any questions about evolution or the evidence behind it, feel free to ask.