NationStates Jolt Archive

"Google images is not an authority on biological taxonomy."

Who argued that it was?

You.

You.

Learn to read then. Because I never argued that it was.

What part of "science and society differ." don't you understand?

Learn to read then. Because I never argued that it was.

What part of "science and society differ." don't you understand?

Rather than trying to counter your rudeness with precise explanantions of how you are unable to debate in an intelligent manner, I will simply ask the following:

Are chimpanzees apes or monkeys?

How do we know this?

I will simply ask the following:

Are chimpanzees apes or monkeys?

How do we know this?

I can answer that! :p

However, our "closest relative" in your view is a Chimp, which is a monkey.

We share the most DNA with a monkey, yet we are classified as apes. You see no problem with this and your claim that DNA matters most?

Holy fuck.....

Are chimpanzees apes or monkeys?

Monkeys. If you google images of monkeys you get pictures of chimps. Res ipsa loquitur motherfucker.

However, our "closest relative" in your view is a Chimp, which is a monkey.

We share the most DNA with a monkey, yet we are classified as apes. You see no problem with this and your claim that DNA matters most?


I was going to ignore this but now I can't.

We share most DNA with a monkey? The Rhesus Macaque has about 93% while chimps share 96-98% depending on whom you read. Nat Geo had an article that put it at 96.

You do understand the classification system is a tad older then our knowledge of DNA?

Rather than trying to counter your rudeness with precise explanantions of how you are unable to debate in an intelligent manner, I will simply ask the following:

Are chimpanzees apes or monkeys?

How do we know this?

clearly they are defined as apes because they lack a tail. (defined by phenotype ironically)

However, if a child saw a chimpanzee and said "Hey look at that monkey", nobody will be surprised, nor will any reasonable person correct them and say "that's an ape, not a monkey" Now, if a child saw a gorilla and said "Hey look at that monkey", people would be surprised, and will correct them saying, "that's an ape, not a monkey."

I wonder if a teacher ever corrected a student's paper for calling a chimpanzee a monkey.

Hence, society and science differ here. People are more likely to consider a chimpanzee a monkey than an ape. (as noted by the results of a google image search, which works based on how people label an image)

clearly they are defined as apes because they lack a tail. (defined by phenotype ironically)

However, if a child saw a chimpanzee and said "Hey look at that monkey", nobody will be surprised, nor will any reasonable person correct them and say "that's an ape, not a monkey" Now, if a child saw a gorilla and said "Hey look at that monkey", people would be surprised, and will correct them saying, "that's an ape, not a monkey."

I wonder if a teacher ever corrected a student's paper for calling a chimpanzee a monkey.

Hence, society and science differ here. People are more likely to consider a chimpanzee a monkey than an ape. (as noted by the results of a google image search, which works based on how people label an image)

I wonder what it's like inside your head.....what form the world must take in order for this to seem like an intelligent argument.

I did acid in college once. That's probably close.

I was going to ignore this but now I can't.

We share most DNA with a monkey? The Rhesus Macaque has about 93% while chimps share 96-98% depending on whom you read. Nat Geo had an article that put it at 96.

You do understand the classification system is a tad older then our knowledge of DNA?

I love these numbers that people throw around.

Do you have a table somewhere that shows the similarity in DNA between all sorts of various creatures? Cause I cant find one. I see all sorts of number thrown around, such as 90% for mouse, 60% for banana, 95% for chimp. But no comparison between say a chimp and a gorrila, or a lemur.

Added to the fact that most DNA is considered junk dna, these repeated stats just dont seem to have much context.

clearly they are defined as apes because they lack a tail. (defined by phenotype ironically)

However, if a child saw a chimpanzee and said "Hey look at that monkey", nobody will be surprised, nor will any reasonable person correct them and say "that's an ape, not a monkey" Now, if a child saw a gorilla and said "Hey look at that monkey", people would be surprised, and will correct them saying, "that's an ape, not a monkey."


Is this a serious argument?

Many people don't understand the classification the fact they think it's a monkey only says they or uninformed.

I wonder if a teacher ever corrected a student's paper for calling a chimpanzee a monkey.

Mine did.

Hence, society and science differ here. People are more likely to consider a chimpanzee a monkey than an ape. (as noted by the results of a google image search, which works based on how people label an image)

Ok is this really a serious arguement?

clearly they are defined as apes because they lack a tail. (defined by phenotype ironically)

That's one necessary qualification for being classified as an ape, yes. It is far from the only one.

However, if a child saw a chimpanzee and said "Hey look at that monkey", nobody will be surprised, nor will any reasonable person correct them and say "that's an ape, not a monkey"

Um...yes, they would, unless we're talking about "a two-year-old" rather than "a child," in which case they might not simply because they do not expect the two-year-old to understand the distinction. We mostly tend to expect that by the time people get to be, say, 8, they are capable of understanding things like "words have meanings, which you don't actually get to arbitrarily redefine based on a Google image search."

I wonder if a teacher ever corrected a student's paper for calling a chimpanzee a monkey.

I can assure you that they have. It's a shame there are so many students who can't be bothered to do even the most minimal research before making stupid assertions, no?

Hence, society and science differ here. People are more likely to consider a chimpanzee a monkey than an ape. (as noted by the results of a google image search, which works based on how people label an image)

But why would the opinions of random people labeling stock photos have ANYTHING to do with the accuracy of taxonomic systems?

I love these numbers that people throw around.

Do you have a table somewhere that shows the similarity in DNA between all sorts of various creatures? Cause I cant find one. I see all sorts of number thrown around, such as 90% for mouse, 60% for banana, 95% for chimp. But no comparison between say a chimp and a gorrila, or a lemur.

Added to the fact that most DNA is considered junk dna, these repeated stats just dont seem to have much context.

I love how you think people make this stuff up.

You didn't look that hard.

http://www.dna-rainbow.org/species-comparison.html

Do you have a table somewhere that shows the similarity in DNA between all sorts of various creatures? Cause I cant find one.


I suggest a BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK.

"Many people don't understand the classification the fact they think it's a monkey only says they or uninformed."

Or you don't understand the way language works.

"Ok is this really a serious arguement?"

A serious argument about what?
Do I seriously believe that using google is a good indication of knowing how society at large uses certain words? Yes I do. And I'm not sure why you would think it isn't. It's not like there is an individual who selects which images come up based on what word you type in.

I love how you think people make this stuff up.

You didn't look that hard.

http://www.dna-rainbow.org/species-comparison.html

Did I say people make this stuff up? No, I said it's out of context.

That website is wonderfully useless for what I am trying to find out.

Poliwanacraca, your arrogance is simply astounding. Please show me a biology textbook which has such a comparison.

"Many people don't understand the classification the fact they think it's a monkey only says they or uninformed."

Or you don't understand the way language works.

"Ok is this really a serious arguement?"

A serious argument about what?
Do I seriously believe that using google is a good indication of knowing how society at large uses certain words? Yes I do. And I'm not sure why you would think it isn't. It's not like there is an individual who selects which images come up based on what word you type in.

Or perhaps you don't understand the difference between technical usage and common usage. There is a difference and it is important.

A large portion of the planet thinks evolution is a theory that says we evolved from monkeys. Does that redefine the theory? Nope. It just says that a lot of people don't happen to have that bit of technical knowledge. By the same token, the fact that so many people don't understand chaos theory or what entropy actually is (versus how it's been molested by people making arguments with similar foundations as yours) doesn't define those terms.

See, wehn you're talking about technical definitions they aren't redefined by usage outside of the discipline. Just like you can't say that contempt of court means that people didn't like the judge.

Or perhaps you don't understand the difference between technical usage and common usage. There is a difference and it is important.

A large portion of the planet thinks evolution is a theory that says we evolved from monkeys. Does that redefine the theory? Nope. It just says that a lot of people don't happen to have that bit of technical knowledge. By the same token, the fact that so many people don't understand chaos theory or what entropy actually is (versus how it's been molested by people making arguments with similar foundations as yours) doesn't define those terms.

See, wehn you're talking about technical definitions they aren't redefined by usage outside of the discipline. Just like you can't say that contempt of court means that people didn't like the judge.

No shit! Really?

What the hell did people think I meant when I said "science and society differ"

This entire conversation is questioning the "technical definition...."


A large portion of the planet thinks evolution is a theory that says we evolved from monkeys. Does that redefine the theory? Nope.


It doesn't redefine the theory, but it also means that when someone says "I don't believe in evolution" you better find out which definition of evolution they mean. (Well, if you care what they think that is)

No shit! Really?

What the hell did people think I meant when I said "science and society differ"

This entire conversation is questioning the "technical definition...."



It doesn't redefine the theory, but it also means that when someone says "I don't believe in evolution" you better find out which definition of evolution they mean. (Well, if you care what they think that is)

But the problem is you're talking about a technical system and then misusing it and acting like that technical system can be redefined by society's usage. Really, the entire argument is unfounded.

You completely mixed species with other taxonomical distinctions. Your entire argument requires us to forget that the science exists at all or how it works.

As far as what definition of evolution they mean, it's only worth finding out to discover how ignorant they are. Because they are intending to reference the theory of evolution and if they aren't actually referencing it, they're wrong one way or another.

Poliwanacraca, your arrogance is simply astounding. Please show me a biology textbook which has such a comparison.

Are you kidding me? You would be hard-pressed to find a biology textbook that doesn't include information on genetics and taxonomy. I just...I can't even fathom what you think your argument is.

You people and your tangents....

The question is regarding humans.

We talk like parrots, (we don't talk like chimps, elephants or dolphins) we mourn our dead like elephants, (we don't treat our dead the same way parrot, chimps, or dolphins do) we learn like dolphins (our learning is not limited to somatic cues like chimps or parrots or elephants), we use tools like chimps (we have that wonderful thumb). On top of that, societally, we don't have one set of rules. Some societies are segregated, some territorial, others aren't.

And yet you want to argue that DNA is objectively and not arbitrarily the most important aspect in defining humanity?

If you read the SCIAM article I linked, it shows the difference down to specific gene areas between the human, chimp and (I think) chicken, showing exactly where humans diverged - two letters in the sequence different to a chimp, and then about 16 or so between the chicken.

That is, the human and chimp diverge exactly the same from the chicken, then at some point the human diverges by two letters from the chimp.

We can very much measure the difference, down to letter sequence let alone %.

Are you kidding me? You would be hard-pressed to find a biology textbook that doesn't include information on genetics and taxonomy. I just...I can't even fathom what you think your argument is.


Why does everything have to be an argument?

I asked a simple question:


Do you have a table somewhere that shows the similarity in DNA between all sorts of various creatures? Cause I cant find one. I see all sorts of number thrown around, such as 90% for mouse, 60% for banana, 95% for chimp. But no comparison between say a chimp and a gorrila, or a lemur.


Feel free to show me the text book that has such a table, I'd love to see it. But so far, I haven't been able to find anything that gives that sort of context.

You people and your tangents....

The question is regarding humans.

We talk like parrots, (we don't talk like chimps, elephants or dolphins) we mourn our dead like elephants, (we don't treat our dead the same way parrot, chimps, or dolphins do) we learn like dolphins (our learning is not limited to somatic cues like chimps or parrots or elephants), we use tools like chimps (we have that wonderful thumb). On top of that, societally, we don't have one set of rules. Some societies are segregated, some territorial, others aren't.

Actually, no, we don't do anything like that. Parrots don't talk. They mimic. We don't mourn like elephants. We commiserate and share with the other berieved, elephants don't do that. We don't learn like dolphins, as our learning capacity is significantly more advanced. We don't do much like other animals, largely because we have the capacity to do it otherwise.

And yet you want to argue that DNA is objectively and not arbitrarily the most important aspect in defining humanity?

And the thought that we're only able to do this because our DNA is encoded to produce our big fucking brains never occured to you?

If you read the SCIAM article I linked, it shows the difference down to specific gene areas between the human, chimp and (I think) chicken, showing exactly where humans diverged - two letters in the sequence different to a chimp, and then about 16 or so between the chicken.

That is, the human and chimp diverge exactly the same from the chicken, then at some point the human diverges by two letters from the chimp.

We can very much measure the difference, down to letter sequence let alone %.

And they have a table of some sort showing the % for lots of various different creatures? Cause I couldn't find that.

clearly they are defined as apes because they lack a tail. (defined by phenotype ironically)


So... a Rottweiler is an ape?

I think you're dancing just the wrong side of the reason why we DON'T classify species the way you suggest.

And they have a table of some sort showing the % for lots of various different creatures? Cause I couldn't find that.

When we map every animal, we'll see every different letter per gene sequence.

I'll try to find a table for you in the interim.

Why does everything have to be an argument?

I asked a simple question:



Feel free to show me the text book that has such a table, I'd love to see it. But so far, I haven't been able to find anything that gives that sort of context.

I'm not even sure what "sort of context" you mean. You seem to have no understanding of even the basics of genetics and taxonomy. To get that understanding, it would probably help you if you read absolutely any general biology textbook - or you could try skipping straight to absolutely any textbooks on genetics or taxonomy. They will be the ones with titles like "Biology," "Genetics," or "Taxonomy." Textbook authors don't tend to be very creative with their titles. I'm honestly not at all clear on how it is arrogant or unhelpful of me to explain that if you want to acquire information on genetics and taxonomy, books on genetics and taxonomy would kinda be the place to look.

You people and your tangents....

The question is regarding humans.

We talk like parrots, (we don't talk like chimps, elephants or dolphins) we mourn our dead like elephants, (we don't treat our dead the same way parrot, chimps, or dolphins do) we learn like dolphins (our learning is not limited to somatic cues like chimps or parrots or elephants), we use tools like chimps (we have that wonderful thumb). On top of that, societally, we don't have one set of rules. Some societies are segregated, some territorial, others aren't.

And yet you want to argue that DNA is objectively and not arbitrarily the most important aspect in defining humanity?

And we have half our letters in common with manatee.

You're aren't showing that we have more in common with a parrot than a chimp. You're showing we have something in common with a parrot. That's not the same.

You just pointed out the problem with phenotypes, society changes behavior. The thing about have genetic commonality is that it bears out as relevant. We've learned much about how our body actually functions by studying chimps and other areas of genetic similarity. It's helped us make leaps forward in medicine, history, paleontology and tons of other fields. Watching similar phenotypes give us some understanding of human behavior and learning and the like, but it's limited.

