The difference between Human and animal

[Thief]

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 form we are bound in......in turn forms a spirit unique

the rest of the globe is covered in forms that could have risen as we did
we just did it first

as for the earth.............it will pass away
it was made to do this one thing......the breeding ground of spirit
the chemistry is finite
the spirit we become doesn't have to be

 

[Thief]

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

my Doberman growled at me.......once


I was living alone with this animal in a second floor apartment
and yes.....the test of will came around

I realized immediately....if I lose .....
someone will eventually find my have eaten carcass

animals fail to see.....higher spirit

we humans .....pray

 

[Thief]

btw.....I kicked that Doberman's *** til she pissed the carpet

turned out to be one of the best dogs I ever had

 

[viole]

Sure, it's possible. Why not?

Of course it is possible. It is also possible for pigs to have evolved on another planet. Everything is possible.

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.

Einstein theory does match what we observe.

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.

What does "your subjective view of probability" means? Is probability subjective?

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

You are evading the question. I did not ask what is possible. Invisible blue fairies evolving from the Ebola virus are also possible. Santa Klaus is possible. That Jesus resurrected is also possible. And even under the premise of creation, everything is possible, so I do not understand your point.

I asked you whether you believe that it is likely, under the premise of no creation. Unless you reject the possibility of no creation a-priori, for some reason. You seem to have a psychological view of probability (whatever that is), but you seem to believe that all the things that we and pigs share on a little tiny speck of our galaxy are the result of independent development, and it is not clear to me why, since you seem to be ready to dismiss other things based on "probabilistic" arguments. What does your subjective view of probability tells you in the case of human/pigs separate evolution on a single planet? What about chimps/humans?

1) Likely
2) Not likely

What is it, under the premise of no creation? I am sure you can answer such a simple question even under the premise of something that you probably consider counter-factual.

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?

Nope. I never said that. Not even remotely. I just think it is ridiculous to believe that mammals, or primate characteristics, could evolve independently on a single planet. That under the premise of no creation. Under the premise of creation, especially Christian creation, then I believe it is equally ridiculous to believe that God created the pinnacle of His creation in the form and shape of a hairless gorilla. And, therefore, I think it is rationally justified to believe that a common ancestry is the best explanation.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

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

Well, there are a number of possible explanations.

Solipsism,
Confirmation bias, or
Special creation.

But let's take it a step further. Let's assume that I couldn't think of another explanation. Does that mean that your explanation must be right?

How would you respond if I said:

Explain what caused the Big Bang without invoking God?

Is this question proof that God must exist?

 

[Thief]

Well, there are a number of possible explanations.

Solipsism,
Confirmation bias, or
Special creation.

But let's take it a step further. Let's assume that I couldn't think of another explanation. Does that mean that your explanation must be right?

How would you respond if I said:

Explain what caused the Big Bang without invoking God?

Is this question proof that God must exist?

another difference at hand

we can contemplate that elaborate question

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

If space-time was created BY the big bang(not to say that is the only plausible model), then there would be no 'before' as time itself didn't exist, so that one is kind of moot.

Oh, and did you just refer to shared inheritance as 'my' theory? Like I just thought it up? LOL.

Nobody that knows what they are talking about even debates that evolution and more importantly, speciation, happens.(and has been observed happening)

 

[Zosimus]

Of course it is possible. It is also possible for pigs to have evolved on another planet. Everything is possible.

And that's why agnosticism is superior to dogmatism.

Einstein theory does match what we observe.

http://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.html

What does "your subjective view of probability" means? Is probability subjective?

You are evading the question. I did not ask what is possible. Invisible blue fairies evolving from the Ebola virus are also possible. Santa Klaus is possible. That Jesus resurrected is also possible. And even under the premise of creation, everything is possible, so I do not understand your point.

The point is that your question is like asking: Assuming that the tooth fairy exists, isn't it reasonable to conclude that the Easter bunny exists too? Well, I don't know how to answer that question. Am I supposed to say, "Since I am accepting that the tooth fairy is real, does that mean that I should go ahead and say that the Easter Bunny is probably real too? Or am I supposed to recover my logic and say that the tooth fairy is completely unrelated to the Easter bunny?"

I asked you whether you believe that it is likely, under the premise of no creation. Unless you reject the possibility of no creation a-priori, for some reason. You seem to have a psychological view of probability (whatever that is), but you seem to believe that all the things that we and pigs share on a little tiny speck of our galaxy are the result of independent development, and it is not clear to me why, since you seem to be ready to dismiss other things based on "probabilistic" arguments. What does your subjective view of probability tells you in the case of human/pigs separate evolution on a single planet? What about chimps/humans?

1) Likely
2) Not likely

What is it, under the premise of no creation? I am sure you can answer such a simple question even under the premise of something that you probably consider counter-factual.

Okay, so we're back at it again. Am I supposed to say that if I assume that can self-assemble out of non-existent parts, that I might as well also think that pigs and chimps can have sex and make humans? Or am I supposed to recover my logical faculties and say that any apparent similarities between pigs and humans cannot be any sort of evidence for a common ancestry without committing the affirming the consequent logical fallacy?

Nope. I never said that. Not even remotely. I just think it is ridiculous to believe that mammals, or primate characteristics, could evolve independently on a single planet. That under the premise of no creation. Under the premise of creation, especially Christian creation, then I believe it is equally ridiculous to believe that God created the pinnacle of His creation in the form and shape of a hairless gorilla. And, therefore, I think it is rationally justified to believe that a common ancestry is the best explanation.

