# Humans are animals



## Sean K (1 September 2007)

I have previously been a very 'spiritual' person, and even called myself a Buddhist at one point, but a few years ago I had an epiphany, and I converted to become a Humanist.

I have come to firmly believe that humans are just another animal trying to survive on this rock. There is nothing spiritual, or mystical, about our existance, we are just another product of evolution and natural selection. 

Humans are an animal species. 

Our unique capabilites include:

Empathy.
Abstract reasoning. 
Sophisticated communication.
Introspection. 
The ability to plan for the future. 
Our ability to control our environment, due mainly to our dexterity (the thumb is a great bit of kit!)

Just an animal with some special talents....

Being an 'animal' I have considered all our actions to be in aid of one basic goal; to survive - the meaning of life.

All our actions are only in aid of our own personal benefit to achieve this aim. There is no true thing such as altruism, or self sacrifice. The ultimate aim of all our actions is to seek benefit for ourselves, and to survive.

To survive, we need the usual things:

Water, food, shelter, security, self esteem, a plasma, and seek the ultimate goal - self actualisation (to put a Maslow slant on it)

The reason I raise this is that I just thought, perhaps I'm wrong. 


Are we any more special than just being an 'animal'?


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2007)

:run::hide:


----------



## Sean K (1 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> :run::hide:



You're thinking just animals?


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2007)

kennas said:


> The reason I raise this, is that I just thought that perhaps I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> Are we any more special than just being an 'animal'?



Ah WTF! I'll jump in anyway. LOL

*Just guessing* because nobody truly knows, but I think you're partly right and partly wrong. 

If we truly have a spiritual side, an infinite soul so to speak, why earthly life?

To learn something?

To experience something opposite to the spirit? (developing a thought from a Taoist perspective)

To be tested?

I don't know. But if so, then our experience here is to just be as you say, to be just another animal, otherwise our purpos would be made much clearer.

But their remains the potential for a spiritual perspective within the animal experience. To me this this makes life potentially beautiful (and fulfilled as such at times) rather than just an ultimately futile struggle for survival.

Somehow to me, humanism still contains a kernel of spirituality (by my admittedly abstract concept of it) whether or not that is recognized or admitted to. The richest experiences of our lives have nothing to do with the purely animal impulses (mind you sex isn't bad ) but rooted in something else beyond those things you mention.

Just musing.


----------



## Sean K (1 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Somehow to me, humanism still contains a kernel of spirituality...
> 
> Just musing.



Yes, and it would be more amusing if Bullmarket was here to provide the answers. LOL 

When I explain my 'epiphany' about discoverying Humanism, and being so sure of it, I speak like an Evangelical Minister. 'THIS IS THE WAY! IT'S THE TRUTH!!!' It's quite embarrassing actually, especially after a few vinos.... 

I always wake up the next day having lost another friend. LOL. 

One of the things that has led me to start thinking that we may be 'different', is that we may have the capacity to actually do things for predominantely someone else's benefit. 

But I'm not sure. Altruism is a myth designed by people to make themselves feel good. LOL. 


PS, in regard to humanism being spiritual, that is what I was inferring to with my epiphany. It was like lightening striking, and it's become like a dogma...eeek.


----------



## explod (1 September 2007)

kennas said:


> Yes, and it would be more amusing if Bullmarket was here to provide the answers. LOL
> 
> When I explain my 'epiphany' about discoverying Humanism, and being so sure of it, I speak like an Evangelical Minister. 'THIS IS THE WAY! IT'S THE TRUTH!!!' It's quite embarrassing actually, especially after a few vinos....
> 
> ...





Struth, very deep on a Saturday morning.  I am more with Kennas but I do think we have a collective thinking which has some degree of connection with ESP.    I read some Yung (in almost a past life now) and that gets one thinking a bit this way.

Not so subjective, the Ancients, then through to Alexander the Great certianly got on the spiritual bandwagon to give promise to mankind for his unquestion exploitation and the good of the King so to speak.   Schivelery (Kinghts in armour) works similar but plays more on fear.   The sociologist among us could have something to say here.   What about the war on Terror, big correlation to me but I am not academic in this field.

But very interesting possibilities with this thread Kennas, good one


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2007)

kennas said:


> I always wake up the next day having lost another friend. LOL.



LOL. I do that too. 



kennas said:


> PS, in regard to humanism being spiritual, that is what I was inferring to with my epiphany. It was like lightening striking, and it's become like a dogma...eeek.



One thing I am pretty confident of, you don't have to be spiritual to be spiritual. As a matter of fact I think we humans make to much of a fuss about it, what with churches, synagogues, sitting around in circles holding hands and saying OM, etc. LOL

There is a lot to be said for context. In a modern secular society, there is a lot to be said for bare bones humanism. More can be achieved that way than with shaving your head and dancing around chanting "Hare Krishna".

The funny thing about epiphanies is that each person epiphany is different to the next person. Saul/Paul's epiphany being diametrically opposed to yours for instance. Nevertheless, each epiphany is the truth for for that individual. Could it be that epiphanies are tailor made?

I dunno, I'm still waiting for mine. My truth(?) has been more of an evolution and is still a work in progress.

Altruism a myth to make us feel good? Yes can't argue with that. But it does make us feel good doesn't it?. Could that be an intentional thing or just a survival mechanism? Why does it make us feel good?

The reverse is also true, being an @sshole unjustifiably makes us feel bad (dunno why I keep doing that LOL). In searching for answers, the hard part is seeing past our cognitive biases.


----------



## Sean K (1 September 2007)

explod said:


> Struth, very deep on a Saturday morning.  .....
> 
> I read some Yung (in almost a past life now) and that gets one thinking a bit this way.



Aplogies for the Sat am, it's Friday afternoon here, the day's young!!

I was a big fan of Jung, still am I suppose. Later in his career when he turned to Eastern Philospohy and combined it with psychoanalysis, I thought he was getting somewhere. The 'Collective Unconscious', that you refer to, is very interesting and it's something that hasn't probably being explored enough. (maybe for good reason though! )

I loved his stuff on Alchemy. 

MDR is one of my favourite books. 

He was a bit of a nut though in the end, like all psychologists and psychiatrists.


----------



## Sean K (1 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Altruism a myth to make us feel good? Yes can't argue with that. But it does make us feel good doesn't it?. Could that be an intentional thing or just a survival mechanism? Why does it make us feel good?



This was a converstaion I had today at lunch with Rach after I went off the deep end last night with a firend of ours visiting. kennas the 'humanist preacher' out of control. It was ugly stuff..   ooooo.... damn Chilean red wine!! 

I think Rach has convinced me that 'altruism' can exist. In the sense that when we do something for someone else's benefit, we do it for our own satisfaction, but there is also a benefit to the person you help. Sometimes this can be quite substantial. Perhaps the benefit for the other person is actually of greater benefit than to yourself? On the scale of things then, the act actually is 'altruistic' by balance....

Are we clutching at straws....


----------



## Sean K (1 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> There is a lot to be said for context. In a modern secular society, there is a lot to be said for bare bones humanism. More can be achieved that way than with shaving your head and dancing around chanting "Hare Krishna".




Yes, chanting, and even meditating, seem to be a little unproductive on the surface. Especially to the baby boomers! LOL  Does this kind of activity in regard to someone's 'spirituality' lead them to be a better human being, within their culture, contributing to the greater good? Or, are they just stealing oxygen? I'm thinking the oxygen could be better used elsewhere...

Or, maybe that's the dogmatic humanist blinded to the benefits of lentils...



wayneL said:


> each epiphany is the truth for for that individual. Could it be that epiphanies are tailor made? I dunno, I'm still waiting for mine. My truth(?) has been more of an evolution and is still a work in progress.



I'm not sure if I'm talking the same concept of epiphany right now which is dangerous, so bare with me.... I'm not sure if they can be absolutely uniquely tailormade. I believe that we can only think and understand things that are part of our nature and nurture. We are not individuals in the sense that we are only biproducts of our environment. I am not an individual, I only act as I can according to my genes, and place. Therefore, I can only have an epipheny that is created by my genes and my culture. Aaaaah, I'm regressing....


----------



## spooly74 (1 September 2007)

kennas said:


> I
> Just an animal with some special talents....




Totally agree ....monkeys to be precise


----------



## yonnie (1 September 2007)

Without a doubt we`re just another animal trying to survive on this rock as kennan puts it.

I sometimes put the word around just to shock people.

Unlike you kennan I dont believe that the human animal has so many "unique capabilities".