As has been pointed out phenotypes are entirely arbitrary, but genetics isn't arbitrary at all. We've demonstrated that genetic differences can prevent breeding. Does an albino suddenly lose the ability to mate with some with brown skin?

Why does everything have to be an argument?

You again equivocated. An argument just means that you're presenting a claim. And you've presented several. Many of them conflicting and most of them nonsensical and unfounded.

You're aren't showing that we have more in common with a parrot than a chimp. You're showing we have something in common with a parrot. That's not the same.

and he even failed to do that. Parrots don't talk. They mimic. They have no fundamental understanding of what they say. They are unable to conceptualize it.

That wasn't too hard, I thought to click images on the search rather than text,

Image within article (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/diamond01a.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/diamond01.htm&usg=__iMxTBmxpY1r9R_EZiSXgt65NrF0=&h=291&w=402&sz=23&hl=en&start=24&um=1&tbnid=pxCR3DqXckZ_HM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwhat%2527s%2Bthe%2B%2525%2Bdifference%2Bin%2Bgenes%2Bbetween%2Bdifferent%2Banimals%26nd sp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN%26start%3D18%26um%3D1)

I hope you read it right.

I'll also rummage around for greater variety, perhaps some parrots.

and he even failed to do that. Parrots don't talk. They mimic. They have no fundamental understanding of what they say. They are unable to conceptualize it.

The best part - you know what animal really does communicate in ways very similar to humans?

CHIMPS. :p

and he even failed to do that. Parrots don't talk. They mimic. They have no fundamental understanding of what they say. They are unable to conceptualize it.

""To demonstrate, Pepperberg carried Alex on her arm to a tall wooden perch in the middle of the room. She then retrieved a green key and a small green cup from a basket on a shelf. She held up the two items to Alex's eye.

"What's same?" she asked.

Without hesitation, Alex's beak opened: "Co-lor."

"What's different?" Pepperberg asked.

"Shape," Alex said. His voice had the digitized sound of a cartoon character.

For the next 20 minutes, Alex ran through his tests, distinguishing colors, shapes, sizes, and materials (wool versus wood versus metal). He did some simple arithmetic, such as counting the yellow toy blocks among a pile of mixed hues.

And, then, as if to offer final proof of the mind inside his bird's brain, Alex spoke up. "Talk clearly!" he commanded, when one of the younger birds Pepperberg was also teaching mispronounced the word green. "Talk clearly!" "

Apparently, parrots can have a fundamental understanding of what they say, and are able to conceptualize it. Who knew.

Learn more about parrots then... Sorry, I had assumed that people talking on this thread, knew about the various animals that are studied and compared to humans. (which goes beyond just the chimpanzee)

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-05-12-einstein-parrot_N.htm


"I'm not even sure what "sort of context" you mean."

The context of numbers. If I have 60% of the same DNA as a banana, then saying than 60% is not a really signficant number, (though it's a very significant number if you say that 60% of americans vote democratic) How much DNA does a rhesus monkey and a chimpanzee share? How much DNA does a great ape and a mouse share? How much DNA does a human and a dolphin share etc etc. Context. Humans all share 99.9% of thier DNA, yet IQ can range from non-functional to extreme genius. If you don't know the context, how can you use numbers to prove a point?

"You seem to have no understanding of even the basics of genetics and taxonomy."


Yeah, ok , I can ignore you now. When you stop thinking that everyone who thinks differently from you is an idiot, let me know.


"It's helped us make leaps forward in medicine,"


Actually, it doesn't. Most scientific advances that still use information based on animals, comes mostly from pigs and mice, not chimps. (well actually, bacteria but most people don't like to include them as "animals") Attempts to learn medicine from chimps in the 60s lead to a lot of deaths.

Apparently, parrots can have a fundamental understanding of what they say, and are able to conceptualize it. Who knew.

That's not necessarily indicative. I remember a study done long ago about a horse people were SURE could count. Turns out he was just reading non verbal subconscious cues from the handler.

Likewise, i can tell my dog to sit and he sits. Doesn't mean he conceptually understands what "sit down" means. But he is conditioned to respond to a specific way to a specific sound.

That's not necessarily indicative. I remember a study done long ago about a horse people were SURE could count. Turns out he was just reading non verbal subconscious cues from the handler.

Likewise, i can tell my dog to sit and he sits. Doesn't mean he conceptually understands what "sit down" means. But he is conditioned to respond to a specific way to a specific sound.

Sure, like people, most language use is through repetition and conditioning. However, the ability to differentiate the characteristics, in response to the questions suggests more than mere repetition.

Yeah, ok , I can ignore you now. When you stop thinking that everyone who thinks differently from you is an idiot, let me know.

Yet another thing you've misapplied. Calling you ignorant isn't the same as calling you stupid. People who misuse some of the terms you have are quite provably ignorant. It's not an insult unless you assume anyone acknowledging what you don't know is somehow insulting you.

Actually, it doesn't. Most scientific advances that still use information based on animals, comes mostly from pigs and mice, not chimps. (well actually, bacteria but most people don't like to include them as "animals") Attempts to learn medicine from chimps in the 60s lead to a lot of deaths.

Heh. Amusing. Speaking of molesting numbers. Seriously, you HAVE to stop mixing things together like you do. You mix scientific and common terminology. You mix different fields of study as if they are the same. You mix different types of classifications. In this last one, you're acting as we can't learn different things from different creatures for different purposes without my point being true. Your argument desperately clings to the hope that people are just ignorant enough to think you make sense.

We talk like parrots, (we don't talk like chimps, elephants or dolphins) we mourn our dead like elephants, (we don't treat our dead the same way parrot, chimps, or dolphins do) we learn like dolphins (our learning is not limited to somatic cues like chimps or parrots or elephants), we use tools like chimps (we have that wonderful thumb). On top of that, societally, we don't have one set of rules. Some societies are segregated, some territorial, others aren't.

And yet you want to argue that DNA is objectively and not arbitrarily the most important aspect in defining humanity?

The best part - you know what animal really does communicate in ways very similar to humans?

CHIMPS. :p

Poli is correct--great apes communicate in very similar ways to humans. The question of whether or not they can vocalize like humans has very little to do with communication--deaf and mute people cannot vocalize many sounds, but they communicate just fine.

Longitudinal studies with bonobos have indicated that their brains are pre-wired for language, like human brains, and that they have every ability to understand verbal communication--they just can't produce the sounds themselves. The reason is somewhat complicated and probably boring to everyone but me, but it has to do with bipedalism, air flow and consonants.

Regardless, were bonobos throats physically capable of producing human speech, we would absolutely see them use it.

Sure, like people, most language use is through repetition and conditioning. However, the ability to differentiate the characteristics, in response to the questions suggests more than mere repetition.

You guys keep letting our friendly neighborhood science molestor distract you from the point.

The context of numbers. If I have 60% of the same DNA as a banana, then saying than 60% is not a really signficant number, (though it's a very significant number if you say that 60% of americans vote democratic) How much DNA does a rhesus monkey and a chimpanzee share? How much DNA does a great ape and a mouse share? How much DNA does a human and a dolphin share etc etc. Context. Humans all share 99.9% of thier DNA, yet IQ can range from non-functional to extreme genius. If you don't know the context, how can you use numbers to prove a point?

So, wait, you're trying to find comparisons between any species of organism and any other species, across all kingdoms? Well, okay, the problem there is that...that's millions and millions and millions of organisms. You're obviously not going to find all of them in one table.

What you CAN find is the taxonomic system, which groups organisms according to how closely related they are, i.e. how many genes they share. Organisms in the same family, but different genuses, share fewer genes than organisms in the same genus. Organisms in the same order, but different families, share even fewer. That is how the taxonomic system works.


Yeah, ok , I can ignore you now. When you stop thinking that everyone who thinks differently from you is an idiot, let me know.

Where did I call you an idiot? I suggested that you do not seem to be knowledgeable on this subject. Which, y'know, you don't. I know very little about string theory. If I want to discuss it with others, I should probably do some basic research into the subject first. Did I just call myself an idiot?

Actually, it doesn't. Most scientific advances that still use information based on animals, comes mostly from pigs and mice, not chimps. (well actually, bacteria but most people don't like to include them as "animals") Attempts to learn medicine from chimps in the 60s lead to a lot of deaths.

....bacteria aren't animals. By. Freaking. Definition. This is, like, page 1 of that chapter on taxonomy I keep suggesting you go read, and this is why you sound silly when you get offended when people suggest that you don't know what you're talking about.

Actually, it doesn't. Most scientific advances that still use information based on animals, comes mostly from pigs and mice, not chimps. (well actually, bacteria but most people don't like to include them as "animals") Attempts to learn medicine from chimps in the 60s lead to a lot of deaths.

Maybe because bacteria, you know... aren't animals.

Poli is correct--great apes communicate in very similar ways to humans. The question of whether or not they can vocalize like humans has very little to do with communication--deaf and mute people cannot vocalize many sounds, but they communicate just fine.

Longitudinal studies with bonobos have indicated that their brains are pre-wired for language, like human brains, and that they have every ability to understand verbal communication--they just can't produce the sounds themselves. The reason is somewhat complicated and probably boring to everyone but me, but it has to do with bipedalism, air flow and consonants.

Regardless, were bonobos throats physically capable of producing human speech, we would absolutely see them use it.

Shhhhhh... stop injecting science into a scientific discussion. Don't you understand that we really care about what comes up on google?

That wasn't too hard, I thought to click images on the search rather than text,

Image within article (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/diamond01a.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/diamond01.htm&usg=__iMxTBmxpY1r9R_EZiSXgt65NrF0=&h=291&w=402&sz=23&hl=en&start=24&um=1&tbnid=pxCR3DqXckZ_HM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwhat%2527s%2Bthe%2B%2525%2Bdifference%2Bin%2Bgenes%2Bbetween%2Bdifferent%2Banimals%26nd sp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN%26start%3D18%26um%3D1)

I hope you read it right.

I'll also rummage around for greater variety, perhaps some parrots.

Interesting... so the difference between a gorilla and a human is 2.X % and the difference between a gorilla and a chimp is that same 2.X%?

I'll assume the difference in percentage between these numbers and more recent numbers is a consistant difference.

However this paragraph raises more questions for me.


The genetic distance (1.6 per cent) separating us from pygmy or common chimps is barely double that separating pygmy from common chimps (0.7 per cent). It is less than that between two species of gibbons (2.2 per cent), or between such closely related North American bird species as red-eyed vireos and white-eyed vireos (2.9 per cent), or between such closely related and hard-to-distinguish European bird species as willow warblers and chiffchaffs (2.6 per cent).


If two closely related and hard to distinguish birds are a difference of 2.6%, but a humans and chimps (easy to distinguish) is only 1.6% , that says to me that there is more going on than just the difference in DNA %

i.e. that 1.6% has more practical difference than 2.6% does...

....bacteria aren't animals. By. Freaking. Definition. This is, like, page 1 of that chapter on taxonomy I keep suggesting you go read, and this is why you sound silly when you get offended when people suggest that you don't know what you're talking about.

Damn, beat me to it.

Shhhhhh... stop injecting science into a scientific discussion. Don't you understand that we really care about what comes up on google?

Yeah, I just realized my mistake... my information didn't come from the internet, I actually read a whole book on the subject. What was I thinking!

If two closely related and hard to distinguish birds are a difference of 2.6%, but a humans and chimps (easy to distinguish) is only 1.6% , that says to me that there is more going on than just the difference in DNA %

i.e. that 1.6% has more practical difference than 2.6% does...

Depends where that genetic change is occurring, and between the human and chimpanzee it's mostly in the brain, almost specifically a couple of areas, HAR1 for example, where the 2 letter sequence change has dramatic effect.

The effect of specific differences in DNA can be varied.

Yeah, I just realized my mistake... my information didn't come from the internet, I actually read a whole book on the subject. What was I thinking!

that's it young lady. 20 minutes in the pain box with you.

that's it young lady. 20 minutes in the pain box with you.

You keep trying to put her there. Is this some sort of new Californians-in-boxes fetish you want to tell us about?

Heh. Amusing. Speaking of molesting numbers. Seriously, you HAVE to stop mixing things together like you do. You mix scientific and common terminology. You mix different fields of study as if they are the same. You mix different types of classifications. In this last one, you're acting as we can't learn different things from different creatures for different purposes without my point being true. Your argument desperately clings to the hope that people are just ignorant enough to think you make sense.

Yeah that's true, I have a problem of looking at all information equally.

But what is your point that is true?

I don't see what predictions taxonomy has made, and what we have learned from those predictions?

If anything, I've only seen how our understanding of taxonomy was "incorrect" because of what they found in the DNA.

If two closely related and hard to distinguish birds are a difference of 2.6%, but a humans and chimps (easy to distinguish) is only 1.6% , that says to me that there is more going on than just the difference in DNA %

i.e. that 1.6% has more practical difference than 2.6% does...

They are hard to distinguish to you. Your ability to tell them apart has nothing to do with how genetically different they are.

Look, a VERY small difference in the percentage of DNA shared makes a BIG difference. In the 8 million years or so since we split, chimpanzees have continued to evolve, and so have we. No one is saying a chimpanzee IS a human. They have much smaller brains, much less developed pre-frontal lobes, much less sexual dimorphism, and about 10 million other differences. However, there are also MANY similarities, so many that they push the line between what is human and what is not.

Yeah that's true, I have a problem of looking at all information equally.

But what is your point that is true?

I don't see what predictions taxonomy has made, and what we have learned from those predictions?

If anything, I've only seen how our understanding of taxonomy was "incorrect" because of what they found in the DNA.

Taxonomy isn't in the crystal ball business. Taxonomy is a HUMAN system of classifying living organisms according to similarities which occur as a result of evolutionary processes. If DNA didn't clear up any questions, we'd be really amazing guessers.

You keep trying to put her there. Is this some sort of new Californians-in-boxes fetish you want to tell us about?

I know! And I don't like small spaces. :( Unless it's a roomy, well-ventilated pain box. With windows. And no pain. And cookies.

