Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
a few hours ago....I watched a doctor make report about our eating habits
So PhD automatically makes a person correct? He is talking about behavior creating the difference but that is not how we classify organisms in an evolutionary perspective. If we classify by behavior then we would place the corvids with the chimpanzees given the new information about corvid tool modification and problem solving. We also are limited in understanding animal behavior particularly in the wild because of our limited ability to test for behaviors in the wild. We have made progress in trying to understand the Umwelt of the different organisms but this a developing field. There is no reason also to not believe that other organisms could not developed the same behavioral patterns as humans with time especially with social organisms.
What does the microbe content of our guts tell us how different we are?
Humans, Homo sapiens, has resulted from gradual evolution of how humans came about. We may start the progression with the catarrhine Parapithecus (Oligocene, 35 million years ago), Propliopithecus, Aegyptopithecus, Saadanius (29 milllion years ago), Kamoyapithecus (24 million years ago); then the arboreal (tree dwelling catarrhine) in early Miocene with fossil finds in East Africa; the monkey Victoriapithecus (20 million years ago); then Proconsul, Rangwapithecus, Dendropithecus, Limnopithecus, Nacholapithecus, Equatorius, Nyanzapithecus, Afropithecus, Heliopithecus, and Kenyapithecus, fossil finds all in East Africa (13 million years ago); the non-cercopithecids Otavipithecus fossil finds in Namibia; the Pierolapithecus and Dryopithecus fossil finds in France, Spain and Austria (middle Miocene); Oreopithecus fossil finds in Italy (9 million years ago); then the following sequence of transition: Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7 million years ago); Orrorin tugenensis; Ardipithecus ramidus; Australopithecus anamensis; Australopithecus afarensis; Kenyanthropus platyops; Australopithecus africanus; Australopithecus garhi; Australopithecus sediba; Australopithecus aethiopicus; Australopithecus robustus; Australopithecus boisei; Homo habilis; Homo georgicus; Homo erectus; Homo ergaster; Homo antecessor; Homo heidelbergensis; Homo neanderthalensis; Homo floresiensis; and humans Homo sapiens sapiens (today).
What it does is make him the expert in primatology. He may be wrong, but his opinion is the best one out there until NEW evidence comes out to modify it.
it sure does
But he is talking about behavioral differences only and not the genetic relationship to different primates and did not address the possibility for other primates to evolve with similar abilities in time. Yes humans have more complex behaviors than other primates but we are still a primate. As for a huge gap, human physiology, genetics and structural components of the brain are not so different than our fellow primates and still classify us in the Animal kingdom. So the argument that humans are some how far removed from the animal kingdom just because our behavior is the most complex does not justify the argument that we are some how no longer a part of the animal kingdom. We share characteristic that are alike then different. I did not find anything in his argument to suggest that he thinks that humans as different classification than other animals from what he said and would find it hard to believe he would believe that giving how much he should understand biology of humans and other animals.
But he is talking about behavioral differences only and not the genetic relationship to different primates and did not address the possibility for other primates to evolve with similar abilities in time. Yes humans have more complex behaviors than other primates but we are still a primate. As for a huge gap, human physiology, genetics and structural components of the brain are not so different than our fellow primates and still classify us in the Animal kingdom. So the argument that humans are some how far removed from the animal kingdom just because our behavior is the most complex does not justify the argument that we are some how no longer a part of the animal kingdom. We share characteristic that are alike then different. I did not find anything in his argument to suggest that he thinks that humans as different classification than other animals from what he said and would find it hard to believe he would believe that giving how much he should understand biology of humans and other animals.
No it is not if you understand evolutionary biology and the brain.
too much assumption on your part
No assumption - pure biology.
It is not as big of a difference as you see. The genetics to potentially create the same behavior is in other organisms. If selected for there is no reason for another organism to develop the same behavioral traits. Humans existed for a long time similar to our other primates with the same brain that we have today.
I'm not saying that other primates might not also develop into beings with similar abilities, or other abilities that are equally amazing.
If you had bothered to watch the video of Robert Sapolsky, the expert in primatology (which you aren't) he states that the SHERE NUMBER of difference in amount of neurotransmitters we have and those chimps have create a QUALITATIVE difference in outcome.
nay .....your assumption was aimed at me.....not the topic
I did watch the video and y
I did see the video but champanzees and humans have the same neurotransmitters although the total number of neurotransmitters is higher in humans it reflect the larger size in brain. As for the response to stimuli this is much more complex since in the case of dopamine we do not know how much this is related conditioning as children or true differences in response to stimuli.
Is that good or bad?
We are not quasi-animals. That makes no sense at all. We share far more with other animals than we are different. It was the arrogance of the past which stated that humans are different than animals. That argument has been but to rest with genetic comparisons. That same arrogance was used for an argument that some humans were superior to other humans. What they used for their argument was behavior differences. Savages could not possibly be the same as the culturally advanced societies. So do we really what behavior as the indicator. Who is really more advanced the bushmen who live in a harmony with their environment or most of the rest of us who are destroying the world we live in?