Cats have unique capabilities too: they can see in the dark and have nine lives.

Birds can fly (we dont, unless in akward airplanes)

Yes we do have a lot of technics as in sophisticated communication, but we dont know our neighbours.

Scientists/people always underestimate what our fellow animal can do and even what our ancient forefathers were capable of. they often have to admit that they were wrong.

Some still think that Columbus was the first seafarer who went all the way to the Americas and proved that the earth was not flat.

You are only assuming that animals have no empathy, abstract reasoning, introspection, the ability to plan for the future and environmental control.

I`ve been around animals long enough to see that a cow accepted a lost calf. 
Squirrels gather nuts. 
Goats eat everything in sight and can destroy their environment just like us.
And who knows what that cow is thinking while staring in the distance and chewing her cud.

No, we`re just an animal and should be a proud part of nature!


----------



## Sean K (1 September 2007)

spooly74 said:


> Totally agree ....monkeys to be precise



That is absolutely gold spooly. GOLD!!! 

But, can we do something for someone else, understanding that they are getting a better deal out of it? 

Or, in the back of our mind, are we thinking karma blah blah, or that we will be repayed 10 fold for our kindness....etc...


----------



## spooly74 (1 September 2007)

kennas said:


> That is absolutely gold spooly. GOLD!!!
> 
> But, can we do something for someone else, understanding that they are getting a better deal out of it?




Yes certainly, but by giving/helping (think this is what you mean) and wanting nothing in return, you`ve already locked in the better deal.



kennas said:


> Or, in the back of our mind, are we thinking karma blah blah, or that we will be repayed 10 fold for our kindness....etc...




Ahh but what happens when you don`t get repaid for your kindness ... 
Do you become spiteful?....something monkeys (real monkeys ) are not capable of and imo one of the worst human traits.


----------



## Sean K (1 September 2007)

spooly74 said:


> Ahh but what happens when you don`t get repaid for your kindness ...
> Do you become spiteful?....something monkeys (real monkeys ) are not capable of and imo one of the worst human traits.



But we can get repaid in the afterlife.... Heaven, hell, karma, sends us to another plane in to our next rebirth etc....so, if you believe in that stuff, you will eventually get repaid. Golly, the cults of Abraham, and Hindu/Buddhism, have relied on this concept to control their people for the past 3000 years...

I'm not sure what this means though...


----------



## explod (1 September 2007)

kennas said:


> But we can get repaid in the afterlife.... Heaven, hell, karma, sends us to another plane in to our next rebirth etc....so, if you believe in that stuff, you will eventually get repaid. Golly, the cults of Abraham, and Hindu/Buddhism, have relied on this concept to control their people for the past 3000 years...
> 
> I'm not sure what this means though...




Spot on and nailed Ken.   The crap coming out of Walls Street to egg the mugs on so that the smart money can get out is the same.   The sociologist/spin doctors have been the enslavers of mankind from the time he stood up to face the heavens

Great thread


----------



## dhukka (1 September 2007)

kennas said:


> Being an 'animal' I have considered all our actions to be in aid of one basic goal; to survive - the meaning of life.




IMHO this is one of the problems in these kind of discussions - that there is an assumption on the part of humans that there is some meaning to life. To ask the questions: What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? etc. miss the point.

Why are we here? Irrelevant we are here. What is the meaning of life? Again irrelevant, life 'is' all you need to work out is how to 'be' (easier said than done)


----------



## dhukka (1 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Ah WTF! I'll jump in anyway. LOL
> 
> If we truly have a spiritual side, an infinite soul so to speak, why earthly life?
> 
> ...




Again with the why, forget about it wayne, it'll just do your head in, get on living.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 September 2007)

kennas said:


> .... humans are just another animal trying to survive on this rock. ....
> 
> Just an animal with some special talents....
> 
> Being an 'animal' I have considered all our actions to be in aid of one basic goal; to survive - the meaning of life.



spot on kennas  , maybe slight modification  or two :-



> animals which are capable of intelligence, but rarely bother ...



I would add , since this is a trading chatroom where we compare notes to "stay alive" financially ? (and I rarely deviate from the trading theme lol) ....

perhaps you made a typo.... ?  Praps you meant ....



> humans are just another animal typing to survive on this rock. ....



??


----------



## Sean K (1 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> spot on kennas  , maybe slight modification  or two :-
> 
> I would add , since this is a trading chatroom where we compare notes to "stay alive" financially ? (and I rarely deviate from the trading theme lol) ....
> 
> ...



LOL. Yes, financially MUST be part of our word. I want a new plasma!!! he he.


----------



## Sean K (1 September 2007)

dhukka said:


> IMHO this is one of the problems in these kind of discussions - that there is an assumption on the part of humans that there is some meaning to life. To ask the questions: What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? etc. miss the point.
> 
> Why are we here? Irrelevant we are here. What is the meaning of life? Again irrelevant, life 'is' all you need to work out is how to 'be' (easier said than done)



We obviously differ here dhukka. There IS a reason to live. The reason at it's most basic level is to survive. That's why we have all these hormones, instincts, and reproductive assets. If it was to just BE, then we wouldn't have any of this neat kit that allows us to propagate the species and to protect ourselves. Your argument to simply BE is flawed because if we attempted that, the turtles would be in control of the planet...


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 September 2007)

kennas said:


> LOL. Yes, financially MUST be part of our word. I want a new plasma!!! he he.



my teenage sons used to want a plasma - now they've set up a cheap second hand  projector onto the entire wall  -  downstairs in what the boys call their "wild life sanctuary".

Now they want playmates instead 

and yes - they are animals lol
and yes (howdy dhuk ) - they have found a meaning to living - something about a "full body experience", or "out of body experience", or "in body experience" - who knows - can hardly ever understand em anyways


----------



## Ageo (1 September 2007)

hmm we are animals....

Ok well if we are then someone answer me this:

* A fox will sometimes kill another wild animal for food and sometimes just for pleasure.

* A human sometimes kills a wild animal for food and sometimes for conservation.

* A fox is passed as having "normal animal behaviour"

* A human will get criticized and be called a heartless person that has no respect for other creatures on earth.

So if we are suppose to be all animals then whats the difference?


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> hmm we are animals....
> 
> Ok well if we are then someone answer me this:
> * A fox will sometimes kill another wild animal for food and sometimes just for pleasure.
> ...



what a foxy question there Ageo  

PS last time I tried reasoning with a fox it bit me
last time I tried reasoning with a cruel human he kicked me . 
 not sure where you're going with that one Ageo


----------



## dhukka (1 September 2007)

kennas said:


> We obviously differ here dhukka. There IS a reason to live. The reason at it's most basic level is to survive. That's why we have all these hormones, instincts, and reproductive assets. If it was to just BE, then we wouldn't have any of this neat kit that allows us to propagate the species and to protect ourselves. Your argument to simply BE is flawed because if we attempted that, the turtles would be in control of the planet...




Why do you assume that to 'BE' is to do nothing? Of course we procreate, protect our young and ensure our survival. That is the 'is'


----------



## Sean K (1 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> hmm we are animals....
> 
> Ok well if we are then someone answer me this:
> 
> ...



Good points Ageo.

I think this type of approach to the argument was mentioned earlier in regard to humans having special capabilities, like empathy etc. We have a big brain, but can we fly? Or breath underwater? Our abilites are unique, but are they any more unique than an ant that can carry 2000 times it's body weight, or a spider that leap the human equivelant of 10km.  

Maybe we aren't that special...

Or, maybe emotion is the difference, which has allowed our species to proliferate? 

Assuming ants have no emotion, of course!!


----------



## Sean K (1 September 2007)

dhukka said:


> Why do you assume that to 'BE' is to do nothing? Of course we procreate, protect our young and ensure our survival. That is the 'is'



Good point! Unfortunately I must leave this conversation, damn it! It's 8.30 Friday night in Lima and I'm going to see the Bourne something....catch you ron...cheers.


----------



## dhukka (1 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> my teenage sons used to want a plasma - now they've set up a cheap second hand  projector onto the entire wall  -  downstairs in what the boys call their "wild life sanctuary".
> 
> Now they want playmates instead
> 
> ...




Sure we can all invent reasons to live, we do it everyday to go on living, I'm talking about an all encompassing meaning for it all, you know, the 'ultimate question'. The answer which of course is *42*.


----------



## Ageo (1 September 2007)

kennas said:


> Assuming ants have no emotion, of course!!