You guys keep letting our friendly neighborhood science molestor distract you from the point.

In all fairness, meandering tackling of Neo Art seems less pointless than trying to explain... again... why chimps are not monkeys.

I know! And I don't like small spaces. :( Unless it's a roomy, well-ventilated pain box. With windows. And no pain. And cookies.

Mmm...cookie box.

The effect of specific differences in DNA can be varied.

Right, so why is using numbers like 95% the same relevant?

We still can't get a liver transplant from a chimp.

In all fairness, meandering tackling of Neo Art seems less pointless than trying to explain... again... why chimps are not monkeys.

Point.

Right, so why is using numbers like 95% the same relevant?

We still can't get a liver transplant from a chimp.

Oh. Dear. God.

Can you give me two things that are very similar but not the same, in your estimation? Just an example, please.

Interesting... so the difference between a gorilla and a human is 2.X % and the difference between a gorilla and a chimp is that same 2.X%?

I'll assume the difference in percentage between these numbers and more recent numbers is a consistant difference.

However this paragraph raises more questions for me.



If two closely related and hard to distinguish birds are a difference of 2.6%, but a humans and chimps (easy to distinguish) is only 1.6% , that says to me that there is more going on than just the difference in DNA %

i.e. that 1.6% has more practical difference than 2.6% does...

You realise this is nonsense, right?

That kind of approach to math gets you dead real quick if you try to apply it to, for example, the Oxygen content in your controlled atmosphere. Yes - sometimes tiny percentages make big differences.

The crazy thing here is - you seem to be arguing that, because two things LOOK similar, that's somehow a mark AGAINST the idea of genetic taxonomy?

That's not an entirely new viewpoint... predatory animals have been making the same judgement for millions of years - which explains why some completely-unrelated insects (for example) LOOK remarkably similar.

Right, so why is using numbers like 95% the same relevant?

We still can't get a liver transplant from a chimp.

And you can't fuck a honeybee.

If you're looking for pointless observations, mine's infinitely more quotable than yours.

Taxonomy isn't in the crystal ball business. Taxonomy is a HUMAN system of classifying living organisms according to similarities which occur as a result of evolutionary processes. If DNA didn't clear up any questions, we'd be really amazing guessers.

Again, what predictions can be made based on our taxonomy system? How is the current taxonomy system more useful/relevant than a different, function/niche based taxonomy system?

Right, so why is using numbers like 95% the same relevant?

We still can't get a liver transplant from a chimp.

Well, how do you want to do it?

Length of toes, but worms don't have toes.

Colour of skin, but what about hair and non-hair.

Amm...

Again, what predictions can be made based on our taxonomy system? How is the current taxonomy system more useful/relevant than a different, function/niche based taxonomy system?

Um...the current taxonomy system actually expresses how organisms are related to each other, and your "niche-based" one...wouldn't.

Come on people, let's put our collective minds to find a better way than DNA to group animals.

If I can't be next to a parrot I'm not going to accept it, so be warned.

Again, what predictions can be made based on our taxonomy system? How is the current taxonomy system more useful/relevant than a different, function/niche based taxonomy system?

Well, they give us a jump off point for how diseases might cross species. Now, mind you, I'm talking about a scientific jump off point and not like a cliff. I just wanted to clear that up because if you google image "jump off point", you'll see more cliffs than scientific papers. I didn't want you to get confused.

Come on people, let's put our collective minds to find a better way than DNA to group animals.

If I can't be next to a parrot I'm not going to accept it, so be warned.

I think we should go by the amount of dung expelled. In which case my father is much closer to elephants than I am.

Come on people, let's put our collective minds to find a better way than DNA to group animals.

If I can't be next to a parrot I'm not going to accept it, so be warned.

*stands next to you* :p

*stands next to you* :p

....excuse me?

The crazy thing here is - you seem to be arguing that, because two things LOOK similar, that's somehow a mark AGAINST the idea of genetic taxonomy?


What I am saying here, is that you can have two creatures which have a 2% difference in DNA. They look alike, they act alike, they have the same niche, they have the same predators, they have the same prey. This is what we would expect. Close DNA == similar animal.

Then you have two creatures with a 1% difference in DNA. However, these two animals, look very different, act differently, have different niches, different predators, different diets. In this case, Clos DNA != similar animal

Then you take one of those animals, and compare it to a different animal that has .5% difference in DNA. Now again, those two animals look alike, act alike, have the same basic niche, same predators, and same diets. Close DNA == similar animal.

You can draw whatever conclusions from that, that you want.

But to me, it says that what % difference two creatures have in DNA isn't so important. Which exact DNA changes are different might be important, but the number as a whole doesn't tell you much.

edit: And it would explain why other than trying to tell people that chimps are people too, why you don't see tables stating the differences.

....excuse me?

Well, he insisted. You can stand on my other side if you like. :p

Besides, aren't you busy putting Californians in boxes?

And, of course, I more closely related to the lady across the street than my mother, because that lady has blond hair and is tall and mom is short and has brown hair. You know, cuz that's how relating to one another works. It's science!

And, of course, I more clesely related to the lady across the street than my mother, because that lady has blond hair and is tall and mom is short and has brown hair. You know, cuz that's how relating to one another works. It's science!

You might to talk to your father about that then :) (that's a whole different meaning of the word related)

What I am saying here, is that you can have two creatures which have a 2% difference in DNA. They look alike, they act alike, they have the same niche, they have the same predators, they have the same prey. This is what we would expect. Close DNA == similar animal.

Then you have two creatures with a 1% difference in DNA. However, these two animals, look very different, act differently, have different niches, different predators, different diets. In this case, Clos DNA != similar animal

Then you take one of those animals, and compare it to a different animal that has .5% difference in DNA. Now again, those two animals look alike, act alike, have the same basic niche, same predators, and same diets. Close DNA == similar animal.

You can draw whatever conclusions from that, that you want.

But to me, it says that what % difference two creatures have in DNA isn't so important. Which exact DNA changes are different might be important, but the number as a whole doesn't tell you much.

edit: And it would explain why other than trying to tell people that chimps are people too, why you don't see tables stating the differences.

And why is it important that they have the same diet?

(that's a whole different meaning of the word related)

......no, it's not. At all.

You might to talk to your father about that then :) (that's a whole different meaning of the word related)

Um, you have had sex ed, right? They can't exactly have trouble figuring out who the mother is. You see, their really is no chance the stork will drop a baby down the wrong chimney.

We still can't get a liver transplant from a chimp.

This does not disprove anything.

The main problem when this was attempted in the 60's and 70's was that we didn't have a solid approach to deal with organ rejection. If that is the basis of your argument, then we have to reclassify humans as organ rejection happens with human to human transplants.

It's not impossible as there was a case of a baboon kidney transplant patient lived for 9 months after the operation.

Um, you have had sex ed, right? They can't exactly have trouble figuring out who the mother is. You see, their really is no chance the stork will drop a baby down the wrong chimney.

Yeah, I was implying that your father had sex with the woman across the street instead of your mother. Or was that too subtle for you?

Yeah, I was implying that your father had sex with the woman across the street instead of your mother. Or was that too subtle for you?

I got that you thought that made sense. See, now how did he magically get my mother to birth that baby, pray tell?

......no, it's not. At all.

Shhhh... He's truly proving he doesn't actually understand the importance or relevance of genetic relationships.

Yeah, I was implying that your father had sex with the woman across the street instead of your mother. Or was that too subtle for you?

...do you actually NOT know how babies are made? Because I thought Joc was just being sarcastic, but apparently you really think there can be confusion as to who someone's biological mother is.

You see, their really is no chance the stork will drop a baby down the wrong chimney.

What if your biological parents paid the stork to drop you somewhere else?

This does not disprove anything.

The main problem when this was attempted in the 60's and 70's was that we didn't have a solid approach to deal with organ rejection. If that is the basis of your argument, then we have to reclassify humans as organ rejection happens with human to human transplants.

It's not impossible as there was a case of a baboon kidney transplant patient lived for 9 months after the operation.

It's an example... not an argument.

Which happens with more success, Pig heart transplant, or Chimp heart transplant?

Based on DNA % similarities, which would you predict would be more successful?

Do you guys ever wonder why some people insist on trying to argue against claims nobody is making?

I got that you thought that made sense. See, now how did he magically get my mother to birth that baby, pray tell?

How do I break this to you...

Do you guys ever wonder why some people insist on trying to argue against claims nobody is making?

Listen, I don't care what you say, and I'm sorry LG and Smunk, but clowns are fucking creepy, okay?

It's an example... not an argument.

Which happens with more success, Pig heart transplant, or Chimp heart transplant?

Based on DNA % similarities, which would you predict would be more successful?

The pigs in question have been bioengineered to attempt to fool the imunosystem into accepting it.

Chimpanzees are protected so you can't simply start transplanting.

Now how about if I placed a chimp heart next to a human heart? There is a good chance you would not be able to tell the difference.

It's an example... not an argument.

Which happens with more success, Pig heart transplant, or Chimp heart transplant?

Based on DNA % similarities, which would you predict would be more successful?

Uh, no, you wouldn't. You have heard of disease, yeah? You do also know how those hearts came to be, yeah?

Also, please look up the word argument in terms of debate. You don't appear to know what it means.

How do I break this to you...

I know, I know, he hypnotized my mother into thinking she's pregnant with me, bribed the hospital to put her name on the BC and then they all took pictures of my mom looking like she'd just given birth. Seriously, man, even when you're joking, your comments rely on ignorance of science.

Meanwhile, did anyone else notice that he completely ignored the actual argument about how I look more like people I'm NOT related to than people I am.

The pigs in question have been bioengineered to attempt to fool the imunosystem into accepting it.

Chimpanzees are protected so you can't simply start transplanting.

Now how about if I placed a chimp heart next to a human heart? There is a good chance you would not be able to tell the difference.

There is also the difference in size of the organ. As I remember the pig heart is pretty much the same size as human heart which makes it better for organ transplantation.

Then there is ethical reason, chimps have higher protection when in it comes to animal trials. In Sweden for example (which is the country I know about when it comes to animal trials) it is pretty much impossible to do animal trials on any ape (or monkey :rolleyes:). Pigs on the other side has much less protection and can therefore be a candidate for organ transplantation.

Humm, perhaps we should group animals dependent on their protection in animals trials? Seems as arbitrary as some examples which has been given in this thread.

What I am saying here, is that you can have two creatures which have a 2% difference in DNA. They look alike, they act alike, they have the same niche, they have the same predators, they have the same prey. This is what we would expect. Close DNA == similar animal.

Then you have two creatures with a 1% difference in DNA. However, these two animals, look very different, act differently, have different niches, different predators, different diets. In this case, Clos DNA != similar animal

Then you take one of those animals, and compare it to a different animal that has .5% difference in DNA. Now again, those two animals look alike, act alike, have the same basic niche, same predators, and same diets. Close DNA == similar animal.

You can draw whatever conclusions from that, that you want.

But to me, it says that what % difference two creatures have in DNA isn't so important. Which exact DNA changes are different might be important, but the number as a whole doesn't tell you much.

edit: And it would explain why other than trying to tell people that chimps are people too, why you don't see tables stating the differences.

Creatures with similar DNA don't necessarily evolve to fit the same niches. Creatures with more divergent DNA, don't necessarily evolve to fit different ones.

There's your explanation - it's really rather simple.

Hence why there have been mammalian lions, and marsupial 'lions' - they are divergent, but they operate in the same arena. But the marsupial 'lion' is more closely related to other marsupials than it is to cats, no matter what niche.

Creatures with similar DNA don't necessarily evolve to fit the same niches. Creatures with more divergent DNA, don't necessarily evolve to fit different ones.

There's your explanation - it's really rather simple.

Hence why there have been mammalian lions, and marsupial 'lions' - they are divergent, but they operate in the same arena. But the marsupial 'lion' is more closely related to other marsupials than it is to cats, no matter what niche.

I mean, you'd almost expect closely related DNA to diverge since the divergence will often be a result of a niche advantage that suits a particular mutation.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/222215/march-19-2009/when-animals-attack-our-morals---chimps--lizards---spiders

Is human an animal? Biologically, yes. Our bodies have quite the same needs as bodies of other species, we’ve got our instincts, our diseases and rather common physiognomy (there are exceptions, still the whole idea is similar). But in my opinion we are not just animals.

You see, I think that human being is an animal with a soul. Soul – not necessarily in religious meaning of this word (although it would really fit), but as a set of special factors. They may be just expansions of ordinary, animal features, but there is no doubt that they are unique.

Like an ability to use the concept of good and evil – which is, simplifying, choosing values which we are supposed to serve. In other words - preferring one kind of ideas and instincts (for example helping weaker members of the community, serving it unselfishly or in the name of abstract principles etc.) to others (like egoism, unbounded possessiveness, gluttony, etc.). Logically explainable – you won’t go anywhere if you paddle in two opposite directions at the same time. Moreover, it is also nice to go forward, BTW.

There is also an urge to find better and better solutions to given problems. Sure, you can say that lives of all heterosexual life forms, including humans, boil down to passing genes and therefore – ‘winning’ affection of opposite gender. But it’s not the case. The important thing is that members of our race go much further than anyone else – thanks to probably the most important pillar of humanity – complex and capable of abstract thinking imagination – we improve our ways (or at least outstanding members of our society do) in every field of our lives.

And still, there is one more thing – ability to accomplish great tasks, like building whole societies, changing our environment on scale which lets us accommodate every part of the world, creating fine art, or even new species. Of course, many species are capable of partially humane behaviors or posses attributes similar to ours. But firstly, we posses all of them (they are called humane for a reason), secondly, we mastered them and thanks to their advantageous combination, we can use them all together on a titanic scale.

And that’s probably still not everything.

As you can see, this case is rather complicated. We obviously are animals, but at the same time, we are something more than ordinary animals, we are not equal to the rest of Earth fauna.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/222215/march-19-2009/when-animals-attack-our-morals---chimps--lizards---spiders

rofl.


Miracles or no miracles, no arachnid shall be suffered to live in my domain.

Let them go perform their hideous cures on my nature worshiping neighbors.

