If human is a product of natural evolution then how come he is "above" the nature itself?

[tomo_pomo]

If the presumption that human is just a product of natural evolution, then what is the explanation of man becoming so much evolved that he is capable of having so much influence on the nature itself?

Like destroying spieces. Climate change. Using technology to catch so many animals at the same time. Understanding winds, waters and universe.

Why would evolution evolve something so much out of reach for any other creature on planet?

If evolution is adaptation for what exactly humans adapted for?

If monkeys are the next after us are they capable of understanding nature itself?

Why did nature created something that could understand the nature itself?

I hope you understand what I am trying to ask…

 

[Wesrock]

If a meteor impact or photosynthesizing life (with no animals around) are sufficient to significantly alter the climate and cause mass extinctions, does that make them “above nature,” too? It doesn’t seem like the ability to do such things is indicative of being above nature at all.

Granted, I do think humans demonstrate certain powers other living things don’t, but I’m not sure I follow the “above nature” line of logic at all.

 

[Dan_Defender]

If the presumption that human is just a product of natural evolution, then what is the explanation of man becoming so much evolved that he is capable of having so much influence on the nature itself?

That’s right. And only the human species has thermonuclear weapons capable of destroying the whole planet. And humans do not have natural predators. It all fits into the idea of being created by God as stewards of nature, but not fully subject to it like other species.

 

[Beryllos]

Why did nature created something that could understand the nature itself?

God created nature and made it rich enough, that is, gave it the potential and even the tendency, to develop something which is able to contemplate the creator.

If evolution is adaptation for what exactly humans adapted for?

To know, love, and serve God.

There’s a lot more to it that goes way beyond nature. God established a connection to us through Jesus Christ, and gave us a spiritual aspect, the soul, and a way to eternity.

 

[Gorgias]

Why would evolution evolve something so much out of reach for any other creature on planet?

You’re treating evolution as if it were a rational being. It isn’t.

If evolution is adaptation for what exactly humans adapted for?

Survival. Dominance.

If monkeys are the next after us

That’s not what evolution asserts. (It’s not “man came from monkeys”, as the caricature of evolution asserts…)

Why did nature created something that could understand the nature itself?

It didn’t. “Nature” (i.e., the “natural world”) did not create human rationality. That came from the immortal soul in the image and likeness of God, which God created without mediation.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Why did nature created something that could understand the nature itself?

Nature has no power to do this. Only God has the power of creation.

 

[FiveLinden]

Modern humans re one of number of human species that have existed. We are the only species to survive. As far as species longevity goes there is not a lot to call ‘success’ for humans, at least yet.

What we call ‘self-awareness’, or ‘consciousness’, or ‘intelligence’ also exists in other species in different ways. Typically human achievements in these areas appear greater than other species although there may be problems with measuring other species. We don’t know for sure, for examples, that an octopus does not spend its resting moments doing mental maths problems. We think it does not, but we don’t know it does not.

We are not sure if human ‘intelligence’ etc. was directly selected for in evolution or whether it first arose as a result of another adaptation. For example, mutations enabling bipedalism may have increased cranium size and this may have removed obstacles to increasing brain size and in turn influenced intelligence.

Humans do very poorly when in competition with things like bacteria and virus - most of us die at their ‘hands’ in the end. We are not the peak of anything, or an inevitable result of anything. We just happened to evolve as we did, in the same way that all other species did. People are free to believe that god(s) triggered this but in my view there is no evidence for this.

 

[o_mlly]

The animal “is lived” through the biological laws of nature and is in harmony with nature, never needing to transcend it. Humans, “life aware of itself”, know themselves to be in nature but not only of it but transcending it – partly divine, partly animal, partly infinite, partly finite.

All animate objects seek salvation, a contented co-existence with their environment consistent with the plan of their Creator. The non-human animal is content if its physiological needs—its hunger, thirst and its sexual needs—are satisfied.

Since I am an animal, I also have these needs and seek to satisfy them. But, inasmuch as I am human, the satisfaction of these instinctual needs is not sufficient to make me content; they are not even sufficient to make me sane. Born into this world at a time and place not of my choosing, I realize I will leave in much the same manner.

The contradictions and contingency of my existence cause me anxiety and create my need to find ever-higher forms of unity with nature, with others, and with my Creator. This impulse to understand nature, the Creator’s plan for me in the world, and to do so within a frame of reference that is always in nature, requires that I somehow transcend nature making the Transcendent immanent; make God immanent in me.

 

[Dan123]

Evolution doesn’t assert a plan, but a lot of your statement presuppose one. Letting go of that idea will help you more fully understand evolution, even if you don’t agree with it.

Some animals are fast, some are strong, some can hunt or fly or burrow or swim. Our evolutionary advantage is intelligence. As it turns out intelligence is a pretty solid advantage, even animals not as smart as humans but smarter than the predators around them end up with a lot of survival advantages much of the time. We just take that feature to an extreme, and it’s from that intelligence that a lot of the things you mention like technology come from, even if we don’t always have the wisdom to use it wisely.

But nature didn’t sit down with a book and go “you know what this world needs? Super-smart primates.”

The smart primates simply lived to reproduce more than the foolish ones.

 

[o_mlly]

Intelligence, a faculty we share with animals, is not the same power as rationality. Intelligence did not get man to the moon, rationality did. Intelligence kept the apes living just as they have for the last millennia,.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

then what is the explanation of man becoming so much evolved that he is capable of having so much influence on the nature itself?

There’s a lot of us. Just as a swarm of locusts can destroy all plants in a region, so too can human destroy or reshape an area. Algae blooms kill entire lakes worth of fish. Large populations have large effects. Different methods but both significant.

Why would evolution evolve something so much out of reach for any other creature on planet?

We should be careful about “why” queries. Why wouldn’t such a creature emerge?

If evolution is adaptation for what exactly humans adapted for?

A change has more than 1 effect just as drugs have more than 1 effect.

If monkeys are the next after us are they capable of understanding nature itself?

Some primates literally craft tools, such as manipulating straws to harvest ants with less risk of bites. Some show social and bartering activities. Maybe they already do but do not communicate this to us.

Why did nature created something that could understand the nature itself?

Personification of “nature” is a linguistic device. We should be careful not to presume that “nature” has specific goals, drives, or desires. Similar to how my car is a “she” with things she does or doesn’t like doing, but the personification is simply a construct to relate to situations. “She” does not have desires and goals, I simply impute them to her during our interactions.

 

[Benadam]

Here’s my theory.

The environment external to material organisms drove adaptation and change. Change until a material organism could receive and serve a living soul. IOW until a body evolved able to receive intellect and perfect it’s powers.

Then adaptation is driven not by the external environment but by the internal life in mankind.

Fulfilment is in perfecting the powers of the soul.
Sanctity is the internal adaptation. The higher state evolved to is eternal life.