The difference between Human and animal

[Zosimus]

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

Ciao

- viole

It's difficult to find the noise a crow makes in any kind of a geologycal(sic) strata.

 

[viole]

It's difficult to find the noise a crow makes in any kind of a geologycal(sic) strata.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Demonslayer]

"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 This broad estimation is due to the researchers’ use of an outdated technique called genetic linkage.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."

Does it matter really? If there is a "gay gene?"

Some people just don't like the taste of spinach. They could force themselves to eat it I supposed, but they really just don't like the taste.

Would we, in the absence of a "spinach gene", tell them they could chose to like the taste of spinach?

 

[viole]

It's difficult to find the noise a crow makes in any kind of a geologycal(sic) strata.

Let me ask you this: do you believe thal life has been instantiated many times, independently, and with a separate parallel development? Like a forest, not a tree?

Ciao

- fiole

 

[Etritonakin]

Let me ask you this: do you believe thal life has been instantiated many times, independently, and with a separate parallel development? Like a forest, not a tree?

Ciao

- fiole

I was recently wondering about that. The beginning of multiple element-based life trees would necessarily be the same (with the existence of the elements, etc.), but conditions could allow for very different life forms from there.
I wouldn't think that all life on earth is from one single original "life form" -or even just one single puddle of primordial soup.
I have also been considering the interdependence of life forms -some life forms not being possible without the existence of others, etc. -though I'm not sure why I have been considering it.

 

[YmirGF]

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.

I wouldn't even say we are superior to animals because we are in fact just another animal whose main attribute is our rather large but mostly unused brain. Yet another area where size doesn't seem to matter in the long run.

 

[Whateverist]

Yep the difference between human and animal is essentially the same as that between canine and animal. Like our dogs, we are but one instance of the animal kingdom, not the entirety. Aside from that, like every other species of mammal, we have features which set us apart. The use of symbolic language is a big one for us. The capacity for mistaking the representational world for the real world is another major difference.

 

[Zosimus]

Does it matter really? If there is a "gay gene?"

Some people just don't like the taste of spinach. They could force themselves to eat it I supposed, but they really just don't like the taste.

Would we, in the absence of a "spinach gene", tell them they could chose to like the taste of spinach?

Yes.

 

[Zosimus]

Let me ask you this: do you believe thal life has been instantiated many times, independently, and with a separate parallel development? Like a forest, not a tree?

Ciao

- fiole

I must confess that I've never given any serious thought to instantiation. After looking the word up and thinking about it for awhile, I would say yes. I am of the opinion that my cat, which is alive, instantiates life. In fact, I think that life is probably being instantiated all over the planet right now by billions of organisms.

 

[Demonslayer]

Yes.

That article describes, among other things, overcoming a bias where you say you don't like foods because you think you don't like them but you haven't given them a chance. It's describing ways to trick your brain...someone doesn't like lemon, give them lemon jello with purple food coloring and they might not know it's lemon.

Some cross dressers are extremely convincing. You could dress a guy up like a hot woman and if I couldn't tell, maybe I'd go for it. Certainly many men have been fooled in the past in this way. That doesn't mean I'm gay all of a sudden, or attracted to men. Quite the opposite, you had to trick me into going against my natural desire.

 

[Zosimus]

That article describes, among other things, overcoming a bias where you say you don't like foods because you think you don't like them but you haven't given them a chance. It's describing ways to trick your brain...someone doesn't like lemon, give them lemon jello with purple food coloring and they might not know it's lemon.

Some cross dressers are extremely convincing. You could dress a guy up like a hot woman and if I couldn't tell, maybe I'd go for it. Certainly many men have been fooled in the past in this way. That doesn't mean I'm gay all of a sudden, or attracted to men. Quite the opposite, you had to trick me into going against my natural desire.

I don't see why any of that is relevant, but let's suppose that we're talking about cassava root(Manihot esculenta), which I will call by the Spanish name yuca.

If I hate raw yuca and boiled yuca but eat fried yuca just fine, does that mean that I don't like yuca?

So if a guy doesn't like fat men or hairy men but likes smooth muscular men, does that mean he isn't gay?

So what if a guy doesn't like butch men or flaming men, but likes passable cross-dressing men. What does that mean?

I mean, I don't have to get drunk in order to eat yuca. That made sense to me at the time I typed it, but now I don't remember what I meant by that.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with whether grief can explained in a neo-Darwinism frame.

 

[Demonslayer]

I don't see why any of that is relevant,

I don't really know how we got down this track either. I just saw your post about the "gay gene" and thought I'd comment.

If I hate raw yuca and boiled yuca but eat fried yuca just fine, does that mean that I don't like yuca?

No, it means you like yucca cooked a certain way. Cooking things different ways completely changes things. Most people who love steak don't love steak tartare.

So if a guy doesn't like fat men or hairy men but likes smooth muscular men, does that mean he isn't gay?

I mean this one is just silly. He likes men, he's gay. What kind of question is this? Most straight men don't like fat hairy women. They are still straight.

So what if a guy doesn't like butch men or flaming men, but likes passable cross-dressing men. What does that mean?

Who knows, sexuality isn't black and white, maybe he's bisexual. Does this hypothetical passable cross-dressing men liker also like women?

I mean in all of these cases the point is he likes something and doesn't like something else...and that there may not be a specific gene that dictates every like and dislike. If he doesn't like flaming men, the point isn't whether or not he likes cross dressers, the point is he's not going to wake up tomorrow loving flaming men and can't simply choose to start liking flaming men.