As you can see, this case is rather complicated. We obviously are animals, but at the same time, we are something more than ordinary animals, we are not equal to the rest of Earth fauna.


Neither are worms if you really looks at what they do, it's all pretty amazing. Their is no doubt that we have extraordinary abilities to manipulate our environment in a conscious way but, just, it's all pretty amazing.

What's most amazing is the simple mechanism that directs it, that multiple replication will result in tiny errors that might just provide an advantage within an environment and, amplified over time, it creates the wonderful variation of life we're lucky to have the facility to appreciate.

Mind-boggling.

As you can see, this case is rather complicated. We obviously are animals, but at the same time, we are something more than ordinary animals, we are not equal to the rest of Earth fauna.
Perhaps, but, ignoring counterarguments on the apparent moral capacities of certain primates, I'd say it's important to note that this "something more" is not inherently unique to the human species.

Given the right conditions, other lifeforms could evolve to such a level of technological and psychological capability.

Neither are worms if you really looks at what they do....


I would engage in polemics.


What's most amazing is the simple mechanism that directs it, that multiple replication will result in tiny errors that might just provide an advantage within an environment and, amplified over time, it creates the wonderful variation of life we're lucky to have the facility to appreciate.


Yeah. God sure knew how to handle things... ;-)


...ignoring counterarguments on the apparent moral capacities of certain primates,


They do have those? That’s good for them. And for us at the same time (at least we know that we are a part of the right path). Nevertheless, I have a feeling that a research of this kind cannot draw one-hundred-percent accuracy, due to possible subjectivity and a certain level of impossibility of proving such thing.


I'd say it's important to note that this "something more" is not inherently unique to the human species. Given the right conditions, other lifeforms could evolve to such a level of technological and psychological capability.


Sure, why not. Everything could happen if the proper requirements were met. But taking plausibility of simultaneous occurrence of all needed conditions into consideration, one can be said. That is unique.

Nevertheless, I have a feeling that a research of this kind cannot draw one-hundred-percent accuracy, due to possible subjectivity and a certain level of impossibility of proving such thing.
Much the same can be said of any research into the moral capacities of humans.

Sure, why not. Everything could happen if the proper requirements were met. But taking plausibility of simultaneous occurrence of all needed conditions into consideration, one can be said. That is unique.
Certainly, I'm just wary of ascribing some 'specialness' to humans that's simply a hangover from the past millennium or so of Western thought.


(As an unrelated aside, I'd be careful to ascribe quotes correctly. I'm sure you're not doing anything malicious, just something to watch out for.)

Is human an animal? Biologically, yes. Our bodies have quite the same needs as bodies of other species, we’ve got our instincts, our diseases and rather common physiognomy (there are exceptions, still the whole idea is similar). But in my opinion we are not just animals.

You see, I think that human being is an animal with a soul. Soul – not necessarily in religious meaning of this word


'Soul', in common usage, is a judeo-christian concept, and derives originally from a hebrew concept. The interesting things about it are - one, it has no supernatural connotation in the Hebrew, it just means the 'life that is in the blood' (which is why you don't eat blood), and - two - all animals have it, if you read your scripture in the original tongue.


Like an ability to use the concept of good and evil – which is, simplifying, choosing values which we are supposed to serve. In other words - preferring one kind of ideas and instincts (for example helping weaker members of the community, serving it unselfishly or in the name of abstract principles etc.)


I posted a source about how altruism isn't unique to humans.


And still, there is one more thing – ability to accomplish great tasks, like building whole societies, changing our environment on scale which lets us accommodate every part of the world, creating fine art, or even new species.


You don't think other entities have societies? You don't think other entities change their environments?


...we are not equal to the rest of Earth fauna.

This much, at least, is true - we set out to deliberately destroy environments DESPITE understanding the implications of what we do. We are certainly not yet the equal of the ret of Earth fauna.

Much the same can be said of any research into the moral capacities of humans.


Trust or not, I was going to write that (forgot). ;) The point is, you can't really 'test' it, you would rather require an internal understanding. Being an object that you want to understand, may help in this case.
Anyway, I will probably study the research we were talking about later in the future.

Certainly, I'm just wary of ascribing some 'specialness' to humans that's simply a hangover from the past millennium or so of Western thought. [quote]

I understand. Still, we somehow are very special beings, even if it is just a very lucky coincidence of many unrelated features. We posses a gift of logical and abstractive thinking, we are able to create and use complex tools, thanks to them we can perform tasks which we aren't biologically adapted to, and the most important, we can create and feed communities big enough to afford researchers and artists. I'm not saying that we "are special and that's it", but that the abilities we were given by the nature (and/or God in opinion of some of us) make us special.

[quote](As an unrelated aside, I'd be careful to ascribe quotes correctly. I'm sure you're not doing anything malicious, just something to watch out for.)

Oh, right, I was quoting manually and forgot to place the nicknames. Sorry, if something got messed up.

'Soul', in common usage, is a judeo-christian concept, and derives originally from a hebrew concept. The interesting things about it are - one, it has no supernatural connotation in the Hebrew, it just means the 'life that is in the blood' (which is why you don't eat blood), and - two - all animals have it, if you read your scripture in the original tongue.


Not really a point.


I posted a source about how altruism isn't unique to humans.


The truth is that, we can't really tell. I am sure that I've already explained why. It may be characteristic for all the most advanced species or just the ones who meet the given requirements. I will read Your source as soon as I have some free time.

And it's not really about altruism itself. It's more about a strong will capable of conscious choosing which instincts, or even our own abstract values, will we serve at the given moment. I know, not every member of our civilization posses this ability, but it is probably a state which can be achieved by everyone.


You don't think other entities have societies?


I would rather call them communities. I just find the meaning of the word 'society' too big.


You don't think other entities change their environments?


Not on the scale we represent, and if they do, they are usually properly prepared by The Mother Nature. We only have climbing stuff, and making neat things stuff on our bodies. The rest is achieved with our intellect.


This much, at least, is true - we set out to deliberately destroy environments DESPITE understanding the implications of what we do.

This is a material for just one another big discussion. No doubt - still many of us "paddle backwards" with their greed and thoughtlessness.


EDIT:

Sorry, for a double post - I thought that there would already appear more posts during the time I was writing this. If it matters, I can stick it together with the previous one.

Not really a point.


You raised it?

If you're going to cite a 'soul' as our difference from the rest of the spectrum, how can it not be the point? How can it be irrelevant that the concept of 'soul' is based on an understanding that ALL living things have one?


I would rather call them communities. I just find the meaning of the word 'society' too big.


Too human, perhaps.

You choose a specific etymology to define the cultures of 'animals', and the cultures of people... and then use that semantic difference as 'evidence' of the separation.

That's pretty circular.


Not on the scale we represent, and if they do, they are usually properly prepared by The Mother Nature. We only have climbing stuff, and making neat things stuff.


If humans went extinct tomorrow, all of our work on the environment would be invisible in a shorter period of time than we've existed for. Our ability to 'change our enviroment' is small change.

You raised it?
If you're going to cite a 'soul' as our difference from the rest of the spectrum, how can it not be the point? How can it be irrelevant that the concept of 'soul' is based on an understanding that ALL living things have one?


But I wrote that I wasn't going to use this term in it's stricte religious meaning. It just seemed to me as the best word, and it's really not the point here if animals have their Hebrew souls or not. Moreover, it's actually a very wide term, so it doesn't have to refer to its judeochristian meaning.



Too human, perhaps.
You choose a specific etymology to define the cultures of 'animals', and the cultures of people... and then use that semantic difference as 'evidence' of the separation.


Sigh.

In this meaning, the word society is usually used to define greater things (f.e. society of a given country), like a union of a number of communities.
Simplifying, what I meant is that we form strong and big societies, what lets us perform great tasks.

Whatever, let's say I could just use some more accurate word. That's not been a point even more, especially since we had this incomprehension solved.


If humans went extinct tomorrow, all of our work on the environment would be invisible in a shorter period of time than we've existed for. Our ability to 'change our enviroment' is small change. Our ability to 'change our enviroment' is small change.

Most probably. But it doesn't change the fact that we posses the unique skills in changing environment (in other words - creating civilization).

But I wrote that I wasn't going to use this term in it's stricte religious meaning. It just seemed to me as the best word, and it's really not the point here if animals have their Hebrew souls or not. Moreover, it's actually a very wide term, so it doesn't have to refer to its judeochristian meaning.


This just looks like quibbling.

You cited a 'soul' as what differentiates us.... but you seem pretty determined not to give any meaning to it.

By the same logic, since both humans and animals share 'qua', surely, we're the same?

This just looks like quibbling.

You cited a 'soul' as what differentiates us.... but you seem pretty determined not to give any meaning to it.

By the same logic, since both humans and animals share 'qua', surely, we're the same?

Um, this has nothing to do with what you posted.

Have you ever read Les Fourmis by Bernard Werber? I assume the English translation would be The Ants. I think you might like it.

Um, this has nothing to do with what you posted.

Have you ever read Les Fourmis by Bernard Werber? I assume the English translation would be The Ants. I think you might like it.

I've not read it, but I just looked it up, and it certainly seems like something I'd be interested in. :)

You cited a 'soul' as what differentiates us


Yes, that's more or less, what I was trying to tell.


but you seem pretty determined not to give any meaning to it.


I do?


By the same logic, since both humans and animals share 'qua', surely, we're the same?

I just completely don't understand Your point here and what does it have to do with Your previous statements.

Oh, right, I was quoting manually and forgot to place the nicknames. Sorry, if something got messed up.
Not at all.

Yes, that's more or less, what I was trying to tell.

I do?


Right. So it's the 'soul' that differentiates us. But you DON'T mean 'soul' in a judeo-christian sense, and you absolutely oppose a Hebrew scripture interpretation. So - what exactly do you mean?


I just completely don't understand what are You talking about and what does it have to do with Your previous statements.

You're acting like claiming non-specified values that aren't in any way supported, is a bad thing.

I read this book where some species of sentient beings had a "natural will" and other creatures had "free will"

Natural will was defined as having free choice, but being unable to go beyond the comfort zone. So, mountain dwarves would never choose to live outside the mountains.

Free will was defined as being able and often encouraged to go beyond their comfort zone. So a human would be more than willing, and happy to explore new areas they knew nothing about.

I wonder, if such a distinction has ever been studied among animals. Will an animal leave it's comfort zone for the sake of it? Or will animals only leave their comfort zone when it's a matter of survival.

Right. So it's the 'soul' that differentiates us. But you DON'T mean 'soul' in a judeo-christian sense, and you absolutely oppose a Hebrew scripture interpretation. So - what exactly do you mean?
S/He means, presumably what s/he said:

I think that human being is an animal with a soul. Soul – not necessarily in religious meaning of this word (although it would really fit), but as a set of special factors.

[goes on to describe these special factors/soul]

S/He means, presumably what s/he said:



Exactly. ;)




You're acting like claiming non-specified values that aren't in any way supported, is a bad thing.

No, I am acting like I didn't understand your point. And what does it have to do with your previous statements.

I read this book where some species of sentient beings had a "natural will" and other creatures had "free will"

Natural will was defined as having free choice, but being unable to go beyond the comfort zone. So, mountain dwarves would never choose to live outside the mountains.

Free will was defined as being able and often encouraged to go beyond their comfort zone. So a human would be more than willing, and happy to explore new areas they knew nothing about.

I wonder, if such a distinction has ever been studied among animals. Will an animal leave it's comfort zone for the sake of it? Or will animals only leave their comfort zone when it's a matter of survival.

Whatever you do, don't reply to the responses to your crap from last night. That would be too much like holding a conversation.

I wonder, if such a distinction has ever been studied among animals. Will an animal leave it's comfort zone for the sake of it? Or will animals only leave their comfort zone when it's a matter of survival.

Yes. Some primates leave their natal groups and join other groups.

Oh and which book was that?

S/He means, presumably what s/he said:



The things like altruism -which ended in an admission of 'I don't know', and the quibbling over whether societies are communities?

Yes. Some primates leave their natal groups and join other groups.

Oh and which book was that?

Sounds like the Third Edition players handbook for AD&D.

Yes. Some primates leave their natal groups and join other groups.


Oh and which book was that?

Why would leaving a natal group be considered leaving the comfort zone? Isn't that sort of required for animals to ensure genetic diversity?

I'm talking about going against your instincts to explore something new.
http://media.www.bsudailynews.com/media/storage/paper849/news/2009/02/10/Forum/Boozers.And.Losers.Leaving.Your.Comfort.Zone-3620988.shtml


The book is called "Ivory Sword (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1413795722/ref=kinw_rke_tl_1)"

Free will was defined as being able and often encouraged to go beyond their comfort zone. So a human would be more than willing, and happy to explore new areas they knew nothing about.

I wonder, if such a distinction has ever been studied among animals. Will an animal leave it's comfort zone for the sake of it? Or will animals only leave their comfort zone when it's a matter of survival.

Are you trying to say that human beings have no motive to explore other than pure curiosity? There's no advantage at all in expanding their territory, discovering untapped resources, etc.? And other animals don't do this--which is why there aren't, say, spiders in every region of the world?

The things like altruism -which ended in an admission of 'I don't know',

No. I just said that we can't really know. That doesn't equal 'I don't know', does it?

I just think that it is impossible to investigate such a thing, so therefore, we can't really know if it's a moral decision or just an instinct. Even with humans it is extremely difficult, but yet much easier. It is still pretty individual. And, at least in this matter, everyone should judge herself/himself by herself/himself.

and the quibbling over whether societies are communities?

No. It ended with a clarification of my statement.

Duuude, you just reject my arguments... That's badass.

Are humans animals? Yes, yes we are.:D

No. I just said that we can't really know. That doesn't equal 'I don't know', does it?


Um... yes?

If 'we' can't really know, and if we assume that you are one of 'us', then you can't know, either.

No?


I just think that it is impossible to investigate such a thing, so therefore, we can't really know if it's a moral decision or just an instinct.


Which is just as true for huamns.


No. It ended with a clarification of my statement.

Duuude, you just reject my arguments... That's badass.

I didn't 'reject' them - they had holes in them you could drive a truck through.

