The difference between Human and animal

[Zosimus]

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.

Speculation. What does this demonstrate other than the idea that all data fit the theory in question? Neo-Darwinism is so like Creationism that way. It's all a bunch of post-results ad hoc rationalization.

 

[Nietzsche]

Speculation. What does this demonstrate other than the idea that all data fit the theory in question? Neo-Darwinism is so like Creationism that way. It's all a bunch of post-results ad hoc rationalization.

Speculation? Are you seriously debating that social animals don't perform better than lone ones? Lion prides, wolf packs, ape communities(including humans), elephant herds, dolphin pods, killer whales..

These are all massively successful, and their success is rooted in their ability to cooperate.

 

[Zosimus]

Speculation? Are you seriously debating that social animals don't perform better than lone ones? Lion prides, wolf packs, ape communities(including humans), elephant herds, dolphin pods, killer whales..

These are all massively successful, and their success is rooted in their ability to cooperate.

Oh, sure. They're all so wonderfully successful. Just take a look at the cooperation inherent in cannibalism. You see, when a mother sacrifices herself for her young... it provides her with benefits. And when she eats her own young, that also provides her with benefits.

Have you read the lengths to which a crocodile will go to ensure the survival of the young entrusted to her? Many of those offspring aren't even hers. Evolutionists will be quick to argue that she benefits from altruism. Meanwhile, a male lion will routinely kill the offspring in its pride. Evolutionists will be quick to argue that he benefits from this.

All this proves is that given any data set, an evolutionist can rationalize its value to the animal. What does that prove? Nothing.

 

[Etritonakin]

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

Life on Earth is apparently all DNA-based (and whatever preceded that), so all -however they developed -would transmit information to their progeny similarly as far as I know -though I suppose there could be differences as things become more complex. I am a complete newb in these areas.
I do not know enough about the subject to even guess whether or not atoms could be encoded differently to form different sort of bases for different sorts of life forms -but I suppose it is possible. DNA seems to work well with the environment on Earth -perhaps something else would work better in a different environment. Perhaps different code could potentially change things in most any way we could imagine.


I am interested in exactly how information was transmitted to them to cause life in the first place. Is it as simple as the specific process required to cause life in earth happening accidentally -is it something that will "naturally" be repeated elsewhere because things are generally similar everywhere -or at least in a great number of places? Is it a matter of simply ordering atoms by natural processes -or is there something deeper?

DNA is apparently programmable -but I am wondering if it is pre-programmable. Can DNA be programmed to cause species to develop specific characteristics over time -even as they adapt to their environmental conditions?
Also... as a religious person who believes God essentially acts through everything, I wonder if specific changes can be made on a DNA level from a subatomic level. I have heard that it is believed that radiation drives mutation -and I am wondering if it can be targeted/specific rather than always simply random.
Apparently, atoms of the same element can be quite different and have quite a few states -which suggests to me that coding and timing could also potentially be subatomic. Two strands of "identical" DNA could be very different -and possibly cause unforeseen differences.

I'unno

 

[psychoslice]

The difference is that an animal is an animal, but a human believes itself to be more than an animal, and hence the suffering.

 

[Whateverist]

The difference is that an animal is an animal, but a human believes itself to be more than an animal, and hence the suffering.

So you're saying humans are animals that think they are more than animals? As for the suffering you remind me of the old saying which I'll paraphrase from memory as "If we only wanted to be happy that would be easy. But we want to be happier than others, and that's almost impossible."

 

[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.

But let's suppose it has not been created.

Do you think it is plausible that pigs and humans have so many things in common while having no common ancestor at all?

Ciao

- viole

 

[rahulps108]

To be specific human is an animal species

 

[Etritonakin]

But let's suppose it has not been created.

Do you think it is plausible that pigs and humans have so many things in common while having no common ancestor at all?

Ciao

- viole

All life on earth has the common "ancestor" of generally-similar materials in generally-similar conditions, so I suppose it is possible for even extremely similar life forms to develop in parallel. Perhaps the great diversity of life is more of a wonder than similarities.

 

[Zosimus]

But let's suppose it has not been created.

Do you think it is plausible that pigs and humans have so many things in common while having no common ancestor at all?

Ciao

- viole

There is no way for you, I, or anyone else to know what is plausible or not plausible.

Personally, I don't think that humans and pigs have much in common. Pigs are four-legged omnivorous hooved animals whereas humans are bipedal and not hooved at all. Humans and pigs don't have much DNA in common. Common features shared by pigs and humans (hairless skin, eyelashes, subcutaneous fat) are already easily explained away by most neo-Darwinists as a matter of covergent evolution.

