In this topic the only one who has mentioned a "designer" has been you.
I, on the other side, even laughed of the conclusions made in the link, conclusions based on evolutionary ideas which don't fit with the current reality.
For once, forget "designers" in this issue.
(I started the propagation of DEGENERATION of species since year 2000, and if any religious group is copying it or have found the same process by themselves and uses it to favor their belief in a god or designer, well, I am aside from them. Before finding DEGENERATION I also found a different process which I called it The Recycling Process of Life on Earth. The name of the theory explains it by itself, species do not evolve but recycle. Not to be discussed here, because it's baby food, I prefer going to the big meal, the degeneration of species which is not theoretical but fact)
There is a degeneration process in progress.
It has always been a degeneration process throughout generations in the species.
Look at the root of the theory of evolution. It was called "evolution" because Kant and others thought that current species have come from inferior, worst and simpler species. Kant even wrote that we are descendants of orangutans and chimpanzees, to which he considered as inferior.
This is the idea that Darwin inherited and continued when he wrote his book the Origin of Species. He concluded that his invention "natural selection" acts solely with slow and favorable steps.
Darwin took mutations as favorable only.
This is what the theory of evolution has been about, and this is why still is keeping the word "evolution" in its title.
At one point. in the 70's, when the New-Darwinian theory of Evolution replaced the former one, the whole structure was changed and only the main title and subtitles were saved. The failed theory was told it was "updated", but failed theories can't be updated, failed theories are just discarded.
The current theory of evolution, keeps the word "evolution" as a technical term. As it is accepted, a technical term might mean something completely different to what the same word means in common language.
Evolutionists tried to push the idea that also in common language, the world "evolution" solely means "change", implying no arrow.
As you have said above, the theory of evolution doesn't imply any arrow in the changes, and this is because "evolution" on the theory is now a technical term applied in Biology only.
However, at the end of the day, there is an arrow. The changes in species finally show a specific arrow.
This arrow discards one more time the claims of the theory of evolution.
Degeneration is the arrow.
Degeneration is the evidence. Degeneration is the path.
Regardless of the propaganda and billions of dollars invested to make appear the theory of evolution as valid,
a simple but harmful change in nature affecting the elements of the universe and the species on earth is prevailing: Decay-degeneration.
We must be conscious about this reality of species under degeneration, and we must stop following by inertia of belief the theory of evolution which from its very genesis until today have been proved false.
There is no mention of inferior, worst or simpler species in the theory of evolution, not even in Darwin's seminal work. The criterion for the evolution of species is only this: Will a mutation tend to the preservation of that individual, and will it generally be inherited by its offspring? If so, that change will improve the survival chances of a species. That is the principle behind the theory and Darwin gave it a name: Natural selection. The result has been for the most part the evolution of more complex organisms over time, but this is not a requirement. Only the chances of survival are. Inferior, worst and simpler don't enter into it, nor do their antonyms.Look at the root of the theory of evolution. It was called "evolution" because Kant and others thought that current species have come from inferior, worst and simpler species.
Nowhere did Darwin argue against the existence of unfavourable mutations, though. They simply mean that they are not advantageous to the survival of a species. If a species sufficiently disadvantaged by unfavourable mutations it becomes extinct. Please show how genetic degeneration invalidates the theory of evolution.[Darwin] concluded that his invention "natural selection" acts solely with slow and favorable steps.
No, he did not. What he did say is that "...any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual..." (Chapter III, p. 60, first edition of Origins) In short, only favourable mutations enhance the chances of survival, which is not at all saying mutations are favourable only.Darwin took mutations as favorable only.
Degeneration is no more an arrow than its opposite. It is one aspect of mutation. You are straining your bow beyond breaking point. Your arrow does not fly.Degeneration is the arrow.