Well thats what everyone assumes so they just kill them like theres no tomorrow. Why doesnt a cockroach get the same respect as a kangaroo? or a Rabbit? Surely all creatures of life have some emotion? right?

I mean im interested to hear peoples views on this that think we are animals (i also believe in someways we have evolved from animals).


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> Well thats what everyone assumes so they just kill them like theres no tomorrow. Why doesnt a cockroach get the same respect as a kangaroo? or a Rabbit? Surely all creatures of life have some emotion? right?
> 
> I mean im interested to hear peoples views on this that think we are animals (i also believe in someways we have evolved from animals).



agree that there are inconsistencies - I'm not a sufficiently pure Buddhist not to differentiate between moths ( that will eat my suit etc ) or the pet dog - the one I happily kill, the other I love. 

nor do I hav any problem killing feral cats - some lady the other day making stew out of them lol - love it !! (like native birds are having enough probs staying alive - habitat, food , water etc ) 

but I posted elsewhere some scenes from an abattoir in China / Asia somewhere - killing and deskinning dogs.  - no way jose. 

no probs killing feral; pigs, but leave the elephants and the whales alone. (still - doesn't change my opinion that men are simply animals btw  - just that they're inconsistent lol)

Like Zimmerman "I'm not a cynic , I'm a hypocrite" lol
 "Creation Science 101" by Roy Zimmerman


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 September 2007)

dhukka said:


> Sure we can all invent reasons to live, we do it everyday to go on living, I'm talking about an all encompassing meaning for it all, you know, the 'ultimate question'. The answer which of course is *42*.



lol - exactly
The greeks reasoned it "nothing changes - we are, therefore always were" (seriously paraphrased -forget where I found the rest (later) - the beach beckons


----------



## disarray (1 September 2007)

looking at the structure and evolution of the brain answers a lot of these questions. when you are talking about "emotion" you are looking at the actions of the amygdala. this is an old and basic part of brain physiology which evolved a very very long time ago in reptiles and which we still carry buried in the back of our heads.

"emotion" is just a chemical response by the amygdala to stimuli so it is nothing special in the animal kingdom, however our more highly developed frontal lobes give us the ability to analyse these emotions rather than just be subject to them.

the brain (and by extension, the central nervous system) has built up and evolved in layers, with each new layer augmenting the functions of the previous layers. we are just the latest revision in a long line of "Organic Brain 1.0" sharing the same brain stem design and function as the reptiles that flopped onto land all those years ago, including the amygdala, home of "fight or flight", "need" and "emotion". it is also an extremely cool design and reading about fight or flight responses bypassing the higher functions so we get the adrenaline dump before we have even registered the threat makes me marvel at the wonder of organic engineering.

from the first link -



> The growth of the cerebral cortex accelerated further in man ´s immediate ancestors, and reached explosive proportions in the last million years of human history, culminating in the appearance of Homo Sapiens.
> 
> The primitive region in the brain, that held the circuits for the instinctive behavior of the reptile and the old mammal, was now completely enveloped by and buried within the human cerebral cortex.
> 
> ...




http://www.primatesociety.com/Into/survival/timeline/textEvol.html

http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Structure1.html#brainstem

so yes we are animals, just like all the other animals on the planet, sharing the same basic form, structure and function as all other organisms.

we have no higher "purpose" or "spirituality" than anything else, no special place on the planet, no reason to be, no god to answer to, but this freedom gives us the opportunity to make our own purpose and spirituality. we see examples of this in current revisions of "God", all of which are crap, but which are still stepping stones into the evolution of a greater purpose, that of becoming a good human with a balanced place in the greater order of family, community, country, planet, universe.


----------



## Bloveld (1 September 2007)

Animals are beasts, but men are monsters.


----------



## Ageo (1 September 2007)

Bloveld said:


> Animals are beasts, but men are monsters.




Thats pretty informative


----------



## Julia (1 September 2007)

Do we have to necessarily be either spiritual or animal?  I don't see why.
Clearly the drive for survival is going to be the basis for our existence, as Maslow - surely an archetypal humanist - described.   But those basic needs having been met I think most of us are looking for "something more".  I'm trying without success to find a word to substitute for spiritual which to me has religious/faith connotations.

Altruism:  doesn't it exist when, e.g. someone spontaneously rushes into a burning house to save an occupant?  Isn't that person instinctively reacting to the need to save a life?  Or does he in fact, even momentarily, think before rushing in "Ah, if I pull this person out of a burning house I will receive much recognition and praise and will be called a hero".  I doubt it.

Many of us do stuff to help other people in a less spontaneous environment.  In this case, then yes, I think a part of it is to reinforce our own image of ourselves as good people, sort of makes up for the bits about ourselves that we dislike.  But if the recipients of our actions genuinely benefit, then Idon't see any need to castigate ourselves for  this part of our motivation.

Another reason many people willingly make contributions to others is a belief in the value of community.  i.e. if we feel uncomfortable knowing there are people in our community who are struggling with their lives, emotionally and financially, then if we can do something to help hopefully that will strengthen the community as a whole.    A few of us seem able to exist in a state of semi-isolation, but most of us are drawn to that tribal instinct of needing to be part of a group.

Animals:  imo completely wrong to suggest that they lack emotion.  I guess most of my experience has been with dogs.  They can demonstrate not just love and loyalty, but real empathy.  And many breeds have an astonishing capacity to reason.  And who hasn't seen a beaten dog cowering in total fear.  Dogs are quick to respond to the emotions they sense in us.  Cats to a lesser extent but they still do it.  Not sure about insects etc but don't see why not.

Disarray:  interesting post, thank you.  I read some research recently which suggested that people addicted to various substances had a physiologically different area of the brain.  What they were unable to say was whether this was caused by the drug/alcohol use, or whether this area of the brain (which was that involved in decision making) was deficient and thus rendered them vulnerable to addictions.

Interesting thread, Kennas.


----------



## Mofra (1 September 2007)

kennas said:


> All our actions are only in aid of our own personal benefit to achieve this aim. There is no true thing such as altruism, or self sacrifice.



With all due respect to your beliefs Kennas (and I'm glad there are people who ponder such things at great length, so no disrespect intended at all) I cannot possibly agree with that last sentence. There are thousands of examples of self-sacrifice and altruism. Although wartime heroics (in terms of self sacrifice) would be the most obvious, I have met many people who have given up financial security, their social lives, friendship circles etc to care for sick relatives. Thousands of Australians olunteer every day for no benefit to themselves (and yes, obviously many more do so to feel purposeful).



kennas said:


> The ultimate aim of all our actions is to seek benefit for ourselves, and to survive.



If we are all animals, one thing is for certain - we are pack animals. Often our actions benfit other rather than ourselves.



kennas said:


> Are we any more special than just being an 'animal'?



Back to your original theme, we are the top of the food chain for starters 

I fear your disenchantment with spirituality (rather than just the set dogmas of religion) seem to come from a lack of "proof". Perhaps reading the studies fo Dr Michael Newton might lead you to a slightly different path of introspection. That would prove to be as close to a scientific methodology of spiritual life beyond this one as we could possibly get.

Cheers


----------



## barnz2k (1 September 2007)

Great video above.

I heard a story once of a poacher - He shot a monkey/orangutan (cant remember which), it was a mother with a baby - before it died it walked towards the poacher carrying the baby with its arms in the air and offered it to the person who just shot her, to look after it.
The poacher became a conservationist immediately after, he recognised they have emotion etc and just wanted to care for its young.

We are definately animails, its a fact. Just what type of animalare we, Again it is our ability that 'seperates' us.

Reminds me the part in the matrix about how we closest resmble a virus haha

btw - I am an athiest and a vegan. I do treat every animal with same respect.
same as a human.


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2007)

dhukka said:


> Again with the why, forget about it wayne, it'll just do your head in, get on living.



Yes that's exactly what I was getting at, clumsily.

I no longer wonder why we're here and just try to enjoy the ride. That does not preclude a journey of discovery however, whether spiritual, philosophical, of the planet, whatever.

I notice that yielding to strictly animal instincts does not make me very happy, while an interest in more nobler ideal does. 

I liked the Dalai Lama's answer when questioned as to the purpose of life:

"I don't know" LOL


----------



## Ageo (1 September 2007)

barnz2k said:


> Great video above.
> 
> 
> btw - I am an athiest and a vegan. I do treat every animal with same respect.
> same as a human.




Barn good to see, may i ask when you get insects in your house (cockroaches, ants, mozzies etc..) do you kill them or treat them with the same respect?