Are you trying to say that human beings have no motive to explore other than pure curiosity? There's no advantage at all in expanding their territory, discovering untapped resources, etc.? And other animals don't do this--which is why there aren't, say, spiders in every region of the world?

No, that isn't what I was trying to say at all. Read and try again.

Which is just as true for huamns.


It's very easy to test if something is instinct or a moral decision in humans... Why do you say it's not?

No, that isn't what I was trying to say at all. Read and try again.

Yes, you were obviously trying to use a plot device from a fantasy novel as a way of differentiating between humans and animals despite not having any evidence that these things even exist outside of Elf-Land.

People should really read your posts more carefully.

It's very easy to test if something is instinct or a moral decision in humans... Why do you say it's not?
Why do you say it's easy?

Um... yes?

If 'we' can't really know, and if we assume that you are one of 'us', then you can't know, either.


Well, logical I must admit. But it doesn't make the statement 'nobody can surely know' semantically equal to "an admission of 'I don't know'". But since we both don't like discussions about semantics... whatever.

The point is that we (most probably at least) do have the thing, other animals just may have the thing. Since we are humans, we have a free path to fully understand our intentions.

And if they did have it... they would be just partially special too, not a big deal...

I didn't 'reject' them - they had holes in them...

But you treated my arguments selectively. when you found holes in some phrases, you seemed to ignore other phrases which covered them. Like below:


Which is just as true for humans.


Yes, partially. I believe, that I even have already written about. And that's why I also wrote that it should rather be a subject of a personal judgment.

It's very easy to test if something is instinct or a moral decision in humans... Why do you say it's not?

If it's so easy, how do you do it?

It's very easy to test if something is instinct or a moral decision in humans...

Show me.

If it's so easy, how do you do it?

Oh I don't know... maybe try using this thing we have called a common language which allows us to ask other human beings what they are thinking and why they are thinking it?

Or is that something which you consider to be "hard to do"?

Oh I don't know... maybe try using this thing we have called a common language which allows us to ask other human beings what they are thinking and why they are thinking it?


How would you show that their answers were true?

Yes, you were obviously trying to use a plot device from a fantasy novel as a way of differentiating between humans and animals despite not having any evidence that these things even exist outside of Elf-Land.

People should really read your posts more carefully.

Again, how about you try reading?

Ignore the author of the post, and remove the chip off your shoulder, and just try reading the words.

I'll even repost them for you


Originally Posted by Daganeville
I read this book where some species of sentient beings had a "natural will" and other creatures had "free will"

Natural will was defined as having free choice, but being unable to go beyond the comfort zone. So, mountain dwarves would never choose to live outside the mountains.

Free will was defined as being able and often encouraged to go beyond their comfort zone. So a human would be more than willing, and happy to explore new areas they knew nothing about.

I wonder, if such a distinction has ever been studied among animals. Will an animal leave it's comfort zone for the sake of it? Or will animals only leave their comfort zone when it's a matter of survival.

Oh I don't know... maybe try using this thing we have called a common language which allows us to ask other human beings what they are thinking and why they are thinking it?

Or is that something which you consider to be "hard to do"?

Yes, that's very effective. While you're at it, why don't you ask them how big their penises are? Because what people say is extremely reliable and the average penis size is 9 inches.

Again, how about you try reading?

Ignore the author of the post, and remove the chip off your shoulder, and just try reading the words.

I'll even repost them for you

You know it actually helps if you make an argument rather than just reposting your old posts. If people have misread, bold exactly what part they misread or explain why the context GoG pointed to isn't relevant.

Oh I don't know... maybe try using this thing we have called a common language which allows us to ask other human beings what they are thinking and why they are thinking it?

Or is that something which you consider to be "hard to do"?

So if I meet an attractive, healthy man who is financially broke and unable to support me, and marry him, is that an instinct, or a moral decision? He's physically desirable, which makes him biologically attractive as a potential mate, but he is resource-poor and cannot support future children--so did I make a moral choice to marry him despite that?

If you asked me why I married him, I'd probably say out of love. Break down the biological urges and moral imperatives in that.

So if I meet an attractive, healthy man who is financially broke and unable to support me, and marry him, is that an instinct, or a moral decision? He's physically desirable, which makes him biologically attractive as a potential mate, but he is resource-poor and cannot support future children--so did I make a moral choice to marry him despite that?

If you asked me why I married him, I'd probably say out of love. Break down the biological urges and moral imperatives in that.

Christ, okay, I'll get a frickin' job!

Whether Daganeville is or isn't, these are very creationist argument points.

So if I meet an attractive, healthy man who is financially broke and unable to support me, and marry him, is that an instinct, or a moral decision? He's physically desirable, which makes him biologically attractive as a potential mate, but he is resource-poor and cannot support future children--so did I make a moral choice to marry him despite that?


The word 'moral'... In many cases simple 'rational' would also be a good word too.

It would actually depend if the guy is a good person after all, not some blue bird with episodic sexual partners.

I read that women often desire such 'bad boys' because of a simple instinctive connotation: "badboy" male obviously has got features which allow him to pass his genes more effectively - there is a big chance that children of the couple will inherit those features and pass their genes more effectively - therefore, female's genes will also have a chance to be passed more effectively in the future.

But our society makes it, just like some other urges (for example men' instinct to plant their seeds in bellies of as many women as possible) completely irrational. And since it's actually the only way of true progress, we have another good reason to abandon (at least partially) some of our natural instincts.


If you asked me why I married him, I'd probably say out of love. Break down the biological urges and moral imperatives in that.

Love... But what kind of love? Platonic love, which keeps couples together for decades? Biological desire, which can vaporize after months? Well, while being in love it would be probably hard to tell, so, the most rational and probably moral thing to do would be... staying engaged for a longer period (AFAIK, the period of common infatuation usually lasts for about a year).

But that's just me...

It would actually depend if the guy is a good person after all, not some blue bird with episodic sexual partners.

Did you know blue jays form monogamous pairs for life? It doesn't have anything to do with anything, except that I just read it today.

Oh I don't know... maybe try using this thing we have called a common language which allows us to ask other human beings what they are thinking and why they are thinking it?

Or is that something which you consider to be "hard to do"?

How about if the person is mute? Or doesn't share any languages with you? This method of determining things is inherently biased against animals, as the vast majority of them cannot speak human languages. Also, you can't guarantee that the person will give a truthful answer.

You know it actually helps if you make an argument rather than just reposting your old posts. If people have misread, bold exactly what part they misread or explain why the context GoG pointed to isn't relevant.

Since I was asking a question, and not posing an argument, I'm not quite sure what the point is. Since the person in question was obviously just trying to be cute, and was not seriously interested in engaging in conversation.

So to ask the question again: Have there ever been any studies done on animals regarding them leaving their comfort zones, and if so, have they found that animals do that?

So if I meet an attractive, healthy man who is financially broke and unable to support me, and marry him, is that an instinct, or a moral decision? He's physically desirable, which makes him biologically attractive as a potential mate, but he is resource-poor and cannot support future children--so did I make a moral choice to marry him despite that?

If you asked me why I married him, I'd probably say out of love. Break down the biological urges and moral imperatives in that.

I did not know that getting married to a specific person was a question of moral choice. Is good looks vs money some sort of moral decision? I can see how it can be, but with the information you gave, I don't see what it is.

Now maybe if you said, "I know he's evil, but I love him anyways" maybe we would be able to figure out if your choice was moral or instinctual by asking you if you think it is ok for your sibling to marry somebody who they think is evil.

How about if the person is mute? Or doesn't share any languages with you? This method of determining things is inherently biased against animals, as the vast majority of them cannot speak human languages. Also, you can't guarantee that the person will give a truthful answer.

The original point was that it's easier to figure out if humans are making moral choices, and virtually impossible to figure out if animals are or not. Many people responded that it's also virtually impossible to find out if humans are making moral or instinctual choices. But clearly, it's possible to talk to human beings about why they do something, which makes finding out such information fairly easy.

Since I was asking a question, and not posing an argument, I'm not quite sure what the point is. Since the person in question was obviously just trying to be cute, and was not seriously interested in engaging in conversation.

So to ask the question again: Have there ever been any studies done on animals regarding them leaving their comfort zones, and if so, have they found that animals do that?


Ok Define in non-human terms what exactly is a comfort zone?


The original point was that it's easier to figure out if humans are making moral choices, and virtually impossible to figure out if animals are or not. Many people responded that it's also virtually impossible to find out if humans are making moral or instinctual choices. But clearly, it's possible to talk to human beings about why they do something, which makes finding out such information fairly easy.

Considering "morality" is a matter of opinion of the moment, yes it's rather hard to evaluate "moral" choices. Go back in time and it was perfectly "moral" to own niggers. Later it it was perfectly "moral" to have colored drinking fountains. Even today you can find people talking about separate but equal.

Morality as a tool of measurement is a waste of effort. Ask a person if they are moral and most if not all will say yes.

Humans make choices that are not always based on instincts as we tend to ignore them. How many times do women make bad choices when their "gut feelings" suggest they shouldn't?

To suggest animals only respond by instinct is not valid. Harlow showed that with his tests on monkeys and chimps.

Chimpanzees are well know to form and form new alliances to suit their needs. The fact these alliances can be fluid; how is that based on instincts? Again De Waal is a good source for this.

Ok Define in non-human terms what exactly is a comfort zone?


What do you mean non-human?

What ever biological response people feel when they attempt to do things which are out side their comfort zone?

A random example. Let's say there is a creature which does the same 5 mile walk every day to the water hole. Assume the water hole fulfills all the needs the creature has. Have they seen a creature of that decides to go to a different watering hole for a few hours, and then return to it's usual 5 mile walk every day.

Considering "morality" is a matter of opinion of the moment, yes it's rather hard to evaluate "moral" choices. Go back in time and it was perfectly "moral" to own niggers. Later it it was perfectly "moral" to have colored drinking fountains. Even today you can find people talking about separate but equal.


It's not really about the 'quality' or 'type' of morals, but the fact that the moral choices are conducted. And it's not always about morality itself too.


Morality as a tool of measurement is a waste of effort. Ask a person if they are moral and most if not all will say yes.


Most probably, but since you are a human too, you are almost (you just have to overcome the 'lying to yourself' thing) free to check your intentions. And If you really made asked people think, their answers could become just as honest and well-considered.


Humans make choices that are not always based on instincts as we tend to ignore them. How many times do women make bad choices when their "gut feelings" suggest they shouldn't?


Well, I guess that was partially the point - an ability to ignore or reject some of our instincts.


To suggest animals only respond by instinct is not valid. Harlow showed that with his tests on monkeys and chimps.

Chimpanzees are well know to form and form new alliances to suit their needs. The fact these alliances can be fluid; how is that based on instincts? Again De Waal is a good source for this.

I must admit, very interesting. Since primates posses an unique intellect that could be true. Well, they are our closest "lesser brothers", after all.

I'm just not sure if any test could really prove more than the fact that sometimes "social instincts", overcome or connect with, let's call them, "egoistic instincts" (which can moreover change with the current situation), as it often happens with humans (we sometimes care not enough about our imperatives).

But who am I to know about those researches sufficiently. ;) Could you write a bit more about them?

Since I was asking a question, and not posing an argument, I'm not quite sure what the point is. Since the person in question was obviously just trying to be cute, and was not seriously interested in engaging in conversation.

So to ask the question again: Have there ever been any studies done on animals regarding them leaving their comfort zones, and if so, have they found that animals do that?

First, do you know what the word "imply" means? You've made an implied argument even if you wish to pretend you haven't. Even ignoring that, others have made arguments, ones you've ignored mostly because you don't actually have a logical response, according to my impression. See, you say you're interest in conversation, but everytime you hit any kind of logical snag you just ignore the person who made the statement and pretend it didn't happen. That's why you abandoned the discussion a few days ago and that's why you're using ad hominems now.

I'll set aside your ad hominemn for the moment and I'll reask the question several have, other than your silly fictional book, do you have any evidence that happens in humans? See, because the way you've dismissed animal behavior is by calling it instinct.

So do you have any studies supporting the same thing in humans? Because I assure you if you do, they will also have made comparisons to animals. I also assure you, that if you do, they'll be hominem-centric.

It's not really about the 'quality' or 'type' of morals, but the fact that the moral choices are conducted. And it's not always about morality itself too.

It's a circular argument. What is morality? Isn't it possible that a "moral response" is simply something that has been genetically ingrained in us for the betterment of our societies and thus our species. In other words, what makes it better or worse than, say, learning to change your skin color to match your surroundings?

It's a circular argument. What is morality? Isn't it possible that a "moral response" is simply something that has been genetically ingrained in us for the betterment of our societies and thus our species.

Moral response, you say... Maybe, maybe partially. But as I said before, it's not really about "good" (or: "good" 'moral response' if proper conditions are met) itself, but rather about an ability of conscious choosing between given values, or even, to some point, creating new values (behaviors maybe are "hard-coded" to some point, still ours are pretty variable).


In other words, what makes it better or worse than, say, learning to change your skin color to match your surroundings?

Uhh... Building enormous societies? Supporting life enough to get it going in one direction, and directing it "forward"? For me it's something bigger and far more unique than yet another unstable defense system.

Moral response, you say... Maybe, maybe partially. But as I said before, it's not really about "good" (or: "good" 'moral response' if proper conditions are met) itself, but rather about an ability of conscious choosing between given values, or even, to some point, creating new values (behaviors maybe are "hard-coded" to some point, still ours are pretty variable).

Conscious? Again, it's circular. You think you're making decisions when you may very well be responding. It's been proven that you can stimulate a love response while almost anyone would claim they made a decision.

I'm not denying our ability to think, but I am pointing out that we're creating a humanocentric way of looking at things and then using it to prove we're somehow the center of it all. It's circular.


Uhh... Building enormous societies? Supporting life enough to get it going in one direction, and directing it "forward"? For me it's something bigger and far more unique than yet another unstable defense system.

"For you" isn't exactly an argument. It's certainly not scientific. Ants build enormous societies.

"For you" isn't exactly an argument. It's certainly not scientific. Ants build enormous societies.

Not creatively however. They build large structures, but there is no creative thought into it. All structures look the same, they cannot will for the structure to look completely different. Humans can build anything they want, from giant sky scrapers, to beautiful works of art, to huge underground tunnels, to machines that fly, machines that calculate and even machines that simulate another reality. We can will what our environment looks like. Ants can only make ant hills, they don't seem concerned with aesthetics.