Well, Mendel's experiment did not start until 1856, but yes, Darwin is unlikely to have heard of them. It might have something to do with the fact that Mendel did not publicise the (forged) results of his experiments via two lectures at a regional scientific conference until six years after Darwin published his Origins of the Species, and that these were universally ignored until Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns, and Erich von Tschermak rediscovered them in 1900.While Mendel’s work on heritability predated Darwin’s work on variation, there is no evidence whatsoever that Darwin was ever aware of Mendel and plenty of evidence that he wasn’t.
Oops, I missed that the first time around.Come on Hermit, you know the importance of clear word choices and are more than capable of avoiding this sort of incautious language.
Oops, I missed that the first time around.Come on Hermit, you know the importance of clear word choices and are more than capable of avoiding this sort of incautious language.
Guilty as charged. I should not have skated over the need of accuracy in my eagerness to use broad brush strokes for the sake of simplifying the issue. In my defence I plead that arguing with people suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect demands oversimplification - at least to begin with - though that is intolerable to people who have actually read up on issues they comment on.
The two frequently overlap. What's more, a third component may play a role. I'd put a holocaust denier in the same class as a 21st century flat-earther. Remember Jerome da Gnome? As an owner-operator of a small chain of pet supplies shops you could not exactly call him terminally moronic, but would you regard him as sane?Oops, I missed that the first time around.Come on Hermit, you know the importance of clear word choices and are more than capable of avoiding this sort of incautious language.
Guilty as charged. I should not have skated over the need of accuracy in my eagerness to use broad brush strokes for the sake of simplifying the issue. In my defence I plead that arguing with people suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect demands oversimplification - at least to begin with - though that is intolerable to people who have actually read up on issues they comment on.
In this case, I'm not sure if D/K or good old faith is the problem. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
As an owner-operator of a small chain of pet supplies shops you could not exactly call him terminally moronic, but would you regard him as sane?
The two frequently overlap. What's more, a third component may play a role. I'd put a holocaust denier in the same class as a 21st century flat-earther. Remember Jerome da Gnome? As an owner-operator of a small chain of pet supplies shops you could not exactly call him terminally moronic, but would you regard him as sane?In this case, I'm not sure if D/K or good old faith is the problem. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Why would I do that? The fact is that, as a Christian if you just said you had faith then that would be cool, but trying to put together arguments based on evolution and biology in a forum loaded with people who are trained in science just seems a daft thing to do, especially when you make schoolboy errors of the sort I'll be addressing in a moment.
It has always been a degeneration process throughout generations in the species.
Look at the root of the theory of evolution. It was called "evolution" because Kant and others thought that current species have come from inferior, worst and simpler species. Kant even wrote that we are descendants of orangutans and chimpanzees, to which he considered as inferior.
Yeah, you said this before, and it's an empirical claim. Now I've read a fair bit of Kant, I've even taught Descartes to Kant more than a few times and I've read most of his work at some point or another. And I confess I can't remember him making this claim, any reference to him making this claim and so I'd be really really pleased if you could give me a source for this claim. I confess that it does seem unlikely that he'd say something like this as Kant died five years before Darwin was born. There just wasn't remotely any tradition of thinking like this in Germany at the time Kant was working. Mind you, he was a clever bugger, so I'd be delighted to get chapter and verse please.
This is the idea that Darwin inherited and continued when he wrote his book the Origin of Species. He concluded that his invention "natural selection" acts solely with slow and favorable steps.
Really? I thought natural selection was a process by which the less fit tended not to survive to breed while the more fit did. The notion of things being 'favourable' is putting the cart before the horse. I really would recommend that you get clear about the processes underpinning evolution before making claims like this.
Darwin took mutations as favorable only.
Again, I'd love to see your source for this. This time I really think you will struggle as the very idea of mutations wasn't even proposed until 1900, (By Hugo De Vries) eighteen years after Darwin died.
At one point. in the 70's, when the New-Darwinian theory of Evolution replaced the former one, the whole structure was changed and only the main title and subtitles were saved. The failed theory was told it was "updated", but failed theories can't be updated, failed theories are just discarded.