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 September 2007)

barnz2k said:


> I heard a story once of a poacher - He shot a monkey/orangutan (cant remember which), it was a mother with a baby - before it died it walked towards the poacher carrying the baby with its arms in the air and offered it to the person who just shot her, to look after it.
> The poacher became a conservationist immediately after, he recognised they have emotion etc and just wanted to care for its young.



hell that is such a great story man 

I also remember a study of a colony of chimps - where a spoilt and EXTREEMELY demanding youngster just would not give its mum a rest - just a constant-demand -machine  - 

and sure enough its mum dies younger that she should have. 
 I thought to myself - gee whiz - no way are any of our kids gonna do that to me or the missus


----------



## IFocus (1 September 2007)

Humans are animals of course we are!

Humans survived by working together in larger groups I wonder if that’s where our instinctive need to do things for others comes from.

Religion isn’t that the invention of man?

Isn’t the type of religion practiced by cultures a measurement of their development?   

What’s it all mean?

Thanks for the thread Kennas

Focus


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2007)

Julia said:


> I'm trying without success to find a word to substitute for spiritual which to me has religious/faith connotations.



Yeah agree there Julia. I use the word without those connotations, as many do, but most probably assume the religious meaning anyway.


----------



## So_Cynical (1 September 2007)

Of course we are all animals, and in the end compost.

I came to this "logical" conclusion when i was about 14 years old.

One of my fav sayings/quotes...below.

A god that answers prayers is a delusion. 
A god that doesn't answer prayers isn't a god.


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2007)

So_Cynical said:


> Of course we are all animals, and in the end compost.
> 
> I came to this "logical" conclusion when i was about 14 years old.
> 
> ...



That's because you are stuck with the "Dude in the sky" meme.

There are infinite possibilities otherwise.


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> There are infinite possibilities otherwise.




So profound that....there are some truths in the world (like gravity) and there are many questions still unanswered.Cause and effect is one path with answers.We can give names to everything....if only to agree that it is so.


----------



## springhill (1 September 2007)

Ill put a very simplified view of the human species forward. Yes, we are animals, but we are the lowest form of animal. Reason? We have the intellect and self awareness to behave in a better manner than animals, but still choose not to.


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 September 2007)

springhill said:


> Ill put a very simplified view of the human species forward. Yes, we are animals, but we are the lowest form of animal. Reason? We have the intellect and self awareness to behave in a better manner than animals, but still choose not to.




Springhill ...just a query about the `better manner than animals` & `self awareness~ (which most people lack) bit if you would.

My perception of animal behavior is simply survival and existance.Eating procreating and sleeping.In balance and perpetuating species.

How can human behave better than animals?


----------



## Julia (1 September 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Springhill ...just a query about the `better manner than animals` & `self awareness~ (which most people lack) bit if you would.
> 
> My perception of animal behavior is simply survival and existance.Eating procreating and sleeping.In balance and perpetuating species.
> 
> How can human behave better than animals?




I'm not attempting to answer for Springhill but my view would be that humans with their intellect and awareness - and education - have the capacity to make constructive choices about their behaviour (I'm trying to avoid the words "moral" and "ethical" here because they imply judgements, i.e. who is to say what is morally or ethically appropriate?) but so often we fail to live up to our capacity in this respect.  So in many ways, an animal, e.g. dog,  etc, is more pure with its lack of malevolence, cunning, competitiveness, bellicosity, or other ugly human traits.


----------



## springhill (1 September 2007)

Julia said:


> I'm not attempting to answer for Springhill but my view would be that humans with their intellect and awareness - and education - have the capacity to make constructive choices about their behaviour (I'm trying to avoid the words "moral" and "ethical" here because they imply judgements, i.e. who is to say what is morally or ethically appropriate?) but so often we fail to live up to our capacity in this respect.  So in many ways, an animal, e.g. dog,  etc, is more pure with its lack of malevolence, cunning, competitiveness, bellicosity, or other ugly human traits.




Couldnt have put it better myself.
Humans make concious choices to kill, rape, molest, beat, steal......
Why?
Because their daddy didnt love their mummy enough?
Or they didnt read them bedtime stories at night?
Or they were drunk or on drugs?

For animals its all about survival, they know no other way
Humans that do these things are pieces of ****, last time i checked **** came out of arseholes...


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 September 2007)

Julia said:


> I'm not attempting to answer for Springhill but my view would be that *humans with their intellect and awareness - and education -* have the capacity to make constructive choices about their behaviour (I'm trying to avoid the words "moral" and "ethical" here because they imply judgements, i.e. who is to say what is morally or ethically appropriate?) but so often we fail to live up to our capacity in this respect.  So in many ways, an animal, e.g. dog,  etc, is more pure with its lack of malevolence, cunning, competitiveness, bellicosity, or other ugly human traits.





Julia hi...bellicose is a word I had never ever seen before and is appropriately descriptive of us .The piece I highlighted is the part I was  alluding to earlier.
The varying degrees of intellect/awareness via education.Does the more intelligent human make a better (righteous) decision than the human with less intellect.Are the intellectuals/smarter people making the right choices?

Perpetrators of  wrongs (infringing on others) come from all degrees of intelligence/awareness so I don`t think that , although having the capacity , is the reason.What do you think?

Animals don`t use words.


----------



## nioka (1 September 2007)

springhill said:


> Ill put a very simplified view of the human species forward. Yes, we are animals, but we are the lowest form of animal. Reason? We have the intellect and self awareness to behave in a better manner than animals, but still choose not to.




 Are you speaking for yourself about yourself or for others about them. I know a lot of very good people and I've seen the damage rogue dogs have done to a mob of sheep. I have had dogs working for me with more intelligence and self awareness than some people I know and I have had the privilege to have had as friends men I can not fault.
It is time you looked for the good in some of those around you or you had better keep better company.


----------



## Sean K (1 September 2007)

dhukka said:


> Why do you assume that to 'BE' is to do nothing? Of course we procreate, protect our young and ensure our survival. That is the 'is'



So what is your IS? To just BE is a little esoteric for my liking at the moment. 

Can you describe your BE for me? 

And to the point, does this make you an animal or something more 'special'?


----------



## Sean K (2 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Do we have to necessarily be either spiritual or animal?  I don't see why.
> 
> .....
> 
> Altruism:  doesn't it exist when, e.g. someone spontaneously rushes into a burning house to save an occupant?  Isn't that person instinctively reacting to the need to save a life?  Or does he in fact, even momentarily, think before rushing in "Ah, if I pull this person out of a burning house I will receive much recognition and praise and will be called a hero".  I doubt it.



 So, Julia are you assuming animals can be 'spiritual' too? Or, that we are animals, but a particularly developed animal that has the ability to think there must be a reason? It's just a brain development issue....

On the second point above, this is one of the arguments that has led me to think that we may be able to be altruistic.

Or, could this innate, instinctive response be programmed in as a human survival mechanism. Like when we touch something hot, we don't consciously think 'shet! I better move my hand away from that', and then tell our arms to move our hands to move our fingers away. Perhaps running into the burning house is an extention of that? Fight or flight?


----------



## Ageo (2 September 2007)

Also if we are animals then why are we the only kind of animals that can advance through time?

I mean there are so many different animal species on this earth yet only us human animals have the ability to progress??


----------



## Sean K (2 September 2007)

Mofra said:


> With all due respect to your beliefs Kennas (and I'm glad there are people who ponder such things at great length, so no disrespect intended at all) I cannot possibly agree with that last sentence. There are thousands of examples of self-sacrifice and altruism. Although wartime heroics (in terms of self sacrifice) would be the most obvious, I have met many people who have given up financial security, their social lives, friendship circles etc to care for sick relatives. Thousands of Australians olunteer every day for no benefit to themselves (and yes, obviously many more do so to feel purposeful).



Mofra, as I said responded to Julia, I think there may be acts of genuine altruism, perhaps, but the one you have listed is probably not, IMO. They are carefully considered actions for the benefit of someone else, that assists in the survival of the species, and ultimately yourself. Most people are unwilling to accept this and just go on day to day thinking they are being 'good' without seeing the truth behind their actions. Or, I could be wrong? This is one of things I'm trying to sort out. Cheers.


----------



## springhill (2 September 2007)

nioka said:


> Are you speaking for yourself about yourself or for others about them. I know a lot of very good people and I've seen the damage rogue dogs have done to a mob of sheep. I have had dogs working for me with more intelligence and self awareness than some people I know and I have had the privilege to have had as friends men I can not fault.
> It is time you looked for the good in some of those around you or you had better keep better company.