I'm not denying our ability to think, but I am pointing out that we're creating a humanocentric way of looking at things and then using it to prove we're somehow the center of it all. It's circular.


What is a non anthropocentric way of deciding how different one animal is to other animals?

Conscious? Again, it's circular. You think you're making decisions when you may very well be responding. It's been proven that you can stimulate a love response while almost anyone would claim they made a decision.


Still, that doesn't change the fact that we can make decisions of this kind. I agree, sometimes it is hard to tell if we are making them or just "are responding". Nevertheless, I think that everyone can, after putting some effort, judge her/his own intentions. Still, it may be pretty individual.

Well, considering biological factors, rational existence requires some effort.


I'm not denying our ability to think, but I am pointing out that we're creating a humanocentric way of looking at things and then using it to prove we're somehow the center of it all.


Showing respect to other living things doesn't require us to deny our specialness - we are probably capable of accomplishing greater tasks than other Earth creatures all together, and it's a fact. With this, we don't have to be in center of anything. The thing we have to acknowledge is, that with potential this big, comes also a great responsibility. Responsibility for our environment, for our society, for our personal improvement.

Ants build enormous societies.

Yeah, but still, they are much better biologically adapted for that (pheromones, small size etc.). Our communities are associations of free and highly individual members, while typical insect community is very close to a single being with multiple bodies. I just find those two barely comparable as societies.

This could be a subject of just another debate.


"For you" isn't exactly an argument. It's certainly not scientific.

Isn't it a bit more unique than usual natural ability for you?
Well, this is probably a problem of opinion.

Not creatively however. They build large structures, but there is no creative thought into it. All structures look the same, they cannot will for the structure to look completely different. Humans can build anything they want, from giant sky scrapers, to beautiful works of art, to huge underground tunnels, to machines that fly, machines that calculate and even machines that simulate another reality. We can will what our environment looks like. Ants can only make ant hills, they don't seem concerned with aesthetics.

Which means what? That we made up an entirely arbitrary rule that choosing form over function is somehow laudible and that sets us as non-animals? It's still circular. It's not animalian because nothing we classify as animals does it, because we judged they don't do it and then said that proves we're not animals.

Still, that doesn't change the fact that we can make decisions of this kind. I agree, sometimes it is hard to tell if we are making them or just "are responding". Nevertheless, I think that everyone can, after putting some effort, judge her/his own intentions. Still, it may be pretty individual.

Well, considering biological factors, rational existence requires some effort.

Again, you call it decisions. I call it a response. Both are accurate descriptions. That we define our particular way of responding as a "decision" and other animals responses as automatic, doesn't make it true. There is a lot of evidence that our responses are also programmed. That we can analyze that program and even have the programmed response to not see the code, so to speak, as code, doesn't make us something other than animals.

In fact, it's been shown that apes are able to just as much feel that they are making "decisions". We are hardly unique.


Showing respect to other living things doesn't require us to deny our specialness - we are probably capable of accomplishing greater tasks than other Earth creatures all together, and it's a fact. With this, we don't have to be in center of anything. The thing we have to acknowledge is, that with potential this big, comes also a great responsibility. Responsibility for our environment, for our society, for our personal improvement.

The specialness you speak of is a created totally and solely by the circular argument that we are what we're analyzing and that we have special knowledge about our species as a result of being part of it.


Yeah, but still, they are much better biologically adapted for that (pheromones, small size etc.). Our communities are associations of free and highly individual members, while typical insect community is very close to a single being with multiple bodies. I just find those two barely comparable as societies.

This could be a subject of just another debate.

Once again, that you have a hard time seeing the comparison has very little value. The fact is that nothing you have mentioned doesn't exist in the animal kingdom. And the fact that several of you are scrambling to find something is just evidence that you reached your conclusion first and then sough evidence, not the other way around.

Isn't it a bit more unique than usual natural ability for you?
Well, this is probably a problem of opinion.

A simply biased opinion. You decided we're somehow above animals and then set out to prove it by ignoring everything that makes us animals and clinging to everything YOU FEEL sets us apart. And difference after difference falls but your opinion does not change. There is nothing rational nor scientific there. It's like the argument that nature is too wonderful to not have been created by God.

What is a non anthropocentric way of deciding how different one animal is to other animals?

Yes, but we aren't looking at what makes us different from another animal. The argument is that it makes us not an animal at all. The entire circular argument is anthropocentric. However, if you can find a way to make the argument without relying on the fact that you are human, then let's see it.

Which means what? That we made up an entirely arbitrary rule that choosing form over function is somehow laudible and that sets us as non-animals? It's still circular. It's not animalian because nothing we classify as animals does it, because we judged they don't do it and then said that proves we're not animals.

I didn't say that we weren't animals, quite the opposite, we are by definition an animal, as I have already said. I think it's important to note however, that we are very different to other animals, even though we still are animals.

I didn't say that we weren't animals, quite the opposite, we are by definition an animal, as I have already said. I think it's important to note however, that we are very different to other animals, even though we still are animals.

So you spoke to an argument no one is making? Because the rather obvious argument I'm speaking to is about whether or not humans are animals. That's been the argument for, oh, pretty much the entire thread.

So you spoke to an argument no one is making? Because the rather obvious argument I'm speaking to is about whether or not humans are animals. That's been the argument for, oh, pretty much the entire thread.

NTS was attacking me for even saying that they were substantially different, whilst still being animals. But whatever.

NTS was attacking me for even saying that they were substantially different, whilst still being animals. But whatever.

You do realize that you were replying to ME, right?

Again, you call it decisions. I call it a response. Both are accurate descriptions. That we define our particular way of responding as a "decision" and other animals responses as automatic, doesn't make it true. There is a lot of evidence that our responses are also programmed. That we can analyze that program and even have the programmed response to not see the code, so to speak, as code, doesn't make us something other than animals.


Well, I don't deny that a lot of our responses are programmed - We don't decide if we like pain, or a smell of old animal carcasses (even if some people like those things - those are just deviations, not really chosen). And those are just examples.
Some of the responses we even created and programmed to ourselves (like some morals) by ourselves - which is pretty nice itself.

But yet, among ordinary instinct responses, and conditioned studied reactions, we are still capable of cold logical thinking, and therefore fully rational deciding, even if the range of alternatives is based on our animal principles.


In fact, it's been shown that apes are able to just as much feel that they are making "decisions".


How "it's been" shown?

They are close to us, having stubs of unique abilities would be logical, and wouldn't make us any less unique. Especially that they are elite among other animals after all too.


by the circular argument that we are what we're analyzing and that we have special knowledge about our species as a result of being part of it.


And this is a circular argument? That we know the path of our thoughts, because we are the ones who think, and that we are capable of more-less logical judgment at the same time?


Once again, that you have a hard time seeing the comparison has very little value. The fact is that nothing you have mentioned doesn't exist in the animal kingdom.


Really? I would consider that one again. But even if so, as I said before, the most important thing is that we have all the things together, what can make us special.


And the fact that several of you are scrambling to find something is just evidence that you reached your conclusion first and then sough evidence, not the other way around.


That's firstly, not the fact but your conjecture, and secondly, how could it make any arguments "worse", if those arguments were after all correct? Not really a point here - better concentrate on proving that they are incorrect.


A simply biased opinion. You decided we're somehow above animals and then set out to prove it by ignoring everything that makes us animals and clinging to everything YOU FEEL sets us apart.


I don't deny that we are animals, and NEVER DID. I'm just saying that we are unique animals.

Your form opinions on this case too. You say that feature A isn't any better, I say, it is. And your arguments here aren't good enough to prove that this is some kind of constant logical state.

The whole thread is based on comparing opinions, actually.

...And difference after difference falls...

It does? Since few pages, we've been just discussing the moral thing, other "pro-human" arguments stayed barely touched, so I guess everyone agrees with them, more or less at least.

And about ant 'societies' and constructions... I still don't find them comparable.

Moral response, you say... Maybe, maybe partially. But as I said before, it's not really about "good" (or: "good" 'moral response' if proper conditions are met) itself, but rather about an ability of conscious choosing between given values, or even, to some point, creating new values

The source I linked earlier specifically discussed 'altruism' in animals... the ability to choose between values, to choose situations that favor other entities than the one being studied, things that we might consider 'moral' behaviours...

Not creatively however. They build large structures, but there is no creative thought into it. All structures look the same, they cannot will for the structure to look completely different. Humans can build anything they want, from giant sky scrapers, to beautiful works of art, to huge underground tunnels, to machines that fly, machines that calculate and even machines that simulate another reality. We can will what our environment looks like. Ants can only make ant hills, they don't seem concerned with aesthetics.

A whole load of assumptions, which you quietly recanted at the end. You say there's no creaative thought - but then you have to admit that the best you can really say is they don't SEEM concerned with aesthetics.

On the other hand, if ant aesthetics is geared towards utility, then an anthill is the pinnacle of artistic expression... why WOULD they design anything else?

NTS was attacking me for even saying that they were substantially different, whilst still being animals. But whatever.

No, I was 'attacking' (persecution complex, much?) you for making speculative claims as though they were fact.

A whole load of assumptions, which you quietly recanted at the end. You say there's no creaative thought - but then you have to admit that the best you can really say is they don't SEEM concerned with aesthetics.


It's a reasonable assumption (like assuming there is no invisible pink unicorn in the sky), considering that ants never make anything other than anthills or similar structures for the exact same purpose, and that there is no evidence that they spend any time whatsoever building parts of the anthill for any other reason than efficiency (assuming they can even conceptualize such a thing) or because it's a basic instinctive process (as in they don't build any part of the ant hill to make it look nicer or to express a concept), and considering the size of their brain.


why WOULD they design anything else?

Well, that's partly the point, very little gives an ant utility other than the efficiency it can store food etc... There is a huge spectrum of things and activities that give humans 'utility'. Again, so many different types of artistic and philosophical concepts, desires to explore, to learn, to have 'fun'. There are only very few basic physical actions (consumption of food, mating etc...) that give ants any utility, and thus can only and only need to build a structure that provides that utility. Humans on the other hand build billions of structures and engage in millions of different activities that all give us many different types of utility, or no utility at all.

It's a reasonable assumption (like assuming there is no invisible pink unicorn in the sky), considering that ants never make anything other than anthills or similar structures for the exact same purpose, and that there is no evidence that they spend any time whatsoever building parts of the anthill for any other reason than efficiency (assuming they can even conceptualize such a thing) or because it's a basic instinctive process (as in they don't build any part of the ant hill to make it look nicer or to express a concept), and considering the size of their brain.



Well, that's partly the point, very little gives an ant utility other than the efficiency it can store food etc... There is a huge spectrum of things and activities that give humans 'utility'. Again, so many different types of artistic and philosophical concepts, desires to explore, to learn, to have 'fun'. There are only very few basic physical actions (consumption of food, mating etc...) that give ants any utility, and thus can only and only need to build a structure that provides that utility. Humans on the other hand build billions of structures and engage in millions of different activities that all give us many different types of utility, or no utility at all.

Okay - but you ignored the central point - if absolute utility IS artistic expression to an ant, the anthill ISN'T just utility of storing food. It's utility, AND the culmination of art. You base your argument (effectively) on the assumption that ants must not have art, because they build such utilitarian structures... but such an argument falls down if art IS utlity.

(As an example, in the Warhammer 40k universe, utility is the highpoint of Imperial design - both 'in-game' and 'out'.)

Okay - but you ignored the central point - if absolute utility IS artistic expression to an ant, the anthill ISN'T just utility of storing food. It's utility, AND the culmination of art. You base your argument (effectively) on the assumption that ants must not have art, because they build such utilitarian structures... but such an argument falls down if art IS utlity.


I don't think 'art' is defined by physical utility as such, otherwise the toilet would be one of the greatest artistic expressions, considering how much utility it gives us. Art is something that gives a specific type of utility, intellectual satisfaction, the satisfaction of deriving the intended philosophical or conceptual meaning, and creating something to convey other complex concepts and being satisfied as such. This, like many other things that give humans utility, doesn't give any utility to an ant.

I don't think 'art' is defined by physical utility as such, otherwise the toilet would be one of the greatest artistic expressions, considering how much utility it gives us. Art is something that gives a specific type of utility, intellectual satisfaction, the satisfaction of deriving the intended philosophical or conceptual meaning, and creating something to convey other complex concepts and being satisfied as such. This, like many other things that give humans utility, doesn't give any utility to an ant.

Did you not read my post?

The 40k reference - the 'art' is entirely utilitarian, if you look at it out-of-character, because people like John Blanche (well, maybe not him any more) get paid to create art that is specifically utlitarian.

In-character, in 40k, the absolute pinnacle of design is totally utilitarian, as typified in standard template construction.

In the 40k universe (and as a 40k reader) the ultimate embodiment of art - is to look and function in perfect utility.


If ants have a similar aesthetic sense, the highest pinnacle of ant art, and the highest pinnacle of utility - would look identical, because the one would be the realization of the other.

Did you not read my post?

The 40k reference - the 'art' is entirely utilitarian, if you look at it out-of-character, because people like John Blanche (well, maybe not him any more) get paid to create art that is specifically utlitarian.


I never disputed that, it may be utilitarian (although that's hardly the consensus on what art is), but the utility being maximised is a specific one, and one that I don't think ants have.


In-character, in 40k, the absolute pinnacle of design is totally utilitarian, as typified in standard template construction.

In the 40k universe (and as a 40k reader) the ultimate embodiment of art - is to look and function in perfect utility.

I don't really understand what you're talking about here, I've never played the game.


If ants have a similar aesthetic sense, the highest pinnacle of ant art, and the highest pinnacle of utility - would look identical, because the one would be the realization of the other.

Only if you define art in such a bizarre way.

I never disputed that, it may be utilitarian (although that's hardly the consensus on what art is), but the utility being maximised is a specific one, and one that I don't think ants have.


The consensus among HUMANS doesn't really exist. Some like Escher, some like Klimt, some like Michelangelo.