Of course they can: failed theories are either reduced or eliminated. Reduction involves making connections between the ontology, methodology and attitudes of the old theory and the new. Elimination is self explanatory. That said, what exactly do you mean? I'm pretty sure that the central mechanisms of evolution remains unchanged since Darwin. Perhaps you can explain the change you describe.
The current theory of evolution, keeps the word "evolution" as a technical term. As it is accepted, a technical term might mean something completely different to what the same word means in common language.
So you say, perhaps you can explain exactly what changed and describe some of the key changes, with references. Please.
As you have said above, the theory of evolution doesn't imply any arrow in the changes, and this is because "evolution" on the theory is now a technical term applied in Biology only.
How much arrow there is, generally comes down to the selective pressure. where, for example, food is abundant and predation rare, there's not much of an arrow. When food becomes rarer or predation more extreme there is a powerful arrow towards fitting an environment. If the conditions change the selective pressure changes.
However, at the end of the day, there is an arrow. The changes in species finally show a specific arrow.
Speciation certainly happens, but it's usually about fitting particular environments - that's the selective pressure.
Inferior. It's what's fur dinner.It was known the discussion between Geoffroy with Cuvier (the catastrophe guy) with his words: "Well, how did it happen, then that the inferior types of plants and animals appeared on the earth first and the most highly organized, including man, came last?"
HM said:I'm not a Christian, not a member of any religious denomination, and what I discuss about religion in the proper topic is a result of studies, not so of worshiping and believing.
You can answer my messages without that kind of prejudice.
Anthropology, Kant. In it he initiated the idea of man related with the monkey, having in his thoughts that man is descended from the ape. Of course, his words were as well inherited from discussions made by Lamettrie.
You might add to your reading Critique of the Power of Judgement, where Kant expands himself playing with the flow of all species being "one great family". His thoughts leading to his presumption that current living organisms come from a common primal matrix.
About a little more than half century later, Schopenhauer added that man comes from Asia as born from orangutans, and from Africa as born from chimpanzees.
The idea of man coming from other species is not new from Kant either, the Greek philosophy guided man as descendants of fish.
Darwin grew up in the middle of those thoughts. No wonder why he concluded that his (imaginary) natural selection was to act SOLELY by slight and favorable steps.
You have lots to read.
HM said:This is the idea that Darwin inherited and continued when he wrote his book the Origin of Species. He concluded that his invention "natural selection" acts solely with slow and favorable steps.
Sub said:Really? I thought natural selection was a process by which the less fit tended not to survive to breed while the more fit did. The notion of things being 'favourable' is putting the cart before the horse. I really would recommend that you get clear about the processes underpinning evolution before making claims like this.
RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION
As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps.
Charles Darwin.
It can't be more clear.
You said:"natural selection" acts solely with slow and favorable steps
Darwin said:natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations
Darwin took mutations as favorable only.
Sub said:Again, I'd love to see your source for this. This time I really think you will struggle as the very idea of mutations wasn't even proposed until 1900, (By Hugo De Vries) eighteen years after Darwin died.
Darwin called them variations, he ignored about genetics.
HM said:At one point. in the 70's, when the New-Darwinian theory of Evolution replaced the former one, the whole structure was changed and only the main title and subtitles were saved. The failed theory was told it was "updated", but failed theories can't be updated, failed theories are just discarded.
Sub said:Of course they can: failed theories are either reduced or eliminated. Reduction involves making connections between the ontology, methodology and attitudes of the old theory and the new. Elimination is self explanatory. That said, what exactly do you mean? I'm pretty sure that the central mechanisms of evolution remains unchanged since Darwin. Perhaps you can explain the change you describe.
You are talking of TWO different theories as well.
HM said:He was wrong. Period.
The current theory of evolution, keeps the word "evolution" as a technical term. As it is accepted, a technical term might mean something completely different to what the same word means in common language.
Sub said:So you say, perhaps you can explain exactly what changed and describe some of the key changes, with references. Please.
