Huge gap between humans and animals

[Polymath257]

Nevertheless, it shows that vegetation and animal and human life did not just come about by itself (without direction from God). But even though it seems so clear to me, I have learned by now that it is not apparent to everyone.

How does it show that any deity was involved? In fact, it shows that these all came about through natural processes.

 

[FearGod]

The gap between us and fish is smaller than the gap between us and, say, lobsters. But it is larger than the gap between us and chimps.

To say whether it is 'significant' depends on what you want to study. if you are interested in some aspects common to all vertebrates, the gap is not significant. if you are interested in mental abilities, the gap is significant.

Do you admit that the gap between us and the rest of animals is significant regardless of biology?

 

[Polymath257]

Do you admit that the gap between us and the rest of animals is significant regardless of biology?

Significant for what end? It isn't so large if we want to do drug testing, for example.

We have a couple of fairly minor changes: language and abstract thought. Both are extensions of what we see in other animals. We have them to a much greater degree, though. is that significant?

 

[FearGod]

How does it show that any deity was involved? In fact, it shows that these all came about through natural processes.

Step by step and naturally happening without any plans, plants should be first, no "not should be",
I meant it happened to be the plants first and it happened to be the animals next then it happened to be
humans at the end, what next, no one knows but the nature, and even the nature doesn't know,
is't about luck, is't about randomness, is't about accidental events, the atheists say no it' isn't accidental events and it isn't randomness and it isn't luck but it happened naturally, and if they failed to answer and they usually do then they'll ask you to get a course in the college or to read a book about basic science.

 

[FearGod]

Significant for what end? It isn't so large if we want to do drug testing, for example.

We have a couple of fairly minor changes: language and abstract thought. Both are extensions of what we see in other animals. We have them to a much greater degree, though. is that significant?

I said regardless of biology, is the difference significant between us and the animals?, be just sincere with your own self.

 

[Polymath257]

Step by step and naturally happening without any plans, plants should be first, no "not should be",
I meant it happened to be the plants first and it happened to be the animals next then it happened to be
humans at the end, what next, no one knows but the nature, and even the nature doesn't know,
is't about luck, is't about randomness, is't about accidental events, the atheists say no it' isn't accidental events and it isn't randomness and it isn't luck but it happened naturally, and if they failed to answer and they usually do then they'll ask you to get a course in the college or to read a book about basic science.

Um, no. Single celled life would be first. Then more complicated single celled (eucaryotes) life with organelles. But basic animals and basic plants (only a few cells) came about the same time. Plants made it to land first, but not by much. But both existed in the oceans before that.

Maybe it would be beneficial if you actually look at the available fossils and the times they come from instead of making up what you *think* was how it 'must' have happened? Yes, getting a book covering the basics is a good idea.

Humans aren't the 'goal'. We are a very particular type of great ape that has learned to use language and has developed technologies.

As to evolution: there is some luck: mutations are basically random. But natural selection isn't: it kills off those individuals that aren't adapted well to the environment they are in. So, among the random variation, there is a non-random selection. On the other hand, if we started life over again, starting at the beginning, it would be wildly unlikely that humans would arise. But, in all likelihood, some sort of intelligent species eventually would.

 

[Polymath257]

I said regardless of biology, is the difference significant between us and the animals?, be just sincere with your own self.

We can use language and technology. That is the primary aspect of our differences.

Significance isn't a general thing: the differences are significant if you want to study language and not significant if you want to study metabolism.

Outside of biology? Well, it is part of our biology to use tools, use language, and increase the complexity of our technology.

 

[FearGod]

We can use language and technology. That is the primary aspect of our differences.

Significance isn't a general thing: the differences are significant if you want to study language and not significant if you want to study metabolism.

Outside of biology? Well, it is part of our biology to use tools, use language, and increase the complexity of our technology.

In short you believe the difference is significant in language and technology,
but not significant in biological aspects.

 

[Polymath257]

In short you believe the difference is significant in language and technology,
but not significant in biological aspects.

Yes, overall.

 

[FearGod]

Yes, overall.

That's actually what I was saying.

 

[sealchan]

What makes the noosphere different than the force in star wars or the shaman in an altered state of consciousness communicating to other spiritual beings other than is seems restricted to human to human as I understand it?

The noosphere is simply that layer of physical reality where the operation of the mind is a primary concern. It doesnt presuppose any behind the scenes magic.

 

[Polymath257]

That's actually what I was saying.

Well, then say what you mean.

Now, what conclusions do you want to draw from this 'significance'?

 

[FearGod]

Well, then say what you mean.

Now, what conclusions do you want to draw from this 'significance'?

Huge gap in the way of living between humans and animals but the difference isn't huge
in biological aspects.

 

[YoursTrue]

How does it show that any deity was involved? In fact, it shows that these all came about through natural processes.

Regarding your quote from Pope, I might say that in the so-called millions, or hundreds of thousands of years perhaps, they say mankind has been in existence, as having come from apes -- only within the relatively recent past has electricity been harnessed, spaceships been developed, and so forth. No cow, horse, or ape has been figuring out how to go to the moon.

 

[Polymath257]

Regarding your quote from Pope, I might say that in the so-called millions, or hundreds of thousands of years perhaps, they say mankind has been in existence, as having come from apes -- only within the relatively recent past has electricity been harnessed, spaceships been developed, and so forth. No cow, horse, or ape has been figuring out how to go to the moon.

Right. So even in *human* history, our technology is a very, very recent addition to our skills. For the vast majority of the time humans have existed, we have been hunter-gatherers with pretty limited technologies (less than modern hunter-gatherers, for example).

Humans have been around over 100,000 years. The genus Homo has been around over a couple of million years. We've had electricity as more than a toy for just over 100 years.

So, if you went back even a couple of centuries, we could also say that no human knew about electricity or had been to the moon. *shrug*.

 

[Polymath257]

Huge gap in the way of living between humans and animals but the difference isn't huge
in biological aspects.

When you say the 'way of living' of humans, I hope you realize that until recently (last 15,000 years) we were hunter-gatherers, did not live in cities, did not plant fields, did not raise animals, etc. So all of those were the 'way of living' for humans until the breakthroughs of science and technology.

 

[FearGod]

When you say the 'way of living' of humans, I hope you realize that until recently (last 15,000 years) we were hunter-gatherers, did not live in cities, did not plant fields, did not raise animals, etc. So all of those were the 'way of living' for humans until the breakthroughs of science and technology.

Do you mean that chimpanzees are capable of doing the same but need more time?
don't you think that humans did it because they're different than the rest of the animals?

 

[Polymath257]

Do you mean that chimpanzees are capable of doing the same but need more time?
don't you think that humans did it because they're different than the rest of the animals?

No, we are different because we did these things. These things have driven much of our evolution over the last couple million years.

But I see no reason to think that chimps would not evolve in similar ways to us if tool use and communication abilities became crucial for chimp survival, Of course, it may take another 5 million years.

 

[FearGod]

No, we are different because we did these things. These things have driven much of our evolution over the last couple million years.

But I see no reason to think that chimps would not evolve in similar ways to us if tool use and communication abilities became crucial for chimp survival, Of course, it may take another 5 million years.

Regardless of the reasons, the fact is that at present humans are living in away
different than the the rest of the animals, what will happen after millions of years
is a work of guessing.

 

[Polymath257]

Regardless of the reasons, the fact is that at present humans are living in away
different than the the rest of the animals, what will happen after millions of years
is a work of guessing.

SOME present humans. Some live in conditions that are not so good.