The difference between Human and animal

[BSM1]

That's also why vows and promises are not always binding -because they are not always as they seem and promises are used as a snare by the evil. Many animals are much more loyal than people -even though they can't promise anything.

Humans have much greater capabilities than they need to simply be human, survive and thrive. They are destined to be much more than human -even simply due to the fact that they can imagine it and work toward it.

Animal loyalty\, for the most part, is a learned behavior that further the existence of that particular species. I hjave no idea what you mean by the last statement.

 

[Etritonakin]

Animal loyalty\, for the most part, is a learned behavior that further the existence of that particular species. I hjave no idea what you mean by the last statement.

I'm not a believer in always having to have a point or specific meaning.

Sometimes I just say stuff and people apply it to whatever they are thinking and get confused.

 

[BSM1]

I'm not a believer in always having to have a point or specific meaning.

Sometimes I just say stuff and people apply it to whatever they are thinking and get confused.

Sure makes it easier than having a meaningful conversation, I guess. I'll have to try this at the next family reunion.

 

[Etritonakin]

Sure makes it easier than having a meaningful conversation, I guess. I'll have to try this at the next family reunion.

The conversation can still be meaningful -though not necessarily linear -if what is said is considered.
I don't converse much, so I tend to follow my mental processes -which pretty much mash everything with everything else to see what happens -more than what is happening in my environment.

Sort of like seemingly unrelated things which have to connect somewhere

 

[Segev Moran]

We are told that the animal in question had been refined by generations of natural selection to be a self-feeding reproducing machine. Yet, upon the death of its mother, it spent so much time moping that it died of starvation and never bred.

That doesn't sound like an inconsistency in the theory to you?

Self feeding?
A new born human is also considered self feeding.. yet he needs he's parents to feed until he learns how to do it on hes own.
Humans are a self feeding breed and grief can cause us some crazy ****..
On the contrary.. this just proves how much we are close to other animals..
It proves that our arrogance of believing we are better than animals is a claim from ignorance and not reality.

 

[Zosimus]

Self feeding?
A new born human is also considered self feeding.. yet he needs he's parents to feed until he learns how to do it on hes own.
Humans are a self feeding breed and grief can cause us some crazy ****..
On the contrary.. this just proves how much we are close to other animals..
It proves that our arrogance of believing we are better than animals is a claim from ignorance and not reality.

The chimp in question was 8½ years old. Thank you. Drive through.

 

[Segev Moran]

The chimp in question was 8½ years old. Thank you. Drive through.

Dude, I Don't understand your claim...

Are you saying that because the chimp experienced grief so badly that it actually "Killed it self", make it less of human?

Its either better or worse... its different...

Sure, our DNA is more advanced (in about 1% actually) then our ancestors... and the chimps evolved differently then us ...
but never the less... haven't you ever heard of humans whose grief was so bad that it committed a suicide????
It happens many more times than you think...

And even if you arrogant statement that the chimp is less than human because it stopped eating was true...
It will still not falsify Evolution rather prove that indeed we all evolved differently

 

[Zosimus]

Dude, I Don't understand your claim...

Are you saying that because the chimp experienced grief so badly that it actually "Killed it self", make it less of human?

No, I'm saying that the chimp starved itself because of excessive grief.

Its either better or worse... its different...

Law of the excluded middle. It must be either better or worse. I agree.

Sure, our DNA is more advanced (in about 1% actually) then our ancestors...

Uhm... no. Our DNA is not more advanced than our ancestors. I don't think that DNA can be fairly compared to ancestors at all. They don't seem even remotely comparable to me. Perhaps you meant to say that our DNA is more advanced than the DNA of our ancestors? That makes more sense, but even then I'd have to disagree. There's no way of saying that DNA 1 is "more advanced" than DNA 2. Additionally, most scientific research nowadays seems to indicate that humans accumulate approximately 3 harmful mutations per generation, a finding that makes it more likely that our ancestors had DNA with fewer harmful mutations. Arguably, someone might say that this DNA was "more advanced" but even so, I question whether DNA can be considered "advanced" at all.

