TED Conversations

AbdelRahman Siddig

This conversation is closed.

The real evolution happened to our awareness not our bodies

The ability to create modern tools existed since we exist
What real evolved over time is our awareness of the
Law of physics and chemistry which was installed and configured for us before we arrive and ready to be discovered
why we are able to make modern tools only now?
what was missing before
The raw materials
or the deep relations between these materials (physics &chemistry)
or our awareness of that fact this materials are reshapable into different form of tools which helps us to save our time and efforts
but claiming man was ape this just pure theory which will never be proven
because man was created by GOD

Topics: life

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 23 2011: The ability to do something requires the knowledge of how to do it. We had to learn a lot of different things before we could make a power drill. Why couldn't we make modern tools in ancient times? Because we didn't know how.
    • May 25 2011: Opinion: I make the counter argument of the "evolved" person was not as prevalent. If the system had allowed for it, we would have done it years ago. Yet, the population is mainly followers vs. leaders. This is observed in most situation of emergency. How many react vs watch? This is why societies rise and fall. Furthermore, this is why this thread is so erking. However, I believe you get the idea of then, now, and future.

      Response to uhm what@D. Beringer:
      Daniel, the idea is that the group varies and change because of local selection forces.
      the group of existing organisms are placed under a large stress
      the group of the total population which survives is the new organisms
      This is either one group or more than one. (speciation)

      Thus, the group of future humans are alive today. For the most part, they have been around for a while. Yet, it is not to say all humans are neohumans. Why are so many people trapped inside a box--think outside the box? Act vs React, learn, seek knowledge, figure out sustainability with out being told, turn vegetarian/vegan, make conscious decisions to live life in a proactive way.

      I create art, I fix broke items instead of throwing them away, I compost, I try to buy local and think global, I decide to be aware and not react.
      I am a firm believer in the hard wiring of the brain and the maliablity of the brain as well.
      Yet, if you hit it too many times it breaks.
      Thus, some people have a low stress limit… four or five hits
      While, some of us have high stress limits… in the thousands.

      Thus, the people hard wired for thousands make hammers, nails, boats, sails, star charts, rocket ships, and moon bases.

      Meanwhile, the people left on earth evolve with the mice, bees and trees.
      “this one goes to 11” –spinal tap.
      • thumb
        May 26 2011: Uhm, what?
      • thumb
        May 26 2011: Thank you. I was totally out to sea with what you meant. So, you're saying that there is more than one variety of Human on the planet, and that some are more evolved than others? But evolution isn't a goal, it's a process. Ancient people were just as smart as us, just as capable as we are. They just didn't know enough to do the same things. It's certainly true that people are different, but we're all the same species, we're all the same people.

        If we're to think outside the box, does that mean that vegans should turn meatitarian?
        • thumb
          May 26 2011: whoa whoa whoa, why are y'all dragging veganism into this? Why would you suggest that becoming vegan is not a conscious decision, or is any way not outside the box thinking? Becoming a vegan was one of the most outside the box conscious decisions that I ever made.
        • May 31 2011: The system does change and new things come into being—yes/no? Therefore, I agree with you that humans did have intelligence similar to us (if not the same). Yet, were they all the same? Is everyone equally as smart, self aware, socially aware, etc?
          I would say no.

          The point of me saying veganism, it is a simple understanding which I have either A: collected from the mass unconscious / conscious and learned
          B: became aware because of an insight beyond what is "normal" or average.

          So, taking into consideration that there are different levels of thought, I argue that people who think outside the box are better. For whatever box is normal for them, it is this difference from the average. I argue that consciousness (i.e. mind) is actually derived by genes. Thus, I should not argue conscious or unconscious. Simply, we are a product of genes while others are different products of genes.

          It is this future science of study which will show us how the boxes are linked and we can fine tune consciousness.
        • Jun 1 2011: One species? Tell that to the morlocks. I hope you get the pop-reference? The new and old species coexist until a selection force is applied.
      • thumb
        May 26 2011: Hi Meher,

        No, merely pointing out that the box is subjective, and what for one may be outside the box might for another be the norm. Plus I think the word 'meatitarian' is funny.
      • thumb
        Jun 2 2011: Hi Pekka,

        I get the concept, I just don't think that there is enough regular mutations in the human populace to say that there is a different group of people. There is variation yes, but there is no select group of people. Our genes have not had enough time, and Humanity was far too splintered, to have made enough changes to noticeably effect an individuals mental capabilities. Plus, our genes are not the only factor effecting the development of a persons brain. We can learn, we can understand, we can evaluate and choose. We can change ourselves, and it is because of our brain that we are able to do that. Yes, our brains are built off our genes and everyone's genetic code is different. But the genetic code is neither different enough, nor are those differences regular enough. Furthermore, the development of our brain and our experiences in life have a much more drastic effect on a person's outlook and abilities than their genes. We are not encoded liberal, or narcissistic, or republican. We are not our genes, we are not even our brain. We are the decisions we make, the actions we take, and the words that we speak.

        Our genes are a part of shaping us. But we are so much more than that. Our abilities are shaped much more strongly from environmental and internal factors than by our genes. Thinking outside the box is evidence of that. Doing so allows a person to see things from a different perspective. This often brings on insights that one would not normally have. And those insights can change how a person thinks. Sometimes those insights can allow a person to do things they previously thought impossible. The new, "evolved" Human came about because of a conscious decision, not any particular genetic predisposition.
        • thumb
          Jun 2 2011: Hi Daniel,

          I actually agree with basically all that you are saying. I agree that genotype does not directly give rise to phenotype - and this is precisely the problem with natural selection. What exactly are you selecting with the environment? I would say that you select much more for the environmentally "smart" than the genetically "smart".

          Reading this post is refreshing, because I see that you get the point, and give our choices and our development the attention they deserve. My argument is that our decisions are critical to how we deal with the future of this world - and our genes, because they are continually degrading, are only a bystander given the time we have (if you look at climate change/other global issues including food shortages, etc). In my opinion, they have been a bystander all along, but you can believe what you wish. So, we should quit focusing on trying to somehow modulate our "neo-evolution" and focus on how we can make the right choices to better our world.
      • thumb
        Jun 2 2011: I realized that I posted my last reply to you Pekka, but I meant Jonathan Lynch. I don't know what I was thinking! I was about to edit, then I figured it's be easier just add another reply.

        Also, I would like to reply to your first paragraph. I'll say from the outset that I don't have any concrete ideas about that, though I do have a few hazy ones. I think that in other animals the difference between genotype/phenotype is much less pronounced, and thus natural selection will winnow through the genes more than actions. But Humans, being self aware, and in a much safer environment, do not experience that same pressure. That yes, natural selection in Humans may prove to be geared more towards choosing behavior than genes. Thus, how a person thinks will become much more important than their ability to produce insulin, or decaying bones, much less hair color or being double jointed.

        But what change in society could produce such a nebulous pressure? Fire, language, agriculture, the written word, all would have their effect. But none of these alone would have been enough, I don't think. Instead, it seems that the period from the renaissance to the industrial revolution would be the culmination of this process. Since then we have made enough change to our average way of life, and are continuing to change and expand (geographically) that change, that we are truly able to say a person thoughts are more important for their success and genetic dispersal than hereditary ailments or advantages.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.