Common definition of evolution as change having progress (from inferior to superior, from worst to better, from simpler to more complex). Always with such a determinate arrow.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/evolution
an unfolding, opening out, or working out; process of development, as from a simple to a complex form, or of gradual, progressive change, as in a social and economic structure
a result or product of this; thing evolved
a movement that is part of a series or pattern
a pattern produced, or seemingly produced, by such a series of movements: the evolutions of a fancy skater
Find an old dictionary when Darwin wrote his theory, the word evolution was change with an arrow, from simpler to more complex, from inferior to superior, exactly like Goddfrey said in the quote right above.
Solely in biology won't mean change from inferior to superior, from simpler to more complex
Darwin claimed that natural selection is about favorable steps. The "variations" (mutations) must be favorable. Mutations are steps of variation in species, as general understanding.
Lets be practical.
Frogs born with eyes all around their bodies happened as sudden change. They were also born with several legs. Such wasn't by any means favorable. It wasn't a slight accumulation, neither successive thru thousands of years.
http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/mystery-freaky-frogs
"In August 1995, schoolchildren found deformed frogs in a wetland near Henderson, Minnesota. Some frogs had extra legs, others no legs at all. Some had missing or extra eyes, toes, or feet. And some also had problems with their internal organs. By the fall of 1996, there were over 200 reports of freakish frogs, from two-thirds of Minnesota's counties. Deformed frogs have since been found in 44 states."
As you have said above, the theory of evolution doesn't imply any arrow in the changes, and this is because "evolution" on the theory is now a technical term applied in Biology only.How much arrow there is, generally comes down to the selective pressure. where, for example, food is abundant and predation rare, there's not much of an arrow. When food becomes rarer or predation more extreme there is a powerful arrow towards fitting an environment. If the conditions change the selective pressure changes.
What selective pressure?
The losing of male gene chromosomes Y is "selective pressure"? How?
Explain.
HM said:However, at the end of the day, there is an arrow. The changes in species finally show a specific arrow.
Sub said:Speciation certainly happens, but it's usually about fitting particular environments - that's the selective pressure.
If you read your reply, you can definitively say that you know a lot about the theory of evolution, but unfortunately you know nothing about biology and reality.
The horse loses digits in the extremities, loses a tooth in females, loses its capability of assimilation to solely a 25% compared with the cow at 75%, and you call that "speciation"?
Great, so a disease or chemical causes man to lose fingers and have atrophied extremities, and the environment is mostly dry and sand storms start to cover fertile areas, man can only crawl looking for food and water.
Your conclusion: Man passed to a new phase of speciation, adapting his body to the new environment which won't require legs but man is more fit when he crawl over the sand.
Oh my... oh my... no doubt that wisdom is missing in the theory of evolution and its supporters.
So, having cells never dying and reproducing like crazy is for you "evolution", after all, the cells are experiencing a "favorable" change, which is not dying. Then, to every person with cancer you can state that such a person is passing to a new state in evolution. right?
This is how and why the theory of evolution can't be taken seriously.
At one point, a person asked to evolutionists their "prediction" in base of their theory, of how man will be in the future.
Yes, the question was fair, because evolutionists claim that they can predict in base of their theory.
The answers given were avoiding the question, no answer at all or lots of incoherent ideas.
So, you seem to have a great understanding of evolution, I will ask you the same question
You can ignore the fact of losing chromosome Y, so lets play you don't know about it.
Based on your appearance of man from an ape alike creature, how man will be in the next million years?
You have DNA, you have five to six "human fossils", yes, you have a great "accumulation of evidence", so, please, apply your knowledge based on your theory and give us a rough scenario of man in the future.
My position is, based on the losing of chromosome Y and in base of the trend of degeneration, that the human body will lose more strength, this is to say, will be weaker, will need of more artificial means to survive, and will lose more characteristics, making humans more exposed to greater diseases, and more deformities. which will be fixed according to the new decaying steps -as today with dental braces, wigs, prescribed glasses, new advanced medicine and surgery, etc- .