...and the chimps evolved differently then us ...

Differently from not differently then.

but never the less... haven't you ever heard of humans whose grief was so bad that it committed a suicide????

Sure, and, as I said, if this doesn't disprove neo-Darwinism, I don't know what would.

It happens many more times than you think...

I don't know. I think thousands of times a day. I doubt these types of suicides happen more than thousands of times per day.

And even if you arrogant statement that the chimp is less than human because it stopped eating was true...

Not was true but were true...

t will still not falsify Evolution rather prove that indeed we all evolved differently

Well, yeah, if that were my argument, then it would be a pretty lousy argument! Good thing that isn't even remotely close to my argument. Whewh!

 

[Segev Moran]

No, I'm saying that the chimp starved itself because of excessive grief.

Which you comprehend as better or worse?

Law of the excluded middle. It must be either better or worse. I agree.

Lol.. i was too tired i guess.. i meant Neither.. Its just different.. we can't determine if its better or worse...

Uhm... no. Our DNA is not more advanced than our ancestors. I don't think that DNA can be fairly compared to ancestors at all. They don't seem even remotely comparable to me. Perhaps you meant to say that our DNA is more advanced than the DNA of our ancestors? That makes more sense, but even then I'd have to disagree. There's no way of saying that DNA 1 is "more advanced" than DNA 2. Additionally, most scientific research nowadays seems to indicate that humans accumulate approximately 3 harmful mutations per generation, a finding that makes it more likely that our ancestors had DNA with fewer harmful mutations. Arguably, someone might say that this DNA was "more advanced" but even so, I question whether DNA can be considered "advanced" at all.

I Stand corrected..
I Meant our DNA is only 1% different than our ancestors'.. this change apparently is what gives us the ability to think and have a courteousness.

Differently from not differently then.

Lol, Thanks for the correction.. When its late and English is not your "mother language", its hard not to make mistakes

Sure, and, as I said, if this doesn't disprove neo-Darwinism, I don't know what would.

Sorry man,
I guess i'm missing something here..
How does that disprove Evolution???

Not was true but were true...

Lol.. if only spell checker could check grammar
Although I am referring to only one statement... so that makes it a "was" no ?
Again... sorry for any mistakes.. not a native English ....

Well, yeah, if that were my argument, then it would be a pretty lousy argument! Good thing that isn't even remotely close to my argument. Whewh!

Okey..
So if you can please make your argument a bit more clear? It would be a delight

 

[Zosimus]

Which you comprehend as better or worse?

It's not about better or worse.

According to the Darwinian theory of evolution, for millions of years animals have been viciously and ruthlessly culled if they display any type of weakness. They have been bred to be feeding and breeding machines. Anything that does not contribute to these two goals is a waste of energy that may result in the animal in question failing to pass on its genes.

Yet here we have an example of an 8½ year old chimp that voluntarily starved to death because of excessive grief over the death of his mother.

That the chimp has evolved these types of emotions that have nothing to do with the stated goals of species as outlined by evolutionists, namely feeding and breeding, is a puzzle that flies in the face of the theory. If the neo-Darwin theory were true, the animal should have been solely focused on eating, defending itself from harm, and breeding. Mourning of any kind doesn't further these goals. Excessive morning that results in the death of the animal before it can breed really, really, really doesn't support these goals.

According to the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (neo-Darwinism) at some point in the past, chimpanzees did not exist en si, but rather some predecessor existed (pigs, insects, sloths... what do I know), a species that did not have emotional reactions such as grief. Along the way, theoretically, chimpanzees and/or predecessor species evolved complex "higher" emotions. These emotions have resulted in the death of at least one chimp before it could breed.

So, if this doesn't disprove neo-Darwinism, I don't know what would.

 

[Segev Moran]

It's not about better or worse.

According to the Darwinian theory of evolution, for millions of years animals have been viciously and ruthlessly culled if they display any type of weakness. They have been bred to be feeding and breeding machines. Anything that does not contribute to these two goals is a waste of energy that may result in the animal in question failing to pass on its genes.

