On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, ardeith l carter wrote:

> OK....point taken......and I'm operating from what may be a
> false assumption......I'm assuming Gordon is referring to
> human life as more "advanced" than other lifeforms...such
> as earth worms and/or bacteria................................

And so we may be, on some continua.  Certainly not all.  For
example, I'm sure you've seen those cave paintings at Lascaux (or
reproductions of them).  However "primitive" you may find them,
it is a significant fact (as Chesterton pointed out) that there
are no paintings of humans by bison (or whatever) with which to
compare them.  On that continuum we are more advanced.

> I still don't think I would agree
> with the assumption that humans are more "advanced"
> ........let me try it this way......gorillas are not "failed"
> humanoids.....gorillas are as advanced on their own
> genetic path as humans are on theirs......

Right, but in terms of strength gorillas are more advanced that
humans.  On this continuum they are better than us.  That doesn't
make us failed gorillas either.

> We.....humans....are not the penultimate goal of
> evolution.......we just happen to be the critters
> that developed the ability to "conquer" the world
> before any other critter developed that ability.

And therefore we are more advanced in those terms.  Nobody has
said that we are the penultimate -- or ultimate -- goal of
evolution, since evolution is supposed to be without goals.

Perhaps what you are getting at is that from the blind,
purposeless vantage point of evolution nothing is advanced
precisely because evolution has no purpose or direction.  It's
not "going anyplace" so no one is "getting anywhere" and thus no
one is "ahead."  That's fine, but it means that "advanced" means
nothing at all.  On the other hand, the word "advanced" does have
a meaning in normal discourse, and according to that meaning
humans are indeed advanced in some respects, but not in others.

> That said.......my ancestors didn't spend thousands
> of years climbing up the food-chain to become
> successful omnivorous predators just to have me
> revert to a vegetarian primate.

Exactly.  On the continuum of adaptibility and niche-independence
we are more advanced than all other primates.  Most of our
niche-independence is the result of technology, which is to a
great extent dependent on extra-somatic memory, which only humans
have developed to any meaningful degree.  I think this is what
Gordon was talking about.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]