U should think more carefully before u go pointing the finger nioka, dont judge me or cast assumptions about the people i associate with, none by the way who are crims or anything of the sort. As i have not pointed the finger at any one person. You have personalised your post
Unless the people u speak of have never uttered a bad word about anyone or thought a bad thought, let alone the things we conciously do everyday that we pass off as 'human nature'. They sound like angels re-incarnated
If i chose to i could find your post extremely offensive, lucky my skin is thicker than that.
your point of the rogue dog is invalid as it knows no better
compare that to a human that indiscriminatly kills 2,4,10 people
which is the worse act?
and why?


----------



## Sean K (2 September 2007)

springhill said:


> your point of the rogue dog is invalid as it knows no better
> compare that to a human that indiscriminatly kills 2,4,10 people
> which is the worse act?
> and why?



Springhill, I'm not too sure about the 'worse act' argument you're presenting here to prove humans are lower, or more unethical, or less moral, or whatever your saying, than animals. The 'indiscriminate' acts you describe probably have a purpose. We do have 'choices' but they are choices we make in response to our environment and circumstances, which force us to act the way we do. There is a lot of violence in the world, but in the scheme of things we probably get on pretty well considering how closely we all live together and the capacity we have to inflict pain and grief if we choose to. Lions don't have the capability make and fire a rifle, for example, but if they could they'd probably be using it to effect, instead of doing all that prowling around and growling and the like. Although, they'd probably just be killing what they needed to eat perhaps.....unlike our behaviour. hmmmm 

Perhaps a point that could add to your argument though, is that I have the feeling animals don't do things for 'pleasure'. They are very purpose driven. Humans however, have the capacity to do things for an end in themselves. If this were to include doing extremely nasty things, for 'pleasure', then I would be concerned. However, I have a feeling the only ones doing this are the psychos. 

And gents, lets stop any personal abuse creeping in, please?


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> Also if we are animals then why are we the only kind of animals that can advance through time?
> 
> I mean there are so many different animal species on this earth yet only us human animals have the ability to progress??




ageo...in line with subject i assume you mean evolutionary progress and which Wik. says.....







> Evolutionary progress, the idea that there is a largest-scale trend in evolution of organisms and that the trend is toward improvement




Totally disagree with Wik......improvement can only mean domination as a living organism over other living organisms.To be improved or more efficient the entity has to eliminate all threat and be at the top of the food chain. White pointer sharks (since the ocean has not been conquered by man) are an example. 

There are other animals at the top of the food chain.We humans aren`t progressive but without a guide ,human mind does what human mind does.


----------



## weird (2 September 2007)

Kennas, 

Don't stare at the sun. Trust me on this one.

The Book of Ecclesiastes, pretty much summed up most people's frustrations, when pondering their navel (or pehaps coming off party drugs). He could have added I guess, why do I need to do a crap every morning, it's all meaningless.

Not many choices on this earth I guess we have at being a moving and thinking thang ... guess we could have been all advanced plants ... anyhow we are animals.


----------



## springhill (2 September 2007)

kennas said:


> Springhill, I'm not too sure about the 'worse act' argument you're presenting here to prove humans are lower, or more unethical, or less moral, or whatever your saying, than animals.




Apologies for the poor use of the word 'worse'
I guess my question would have ben better phrased
'Which animal could be considered more culpable, or responsible for its actions?'


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 September 2007)

These guys have not got guns or nuclear missiles but are pound for pound one of the most "progessed" species on the planet.


----------



## weird (2 September 2007)

Unfortunately, somewhere in the world, you will probably find them all on a menu, that menu printed on paper, from a mill, in a restaurant where the humans are sitting on a chair with a table manufactured from a factory. The humans are reading that menu in a room with sufficient lighting, supplied by electricity, with a nice bottle of wine from a vineyard. And when they go to the crappa and wash their hands, it will have running water .... etc .. etc ... the only counter-argument I can see coming, from my own tasteless comment,  is perhaps did humans kill off any potential species that could have possible produced anything similar ... nipped them in the bud so to speak ... don't know .. anyhow the Darwinists would say this was natural selection ... still a pretty big gap.


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 September 2007)

weird said:


> Unfortunately, somewhere in the world, you will probably find them all on a menu, that menu printed on paper, from a mill, in a restaurant where the humans are sitting on a chair with a table manufactured from a factory. The humans are reading that menu in a room with sufficient lighting, supplied by electricity, with a nice bottle of wine from a vineyard. And when they go to the crappa and wash their hands, it will have running water .... etc .. etc ... the only counter-argument I can see coming, from my own tasteless comment,  is perhaps did humans kill off any potential species that could have possible produced anything similar ... nipped them in the bud so to speak ... don't know .. anyhow the Darwinists would say this was natural selection ... still a pretty big gap.




Howdy....you must be weird.

The physique of human makes him vulnerable to other animals.Without mind (thought) human numbers would be small, if not extinct.
Macropods have become extinct through human domination ...again Wik.



> Macropods are marsupials belonging to the family Macropodidae, which includes kangaroos, wallabies, tree-kangaroos, pademelons, and several others. Before European settlement, *there were about 53 species of **Macropods. Today, six species have since become extinct*. Another 11 species have been greatly reduced in numbers. *Other species (e.g. Simothanurus, Propleopus, Macropus titan) went extinct after the Australian Aborigines arrived and before Europeans arrived.*




I suppose another question would be does any human being have a right to any piece of earth.Apart from "I was here first "(at least I think I was)


----------



## weird (2 September 2007)

Wysiwyg, did not understand your question or comment ... are you giving macropods as an example of a possible species we nipped in the bud ?  

No argument presented "we were here first so therefore etc", the exact opposite  ... I guess another argument, playing the advocat, could be putting it another way ... from an 'animal' perspective ... considering the original question thread ... could it be any other way ... positioning one shelf in the food chain, and all


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 September 2007)

No worries weird...just thinking out allowed (f-slip).

This is an example of intelligent man.(while we mess up the basics of nature)


Problem 
You are calculating a complex formula in Lotus ® Spreadsheets and your formula returns "#VALUE!" in the cell in which you expect a value of 0 (zero). 

This is the formula that renders #VALUE!:

=IF(AND(I34="";J34="");ROUND((G34)-7.6-(0.2*$G$3);1);
IF(OR((AND((OR(I34=51;I34=205));J34=""));(AND((OR(J34=51;J34=205));I34="")));
ROUND((G34)-3.8-(0.1*$G$3);1);0))  

Solution 
This issue was reported to Quality Engineering as SPR# DLYN7584ET. You can work around this issue by manually inputting 0 (zero) into the blank field(s) in the problem formula.


----------



## Ageo (2 September 2007)

How did we get from humans are animals to lotus spreadsheets?

lol


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> How did we get from humans are animals to lotus spreadsheets?  lol



gee ageo, tough call. 
maybe that's called lateral thinking ?? 

maybe because the spreadsheet is a picture into the calculating ability of the human mind? 

I would have thought that the fact that humans can think a problem through without blinkers as well - to have a bit of fun with the topic?

in fact you could ask the question "is lateral thinking like this a difference between men and animals" 

examples of animals thinking laterally - heaps there as well .....

foals, lambs and youngsters of most species spend most of their day horsing around (amazes me that a beautifully playful lamb grows up to be a boring bloody sheep) 

otters spend most of their day exercising their sense of humour

then again, killer whales will play with a young seal before killing it and - sometimes they even put it back on the beach. 

cats will play with a mouse during a long drawn out death  etc etc 

summary - another blind alley in the search for a difference between men and "other animals" (IMO) 

I thought Bloveld was on the money as well - when he said that "animals are beasts, men are monsters"  - because , men do cruel things DESPITE  education campaigns - despite international whaling watchdogs etc - 
DESPITE THE FACT that we ALL know that WE are directly causing the EXTINCTION of many of them !! 

but (apart from a handful of domesticated animals, (dogs  ), other animals are generally out of any human "educational" influence - 'cept maybe for circus tricks  - they have an excuse to be "beasts" - and (given that they have to eat) - to take their natural place in a cruel life chain


----------



## Sean K (2 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> How did we get from humans are animals to lotus spreadsheets?
> 
> lol





If we are just animals, is being 'spritual' just some type of awe that we have for our environment due to our advanced mental capacity. 

A lack of complete understanding of the complex workings of the universe and it's origin holds us in awe, wonder, and amazment at its functioning.

But, do we have any more than a physical connection to our environment? 

Or, is that just our brain inventing things and jumping to conclusions that are not sound? 