Yet here we have an example of an 8½ year old chimp that voluntarily starved to death because of excessive grief over the death of his mother.

That the chimp has evolved these types of emotions that have nothing to do with the stated goals of species as outlined by evolutionists, namely feeding and breeding, is a puzzle that flies in the face of the theory. If the neo-Darwin theory were true, the animal should have been solely focused on eating, defending itself from harm, and breeding. Mourning of any kind doesn't further these goals. Excessive morning that results in the death of the animal before it can breed really, really, really doesn't support these goals.

According to the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (neo-Darwinism) at some point in the past, chimpanzees did not exist en si, but rather some predecessor existed (pigs, insects, sloths... what do I know), a species that did not have emotional reactions such as grief. Along the way, theoretically, chimpanzees and/or predecessor species evolved complex "higher" emotions. These emotions have resulted in the death of at least one chimp before it could breed.

So, if this doesn't disprove neo-Darwinism, I don't know what would.

Okay, Now i think I understand what your argument is.

Darwinism doesn't deal with social skills..

The evolution theory describes the process that caused species to become as they are.
It is indeed part of the evolution that our brains evolved the way they did.

It has no claim about feelings and emotions rather the claim that all beings that we know today are an evolved "version" of millions of years of minor changes in the biological and genetic structure.
The fact we evolved from "Primitive" beings doesn't contradict the complexity of our brain and for that matter any other being the exists.

What you perceive as Emotions, Feelings, Thought etc are all based (Whether you like it or not) on electrical charges (It is of course a lot more complex than that) that make your brain act as it does.
The fact that other species share some of our abilities (biological or mental) only proves that we are indeed all related and that humans are not such of an exception as argued by theists.

And for that matter, Most of the animals in nature are superior to humans in one aspect or another..
For example, Bats have ultrasonic hearing.
Birds can see magnetic flows of earth.
Hawk can see a mouse for dozens of meters.
and the list goes on and on..
And yes.. All species are evolved based on the natural selection.. And it has nothing to do with physical strength or weakness..
It has got everything to do with fitting the environment you live in.

So for example, green beetles will probably survive better in a green environment as they have better cloaking...

So your claim might seem weird that a chimp has emotions even though it is only "Instincts and biological processes".. but that how it works... you are the same.
The fact that we can today affect and manipulate those treats (You can make someone sad by stimulating parts of his brain for example) only prove the direct connection between the chemicals and electrical charges in our brain to our feelings and emotions...

As science is yet to know better, we know what we learned so far. Every day we learn a bit better how we work and what causes a human to act as he does...

 

[Zosimus]

Okay, Now i think I understand what your argument is.

Darwinism doesn't deal with social skills..

The evolution theory describes the process that caused species to become as they are.
It is indeed part of the evolution that our brains evolved the way they did.

It has no claim about feelings and emotions rather the claim that all beings that we know today are an evolved "version" of millions of years of minor changes in the biological and genetic structure.
The fact we evolved from "Primitive" beings doesn't contradict the complexity of our brain and for that matter any other being the exists.

What you perceive as Emotions, Feelings, Thought etc are all based (Whether you like it or not) on electrical charges (It is of course a lot more complex than that) that make your brain act as it does.
The fact that other species share some of our abilities (biological or mental) only proves that we are indeed all related and that humans are not such of an exception as argued by theists.

And for that matter, Most of the animals in nature are superior to humans in one aspect or another..
For example, Bats have ultrasonic hearing.
Birds can see magnetic flows of earth.
Hawk can see a mouse for dozens of meters.
and the list goes on and on..
And yes.. All species are evolved based on the natural selection.. And it has nothing to do with physical strength or weakness..
It has got everything to do with fitting the environment you live in.

So for example, green beetles will probably survive better in a green environment as they have better cloaking...

So your claim might seem weird that a chimp has emotions even though it is only "Instincts and biological processes".. but that how it works... you are the same.
The fact that we can today affect and manipulate those treats (You can make someone sad by stimulating parts of his brain for example) only prove the direct connection between the chemicals and electrical charges in our brain to our feelings and emotions...