 

[Twilight Hue]

To be specific human is an animal species

And accurate. Were not any exception whatsoever.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Personally, I don't think that humans and pigs have much in common.

Me either. Aside from a couple similarities, like
2 eyes, 1 nose, 2 nostrils, one mouth, with teeth, a tongue, taste buds, heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, all placed in roughly the same places, serving the same functions, 4 limbs, ended by digits with calcium deposits at the end, brains located inside of skulls wired to nervous systems intertwined to the spine, which is made from interlocking vertebrates, which attaches to bones which are covered with muscle which are covered with skin, which is covered with nerves that transmit data to that same aforementioned nervous system.

There might be one or two(million) other minor similarities as well, but all in all..not too many.

 

[Zosimus]

Me either. Aside from a couple similarities, like
2 eyes, 1 nose, 2 nostrils, one mouth, with teeth, a tongue, taste buds, heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, all placed in roughly the same places, serving the same functions, 4 limbs, ended by digits with calcium deposits at the end, brains located inside of skulls wired to nervous systems intertwined to the spine, which is made from interlocking vertebrates, which attaches to bones which are covered with muscle which are covered with skin, which is covered with nerves that transmit data to that same aforementioned nervous system.

There might be one or two(million) other minor similarities as well, but all in all..not too many.

Ahh, confirmation bias at its finest. But really, couldn't you make this claim about anything? Imagine that I compared you to a dog turd. You might think that you're not that similar to a dog turd, but wait... you're both composed of atoms bound together into molecules, contain DNA, contain a lot of carbon, are primarily water, were issued from a living being, controlled by the laws of nature, exposed to the sun on a daily basis, destined to be buried some day, completely clueless, etc. I'm sure I could go on for days about the similarities between you both. However, when it was first suggested that pigs and humans were alike, I googled DNA similarities pigs humans and came up with http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/03/2887206.htm in which I read:

"Depending upon what it is that you are comparing you can say 'Yes, there's a very high degree of similarity, for example between a human and a pig protein coding sequence', but if you compare rapidly evolving non-coding sequences from a similar location in the genome, you may not be able to recognise any similarity at all. This means that blanket comparisons of all DNA sequences between species are not very meaningful."

So, in short, I'm not very convinced that humans and pigs are that different. But then again, I don't think that Chinese and Koreans look that similar nor do I think that Guatemalans look similar to Mexicans. I know there are a lot of people, in the United States especially, who cannot tell the difference between them. However, I always figured that those people were ignorant and unperceptive.

 

[viole]

There is no way for you, I, or anyone else to know what is plausible or not plausible.

Personally, I don't think that humans and pigs have much in common. Pigs are four-legged omnivorous hooved animals whereas humans are bipedal and not hooved at all. Humans and pigs don't have much DNA in common. Common features shared by pigs and humans (hairless skin, eyelashes, subcutaneous fat) are already easily explained away by most neo-Darwinists as a matter of covergent evolution.

So, is that a no? Do you think they developed completely independently from humans and without a common ancestor, under the premise that life has not been created?

I am not sure that this is really what you believe. Since you believe that Newton's theory , sorry, law, is more correct than GR, you probably believe in a lot of things. But since I only know your basic knowledge of physics now, and not of basic biology, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, in this case.

Well, then let us replace the word "plausible" with the word "likely", to be sure.. In a previous post you claimed that a unique occurence of abiogenesis is unlikely, so I assume you know the probability/likelihood of these things very well, somehow.

Do you think, under the premise that life has not been created, that humans and pigs could have likely evolved, in parallel and independently, and without a common ancestor, their common characteristics?

I ask because they do have common characteristics. They have a mouth, a nose, two eyes, two ears, a sex, lungs, kidneys, a heart, a very similar way to expel things, regulated blood temperature, plus all the things mentioned in post #112, and, last but not least, we are both mammals.

Really?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Ahh, confirmation bias at its finest. But really, couldn't you make this claim about anything? Imagine that I compared you to a dog turd. You might think that you're not that similar to a dog turd, but wait... you're both composed of atoms bound together into molecules, contain DNA, contain a lot of carbon, are primarily water, were issued from a living being, controlled by the laws of nature, exposed to the sun on a daily basis, destined to be buried some day, completely clueless, etc. I'm sure I could go on for days about the similarities between you both. However, when it was first suggested that pigs and humans were alike, I googled DNA similarities pigs humans and came up with http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/03/2887206.htm in which I read:

"Depending upon what it is that you are comparing you can say 'Yes, there's a very high degree of similarity, for example between a human and a pig protein coding sequence', but if you compare rapidly evolving non-coding sequences from a similar location in the genome, you may not be able to recognise any similarity at all. This means that blanket comparisons of all DNA sequences between species are not very meaningful."