The ball in in your court.
Cumulative genetic change that increases a population's adaption and diversity within an environment.
My position is, based on the losing of chromosome Y and in base of the trend of degeneration, that the human body will lose more strength, this is to say, will be weaker, will need of more artificial means to survive, and will lose more characteristics, making humans more exposed to greater diseases, and more deformities. which will be fixed according to the new decaying steps -as today with dental braces, wigs, prescribed glasses, new advanced medicine and surgery, etc- .
You are on record uncritically assuming that what is said in the Bible is true. Here:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10237-Define-God-Thread&p=489975#post489975
Actually, this one I'm reasonably familiar with. Obviously you haven't given a page number, and Kant writes a lot, but from memory, the closest you will get is on page 184 when Kant talks about technical dispositions and compares man walking on two feet to certain primates walking on four. He certainly doesn't claim the two are related. if you want to claim he does, then give a page number or lose any credibility...
...I'm less familiar with this one, but again, there's no page number and from one I did know, I can see you are grasping at straws that don't exist...
...Yeah, no page number, not even a bloody book, how do you expect to be taken seriously. References or no credibility...
...Now we are not even bothering with a philosopher let alone a book or a page number. Can you be any more vague?
Is that meant to be a quoite, becaus enothing comes up on Google - again book and page number please, because as direct quotation it looks like you just ade it up.
We all grow up in a lot of thoughts and cherrypicking (or making up) a bunmch doesn't mean that Darwin was influenced by them.
Really? I thought natural selection was a process by which the less fit tended not to survive to breed while the more fit did. The notion of things being 'favourable' is putting the cart before the horse. I really would recommend that you get clear about the processes underpinning evolution before making claims like this.
RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION
As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps.
Charles Darwin.
It can't be more clear.
No, it really can't. You misrepresented Darwin. Compare:
You said:"natural selection" acts solely with slow and favorable steps
Darwin said:natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations
I assume you can see the difference between acting and accumulating? The process of accumulation is the process of surviving in an environment. Natural selection doesn't act, it's the outcome not the agent.
Darwin called them variations, he ignored about genetics.
Darwin was simply unaware of a genotype. Mutations take place in the genotype, Darwin was only aware of variations of phenotype. You literally couldn't be more wrong.
At one point. in the 70's, when the New-Darwinian theory of Evolution replaced the former one, the whole structure was changed and only the main title and subtitles were saved. The failed theory was told it was "updated", but failed theories can't be updated, failed theories are just discarded.
Of course they can: failed theories are either reduced or eliminated. Reduction involves making connections between the ontology, methodology and attitudes of the old theory and the new. Elimination is self explanatory. That said, what exactly do you mean? I'm pretty sure that the central mechanisms of evolution remains unchanged since Darwin. Perhaps you can explain the change you describe.
You are talking of TWO different theories as well.
No I'm defending one massive overarching theory that involves the unification of a phenotypiclka and a genotypoical process, Actually it's more complicated than that, but what's the point.
He was wrong. Period.
You know, when attacking what is probably the most agreed upon theory in all of science, you really need to produce better arguments and evidence than that.
Darwin claimed that natural selection is about favorable steps. The "variations" (mutations) must be favorable. Mutations are steps of variation in species, as general understanding.
Nope, he claimed it's about the accumulating of slight, successive, favorable variations. It's a fundamental difference
How much arrow there is, generally comes down to the selective pressure. where, for example, food is abundant and predation rare, there's not much of an arrow. When food becomes rarer or predation more extreme there is a powerful arrow towards fitting an environment. If the conditions change the selective pressure changes....
...In this case, I'd imagine that there was a chemical released that damaged either the genetic code or the developing creatures. The selective pressure here is simple, such creatures would simply have died, failed to breed and rapidly been eliminated from the gene pool - unless there was a selective advantage and then the differences would have survived to breed again. Easy.
The losing of male gene chromosomes Y is "selective pressure"? How?