As science is yet to know better, we know what we learned so far. Every day we learn a bit better how we work and what causes a human to act as he does...

Nothing that you said answered the question. You merely reiterated your firm faith in evolution. I'm happy that you have found a religion... of sorts. However, what I was really looking for was an explanation.

 

[secret2]

It's not about better or worse.

According to the Darwinian theory of evolution, for millions of years animals have been viciously and ruthlessly culled if they display any type of weakness. They have been bred to be feeding and breeding machines. Anything that does not contribute to these two goals is a waste of energy that may result in the animal in question failing to pass on its genes.

Yet here we have an example of an 8½ year old chimp that voluntarily starved to death because of excessive grief over the death of his mother.

That the chimp has evolved these types of emotions that have nothing to do with the stated goals of species as outlined by evolutionists, namely feeding and breeding, is a puzzle that flies in the face of the theory. If the neo-Darwin theory were true, the animal should have been solely focused on eating, defending itself from harm, and breeding. Mourning of any kind doesn't further these goals. Excessive morning that results in the death of the animal before it can breed really, really, really doesn't support these goals.

According to the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (neo-Darwinism) at some point in the past, chimpanzees did not exist en si, but rather some predecessor existed (pigs, insects, sloths... what do I know), a species that did not have emotional reactions such as grief. Along the way, theoretically, chimpanzees and/or predecessor species evolved complex "higher" emotions. These emotions have resulted in the death of at least one chimp before it could breed.

So, if this doesn't disprove neo-Darwinism, I don't know what would.

Essentially, your objection is very close to "why is there altruism/homosexuality", which are already investigated and answered thoroughly (please make use of the search function of this forum).
Some evolution deniers are completely ignorant about science. You, on the other hand, understand just enough to misconstrue everything.

 

[Sapiens]

Humans suck therefore god doesn't exist. Wow, I've never heard such a robust argument before.

OK then, god exists but does crappy work.

Your post is so anthropomorphically flawed it's almost laughable. For instance, you are assuming the elephants are "mourning' their dead. There is absolutely no way to determine that this action to equates to human mourning. You also assume there is a "boss" spider that can plan and delegate authority. Pure Disney.

Humans by the very definition of instincts have none. Humans have intuition and reasoning, animals do not.

Animals not harming their environment? Go look at what a possession of Army Ants leave behind. Or look at a farm field that has been overgrazed. Or look at trees that have stripped bare by primates and other arboreal species. Animals have no concept of environment past their next meal.

What other species would you have in control of the earth? Apes? Tigers? Snail Darters?

No offense, but I think I'll keep my superiority, thank you very much.

No instincts? Ever had an erection?

What pretentious drivel: instead of an intelligent argument against deity you offer a crass formulation aimed at destroying your childish caricature of the more crass creationists. You're not doing yourself any favors here.

What ostentatious slobber, accusing someone which a serious question of spreading pretentious drivel ... you should be ashamed.

Just asking that question lowers you on the food chain.

Your position on the food chain is dictated by the other species there with you and how well you can judge the behaviors of the other animals. You can go from the top of the chain to the bottom in the blink of an eye.

We are not hazardous, that's really silly claim. Each & one of us has free will, it's up to us on how we will live.
Why would you look at humans as something bad? Because news basically cover only bad stuff happening in the world? There is good in many people, but those are minority in whole - but still that doesn't make us bad. Humans are superior to animals, but that does not mean we need to be jerks to them.

Good stuff happens and bad stuff happens but humans manage to consistently overshoot the carrying capacity of their environment and then create an unstable patch to keep themselves alive. Some superiority. It's not going to work for much longer.

Perhaps you should look up the definitions of instinct and intuition before pontificating on whether they are the same.

Ever had an erection? What's the definition of that?

Your dog would eat your dead body if the situation arose and never bat an eye.

and I'd eat my dog's dead body, and likely yours too, if the situation arose and never bat an eye ... but I'd miss my dog.