So, in short, I'm not very convinced that humans and pigs are that different. But then again, I don't think that Chinese and Koreans look that similar nor do I think that Guatemalans look similar to Mexicans. I know there are a lot of people, in the United States especially, who cannot tell the difference between them. However, I always figured that those people were ignorant and unperceptive.

That's fair, we actually do share a fair amount of similarities with dog turds, and everything else.

But the odds of all of those things I named, and the thousands more that could be named vis a vis biological similarities happening in the exact same pattern not only twice, but thousands of times all throughout the mammal kingdom?

I dunno man...

 

[viole]

So, in short, I'm not very convinced that humans and pigs are that different.

So we agree, after all. Now I am not sure what your point is, then. You seem to contradict yourself, again.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

So, is that a no? Do you think they developed completely independently from humans and without a common ancestor, under the premise that life has not been created?

Sure, it's possible. Why not?

I am not sure that this is really what you believe. Since you believe that Newton's theory , sorry, law, is more correct than GR, you probably believe in a lot of things. But since I only know your basic knowledge of physics now, and not of basic biology, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, in this case.

No, that's not what I said. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is not more or less correct than Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The two things are not even comparable. Einstein's Theory does not match what is observed in the real world and neither does NULG. It's as simple as that.

Well, then let us replace the word "plausible" with the word "likely", to be sure.. In a previous post you claimed that a unique occurence of abiogenesis is unlikely, so I assume you know the probability/likelihood of these things very well, somehow.

It is believed that the first life occurred when RNA self-synthesized. RNA is composed of nucleotides. Nucleotides do not occur in nature unless created by living cells. The problem seems to be the ribose. There are no confirmed instances of ribose creation.

However, let's assume that all the components magically appeared, in concentrations high enough to assemble some sort of RNA strand, and in the exact right quantities to form a simple viroid. Some viroids contain as few as 246 nucleotides. If we make another, further, generous assumption that when the first nucleotide falls into place, its companion will also fall into place, we still have 122 accidental occurrences that need to happen either simultaneously or in very short order thereafter. So even with our very generous assumptions, the chances of a viroid self-assembling 1 in is 4^122, which is a pretty low chance. Furthermore, even if we assume that all of this magically happened, viroids still require plant cells to infect in order to reproduce.

Now remember that I'm the kind of guy who will argue that we should be skeptical about whether the sun will rise tomorrow. This scenario strikes me as so extremely unlikely as to be laughable. Now I do not discount the possibility that science will make some discovery tomorrow that self-replicating viroids with a mere 20 nucleotides have been discovered. This new information would obviously cause me to update my subjective view of the probability of such a thing happening, but even then it would be really, really low.

Do you think, under the premise that life has not been created, that humans and pigs could have likely evolved, in parallel and independently, and without a common ancestor, their common characteristics?

Look, if we're already suspending disbelief enough to think that life has not been created, then just about anything is possible!

I ask because they do have common characteristics. They have a mouth, a nose, two eyes, two ears, a sex, lungs, kidneys, a heart, a very similar way to expel things, regulated blood temperature, plus all the things mentioned in post #112, and, last but not least, we are both mammals.

If you think about the logic of your argument, basically you're saying, "Since it's not completely, totally, and utterly impossible that pigs and humans share a common ancestor, we should conclude that they do." It's a bit of a stretch for a skeptic, don't you think?

 

[Zosimus]

That's fair, we actually do share a fair amount of similarities with dog turds, and everything else.

But the odds of all of those things I named, and the thousands more that could be named vis a vis biological similarities happening in the exact same pattern not only twice, but thousands of times all throughout the mammal kingdom?

I dunno man...

Ahh, yes, it's the false dichotomy logical fallacy again. According to your logic, either evolution did all of this or pure chance did all of this.

I'm sure you must realize, however, that the leading non-Darwinist explanation is the God-did-it explanation. Thus, I am not on the horns of your false dilemma.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You know, if we remove the connotations and feelings involved with the things that we say and the ideas that we have, our over all behaviors and motivations are really no different from those of any other animal.

Our physical drivers are exactly the same as every other living thing. The fact that we doll them up with ideas to help us justify our behavior doesn't make them any more superior, does it? Are all of our conversations about politics and religion really all that different from the seemingly silent social arrangements that baboon colonies come up with?

If you argue that it's totally different, I'd like to hear why.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Ahh, yes, it's the false dichotomy logical fallacy again. According to your logic, either evolution did all of this or pure chance did all of this.

I'm sure you must realize, however, that the leading non-Darwinist explanation is the God-did-it explanation. Thus, I am not on the horns of your false dilemma.

Ok, just for lols, explain it without invoking common ancestry. I dare you.