Theos-Talk Archives (August 2006 Message tt00450)

Leonardo,

Thanks so much, that was just great, just the kind of information I wanted. And in addition you also hit the nail on the head with problems the IDers have with any sort of "proof" that would satisfy their critics.

Again, "right on"--

Best Regards,
Don Ridgway
"scribe"

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: leonmaurer@aol.com 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:58 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Difference between humans and animals?


  Scribe,

  In my view, the most important physical change that distinguishes Man from 
  the animals was the development of the opposed thumb. This enabled primitive 
  Man to make and use tools so as to build boats, snares and weapons in order to 
  catch seals and other animals for food, and for preparing and using their 
  skins to keep their naked bodies from freezing. It also gave them instruments to 
  sew skins into clothing, and allowed them to make hunting weapons and 
  agricultural tools for their food, and construction tools for their shelters. 

  Apparently, this ability to use their hands for grasping and holding tools 
  was the forerunner of the growth of the frontal lobes -- which was apparently 
  the result of the continuously growing need to use their brains for thinking, 
  designing, communicating, etc. -- that, in turn, further developed and refined 
  the language and image processing lobes of the cerebrum -- while retaining and 
  coordinating the use of the kinesthetic functions of the cerebellum in 
  conjunction with these expanding intellectual functions of the forebrain. 

  Another major early change which separated Man from the Animal Kingdom, 
  possibly in conjunction with the opposed thumb and prior to the growth of the 
  cerebrum, was the ability to walk upright -- which facilitated Man's tool making, 
  hunting, farming and construction capabilities... Not to mention their enhanced 
  face to face sexuality that may have been necessary in the beginning to 
  assure rapid population increase, so as to give Man a numerical advantage over the 
  other animal predators they had to contend with in raw nature. 

  Thus, for the want of an opposed thumb -- and growth of an adequate brain to 
  accommodate the use of that thumb, based on many lifetimes of experience, 
  study and practice (as must be evident and as theosophy teaches) -- how could Man 
  have ever been able to become a DaVinci, a Mozart, or an Einstein?

  As for the evolutionary Darwinists and other scientific materialists, it's 
  quite understandable why they scoff at the notion of "Intelligent Design" 
  (ID)... Since these words have become a knee jerk association that conflates them 
  with "Creationism" and its supernatural basis -- that conventional scientists 
  see violates all their rules of science ... As does all reasonable ontological 
  theories, e.g., theosophical metaphysics, my ABC model, Bohm-Pribram's 
  "Holographic Paradigm", and even up to String and M-theories -- most of which go 
  beyond the limits of the observable physical universe, or beyond accepted 
  mathematical interpretation... And, thereby, cannot be falsified, nor can they make 
  predictions that can be verified or proved by the "scientific method" of 
  empirical measurement, experimentation and objective observation. 

  Leonardo 
  FYI: 
  http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
  http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

  In a message dated 8/14/06 9:03:54 PM, scribe@rs.org writes:

  > Hello, friends,
  > 
  > On another forum I got involved in the old "Darwinism vs.
  > Creationism" debate by simply saying that I thought ID ("intelligent
  > design") should be looked at seriously and scientifically because I
  > thought it made sense, that everywhere there's design and order,
  > etc. I didn't want to go into it deeper but of course I was attacked
  > viciously by the Darwinist/'Science' acolytes and it became a Big
  > Deal, you know how that goes.
  > 
  > I won't go into the usual litany they threw at me but I do want to
  > share with you one point that was brought up that stuck in my mind
  > and ask if anybody here can throw some more light on it.
  > 
  > The other side said that the only difference between animal and man
  > is man's large frontal lobe.
  > 
  > Now my studies are predominately through the spiritual aspects and
  > I'm not used to looking at the physical evolutionary side. I went to
  > my library of HPB, Besant and Purucker for references to "brain" and
  > came away with the impression that that statement might be pretty
  > close, or at least as far as any physical difference is concerned,
  > between man and animal.
  > 
  > Also, in that investigation, I was reminded that animals have a
  > group soul whereas man has an individual soul.
  > 
  > I'm asking if you know of more physical differences between animal
  > and man besides the enlarged frontal lobe? (They were very adamant
  > about that; apparently that is what is being taught in science class
  > nowadays.)
  > 
  > And, if it's true that animals have a group soul and when they die
  > they morph back into that group soul? (Just sounds kind of sad,
  > that's all.)
  > 
  > thanks,
  > scribe
  > 
  > 
  > 

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]