If we have a non physical connection to the planet, does that make us different to other animals? 


Once again however, I am lumping the debate into a them verses us discussion, but each animal has it's own unique capacities and capabilites also. I wonder if a bird looks down at humans and thinks we are a pretty average species because we can't fly?


----------



## Julia (2 September 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> The varying degrees of intellect/awareness via education.Does the more intelligent human make a better (righteous) decision than the human with less intellect.Are the intellectuals/smarter people making the right choices?
> 
> Perpetrators of  wrongs (infringing on others) come from all degrees of intelligence/awareness so I don`t think that , although having the capacity , is the reason.What do you think?
> 
> Animals don`t use words.



I wasn't at all suggesting that more intelligent people make better decisions.
What I was distinguishing was that human beings with the aforementioned intellect/awareness/education have the *capacity* to make reasoned and therefore more constructive decisions than animals who on the whole function more on the basis of instinct.
As to whether more intelligent/educated people do make "better" decisions I doubt very much that that would necessarily be true.  Some people with pretty average intelligence and minimal education display great integrity and have an uncluttered set of principles which are blessedly devoid of cunning and manipulation.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> Also if we are animals then why are we the only kind of animals that can advance through time?
> 
> I mean there are so many different animal species on this earth yet only us human animals have the ability to progress??



shame we're not "progressing a bit slower" lol 
ever considered we might be heading in the wrong direction ??

one thing IS for sure - while man is "progressing", .  the prospects for other animals is "regressing" !


----------



## yonnie (2 September 2007)

Julia said:
			
		

> So in many ways, an animal, e.g. dog,  etc, is more pure with its lack of malevolence, cunning, competitiveness, bellicosity, or other ugly human traits.




I dont agree with you Julia; I believe animals also have these traits.

Ever heard of kids in hospital after being bitten by dogs without provocation?
Ever heard of horse racing and hear trainers say my horse is very competitive?

Had a dog myself from a puppy and after biting people 3x I destroyed it. Must have had a rough upbringing!


----------



## Ageo (2 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> shame we're not "progressing a bit slower" lol
> ever considered we might be heading in the wrong direction ??




Regardless if we are heading in the wrong direction or not the point is Humans have the ability to progress. Animals are doing the same thing they were doing 100yrs ago.

Sure they might goto different waterholes, or get their feed from somewhere else but in the end unless a human can teach a dog or any other animal new tricks they will never increase their advancement through time. i.e A Buffalo 100 yrs from now will still behave the same way as he did 100yrs ago.

Humans wont


----------



## Sean K (2 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> Regardless if we are heading in the wrong direction or not the point is Humans have the ability to progress. Animals are doing the same thing they were doing 100yrs ago.



This is an interesting point Ageo. 

In regard to animals, they probably are 'progressing' through natural selection, but we have only been witness to 3000 years (or only 100 ish perhaps if we take it from the time of Darwinist Revelation) of the 14 billion ish years of development. So, things have time to move...

In regard to humans progressing, just the hell where are we going as a 'species'?  Are we going to halt our natural development through science and medicine which is effectively halting the process of natural selection. Or, is science taking into consideration the process and simply fast tracking it? Add to that the future input of computers and robotics, and what effect they are going to have on the 'human'. We'll all have voice activated chips in our head soon that do all the functions of a computer and mobile, and perhaps down the track, even cameras may be inserted to become a third eye.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=198186&highlight=beasts#post198186

excerpts from a poem just posted...

ARE HUMANS BEASTS ? - (any offence to the other beasts, although probable , is unintended)  

I take it that we all agree, all animals have traits 
but just to various degrees – which ? - varsity or fate?
and bully bear – or bully person – more depends on weight
than which is “beast” or “worst”, or praps, which one is Satan’s mate.

.............

you search the traits of this small world, the “traitors” carved in granite
you’ll see how much God screwed up / erred - when he chose the world to "man-it"
you watch "the Planet of the Apes", which God has “boy-and-girled” 
...
which other creature first pack rapes - and then PACK RAPES THE WORLD. ?


----------



## Julia (2 September 2007)

kennas said:


> So, Julia are you assuming animals can be 'spiritual' too? Or, that we are animals, but a particularly developed animal that has the ability to think there must be a reason? It's just a brain development issue....]?



Kennas, as I alluded to earlier, I have some difficulty with the word 'spiritual' because it commonly has connotations of connection with a God/faith/religion.But I've failed to come up with something better.  No, I don't suppose animals have this capacity.  But to argue this entire question wouldn't we have to solve the dilemma where many human beings entirely reject any notion of spirituality?  So possibly they would say that this concept is something created by human beings to make their lives more meaningful.  But that's getting side-tracked into the whole religion thing.



> On the second point above, this is one of the arguments that has led me to think that we may be able to be altruistic.
> 
> Or, could this innate, instinctive response be programmed in as a human survival mechanism. Like when we touch something hot, we don't consciously think 'shet! I better move my hand away from that', and then tell our arms to move our hands to move our fingers away. Perhaps running into the burning house is an extention of that? Fight or flight?



I see where you are going with that, but doesn't the fight or flight mechanism relate just to the self, i.e. it's a device to ensure our survival.
It seems somewhat of a stretch to apply that to what I believe is the altruistic action of going into a burning house to save another person.

Not sure why you are having such trouble in believing in altruism???
There seems to be an increasing trend in our society towards self-flagellation, i.e. repetitive mutterings about all the harm we do etc.
I wonder if there isn't more capital to be derived from the opposite, e.g. some positive reinforcement of what we do well?
Sorry if this is off the track again.


----------



## Julia (2 September 2007)

yonnie said:


> I dont agree with you Julia; I believe animals also have these traits.
> 
> Ever heard of kids in hospital after being bitten by dogs without provocation?
> Ever heard of horse racing and hear trainers say my horse is very competitive?
> ...




You might be right, yonnie, in some instances.  My comment was a generalisation.  I doubt that too many kids do in fact get bitten without provocation.  Usually when this happens the kid has done something which has irritated the dog who has reacted instinctively, e.g. the kid has stuck a pencil in its ear etc.  The dog is just trying to protect itself.

Re horses being competitive, I guess they might be or perhaps they are responding to their training and - given the bond between trainer and horse - keen to please the trainer.  Dunno.

However, I'm sure you nonetheless haven't failed to get the point I was making in general terms.  There will always be some animals which, whether because of their genes or their handling (as you've quoted above yourself)  don't have a place amongst people.  But the same can be said of people.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> Regardless if we are heading in the wrong direction or not the point is Humans have the ability to progress. Animals are doing the same thing they were doing 100yrs ago.



But Ageo, lol - men and apes were all doing the same thing 4 billion years ago - lol - like, our grandaddies and grandmummies were all swishing around in a swamp together    - and futhermore, we're all still evolving .   You'll have to widen the discussion a bit before you can draw any conculsions about "we're different from them " - I mean it goes back more than 100 years    btw, Quartar is when man appeared  = 17 seconds to midnight 

we all became amphibious 300 million years ago
mammals common but small about 200 million years ago 
Evolution of anatomically modern humans about 1.8 million years (Pleistocene)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=158576&highlight=pleistocene#post158576



> http://www.worldhistory-poster.com/en/screenshots/science-evolution/origin_of_man.png/view . This evolutionary line is anthropocentric : man is placed in the centre, although he is not necessarily the end of evolution. In *reality, evolution is not a ladder on which man is at the top.* Man is, along with other species, only one branch of an evolutionary family tree that goes back to the first forms of life, about 4 billion years ago.





> http://www.worldhistory-poster.com/en/screenshots/science-evolution/early_evolution.gif/view . The question of spontaneous biogenesis, whether chemical processes have brought about life out of non-life, is not in scientific doubt anymore. The discussion is about which of the many conceiveable ways may have led to the first cellular organisation. Chemical evolution: survival of the stablest structures led to the emergence of more complex molecules such as RNA and DNA. A remarkable property of these molecules is their ability to replicate, as well as their information-carrying character, allowing them to build organized structures using the process of protein synthesis. Those complexes were actually minute chemical factories surrounded by a cell membrane. The first type of cell that could reproduce was born. First type of cell = RNA + DNA + cell membrane + protein synthesis + reproduction. ”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””” Written and supervised by: Prof. Dr. Gustaaf Cornelis (logician and philosopher of science), Ronny Martens (astronomer), Tim Trachet (mathematician), Prof. Dr. Jean Paul Van Bendegem (logician, mathematician and philosopher of science), Prof. Dr. Walter Verraes (biologist), ””””””””””””  © 2001 Tom Schoepen, http://www.worldhistorytimeline.net



http://www.rationalrevolution.net/a...tion.htm#Understanding_Species_and_Speciation  etc


----------



## nioka (2 September 2007)

springhill said:


> U should think more carefully before u go pointing the finger nioka, dont judge me or cast assumptions about the people i associate with, none by the way who are crims or anything of the sort. As i have not pointed the finger at any one person. You have personalised your post
> Unless the people u speak of have never uttered a bad word about anyone or thought a bad thought, let alone the things we conciously do everyday that we pass off as 'human nature'. They sound like angels re-incarnated
> If i chose to i could find your post extremely offensive, lucky my skin is thicker than that.
> your point of the rogue dog is invalid as it knows no better
> ...