Well, if it makes it impossible to breed, then the genes of the unfortunate creatures that lost what you call 'male gene chromosomes' (Seriously, if you knew what a chromosome or a gene was,you really wouldn't say things like this) would simply eliminate themselves from the gene pool. It's that simple.
Great, so a disease or chemical causes man to lose fingers and have atrophied extremities, and the environment is mostly dry and sand storms start to cover fertile areas, man can only crawl looking for food and water.
Your conclusion: Man passed to a new phase of speciation, adapting his body to the new environment which won't require legs but man is more fit when he crawl over the sand.
I certainly didn't say that, you said that. It has nothing to do with what I have said. I'm consistently saying that evolution is the process by which creatures achieve a better fit for the local environment they find themselves in. That's it.
Based on your appearance of man from an ape alike creature, how man will be in the next million years?
I'll say it again, evolution is only about a creature slowly fitting the environment they find themselves in. You are claiming it's a way of predicting the distant future. That's just nonsense.
My position is, based on the losing of chromosome Y and in base of the trend of degeneration, that the human body will lose more strength, this is to say, will be weaker, will need of more artificial means to survive, and will lose more characteristics, making humans more exposed to greater diseases, and more deformities. which will be fixed according to the new decaying steps -as today with dental braces, wigs, prescribed glasses, new advanced medicine and surgery, etc- .
And here it's clear that you simply don't understand evolution. If you had two children then it would be the one that was better fitted to the environment that would be likely to survive and breed. It's that simple.
Nature, red of tooth and claw, is not our style these days. There are no wolves between here and grandma's house today. The dangers we face in cities today are other people, not wild animals. If we, in general, become less fit to survive in the wild, so what? When populations are close together a new disease can spread more easily than in the country. This is natural selection at work.
A given cell, organ, organism, tribe, gene pool, or species can only die sooner or die later. Before reproducing or after. Mother Nature nurtures Her children and then kills them all.
A chemical replicator creates a copy of itself. Some replicators require a specific chemical environment to work. Not all replicators replicate with the same fecundity.
A replicator that does not replicate is not a replicator. It is a failed replicator. Replicators create copies. Replicators which evolve generate imperfect copies. The crossing over of meiosis deliberately generates imperfect copies from two sets of genes.
A cell is a collection of DNA replicators which carry around an environment in which to replicate. A virus is a DNA replicator which finds a suitable environment in a cell. Over time the survivors in any given population of genes have been good company with the rest of the gene pool -- even those that are not in this given body but could have been.
You got that totally wrong. Filling in some bits you left out should make that obvious:I will start first with the quote of Kant.
"da ein Orang-Utang oder ein Schimpanse die Organe, die zum Gehen, zum Befühlen der Gegenstände und zum Sprechen dienen, sich zum Gliederbau eines Menschen ausbildete, deren Innerstes ein Organ für den Gebrauch des Verstandes enthielte und durch gesellschaftliche Kultur sich allmählich entwickelte"”
OK, you don't understand a single sh*t of Kant's words... no problem
"An Orangutang or a chimpanzee may develop the organs which serve for walking, grasping objects, and speaking - in short, that he may evolve the structure of man, with an organ for the use of reason."
Now, you ask for the page number... do you know what? you ask too much.