 

[Zosimus]

Essentially, your objection is very close to "why is there altruism/homosexuality", which are already investigated and answered thoroughly (please make use of the search function of this forum).
Some evolution deniers are completely ignorant about science. You, on the other hand, understand just enough to misconstrue everything.

Grief is neither altruism nor homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a deviant behavior with no known genetic basis. There are no known objective tests for homosexuality. As much as 10 percent of self-identified straight men have sex only with other men.

As for altruism, can you cite a case in which a person or animal was so altruistic that he gave away all of his food and starved to death?

 

[metis]

Here: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014...s-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexuality

and here: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10443/20141118/homosexuality-genetic-strongest-evidence.htm

and here: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Hi all,
A lot of times I hear people saying that humans differ from animals due to their consciousness...
that the fact we are aware of ourselves is the difference...
thus assuming animals are not self aware..
have no desires and no understanding of pain, grief and such.

But all over nature, we keep finding out new animal behaviors that contradict this assumption
For example,
Elephants grief and mourn their dead... When a herd of elephants come across a dead elephant in their path, they actually go to it, and mourn over it....
They are known species of spiders that actually decide the "job" of each spider based on it's traits. this shows not a decision based on instincts alone but rather an understanding that a coward spider cannot be a soldier
Dolphins are known to have a very high intelligence and social awareness. They have a caring and loving approach to their young old and sick...

Come to say, There are so many facts that we are yet to know about animals, but as discoveries are made, it is clear that humans uniqueness is not as big as it seems.

besides all that, Humans, still, with all their knowledge, intelligence, socialite, culture and morality..
are instinctive creatures...
If you'll face a human with a life threatening situation.. his instincts will kick in and do everything that is needed to survive...
If a man will be forced to kill a man or die himself.. sadly, many will choose their lives over someone else..
Instinct...

As i see it.. Human's mechanism is much inferior than the animals'.
The fact that we now "control" our earth.. just shows how bad of species we are...

No animal will ever harm it's own environment...
No animal will ever harm another just for the fun of it (excluding white whales that use animals as a game - but it is actually the way they "sharpen" their hunting instincts)

So why do you think GOD will create such a wonder like humans when clearly we are a hazard to it's own created world?
Why would a GOD need a human?
What is the purpose of creating a species like the human?

This one is easy. Without the special pleading for humans to be special snowflakes, all three Abraham traditions fall apart at the seams.

I personally place such belief on par with evolution denial and YEC. I expect the rest of the world will catch up soon enough.

 

[Zosimus]

Here: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014...s-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexuality

and here: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10443/20141118/homosexuality-genetic-strongest-evidence.htm

and here: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

First of all, don't link me to nonsense without any kind of an explanation as to what you hope to prove with the nonsense.

Second, the study in question is actually at http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0033291714002451 and it's paywalled. No one here knows what it says.

Additionally, had you bothered to read the this study you would understand the enormous barriers to actually doing a scientific study on the matter.

Finally, a simple look at this article, which is not from the BBC or other nonsense websites, we read:

"This doesn’t mean they’ve found gay genes, though. Instead, they’ve identified what seems like a block of genes that may be linked with homosexuality. This broad estimation is due to the researchers’ use of an outdated technique called genetic linkage. Nowadays, scientists in the field use genome-wide association (GWA) studies to identify the association of a specific gene with a certain trait in the population. Of course, Sanders was interested in replicating Hamer’s results (which he confirmed), and as such he was forced to use a technique popular two decades ago. Next, the researchers plan on making a GWA study, which includes genetic data from the just-published work plus DNA samples from more than 1000 additional gay men. Hopefully, this will help them identify individual genes that may or not be associated with homosexuality."

(emphasis added)

 

[columbus]

Additionally, had you bothered to read the this study you would understand the enormous barriers to actually doing a scientific study on the matter.

Somehow, this doesn't stop religious people from flatly asserting that being queer is a choice.
This seriously annoys those of us who have both personal experience and some scientific literacy.
Tom

 

[viole]

.

So, if this doesn't disprove neo-Darwinism, I don't know what would.

Fiding a caw and a T-Rex fossill in the samme geologycal strata. For instanse..

Ciao

- viole