It was you who pointed the finger by saying "we" this and that. I happen to believe that if you say we you include yourself . Have more faith in the goodness of the average person. Some people are worse than animals but it is the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## So_Cynical (2 September 2007)

'spiritual'  is just religion without the rules
just make up any stuff u want.

no gods
no meaning
no purpose
no "higher calling"
no destiny

we are animals
is it really that hard to believe.


----------



## wayneL (2 September 2007)

So_Cynical said:


> 'spiritual'  is just religion without the rules
> just make up any stuff u want.
> 
> no gods
> ...



Depends on the use of the word "spiritual", as Julia discusses.

But you do have something in common with the Catholic Church... Dogma. 

Cheers


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 September 2007)

I was just contemplating (before the Sun. arvo footy game starts)that animals are constantly making choices as well.
What I don`t understand is how they think without words.What is the form of communication between brain and limb in animal?

With the sensory input to the brain from every given moment , a "decision" is being made to do something.Evidence shows that an animals stimulus response can be trained and taught.Above and beyond what is known to be instinctive survival .

To answer my own question ...... it has to be a stimulus response event.Nothing more and nothing less.Jump through the hoop and get the fish.

So in conclusion animals have stimulus response as do humans but we get to rationalise and reason (well depending on your level of awareness) any stimuli and sensory input as well as having the inherent survival mechanism that threads through all life forms.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> These guys have not got guns or nuclear missiles but are pound for pound one of the most "progessed" species on the planet.




  a pisstake - lol
Killer Whales Playing with Seals   includling badminton with tails lol - yeah right
but they do play with seals, and sometimes put them back on the beach


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

So_Cynical said:


> 'spiritual'  is just religion without the rules
> just make up any stuff u want.
> 
> no gods
> ...



Cyn, Wayne answered  as follows - ....


wayneL said:


> Depends on the use of the word "spiritual", as Julia discusses.  But you do have something in common with the Catholic Church... Dogma.   Cheers



personally I would say you have something in common with the most liberated among us - 
certainly something in common with John Lennon as well m8 
  Imagine This


> Imagine This is an audio mash up of GW Bush singing the John Lennon classic "imagine", it has been a worldwide hit and has made it into (John Peel's) BBC Radio 1 Music Festive 50 on UK Radio 1.
> 
> The audio was produced by Waxaudio, I created a video for it by tracking down over 40 separate video clips from George Bush speeches, I lip synched these clips to the audio and interspersed them with footage from the original imagine Video, along with some Iraq war footage and some other bits and pieces.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

Cyn, 
I have a friend who's also a cynic - here's his life story ..

I was born a little pilgrim, near a little church clinic
I was weened on gin and genesis, (then moved to ton-and-ginic),
At first believed compliantly - that man's some mightly pinnacle !
but since i studied science III - I'm "born again cynical". 

nothing wrong with a healthy scepticism - perhaps "cynical" is an rebel offshoot of that church ?
but equally , if driven by virtue (only) - can't be a bad offshoot at that 
"an honest man is the noblest work of god " as they say (whether or not god exists)



> *cyn·ic *–noun 1. a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view.
> 2. (initial capital letter) *one of a sect of Greek philosophers, 4th century b.c*., who advocated the doctrines that *virtue is the only good, that the essence of virtue is self-control, and that surrender to any external influence is beneath human dignity*.
> 3. a person who shows or expresses a bitterly or sneeringly cynical attitude.




PS I'm all for definition #2 - 
perhaps skip #3 


> *skep·tic   *–noun 1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
> 2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
> 3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
> 4. (initial capital letter) *Philosophy. a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, * the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that *real knowledge of things is impossible.*
> b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.



And I'm all for most of these , especially #4


----------



## wayneL (2 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> personally I would say you have something in common with the most liberated among us -



Dogmatism is liberation? 

That's a new concept for me! Sheesh it is 1984, war is peace, ignorance is stength etc etc.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Dogmatism is liberation?
> 
> That's a new concept for me! Sheesh it is 1984, war is peace, ignorance is stength etc etc.



lol - here we go again - trouble is I've gotta man the bar bq  
but I don't have any problem with the following alternative to organised religion ...  and he could be right, and the pope might just turn out to be wrong    -  guess we'll find out when we move on , lol.  
I'll meet you there in 40 years. lol. and we can carry on the argument 



> 'spiritual' is just religion without the rules
> just make up any stuff u want.
> 
> no gods
> ...




PS you say Cyn's version = dogmatism  (A = B)
I say Cyn's version = liberation  (A= C)
you are challenging me that (B= C)? lol


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=105416&highlight=xenophanes#post105416



> THE FIRST (AND SECOND) LAWS OF XENOPHANES
> Xenophanes 570 BC – 475BC
> “If horses could draw, they would draw their gods like horses”
> 
> ...




I 'd say his second law was Scepticism, 
and his first was not too far from (at least consistent with) Cynicism 

(PS presented without a snarling attitude of course )
...


----------



## wayneL (2 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> lol - here we go again - trouble is I've gotta man the bar bq
> but I don't have any problem with the following alternative to organised religion ...  and he could be right, and the pope might just turn out to be wrong    -  guess we'll find out when we move on , lol.
> I'll meet you there in 40 years. lol. and we can carry on the argument



Forgive me if I'm getting the wrong impression, but this seems to infer a binomial choice between organized religion and atheism, and that the choice of atheism is more liberating than organized religion.

Well, in one sense it is, but in another sense it isn't. As neither stance can be proven, there remain infinite possibilities outside of these two choices. Liberty is the freedom of "mind" to explore any or many of these possibilities with an open mind.

The effrontery to state this or that *IS* so, shows a mind confined by selective admission of available facts and a mind not at liberty to even consider other factors.

Agnosticism for instance, is a far more liberated viewpoint than atheism as an agnostic remains open to proof, one way or the other.

Dogmatism, whether religious, philosophical, scientific, or even just based on ignorance is most certainly not liberating.


----------



## wayneL (2 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=105416&highlight=xenophanes#post105416
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ahh, but the presumption is that the like of Xenophanes would be cynical over religion, and rightly so. But we must presume some cynicism of the viewpoint of atheism too. It cut's both ways. 

As far as philosophical skepticism is concerned;


> In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about
> 
> 1. the limitations of knowledge,
> 2. a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
> ...



...equally applies to Atheism, No?

A true skeptic remains open minded.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> The effrontery to state this or that *IS* so, shows a mind confined by selective admission of available facts and a mind not at liberty to even consider other factors....
> 
> Dogmatism, whether religious, philosophical, scientific, or even just based on ignorance is most certainly not liberating.



PS you say Cyn's version = dogmatism  (A = B)
I say Cyn's version = liberation  (A= C)

but to be honest I don't really agree that A = B,  that he is being dogmatic. 
I mean the fact that he states his case precisely (a la Lennon) and ends with a question....   


> is it really that hard to believe.



 dogmatic?- innocent of all charges imo lol


> dog•mat•ic      –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas; doctrinal.
> 2. asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

"a method of intellectual caution "
yep I studied that at school as well
" intellectual caution effect "  we called it 

do I have probs with atheism (a la Richard Dawkins)  - nope
do I have probs with organised religion - you bet I do 
AIDS for starters 

maybe im biased lol
(bound to be )

PS on the question of dogmatism of Cyn's post - I have assumed that it's presentation is identical to Lennon's "Imagine" .
But he may wish to be more dogmatic than that - up to him  

I dogmatically state that I'm not gonna do his arguing for him lol.