I don't like women with a mustache and hairy armpits. The point would not be to wonder why I might like women with nose rings or tattoos, the point would be that I can't just start digging women with mustaches and hairy pits by simply choosing to do so.

I mean, I don't have to get drunk in order to eat yuca. That made sense to me at the time I typed it, but now I don't remember what I meant by that.

LOL, I don't know either but now I'm hungry.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with whether grief can explained in a neo-Darwinism frame.

I suppose not, carry on.

 

[viole]

I must confess that I've never given any serious thought to instantiation. After looking the word up and thinking about it for awhile, I would say yes. I am of the opinion that my cat, which is alive, instantiates life. In fact, I think that life is probably being instantiated all over the planet right now by billions of organisms.

That is not what I meant. My English again, I guess.

I meant: did life start independently on different and disjoint branches? Or, to put it formally: are there today at least two organisms with a progeny that does not intersect?

What do you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I was recently wondering about that. The beginning of multiple element-based life trees would necessarily be the same (with the existence of the elements, etc.), but conditions could allow for very different life forms from there.
I wouldn't think that all life on earth is from one single original "life form" -or even just one single puddle of primordial soup.
I have also been considering the interdependence of life forms -some life forms not being possible without the existence of others, etc. -though I'm not sure why I have been considering it.

I am very happy you understood what I meant. For a moment I thought my english created some confusion, but probably the confusion must be searched somewhere else.

So, do you think all these independent life forms developed independently the exact same way to transmit information to its progeny? Namely through DNA and stuff?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

I don't really know how we got down this track either. I just saw your post about the "gay gene" and thought I'd comment.

No, it means you like yucca cooked a certain way. Cooking things different ways completely changes things. Most people who love steak don't love steak tartare.

I mean this one is just silly. He likes men, he's gay. What kind of question is this? Most straight men don't like fat hairy women. They are still straight.

The point is the first situation, in which the guy likes certain types of men, is no different from the second situation.

Who knows, sexuality isn't black and white, maybe he's bisexual. Does this hypothetical passable cross-dressing men liker also like women?

I mean in all of these cases the point is he likes something and doesn't like something else...and that there may not be a specific gene that dictates every like and dislike. If he doesn't like flaming men, the point isn't whether or not he likes cross dressers, the point is he's not going to wake up tomorrow loving flaming men and can't simply choose to start liking flaming men.

No, no more than you would wake up tomorrow liking eggplant/aubergines. However, it's not possible to take a food that you don't like and learn to like it. For example, suppose that you don't like carrots, but you do like chocolate. So you start eating chocolate-covered carrots. After a few months of that, you decide that chocolate-covered carrots are not your favorite chocolate-covered thing, but you are okay with them.

Then, a week later, you are invited to a party that has steak and carrots. You believe that you don't like carrots. However, upon trying them, you realize that you are now fine with carrots. Why has this happened?

This study theorizes that it's a kind of Pavlovian conditioning. If a neutral flavor is paired with a flavor you like, the neutral flavor will soon seem more appealing.

In the same way, a homosexual man who prefers well-built men may find himself attracted to a bodybuilder woman. If he starts dating/sleeping with her, he will soon find himself attracted to other women who are not bodybuilders. Conversely, a heterosexual man who starts dating a silicon-enhanced TS (because he likes busty girls) will soon find himself more attracted to same-sex partners than he had previously been.

 

[Zosimus]

That is not what I meant. My English again, I guess.

I meant: did life start independently on different and disjoint branches? Or, to put it formally: are there today at least two organisms with a progeny that does not intersect?

What do you think?

Ciao

- viole

Yes, I would say so. Abiogenesis is either so unlikely that it could never happen or sufficiently likely that it could happen. If abiogenesis did not occur, then some intelligent being created life so intersection is unlikely and unnecessary. If, on the other hand, abiogenesis is common enough to occur, then it has probably occurred multiple times.

It's not impossible that abiogenesis occurred once and only once, but this is unlikely.

 

[viole]

Yes, I would say so. Abiogenesis is either so unlikely that it could never happen or sufficiently likely that it could happen. If abiogenesis did not occur, then some intelligent being created life so intersection is unlikely and unnecessary. If, on the other hand, abiogenesis is common enough to occur, then it has probably occurred multiple times.

It's not impossible that abiogenesis occurred once and only once, but this is unlikely.

Ok, let's reduce the complexity of the problem.

Do you think that any human and any pig have a progeny that does not intersect? In other words: do you think it is possible, or likely, for two independent trees of life to develop mammals characteristics?

After that, we will deal with things like carrots and fungi. But first, I would like to analyze your answer to this question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Koldo]

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?

Grief can be explained as a side effect.

 

[Nietzsche]

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.

Altruism is beneficial because a group working together can achieve far more than individuals, thus encouraging group behavior has a significant survival buff. It just so happens that a drawback of that is lessened ability to deal with loss. It's still, however, a significant net-gain.

 

[Zosimus]

Ok, let's reduce the complexity of the problem.

Do you think that any human and any pig have a progeny that does not intersect? In other words: do you think it is possible, or likely, for two independent trees of life to develop mammals characteristics?

After that, we will deal with things like carrots and fungi. But first, I would like to analyze your answer to this question.

Ciao

- viole

Of course. If life was created, there no reason to believe that pigs and humans share a common ancestor. Of course, I can't know whether life was created.