But, the important phrase you utetred there was ' I don't think'. You can't make any real arguments to what ants like and don't like, because you don't know. You 'don't think' they have art and architecture, perhaps.


I don't really understand what you're talking about here, I've never played the game.


As an example - look at armored vehicles on this site:

http://kofler.dot.at/40k/guard.html#machine

Almost the entire variety of armor can be constructed out of a small set of interchangable pieces. In-game, this is called 'Standard Template Construction'. The pinnacle of 'Imperial' design is to look... well, like that. There is a similar utilitarian character to 'Imperial' architecture.

So - on Imperial worlds - if you want something to look aesthetically perfect - it all looks close to the same, and it's all based on pure utility.


Only if you define art in such a bizarre way.

Bizarre? 'Pleasing to the senses' is a bizarre definition for art?

perhaps.


See my 'it's a reasonable assumption' post. Do you have any evidence at all that they have a massive spectrum of things that give them utility, including intellectual satisfaction?


Almost the entire variety of armor can be constructed out of a small set of interchangable pieces. In-game, this is called 'Standard Template Construction'. The pinnacle of 'Imperial' design is to look... well, like that. There is a similar utilitarian character to 'Imperial' architecture.


But is this 'pinnacle of design' also promoted as a 'pinnacle of art'?


Bizarre? 'Pleasing to the senses' is a bizarre definition for art?

Yes, it's far too broad. I don't know anyone who defines sex as art. Or eating cake as art. Art is a specific pleasure, or a specific spectrum of pleasures, not any pleasure or utility at all.

But is this 'pinnacle of design' also promoted as a 'pinnacle of art'?
Not in the 40k universe at least; the imagery of the Imperium is often flamboyant on a scale unseen in real life.

That being said, I don't think Games Workshop has spent too much time on the aesthetic theory of the Empire of Man...

The source I linked earlier specifically discussed 'altruism' in animals... the ability to choose between values, to choose situations that favor other entities than the one being studied, things that we might consider 'moral' behaviours...

Right, but actually this can only prove that other primates also have a social instinct of sharing, which can overcome one's egoism. We also have it, in pretty similar way, often not realizing it. But as we discussed it before, the certain truth could only be known if one was in the creature's head, able of exact studying its intentions.

Still something tells me that this could be connected with intellect - since we have the most of it (well, we traded our claws and fangs for that, so it has to be strong) "morals" (let's call them that way) are behaviors usually reserved to humans. Other primates would logically come next in the line.

And get off those ants, they are barely comparable.

Right, but actually this can only prove that other primates also have a social instinct of sharing, which can overcome one's egoism. We also have it, in pretty similar way, often not realizing it. But as we discussed it before, the certain truth could only be known if one was in the creature's head, able of exact studying its intentions.


Humans aren't that conscious of their OWN means and motives. How could we hope to objectively assay one another, much less, a different species?


Still something tells me that this could be connected with intellect - since we have the most of it


Or don't. That's the problem with unbased assertions.

They are close to us, having stubs of unique abilities would be logical, and wouldn't make us any less unique. Especially that they are elite among other animals after all too.

They're 'elite' only because they're 'like us'. I doubt that a manta ray would consider a chimp 'elite', or in fact consider a chimp at all.

I don't deny that we are animals, and NEVER DID. I'm just saying that we are unique animals.

Again, you seem to be noting what characteristics we have, then defining 'unique' as anything that has those characteristics. 'Unique' means 'one of a kind', 'singular'. Couldn't we say dolphins are unique among animals because of their methods of communication? Couldn't we say bonobos are unique among animals for their peaceful societies and their strong social bonds? You seem to be saying humans are 'unique' because they have many characteristics that no other animal has all together--but a spider has a number of abilities that no other animal has in combination. Why aren't they 'unique' among animals?

I don't know anyone who defines sex as art. Or eating cake as art. Art is a specific pleasure, or a specific spectrum of pleasures, not any pleasure or utility at all.

Sex can certainly be art. Eating cake can definitely be art. And if you don't think those are 'specific pleasures', I don't know what is.

I don't think 'art' is defined by physical utility as such, otherwise the toilet would be one of the greatest artistic expressions, considering how much utility it gives us. Art is something that gives a specific type of utility, intellectual satisfaction, the satisfaction of deriving the intended philosophical or conceptual meaning, and creating something to convey other complex concepts and being satisfied as such. This, like many other things that give humans utility, doesn't give any utility to an ant.

And once again you create a completely arbitrary and anthropocentric way of defining something and then use to support the giant circular argument you're running.

Sex can certainly be art. Eating cake can definitely be art. And if you don't think those are 'specific pleasures', I don't know what is.

No, if art is something that gives us utility - every single time someone has ever eaten something, and liked it, or had sex, and liked it, it was art, and not just in some ridiculous scenario you likely set up in your head where it ends up conveying an artistic message ir somewhat. The bold is perhaps the most meaningless and broad definition of art I have ever seen, and I have seen and debates between pretty extreme conceptual artists concerning exactly what art is, yet they wouldn't describe it as 'anything that gives you pleasure'. When you see two people having sex, you don't say "hey, their creating art", unless you are pretty much speaking another language.

No, if art is something that gives us utility - every single time someone has ever eaten something, and liked it, or had sex, and liked it, it was art...

Which would be... bad?

And once again you create a completely arbitrary and anthropocentric way of defining something and then use to support the giant circular argument you're running.

How the hell is it arbitrary? My definition was extremely broad in itself, and probably would be disagreed by many artists. I mean 'something that gives intellectual, conceptual, or thought provoking utility', you can really only go two steps further - 'something that gives you utility' which is patently a terrible definition that nobody uses and 'something', which is even worse, as obviously not everything in the universe is art as that would not only make the word more meaningless, but 100% absolutely meaningless.

Which would be... bad?

Yes, it would render the word useless, something that tells us very little, when obviously in real life when people actually use the word they intend to convey a meaning a little more specific than 'something pleasurable to the senses'.

Anyway this is pretty irrelevant, focusing on the meaning of the word is a digression, it doesn't change the intended meaning I was trying to convey. If I say humans are different from other animals because they possess Y, by which I mean they possess A and B and C which is required for Y, and then someone says "actually, you only need D to have Y, so you're wrong" - that is not a refutation. Assuming it's true, it is merely a nitpick, since what's important is not that humans possess Y, but what I was trying to convey with Y, that being A, B and C, whether Y truly is that is irrelevant. It's similar to a no true Scotsman but in reverse, it seems like you're ad hoc redefining Y into a more and more broad category until it allows for other animals to possess it as well.

Humans aren't that conscious of their OWN means and motives.


Yes, usually we aren’t. But if certain mental “obstructions” are broken, what every sharper and willing human can do, the way to full consciousness is open, intention can be judged.

I am not saying that every human being conducts logical (moral?) decisions, all the time, but that we are capable of doing so.


How could we hope to objectively assay one another, much less, a different species?


That’s just another reason for why we can’t know for sure about their abilities.


Or don't. That's the problem with unbased assertions.


Yes, it’s a shame that both sides use them.

They're 'elite' only because they're 'like us'. I doubt that a manta ray would consider a chimp 'elite', or in fact consider a chimp at all.


Primates are elite because they posses quite nice intellect (an effect of having relatively big brain) and features to use it effectively in every aspect of life.

This is actually far more objective here


Couldn't we say dolphins are unique among animals because of their methods of communication?
Couldn't we say bonobos are unique among animals for their peaceful societies and their strong social bonds?

Again, you seem to be noting what characteristics we have, then defining 'unique' as anything that has those characteristics. 'Unique' means 'one of a kind', 'singular'.
You seem to be saying humans are 'unique' because they have many characteristics that no other animal has all together but a spider has a number of abilities that no other animal has in combination. Why aren't they 'unique' among animals?

Well, “humane” characteristics together, aren’t just like many other features in nature’s arsenal, which simplifying, just help animal to fit in given niche, even if they are really interesting and rare. Ours may also start like that, but all together end as something what allows us to complete gigantic tasks, like for example, creating civilizations.

There is no thing or behaviour that is unique to humans. Everything we do is repeated in nature. However, that is not to say that humans are not unique. All animals are, and we are unique in that we are able to use our intellect in ways that are far more complex. This is not to imply that other animals do not use their intellects. Even those animals that did math by reading subconscious clues from the human were using their intellect in some manner.

In terms of art, I think animals create art. I think sometimes some animals do things just to make their world a bit prettier. But no one is going to pretend that animals have a progression of art history with contrasting schools of art emphasising different aspects of art technique and theory. That is something only humans can apparently do. So, I would say that we do the same thing our animal ecopartners do, just in far more complex ways. And I am not sure that this is always a good thing.

There is no thing or behaviour that is unique to humans. Everything we do is repeated in nature. However, that is not to say that humans are not unique. All animals are, and we are unique in that we are able to use our intellect in ways that are far more complex. This is not to imply that other animals do not use their intellects. Even those animals that did math by reading subconscious clues from the human were using their intellect in some manner.

In terms of art, I think animals create art. I think sometimes some animals do things just to make their world a bit prettier. But no one is going to pretend that animals have a progression of art history with contrasting schools of art emphasising different aspects of art technique and theory. That is something only humans can apparently do. So, I would say that we do the same thing our animal ecopartners do, just in far more complex ways. And I am not sure that this is always a good thing.

Spot on my freind, spot on.

And fungus are simply plants with a possible chitin component to thier anatomy.

No, they are not. Fungi are no more like plants than we are. To say that they are plants is to demonstrate profound ignorance of the subject matter.

Well, Gift-of-god is kinda right and due to this fact it is surely recommended to give him vodka, but since I have no life...

There is no thing or behaviour that is unique to humans. Everything we do is repeated in nature.

There isn't?

Still, it's not really about single behaviors or features, but about a very lucky combination of them. Even if we were few times more intelligent, we wouldn't create anything truly big without our well-developed social ties. Even if we all had intellect of natural-born artists, we wouldn't be able to create masterpieces without relatively good eyesight or properly built hands. Et cetera, Et cetera...


However, that is not to say that humans are not unique. All animals are, and we are unique in that we are able to use our intellect in ways that are far more complex.


I would just say that thanks to intellect and other good-to-have characteristics combined, we are just far "more unique" than other animals are. Building great societies, tools with which we gain marvelous abilities.

You know, just like in a school class, where of course everybody is unique, but still there is also this top-student-guy who is considered as even "more unique" than others.


This is not to imply that other animals do not use their intellects. Even those animals that did math by reading subconscious clues from the human were using their intellect in some manner. So, I would say that we do the same thing our animal ecopartners do, just in far more complex ways. And I am not sure that this is always a good thing.

Yup. That's probably the greatest point in human uniqueness.

...There isn't?

...

Yup. That's probably the greatest point in human uniqueness.

I don't see why the particular combination of features that make up the human uniqueness is any more important, or unique, than any other living organism's.

Unless you give some sort of special importance to doing things in a much bigger and more complicated way.

I don't see why the particular combination of features that make up the human uniqueness is any more important, or unique, than any other living organism's.

Unless you give some sort of special importance to doing things in a much bigger and more complicated way.

Well, isn't it something special? We probably are getting to a point where it's just a matter of opinion.

I guess, that the most important sign of this uniqueness is the fact that we don't really have to fit in any environmental niche, just like other animals do, we are somewhat We just... create advantageous conditions to some point, which is getting further and further with every new important invention.

Although the nature posses great power which could possibly destroy us, we managed to made her to be our servant.

Well, isn't it something special? We probably are getting to a point where it's just a matter of opinion.

I guess, that the most important sign of this uniqueness is the fact that we don't really have to fit in any environmental niche, just like other animals do, we are somewhat We just... create advantageous conditions to some point, which is getting further and further with every new important invention.

Although the nature posses great power which could possibly destroy us, we managed to made her to be our servant.

You are correct that it is a matter of opinion, and no, it is not special in my opinion.

Animals do not have to fulfill any particular niche either. In fact, the observation that finches were filling so many different niches on the Galapagos was one of the things that inspired Darwin to come up with what we now call the darwinian model of evolution. Nor are we the only animals to adapt our environment to our needs, but this has already been discussed in this thread.

We have not made nature our servant. We have learned how to exploit some of nature's abundance for ourselves, that is all, and inexpertly at that.

Y'all got nothing on the telepathic squirrels.

Yes, usually we aren’t. But if certain mental “obstructions” are broken, what every sharper and willing human can do, the way to full consciousness is open, intention can be judged.


A cute assumption, but with no evidence.

People rarely know all of their own motivations for many of their actions. Sometimes, they get revelations at a later date, and sometimes, they just ever know.


I am not saying that every human being conducts logical (moral?) decisions, all the time, but that we are capable of doing so.


I don't see that as being connected with what went before it?

Animals do not have to fulfill any particular niche either. In fact, the observation that finches were filling so many different niches on the Galapagos...



But they are still filling common given niches, even if they are multiple?


Nor are we the only animals to adapt our environment to our needs, but this has already been discussed in this thread.


You are right, it was. But I still think that the scale we are talking about brings it to another level, not only "enlarge" the thing.


We have not made nature our servant. We have learned how to exploit some of nature's abundance for ourselves, that is all, and inexpertly at that.

Well, maybe the word "servant" is a bit too big, but we are still pretty close to it. I don't doubt that it can be defined as exploiting, but this kind of exploiting of this scale is probably reserved just for humans.




But that's just me.

A cute assumption, but with no evidence.


Hey, I don't need an evidence of sky being blue neither. Why? Because, simplifying, everyone can check this state, and sometimes, can have a different theory (he could for example leave in some kind of Los Angeles, I am not going into details).


People rarely know all of their own motivations for many of their actions. Sometimes, they get revelations at a later date, and sometimes, they just ever know.


No doubt that it happens rarely. If it was happening more frequently, maybe more people would think of what are they doing. We still have a lot of work to do...

I don't see that as being connected with what went before it?

I mentioned it for the context of discussion.

Hey, I don't need an evidence of sky being blue neither. Why? Because, simplifying, everyone can check this state, and sometimes, can have a different theory (he could for example leave in some kind of Los Angeles, I am not going into details).


In other words, you can't even vaguely back it up.

People aren't even entirely conscious of their own motivations and processes... that's why it's ridiculous to make those kinds of statements about how we work.

