How did sex start?

[Mock Turtle]

Could be humans are more emotional and so rationality (such as justifying actions) is a bit more controversial.

Seems to be that so many species are just as emotional as humans though, and why not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can act like animals, that is true. But we are not animals. Despite what Darwin says.

Really? Why not?

Are you a plant?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So dog, ants, and apes think more than humans, according to what I think you are positing. Maybe the word rationality is not a good one here.

You do not appear to understand the word "rational". It does not mean that one thinks more if one is rational.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

We can act like animals, that is true. But we are not animals. Despite what Darwin says.

By definition we are Animals.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We can act like animals, that is true. But we are not animals. Despite what Darwin says.

Biology has defined animals as the kingdom of living things that are multicelluar, heterotrophic (eat other living things), eukaryotes (cells have membrane-bound nuclei) lacking cell walls and the capacity to do photosynthesis. They are also generally motile, but that's not essential.

Everything that fits that description is an animal. That includes human grandmothers.

May I ask how you know [there was no first human] this?

I know it from my studies and from an understanding of continuous transitions. I gave you the argument in the sorites paradox in the post you quoted.

Or maybe you mean, how do I know that God didn't create the first two humans? That's a longer answer, but it involves the paleontological evidence for biological evolution that shows us a transition from primates like Lucy that we would not call human to modern man, and that it occurred over millions of years.

There is also genetic evidence that humans evolved from nonhuman primates: Human chromosome 2 reveals that we had non-human ancestors with one more pair of chromosomes than man has, two of which fused end-to-end in the evolution of man. It's scientific evidence, which you wouldn't know if you didn't study it.

I don't expect you to agree with the argument for there being no first human, because you decide what is true about the world by a different method than I use. We have come to disparate worldviews because of that, and have no means of resolving our differences of opinion.

If your epistemology were skeptical and evidence-based, we would have common ground for resolving differences, a common method for deciding what is true - critical thinking. We could trace back to where we parted ways and see what evidence and argument each used to come to different conclusions, and correct the mistake one of us made, like two people following the same rules of addition who come up with different sums adding the same column of figures. As long as they share a common method for adding and start with the same numbers to add, they can see where they parted ways, where one misadded, and one will have learned. The burden of proof was met.

That's not an option for us. We can't do that unless we both do it. If your method for deciding what's true about the world is to read and believe a holy book, and it says I'm wrong, your analysis is done. If the faith-based thinker is a Christian creationist, he begins with the impenetrable assumption that there were two first humans, and any evidence to the contrary is rejected out of hand unevaluated. Given that, teaching is impossible. The student needs to be willing and able to recognize a compelling argument and be willing to be convinced by it. Absent that, there can be no exchange of ideas.

And if that's true, there is no burden of proof, either. It has to be enough for me to tell you what I believe and what science teaches as unsupported, unargued claims that will be rejected if they conflict with faith-based beliefs.

But you asked how I knew that there was no first human, and I answered knowing that my answer could only be of value to somebody who determines what is true the way I do. That was also my thinking in defining animals to you, knowing that I had no chance of convincing you that you or your grandmother are animals. That answer was also posted to benefit anybody reading along who is interested in such things and can benefit from that definition.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

So dog, ants, and apes think more than humans, according to what I think you are positing. Maybe the word rationality is not a good one here.

Al animals "Think" all the time Just like we do. However their capability to do this does depend on the complexity of their brains.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

So dog, ants, and apes think more than humans, according to what I think you are positing. Maybe the word rationality is not a good one here.

All animals "Think" all the time Just like we do. However their capability to do this does depend on the complexity of their brains.

 

[YoursTrue]

All animals "Think" all the time Just like we do. However their capability to do this does depend on the complexity of their brains.

I suppose cockroaches are considered an animal. And mites. I don't know if mites have brains, do you? I don't know if cockroaches have brains either. Ants, centipedes, etc. What do you think?

 

[YoursTrue]

Biology has defined animals as the kingdom of living things that are multicelluar, heterotrophic (eat other living things), eukaryotes (cells have membrane-bound nuclei) lacking cell walls and the capacity to do photosynthesis. They are also generally motile, but that's not essential.

Everything that fits that description is an animal. That includes human grandmothers.



