Sentences with phrase «think human evolution»

Where do you think human evolution will go from here?

Larry Young, a professor of psychiatry at Emory University who studies the neurological basis of complex social behaviors, thinks human evolution has harnessed an ancient neural circuit that originally evolved to strengthen the mother - infant bond during breastfeeding, and now uses this brain circuitry to strengthen the bond between couples as well.

Not exact matches

It's just one of dozens of quirks of the human psyche, implanted through evolution, that make us favor safe thinking.

When I ask them, «How many of you think something in addition to evolution accounts for humans being on earth as we now exist?»

The evolution of human's ability for abstract thought... not it's your turn.

A modern banana, an ant, a bumble bee, a monkey (the ones you think we came from), and the human brain (among a million other things created) disprove the theory of evolution in just one sentence worth of their description.

its time for a new evolution in human thought, one that favors truth over all otheir things.

Let me help Nathan out a bit... Christ, if you are a medical student as still think that the theory of evolution claims that the human body happened «randomly,» please leave school now and do not endanger people's lives.

In his typical humanistic, ethicomystical way of thinking, he points to a belief in the «evolution of human spirituality» where «the higher this development in the individual is, the greater his awareness» of God» (Dr. Schweitzer of Lambarene, by Norman Cousins [Harper & Brothers, 1960], pp. 190 - 191).

This point of view fully respects the progressive experimental concentration of human thought in a more and more lively awareness of its unifying role; but in place of the undefined point of convergence required as term for this evolution it is the clearly defined personal reality of the incarnate Word that is made manifest to us and established for us as our objective, that Word «in whom all things subsist.»

What ultimately turned the tide in a direction which could accommodate theological thinking to the evolutionary view was a resurgence of personal idealism which purported to see the entire process of evolution, animal as well as human, in the context of a cosmic drama presupposing a Creator God.

Convinced that «God wants us to think», Christian philosopher Calum Miller has written extensively and given presentations on numerous topics including human rights, evolution and the resurrection.

Along with biblical ways of thinking it affirms a special significance of humankind within the context of creation, recognizing, as Conrad Bonifazi puts it in the context of explicating Teilhard de Chardin, that «in human beings evolution has revealed its profoundest energy and significance» (TNE 311).

Finally, when it comes to the evolution of human, I think that Mark Twain had it right when he said that apes are descended from man.

Yes - the evolution of humans may have some missing pieces but to think it's not real is ridiculous.

If you think it is amazing that evolution brought you such things as humans, just think of all the other lifeforms, many that are much more advanced than humans, that no doubt inhabit this vast universe.

The primary answer is that modernist thinking assumes the validity of Darwinian evolution, which explains the origin of humans and other living systems by an entirely mechanistic process that excludes in principle any role for a Creator.

Personally I think «atheism» is the next step in human evolution.

Without the process of biological evolution, which produced the human brain, there would be no sanctified souls; and similarly, without the evolution of collective thought, through which alone the plenitude of human consciousness can be attained on earth, how can there be a consummated Christ?

the most convincing evidence of God of panthrotheism is the scientific proof of the Big bang, becasue after billions of years of evolution when we humans developed cosnsciousness we began to think of Him, God is the source of everything and all religions.

Only in that way can it be made clear how being manifests itself in the evolution of human thought.

If one follows Whitehead in extrapolating from human experience, one can find in this interpretation of the divine priority a doctrine of creation that is compatible with biological evolution: in the concept of God supplying a «lure» to evolution, «process» thinking approximates to that of Teilhard de Chardin.

In the disturbing investigations and speculations of Julian Jaynes, language preceded self - conscious thought in human evolution.

There is no danger, therefore, that evolution if it is understood in a truly metaphysical and theologically correct way, will teach us to think less of the first human being than was thought in earlier ages.

According to evolution things are made by themselves things just happen by chance to say that evolution knew than humans would need to eat to survive suggests that something would have to know this are they considering evolution is a thinking force that knows what a creature needs to do to adapt ti certain things or that evolution knew that spiders needed to make webs to catch flies?

The moment within the progress of the evolution of the human body that this happens would indeed, we think, be related to brain size.

You think that human beings are merely the products of blind, uncaring, evolution but when it comes to human reason (a product of the same process) we can believe in it without question!

But it is here, in my view, that the importance becomes manifest of an intuitive notion which, timidly evolved less than fifty years ago by a small group of human minds, is now beginning to pervade twentieth century thought as rapidly as did the idea of evolution in the nineteenth century.

