Re: Are we "special"?
wvanhou237@aol.com
10 Dec 1996 04:03:38 GMT
In article <01bbe48c$c4bd1120$LocalHost@dan-pc>, "Rohinton Collins"
<rohinton@collins.prestel.co.uk> writes:
>
>Let's kill this thread once and for all. 'Special' in the way John meant
it
>is subjective, relative and egocentric. Science is interested in nothing
>pertaining to these qualifications. We, as palaeoanthropologists are
>interested in hominids because it is our particular interest. Cellular
>molecular biologists get worked up over cellular chemistry. You could
argue
>that one is more likely to be interested in our origins as opposed to the
>origin of other species, but again, this is subjective, and irrelevent,
as
>is this thread.
>
Why spoil a fun thing. I have been following this thread with
great
interest for a while. As a matter of fact I have heard better arguements
between
high school debating teams. "Are we special ?" The first point discussed
between the H.S. kids would be to define the term "special". They would
perhaps decide to substitute the word "unique". Or at least to decide
which
meaning of special they wish to debate.
If all concerned could admit that Homo sap. sits on the end of a
long,
shakey, and uncertain branch we might be able to make a good guess as to
how
special we are. We can see others on the tips of a few branches around us
and
even see that they are to varying extents different from ourselves. We can
even
see where other branches fell off the tree long ago. Given a million years
or so to
evolve will a species on the tip of another branch look back and see where
our
branch broke off?
Of course we are special ! From the very fact that no other
species on
earth has or ever had the total number of attributes or faults that we do.
Is that
fact pre-ordained or the result of divine edict? Certainly not. We just
happened
to be on the end of the right branch.
W F VAN HOUTEN
Older. But wiser ?
|