I know it from my studies and from an understanding of continuous transitions. I gave you the argument in the sorites paradox in the post you quoted.

Or maybe you mean, how do I know that God didn't create the first two humans? That's a longer answer, but it involves the paleontological evidence for biological evolution that shows us a transition from primates like Lucy that we would not call human to modern man, and that it occurred over millions of years.

There is also genetic evidence that humans evolved from nonhuman primates: Human chromosome 2 reveals that we had non-human ancestors with one more pair of chromosomes than man has, two of which fused end-to-end in the evolution of man. It's scientific evidence, which you wouldn't know if you didn't study it.

I don't expect you to agree with the argument for there being no first human, because you decide what is true about the world by a different method than I use. We have come to disparate worldviews because of that, and have no means of resolving our differences of opinion.

If your epistemology were skeptical and evidence-based, we would have common ground for resolving differences, a common method for deciding what is true - critical thinking. We could trace back to where we parted ways and see what evidence and argument each used to come to different conclusions, and correct the mistake one of us made, like two people following the same rules of addition who come up with different sums adding the same column of figures. As long as they share a common method for adding and start with the same numbers to add, they can see where they parted ways, where one misadded, and one will have learned. The burden of proof was met.

That's not an option for us. We can't do that unless we both do it. If your method for deciding what's true about the world is to read and believe a holy book, and it says I'm wrong, your analysis is done. If the faith-based thinker is a Christian creationist, he begins with the impenetrable assumption that there were two first humans, and any evidence to the contrary is rejected out of hand unevaluated. Given that, teaching is impossible. The student needs to be willing and able to recognize a compelling argument and be willing to be convinced by it. Absent that, there can be no exchange of ideas.

And if that's true, there is no burden of proof, either. It has to be enough for me to tell you what I believe and what science teaches as unsupported, unargued claims that will be rejected if they conflict with faith-based beliefs.

But you asked how I knew that there was no first human, and I answered knowing that my answer could only be of value to somebody who determines what is true the way I do. That was also my thinking in defining animals to you, knowing that I had no chance of convincing you that you or your grandmother are animals. That answer was also posted to benefit anybody reading along who is interested in such things and can benefit from that definition.

Conclusions of studies change. Furthermore, can you be a bit more specific as to the idea that there was no "first human"? I mean what study led you and those you agree with to this conclusion that there were no "first humans." (Second humans maybe?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose cockroaches are considered an animal. And mites. I don't know if mites have brains, do you? I don't know if cockroaches have brains either. Ants, centipedes, etc. What do you think?

They all have central nervous systems. And yes they are brains

Do Ants Have Brains? A Look at Ant Colony Intelligence | Sophisticated EDGE

Why not look this up for yourself?

 

[YoursTrue]

I think you need to read them all. Some non-human species seem to have better abilities in some ways than humans, when we are often selective as to which faculty we use. We are not always rational, particularly when we do need to be. It's just that we still don't know enough about the behaviour and abilities of so many species as to categorically say what they are about - given that the purpose in their lives obviously doesn't mostly coincide with human ones. That is usually, but as one of the articles at least mentions, dogs (and often other pets) will tend to become part of a family so as for their aims to mesh with humans. Their protective nature being an example, or their understanding of human moods and such, and their ability to show their concern.

Look, birds (many birds, anyway) can fly. I cannot. Animals definitely have distinct and unique qualities that humans do not have. It is not "brain ability." It is that instinct implanted by God.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think you need to read them all. Some non-human species seem to have better abilities in some ways than humans, when we are often selective as to which faculty we use. We are not always rational, particularly when we do need to be. It's just that we still don't know enough about the behaviour and abilities of so many species as to categorically say what they are about - given that the purpose in their lives obviously doesn't mostly coincide with human ones. That is usually, but as one of the articles at least mentions, dogs (and often other pets) will tend to become part of a family so as for their aims to mesh with humans. Their protective nature being an example, or their understanding of human moods and such, and their ability to show their concern.

Really not going to argue if animals (such as ants, cockroaches, gorillas, etc.) think more than humans.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Really not going to argue if animals (such as ants, cockroaches, gorillas, etc.) think more than humans.