... Rather, God is that - without - which - there - would - be-no-evolution-at-all; God is the atemporal undergirder and sustainer of the whole process of apparent contingency or «randomness,»... «We can apply this same model to the problem of divine providence and human cultural evolution,... we can think not deistically but trinitarianly and incarnationally of God.

We are the latest dominant emergent in the earth's evolution, and so all that we humans do and think and say is relevant for our understanding of the cosmos out of which we evolved.

Along with dualistic mythology several developments in scientific thought since the seventeenth century have contributed to the exorcism of mind from nature: first, there is the cosmography of classical (Newtonian) physics picturing our world as composed of inanimate, unconscious bits of «matter» needing only the brute laws of inertia to explain their action; second, the Darwinian theory of evolution with its emphasis on chance, waste and the apparent «impersonality» of natural selection; third, the laws of thermodynamics (and particularly the second law) with the allied cosmological interpretation that our universe is running out of energy available to sustain life, evolution and human consciousness; fourth, the geological and astronomical disclosure of enormous tracts of apparently lifeless space and matter in the universe; fifth, the recent suggestions that life may be reducible to an inanimate chemical basis; and, finally, perhaps most shocking of all, the suspicion that mind may be explained exhaustively in terms of mindless brain chemistry.

The evolution I love the most is the evolution of human thought to better understand these things that have been provided to us, so we can live better lives... and all true believers feel the same, though they are often limited by their own experiences in various ways — culture, education, social groups, life experiences.

Scientific, philosophical, and religious thoughts, are all flawed with our limited human perceptions based on our own human experiences and the evolution of those thoughts over time.

I should, however, also remark that the more subtle developments of Whitehead's thought seem to have been the inspiration for one of the most thorough and impressive discussions of the evolution of human mentality and language in its relation to cognate activities in earlier evolutionary forms, namely Suzanne Langer's impressive work, Mind: An Essay on Human Feeling, of which two volumes have so far appeared and a third is promised human mentality and language in its relation to cognate activities in earlier evolutionary forms, namely Suzanne Langer's impressive work, Mind: An Essay on Human Feeling, of which two volumes have so far appeared and a third is promised Human Feeling, of which two volumes have so far appeared and a third is promised soon.

Please explain to me what the missing link is and where you think the gap is in biology's current model of human evolution is.

According to Giberson and Stephens, you might be an anti-intellectual fundamentalist if you are an evangelical who: dismisses evolution as «an unproven theory»; deny that «climate change is real and caused by humans»; think that «the founders were evangelicals who intended America to be a Christian nation»; defend spanking children; believe in traditional roles for the sexes; think that reparative therapy can «cure» homosexuality; and / or oppose gay marriage.

But I think it's important to pass along the rational view and what it's based on... exactly because I believe striving for more rational thought is a requirement for the (societal, non-genetic) evolution and progress of the human race.

I think this is unwise, personally, because the role of fermentable fibers, including RS, in the evolution of the human gut biome / immune system has been monumental and frankly irreplaceable.

It reminds me of another odd phrase taught to me by a friend of mine who went camping with a group of very religious friends... Sitting around the campfire one night, someone actually said «It's so ridiculous how people think they can prove evolution with human science ``.

I think I had in mind the whole evolution of the human race, before we were officially Homo sapiens.

I think so much of it is the way evolution or God has created us to be as male and female and to further the existence of the human race.

Monash University - led research has shown that the evolution of human teeth is much simpler than previously thought, and that we can predict the sizes of teeth missing from human fossils and those of our extinct close relatives (hominins).

«Our new study shows that the pattern is a lot simpler than we first thought — human evolution was much more limited,» Dr Evans said.

Some researchers think stone tools can answer the big questions in human evolution: How do we differ from other primates and when did our unique human traits emerge?

The FOXP2 gene is thought to have played a role in the evolution of the human brain and the development of language.

Palaeoanthropologists often use chimps as «proxies» for our common ancestor, so Ardi's debut may mean that much of what we think we know about human evolution will have to be rethought.

So while I think the paradigm has been an extremely positive development on the whole, it has tended to prematurely narrow the kinds of hypotheses that are considered about human evolution.

«Our data show this process was ongoing two and a half million years ago, which allows us to consider a very drawn - out and gradual evolution of the modern human capacity for language and suggests simple «proto - languages» might be older than we previously thought,» Morgan added.

«I don't think we're at the stage of human evolution where we should give up on going out there,» Lou Friedman says.

«Human evolution was uneven and punctuated: A new study in Heliyon suggests that Neanderthals survived at least 3,000 years longer in Spain than we thought.»