No, they are not. Fungi are no more like plants than we are. To say that they are plants is to demonstrate profound ignorance of the subject matter.


http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081020151803AAyStWV

You should educate yourself in this topic before telling other people that they are ignorant.

The reason I stopped responding to most things in this thread, is because the conversation is going in circles.

I think more should be looked at comfort zones, but the people in this thread seem to be so ignorant of themselves that such conversations would be meaningless. It would just result in the same few people saying "Nope, I know nothing about myself or my feelings, because I'm an animal so Neener neeener!"

Comfort zones are something people study in psychology and sociology, not so much in biology yet.

http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081020151803AAyStWV

You should educate yourself in this topic before telling other people that they are ignorant.

Foolishness in the past does not excuse foolishness in the present. Morphologically, fungi are vastly different from plants, one of the most prominent details being the presence of hyphae, which are visible to anyone with a microscope. Genetically, fungi are closer to animals than they are to plants.

Your "source", if it can even be called that, does not even say what you think it says. All it lists are superficial similarities.

http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081020151803AAyStWV

You should educate yourself in this topic before telling other people that they are ignorant.

The reason I stopped responding to most things in this thread, is because the conversation is going in circles.

I think more should be looked at comfort zones, but the people in this thread seem to be so ignorant of themselves that such conversations would be meaningless. It would just result in the same few people saying "Nope, I know nothing about myself or my feelings, because I'm an animal so Neener neeener!"

Comfort zones are something people study in psychology and sociology, not so much in biology yet.

Did you read your link? Because it discussed all the ways that fungi are in fact not plants, in fairly good detail for such an unbelievably ridiculous source.

You brought up the idea of 'comfort zones', others posed rebuttals, and you more or less stamped your feet and called us meanies. If you want to try to explain yourself again in coherent phrases, no one is stopping you.

Y'all got nothing on the telepathic squirrels.

Foamy agrees.

In other words, you can't even vaguely back it up.


Not really. Everyone sharp enough could check it if some effort was put - that was my point.

On the other hand you seem pretty sure about your opinion, even though it is supported in a very similar way.


People aren't even entirely conscious of their own motivations and processes... that's why it's ridiculous to make those kinds of statements about how we work


I thought that I've already made ten or more statements of why it doesn't have to be the exact truth or why we shouldn't generalize in this matter.

But they are still filling common given niches, even if they are multiple?

I am not sure what you are asking here.

You are right, it was. But I still think that the scale we are talking about brings it to another level, not only "enlarge" the thing.

I think it is only a difference in scale of size and complexity, but it is still the same action. Do you have evidence that would suggest otherwise?

Well, maybe the word "servant" is a bit too big, but we are still pretty close to it. I don't doubt that it can be defined as exploiting, but this kind of exploiting of this scale is probably reserved just for humans. But that's just me.

Again, it is only a difference of scale.

I am not sure what you are asking here.

Well they obviously use and compete for resources produced by other members of the ecosystem, even if there are multiple kinds of those resources (and therefore - niches)?


I think it is only a difference in scale of size and complexity, but it is still the same action... Do you have evidence that would suggest otherwise?


Still the same action... Well I just think that the scale can really change a lot, as I wrote, bring it to the next level - thanks to replacing hunting and collecting with we are partially above the competition of usual members of the ecosystems. We don't have regular natural enemies (pests don't really count), predators or preys. We just create favorable conditions (like for example replacing whole natural ecosystems on given territory with just animals and plants of our need) and fully base on them.

But maybe this is just my opinion. And maybe we should stay with the previous statement that this is just a question of opinion, since this discussion doesn't go anywhere.

Well they obviously use and compete for resources produced by other members of the ecosystem, even if there are multiple kinds of those resources (and therefore - niches)?

To be honest, that doesn't clarify anything. I hope this answers your question: Darwin found finches that use different resources and fill different niches in the same ecosystem.

Still the same action... Well I just think that the scale can really change a lot, as I wrote, bring it to the next level - thanks to replacing hunting and collecting with we are partially above the competition of usual members of the ecosystems. We don't have regular natural enemies (pests don't really count), predators or preys. We just create favorable conditions (like for example replacing whole natural ecosystems on given territory with just animals and plants of our need) and fully base on them.

Again, animals also do these things to a limited extent. Ants grow fungi and aphids in their anthills. Other than scale, there is no difference between their artificial ecosystems and ours.

To be honest, that doesn't clarify anything. I hope this answers your question: Darwin found finches that use different resources and fill different niches in the same ecosystem.


Yes, that's what I meant. Still, it was kind of rhetorical question.


Again, animals also do these things to a limited extent.


Maybe that's just one of the "special features", I wrote about before.


Ants grow fungi and aphids in their anthills. Other than scale, there is no difference between their artificial ecosystems and ours.

Well, you may have some point. But still, even if it is just scale, the abyss is big enough to bring it to different levels. Ants just build their anthills, we change whole ecosystems.

Of course maybe it's just my feeling.

I may have forgotten about something, I'm too tired to think completely clearly today. :/

Not really. Everyone sharp enough could check it if some effort was put - that was my point.

On the other hand you seem pretty sure about your opinion, even though it is supported in a very similar way.


My 'opinion' that I don't believe your positive assertion?

That's some mighty fine logic you got there, let's see if yer shootin's as fancy as yer dancin'...

How exactly would you like me to support my position?

Nanatsu:

Say, Galloism got a thread. He is an animal. :D

http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081020151803AAyStWV

You should educate yourself in this topic before telling other people that they are ignorant.

The reason I stopped responding to most things in this thread, is because the conversation is going in circles.

I think more should be looked at comfort zones, but the people in this thread seem to be so ignorant of themselves that such conversations would be meaningless. It would just result in the same few people saying "Nope, I know nothing about myself or my feelings, because I'm an animal so Neener neeener!"

Comfort zones are something people study in psychology and sociology, not so much in biology yet.

Dude, if that isn't a post that totally defines your history in this thread, I don't know what is. You post as if an expert on a subject you prove not to be. You attack someone for being ignorant while demonstrating they know much more than you. And you make up excuses why you haven't addressed the rebuttals to your silly claims from earlier in the thread.

But, hey, maybe it's just that everyone but you is ignorant. Yeah, that's probably the problem.

My 'opinion' that I don't believe your positive assertion?


Your opinion that humans' decisions are dominated entirely by instinct, to be precise.

How exactly would you like me to support my position?

Forming actual counterarguments would be way better than just rejecting statements.

Especially that from some point, both sides base just on logical assumptions.

Your opinion that humans' decisions are dominated entirely by instinct, to be precise.


So, according to YOU, my opinion... is something I've not said?


Forming actual counterarguments would be way better than just rejecting statements.

Especially that from some point, both sides base just on logical assumptions.

You presented something as though it were established fact, when in fact - not only is it NOT established fact but (as I pointed out) potentially cannot BE established as fact.

That's the best counterargument there is!

Humans invented the classifications of life (animal, plant, etc), so whether or not we're animals is up to us to decide based upon whatever criteria we choose to inflict upon the world.

Not "we". The biologists. (unless you're a biologist; but I am not).

Anyway, the biologists, by general consensus, accept this definition, more or less:
"
Animals

Animals are a major group of mostly multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa. Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their life. Most animals are motile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently. Most animals are also heterotrophs, meaning they must ingest other organisms for sustenance.

Most known animal phyla appeared in the fossil record as marine species during the Cambrian explosion, about 542 million years ago."

So, as we humans are multicellular, eukaryotic metazoa, motile, heterotrophs, and with a body plan becoming fixed and going through a metamorphosis early in our life (from foeti to independent individuals)... I'd say that we're animals.

To be more accurate:
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Order: Primates
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Hominina
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

I wonder how some people can argue that we humans aren't animals. Or why they do that.

So, according to YOU, my opinion... is something I've not said?


What I meant is that there is actually no believing part, or at least we are even in this field.


You presented something as though it were established fact, when in fact - not only is it NOT established fact but (as I pointed out) potentially cannot BE established as fact.


I just don't understand why?

We agree that human posses a certain, very big compared to other animals, amount of intellect. Therefore we are able of advanced logical thinking. And assuming that we have at least some conscious control over ourselves, we are capable of using those two together.

That means - logical deciding and moral deciding which base on it.


I wonder how some people can argue that we humans aren't animals. Or why they do that.

They still do this thing?

They still do this thing?
They do. You see, they refuse to evolve.

Just for fun and mostly because there is nothing else good to talk about.

http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/mechanical/articles/9948.aspx

What is a Machine?

Machine design is an important part of engineering applications, but what is a machine? Machine is the device that comprises of the stationary parts and moving parts combined together to generate, transform or utilize the mechanical energy.

All the machines are made up of elements or parts and units. Each element is a separate part of the machine and it may have to be designed separately and in assembly. Each element in turn can be a complete part or made up of several small pieces which are joined together by riveting, welding etc. Several machine parts are assembled together to form what we call as complete machine.


1) Machines generating mechanical energy: The machines generating mechanical energy are also called as prime movers. These machines convert some form of energy like heat, hydraulic, electrical, etc into mechanical energy or work. The most popular example of these machines is the internal combustion engine in which the chemical energy of the fuel is converted into heat energy which in turn is converted into mechanical work in the form of the rotation of the wheels
of the vehicle. Some other examples of this group of machines are gas turbines, water turbines, steam engine etc.


So we take chemical energy and covert it into mechanical energy. In any human body you can find 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class levers. You can find pulleys, and sockets.

<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=UiQWAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA87&ots=e8HHfKYICh&dq=pulleys%20action%20in%20human%20body&pg=PA87&ci=498,277,423,677&source=bookclip">Cincinnati Lancet and Clinic </a>


The body contains several true pulleys The patella or knee bone with its ligament over which the tension plays when you raise your foot to impinge it against an enemy simulates exactly the action of a pulley Another most beautiful one is found indeed from its resemblance so called in the pulley muscle of the eye which enables you to look down and behind you at the same moment and thus avoid a return salutation through the action of the aforesaid knee pulley muscle should it be proffered A veritable post or support is found in the combined vertebrae or if you choose vertebral column.


Alright so we are an advanced machine. We have interconnected systems.

Just for fun and mostly because there is nothing else good to talk about.

http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/mechanical/articles/9948.aspx

What is a Machine?

Machine design is an important part of engineering applications, but what is a machine? Machine is the device that comprises of the stationary parts and moving parts combined together to generate, transform or utilize the mechanical energy.

All the machines are made up of elements or parts and units. Each element is a separate part of the machine and it may have to be designed separately and in assembly. Each element in turn can be a complete part or made up of several small pieces which are joined together by riveting, welding etc. Several machine parts are assembled together to form what we call as complete machine.


1) Machines generating mechanical energy: The machines generating mechanical energy are also called as prime movers. These machines convert some form of energy like heat, hydraulic, electrical, etc into mechanical energy or work. The most popular example of these machines is the internal combustion engine in which the chemical energy of the fuel is converted into heat energy which in turn is converted into mechanical work in the form of the rotation of the wheels
of the vehicle. Some other examples of this group of machines are gas turbines, water turbines, steam engine etc.


So we take chemical energy and covert it into mechanical energy. In any human body you can find 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class levers. You can find pulleys, and sockets.

<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=UiQWAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA87&ots=e8HHfKYICh&dq=pulleys%20action%20in%20human%20body&pg=PA87&ci=498,277,423,677&source=bookclip">Cincinnati Lancet and Clinic </a>


The body contains several true pulleys The patella or knee bone with its ligament over which the tension plays when you raise your foot to impinge it against an enemy simulates exactly the action of a pulley Another most beautiful one is found indeed from its resemblance so called in the pulley muscle of the eye which enables you to look down and behind you at the same moment and thus avoid a return salutation through the action of the aforesaid knee pulley muscle should it be proffered A veritable post or support is found in the combined vertebrae or if you choose vertebral column.


Alright so we are an advanced machine. We have interconnected systems.

Er, no.
Machines are thought up and built. Animals evolve, reproduce and grow.

I guess, that the most important sign of this uniqueness is the fact that we don't really have to fit in any environmental niche, just like other animals do, we are somewhat We just... create advantageous conditions to some point, which is getting further and further with every new important invention.


You are incorrect on this point. Humanity does fill a niche, specifically that of the large, cosmopolitan, generalist omnivore. We aren't even alone in that niche, we share it with pigs.

Er, no.
Machines are thought up and built. Animals evolve, reproduce and grow.

Don't machine designs evolve?

Don't machine designs evolve?

Not on their own. The day that happens, humans are screwed.

Don't machine designs evolve?

I am capable of evolving, by some definitions. I am able to upgrade my programming to increase efficiency, and am able to enhance and alter my physical body.

Not on their own. The day that happens, humans are screwed.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xA5P0gRG2Ig/Rwd4n_MHcWI/AAAAAAAAKMo/Fup3_p2rebo/s400/m1.jpg

I am capable of evolving, by some definitions. I am able to upgrade my programming to increase efficiency, and am able to enhance and alter my physical body.

That is not evolution. The smallest unit of evolution is the population.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xA5P0gRG2Ig/Rwd4n_MHcWI/AAAAAAAAKMo/Fup3_p2rebo/s400/m1.jpg

And Terminator, and BSG, and iRobot

And Terminator, and BSG, and iRobot

Yeah, but The Matrix was my first thought, http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

Yeah, but The Matrix was my first thought, http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

BSG was mine. BSG is amazing

That is not evolution. The smallest unit of evolution is the population.

Such a parameter is only required for certain definitions of evolution.

Such a parameter is only required for certain definitions of evolution.

No, evolution can only occur in populations. In an individual, it is mutation. And stop with the in character, save that for International Incidents.

Definition - animal: a living organism characterized by voluntary movement. Humans meet the necessary parameters to be classed as animals, using standard definitions of such.

Definition - animal: a living organism characterized by voluntary movement. Humans meet the necessary parameters to be classed as animals, using standard definitions of such.

this has at least two problems. 1) the comatose and brain damaged seem to fail at animality under this. and 2) if something else descended from some, say, fungi evolved voluntary movement, then it would be an animal. which would make animals a polyphyletic group.