Whoever said they did. If you are ignoring evidence (and growing every day) as to the nature of non-human life then that is your issue. And then you'll always come across as a devoted believer in some religious text or dogma saying na-na-na-nah, because reality doesn't apparently coincide with what you believe.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Look, birds (many birds, anyway) can fly. I cannot. Animals definitely have distinct and unique qualities that humans do not have. It is not "brain ability." It is that instinct implanted by God.

Sorry, you still need to actually do some research into this if you truly want to be honest. Chimps for example seemingly have a substantially better ability at one particular test - remembering a series of random locations on a screen when they light up - than humans. We don't know why but they just do. Similarly, other creatures might equally have some advantage over humans, and purely from their evolution - and not from what they were given by some God. We are still in the beginnings of understanding much about other life, given that what we might have observed regarding them in captivity was hardly ever normal behaviour and it takes a lot of work to observe impartially creatures in their natural environment. But we are gradually doing so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We can act like animals, that is true. But we are not animals. Despite what Darwin says.

We are animals. Not because Darwin said so. Because biology says so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So dog, ants, and apes think more than humans, according to what I think you are positing. Maybe the word rationality is not a good one here.

Read beyond the headlines. Learn something.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I suppose cockroaches are considered an animal. And mites. I don't know if mites have brains, do you? I don't know if cockroaches have brains either. Ants, centipedes, etc. What do you think?

You know, when I don't know something, I go and look it up on academic websites. You should try that sometime.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Look, birds (many birds, anyway) can fly. I cannot. Animals definitely have distinct and unique qualities that humans do not have. It is not "brain ability." It is that instinct implanted by God.

Feel free to demonstrate that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Conclusions of studies change.

No study was mentioned. I gave you the scientific definition of an animal and why human grandmothers meet that description. They're multicellular, right? Grandmothers must eat other living things to survive. Their cells contain no cellulose or cell walls. Grandmothers can't photosynthesize. Grandmothers are generally motile. So, they're animals.

It's not a theory or the result of a study. It's a definition. And it's the one educated people use.

Whatever definition of animal one is using that does not include human grandmothers is of no value to academia.

can you be a bit more specific as to the idea that there was no "first human"? I mean what study led you and those you agree with to this conclusion that there were no "first humans."

No, I can't be more clear than I have been. You have asked this question twice before and it has been answered twice already, although I question whether you know that.

I mentioned that teaching is a cooperative effort. All a teacher can do is to clearly and methodically present evidence and valid arguments applied to it taking one to sound conclusions. If the would-be student can't see the argument, then there is no chance for dialectic, by which I mean the discussion of ideas by two or more parties using critical thinking to exchange ideas and resolve differences in them. I provided you with the genetic and paleontological evidence for human evolution from non-human ape ancestors, and explained to you the nature of continuous transformations and why there was no first human, since there was never a human being born to a non-human mother, and never a non-human mother delivering a human being. But here you are asking again as if you never saw that.

I can't make you understand that. That's your job. If you're not up to it, the answers are unavailable to you.

 

[YoursTrue]

No study was mentioned. I gave you the scientific definition of an animal and why human grandmothers meet that description. They're multicellular, right? Grandmothers must eat other living things to survive. Their cells contain no cellulose or cell walls. Grandmothers can't photosynthesize. Grandmothers are generally motile. So, they're animals.

It's not a theory or the result of a study. It's a definition. And it's the one educated people use.

Whatever definition of animal one is using that does not include human grandmothers is of no value to academia.



No, I can't be more clear than I have been. You have asked this question twice before and it has been answered twice already, although I question whether you know that.

I mentioned that teaching is a cooperative effort. All a teacher can do is to clearly and methodically present evidence and valid arguments applied to it taking one to sound conclusions. If the would-be student can't see the argument, then there is no chance for dialectic, by which I mean the discussion of ideas by two or more parties using critical thinking to exchange ideas and resolve differences in them. I provided you with the genetic and paleontological evidence for human evolution from non-human ape ancestors, and explained to you the nature of continuous transformations and why there was no first human, since there was never a human being born to a non-human mother, and never a non-human mother delivering a human being. But here you are asking again as if you never saw that.

I can't make you understand that. That's your job. If you're not up to it, the answers are unavailable to you.

OK, whatever, and -- maybe "see ya." Nothing personal, of course.