Again, I'm surprised at how poorly neo-Darwinists are at imagining themselves in the other person's shoes. There are no Christians who believe that God created them as hairless gorillas. Christians universally believe that they have been created in the image of God.

 

[Zosimus]

If space-time was created BY the big bang(not to say that is the only plausible model), then there would be no 'before' as time itself didn't exist, so that one is kind of moot.

Oh, and did you just refer to shared inheritance as 'my' theory? Like I just thought it up? LOL.

Nobody that knows what they are talking about even debates that evolution and more importantly, speciation, happens.(and has been observed happening)

No one can demonstrate that speciation happens, because there is no clear, objective, universally-accepted definition of the word "species."

 

[metis]

Different species cannot produce fertile offspring. We know speciation has occurred and continues to do so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No one can demonstrate that speciation happens, because there is no clear, objective, universally-accepted definition of the word "species."

In the context of the word species, speciation happens when two types can no longer produce fertile offspring. Seems clear enough to me.

 

[viole]

And that's why agnosticism is superior to dogmatism.

Are you agnostic about the truth of this statement?

http://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.html

No contradictions with GR could be found here.

Ok, then.....

The point is that your question is like asking: Assuming that the tooth fairy exists, isn't it reasonable to conclude that the Easter bunny exists too? Well, I don't know how to answer that question. Am I supposed to say, "Since I am accepting that the tooth fairy is real, does that mean that I should go ahead and say that the Easter Bunny is probably real too? Or am I supposed to recover my logic and say that the tooth fairy is completely unrelated to the Easter bunny?"

Okay, so we're back at it again. Am I supposed to say that if I assume that can self-assemble out of non-existent parts, that I might as well also think that pigs and chimps can have sex and make humans? Or am I supposed to recover my logical faculties and say that any apparent similarities between pigs and humans cannot be any sort of evidence for a common ancestry without committing the affirming the consequent logical fallacy?

..what is your psychological probability that chimps/pigs could have evolved their common characteristics with humans, more or less at the same time, on a little planet and completely independent from each others, under the premise of no creation? Answer still missing.

Again, I'm surprised at how poorly neo-Darwinists are at imagining themselves in the other person's shoes. There are no Christians who believe that God created them as hairless gorillas. Christians universally believe that they have been created in the image of God.

Well, because the Christians did not pay attention. We look like hairless gorillas. And if that is the image of God, then let it be it. Alternatively, we can say that a hairless gorilla looks vastly more like the image of God than, say, a butterfly, or a fungus.

Don't you think so?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Demonslayer]

We look like hairless gorillas.

Hairless? You haven't seen my uncle Larry at the beach. Yikes.

 

[Zosimus]

In the context of the word species, speciation happens when two types can no longer produce fertile offspring. Seems clear enough to me.

Oh really? Well, then, I guess every individual bacterium is a different species!

I guess a chihuahua is a different species from a St. Bernard cuz God knows they don't produce fertile offspring together.

I wonder exactly how scientists determine whether fossil A could produce fertile offspring with fossil B?

I guess lions and tigers must be the same species, because female ligers are quite fertile.

Let's not forget http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7491/pdf/507178b.pdf

All of this is what we call the species problem, which arises when different species concepts are used. The different concepts are not generally compatible. So, as I said, a clear, objective, and universally-accepted definition of the word "species" does not exist.

 

[Zosimus]

Are you agnostic about the truth of this statement?

No. The statement is a priori true.

No contradictions with GR could be found here.

GR predicts time dilations. Time dilations are not found. Let me clue you in... everytime scientists are surprised by a finding, that means that the finding was not predicted by the theory.

..what is your psychological probability that chimps/pigs could have evolved their common characteristics with humans, more or less at the same time, on a little planet and completely independent from each others, under the premise of no creation? Answer still missing.

0.5

Well, because the Christians did not pay attention. We look like hairless gorillas. And if that is the image of God, then let it be it. Alternatively, we can say that a hairless gorilla looks vastly more like the image of God than, say, a butterfly, or a fungus.

I don't look like a hairless gorilla. If you do...

 

[metis]

Male ligers are sterile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Oh really? Well, then, I guess every individual bacterium is a different species!

Asexual reproduction is still reproduction.

I guess a chihuahua is a different species from a St. Bernard cuz God knows they don't produce fertile offspring together.

They are perfectly reproductively viable together.

I wonder exactly how scientists determine whether fossil A could produce fertile offspring with fossil B?

*Eye roll*

I guess lions and tigers must be the same species, because female ligers are quite fertile.

Yes, and the male's are not, which sort of precludes further reproduction.

So, what are you trying to argue here? Pretty sure the lets-rationally-argue-against-evolution ship sailed in the 1950s sometime. You've missed the boat by a half century plus.
So..do you have a point?

 

[viole]

No. The statement is a priori true.

That sounds dogmatic.

GR predicts time dilations. Time dilations are not found. Let me clue you in... everytime scientists are surprised by a finding, that means that the finding was not predicted by the theory.

If you read the article you will notice that is a plethora of things that might not be true. For instance, the Big Bang may not be true.

0.5

My subjective probability says 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

Now what?

I don't look like a hairless gorilla. If you do...

Ha! I touched the anthropocentric nerve. Sorry.

Do you look closer to a hairless gorilla or to a mushroom? What do you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

Hairless? You haven't seen my uncle Larry at the beach. Yikes.

I think there is a Sasquatch in my family tree somewhere.




I think that I would not like to see a St. Berhuahua.

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

Nope....it sounds like natural selection at work.