Das Geschrei, welches ein kaum gebornes Kind hören läßt, hat nicht den Ton des Jammerns, sondern der Entrüstung und aufgebrachten Zorns an sich; nicht weil ihm was schmerzt, sondern weil ihm etwas verdrießt; vermuthlich darum, weil es sich bewegen will und sein Unvermögen dazu gleich als eine Fesselung fühlt, wodurch ihm die Freiheit genommen wird. - Was mag doch die Natur hiemit für eine Absicht haben, daß sie das Kind mit lautem Geschrei auf die Welt kommen läßt, welches doch für dasselbe und die Mutter im rohen Naturzustande von äußerster Gefahr ist? Denn ein Wolf, ein Schwein sogar würde ja dadurch angelockt, in Abwesenheit oder bei der Entkräftung derselben durch die Niederkunft es zu fressen. Kein Thier aber außer dem Menschen (wie er jetzt ist) wird beim Geboren werden seine Existenz laut ankündigen; welches von der Weisheit der Natur so angeordnet zu sein scheint, um die Art zu erhalten. Man muß also annehmen: daß in der frühen Epoche der Natur in Ansehung dieser Thierklasse (nämlich des Zeitlaufs der Rohigkeit) dieses Lautwerden des Kindes bei seiner Geburt noch nicht war; mithin nur späterhin eine zweite Epoche, wie beide Ältern schon zu derjenigen Cultur, die zum häuslichen Leben nothwendig ist, gelangt waren, eingetreten ist; ohne daß wir wissen: wie die Natur und durch welche mitwirkende Ursachen sie eine solche Entwickelung veranstaltete. Diese Bemerkung führt weit, z. B. auf den Gedanken: ob nicht auf dieselbe zweite Epoche bei großen Naturrevolutionen noch eine dritte folgen dürfte; da ein Orang-Utang oder ein Schimpanse die Organe, die zum Gehen, zum Befühlen der Gegenstände und zum Sprechen dienen, sich zum Gliederbau eines Menschen ausbildete, deren Innerstes ein Organ für den Gebrauch des Verstandes enthielte und durch gesellschaftliche Cultur sich allmählig entwickelte. (Linkiepoo)
The cry of a newborn child is not the sound of distress but rather of indignation and furious anger; not because something hurts him, but because something annoys him; presumably because he wants to move and his inability to do so feels like a fetter through which his freedom is taken away from him. What could nature's intention be here in letting the child come into the world with loud cries which, in the crude state of nature, are extremely dangerous to himself and his mother? For a wolf or even a pig would would thereby be lured to eat the child, if the mother is absent or exhausted from childbirth. However, no animal except the human being (as he is now) will loudly announce his existence at the moment of birth; which seems to arranged by the wisdom of nature in order to preserve the species. One must therefore assume that in the first epoch of nature with respect to this class of animals (namely in the time of crudity), this crying of the child at birth did not yet exist; and then only later a second epoch set in, when both parents had already reached the culture necessary for domestic life; without our knowledge how, or through what contributing causes, nature brought about such a development. This remark leads us far - for example to the thought if upon major upheavals in nature might be followed by a third, when an orang-utan or a chimpanzee developed the organs used for walking, handling objects, and speaking into the structure of a human being, whose innermost part contained an organ for the use of the understanding and which developed gradually through social culture.
Kant even wrote that we are descendants of orangutans and chimpanzees
Nissan working on mind-reading cars
...
You got that totally wrong. Filling in some bits you left out should make that obvious:
Now for the translation:
The cry of a newborn child is not the sound of distress but rather of indignation and furious anger; not because something hurts him, but because something annoys him; presumably because he wants to move and his inability to do so feels like a fetter through which his freedom is taken away from him. What could nature's intention be here in letting the child come into the world with loud cries which, in the crude state of nature, are extremely dangerous to himself and his mother? For a wolf or even a pig would would thereby be lured to eat the child, if the mother is absent or exhausted from childbirth. However, no animal except the human being (as he is now) will loudly announce his existence at the moment of birth; which seems to arranged by the wisdom of nature in order to preserve the species. One must therefore assume that in the first epoch of nature with respect to this class of animals (namely in the time of crudity), this crying of the child at birth did not yet exist; and then only later a second epoch set in, when both parents had already reached the culture necessary for domestic life; without our knowledge how, or through what contributing causes, nature brought about such a development. This remark leads us far - for example to the thought if upon major upheavals in nature might be followed by a third, when an orang-utan or a chimpanzee developed the organs used for walking, handling objects, and speaking into the structure of a human being, whose innermost part contained an organ for the use of the understanding and which developed gradually through social culture.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/03/technology/nissan-brainwave-driving/index.html
Nissan working on mind-reading cars
...