----------



## wayneL (2 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> do I have probs with atheism (a la Richard Dawkins)  - nope
> do I have probs with organised religion - you bet I do



In a binomial argument, I would tend to agree with you. I have a mammoth problem with organized religion too. I also have a problem with Dawkins viewpoint in that it is cognitively biased and emotive, abeit less of a problem than say catholisism, so if forced to choose, I'd go Dawkins

However the point I've been labouring to get across is that it is not an either or situation. There are a million points in between the two views.. and perhaps some extraneous views as well (I've heard some pretty whacky stuff). The dogmatic adherence to the Pope or Dawkins is unintelligent and closed, no matter how many long word either likes to use.

Of course it is the individuals right to follow either doctrine, but I object to being preached to by either camp.... and the Dawkins view is far more proselytizing at the current time for sure.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Of course it is the individuals right to follow either doctrine, but I object to being preached to by either camp.... and the Dawkins view is far more proselytizing at the current time for sure.



you know, I reckon Dawkins is taking the fight to the ridiculous growth of ignorance in the US bible belt. 

He knows more science than all of the "Bible belt" put together. 

He's trying to get their "education" classified as charity! lol

To be honest I sincerely hope he wins in his fight against ignorance.

Emotive? - a subjective call, m8  - I'd call it "from the heart"  a la sincere   
three youtubes , the second shorter (if you're in a hurry)  
  :: Richard Dawkins : Interview (2006) ::
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=189271&highlight=dawkins#post189271
  Richard Dawkins describes 'GOD'
classic description of "the god of the old testament"   - assuming you can tolerate a few more big words lol
Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"
No evidence of dogmatism (IMO)  "we could all be wrong" etc


----------



## wayneL (2 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> you know, I reckon Dawkins is taking the fight to the ridiculous growth of ignorance in the US bible belt.
> 
> He knows more science than all of the "Bible belt" put together.
> 
> ...




It's a lost cause IMO. Those people are totally fanatic. Evidence means nothing to them. But Dawkins is also fanatical.

But we are still mired in the binomial argument. I am most certainly not arguing for any cause, just trying to keep the argument from polarizing into Pope Benedict vs Richard Dawkins. It seems it is terribly difficult to deviate from either of two memes.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> 1. It's a lost cause IMO. Those people are totally fanatic. Evidence means nothing to them.
> 2. But Dawkins is also fanatical.
> 
> 3. But we are still mired in the binomial argument. I am most certainly not arguing for any cause, just trying to keep the argument from polarizing into Pope Benedict vs Richard Dawkins. It seems it is terribly difficult to deviate from either of two memes.



1. I suspect you're right (all the more reason to ignore them - don;t go there - it can only lead to a major clash with Bin Laden and co) 
2. we may have to agree to disagree 
3. I realise that a website chatroom is not the ideal place to take extreme positions - especially for a thread of more that 2 posts lol 
#1) WHITE!!  
#2) BLACK!! - thread terminates lol
and I respect your role and abilities as moderator more than you can imagine
.. but  

4. I have a problem with the assumption that the truth in an argument probably lies in the middle.

In a negotiation, everyone wants to say "ok - let's assume that the truth lies in the middle"
but what if it lies at (or even outside ? - unlikely) one or other extreme.?
I mean - Dawkin's (and Cyn's) argument is certainly one extreme I concede - 
but what if they are 100% right?
and ANY move from their point of view is wrong. (?)

The middle of the road doesn't HAVE to be right 

PS One of my kids went through an argumentative stage as a 3 year old lol
I said to him "Can't argue with you when you're like that - you keep saying that white's black!!"
HIS REPLY ..?
"nO IS NOT, daddy, IS Purple !!"  

PS My head says there's no God
My heart permits his existence, mainly for the purpose of pleading a case for some justice to a Supreme being - even higher that the Supreme court  lol   - but it's just a poetic thing.  
I was an altar boy 100 years ago lol.
But - My kids are atheists , unbaptised, and happy


----------



## wayneL (2 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS One of my kids went through an argumentative stage as a 3 year old lol
> I said to him "Can't argue with you when you're l;ike that - you keep saying that white's black!!"
> HIS REPLY ..?
> "nO IS NOT, daddy, IS Purple !!"



This is actually a good point

There is the "it's black" argument.
Then there is the "it's whit" argument.

It may seem I am arguing for gray. I'm not.

I'm arguing that it could be purple (or red or green or orange... or indeed grey, black or white)

For instance even our concept of time could be cocked up. I was listening to a physics professor who argued that time is somewhat circular... and made a lot of goddamn sense too. The beginning of time (and the universe) is also the end of time, punctuated by expansions in the universe which concurently was a collapse of the universe.  well it made sense how he said it lol.

Anyway getting to deep for me, I'm off to say OM.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> The beginning of time (and the universe) is also the end of time, punctuated by expansions in the universe which concurently was a collapse of the universe.  well it made sense how he said it lol.



 lol
now you're losing me 

here's that post I put elsewhere - note last sentence 
 hence I dug in for Cyn's rights to state a point 
no biggie
 enjoyed the chat as always lol
white  = rainbow for now lol
Like_youknow



> "I implore you, I entreat you, and I challenge you to speak with conviction
> to say what you believe in a manner that bespeaks the determination with which you believe it
> because contrary to the wisdom of the bumper sticker
> it is not enough these days to simply question authority -
> you gotta speak with it too"


----------



## So_Cynical (2 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS on the question of dogmatism of Cyn's post - I have assumed that it's presentation is identical to Lennon's "Imagine" .
> But he may wish to be more dogmatic than that - up to him
> 
> I dogmatically state that I'm not gonna do his arguing for him lol.




I want nothing more to do with this thread :bonk:  and no i wasnt thinking of lennon's "Imagine" just listing 
all the usual arguments that come from people...i don't spend alot of time thinking about it.

Just 1 of life's constants for me..a non issue....as for Dawkins, i like him
i only found out about him a few months ago..lol, a media atheist.

Theres alot of interesting people on this forum...i think ill stick around.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

welcome lol
you bludy animal !

PS at least your position is constant through history.
take the hypothetical case of a person who said that they agreed with the pope - and lived for a few hundred years
they would have done several backflips with pike over the years lol

Ageo 
you say "man never changes", 100 years I think you said -
trouble is the teachings of Rome change much more regularly than that 

surely no one disputes that JC thought that the world was flat


----------



## barnz2k (2 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> Barn good to see, may i ask when you get insects in your house (cockroaches, ants, mozzies etc..) do you kill them or treat them with the same respect?




Mostly get cockroaches and spiders.. Spiders are cool, i catch em, check em out and then put em on a tree or something... I hate bloody cockroaches, but I still catch em and chuck em outside. And besides, I heard that if you kill cockroaches more will come! Something to do with smell maybe?? The bastards never die anyway, find em in your computer, fan, up drain-pipes whatever.. 

Years ago we had one inside the clock in the microwave. how the hell do they get there.. grow up inside?? radiation didnt even kill it!

wow 1 day and 3 pages lol.

Yeah progressive is true, but we also seem to be running ourselves into the ground by doing it - not progressing in a way that will sustain our race in the future.


----------



## wayneL (3 September 2007)

barnz2k said:


> Spiders are cool



Agree. I have a resident jumping spider that has made himself at home on my trading desk; he's kind of like my mascot now. 

Those Huntsmen still scare the bejeezuz out of me though.


----------



## Ageo (3 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> welcome lol
> Ageo
> you say "man never changes", 100 years I think you said -
> trouble is the teachings of Rome change much more regularly than that




Correction: I said animals never change, but humans do (be it for good or worse).


----------



## disarray (3 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> Regardless if we are heading in the wrong direction or not the point is Humans have the ability to progress. Animals are doing the same thing they were doing 100yrs ago.
> 
> Sure they might goto different waterholes, or get their feed from somewhere else but in the end unless a human can teach a dog or any other animal new tricks they will never increase their advancement through time. i.e A Buffalo 100 yrs from now will still behave the same way as he did 100yrs ago.
> 
> Humans wont




i disagree with this. animals also progress, a prime example of this is monkeys learning to use simple tools and passing this behaviour on to their children.

saying animals will never increase their advancement through time is completely wrong because that denies evolution. 100 years is nothing in an evolutionary time scale, and its not like humans made massive leaps and bounds in physiology or culture between the years 60100 and 60000 B.C.

anyway are you talking about physiological or social evolution?

as for people saying you can't disprove "God" then that is true, you cannot disprove the existence of "God", but you sure as hell can disprove the teachings of Genesis or any other number of religious tales about the origins of the world.


----------



## Sean K (3 September 2007)

disarray said:


> i disagree with this. animals also progress, a prime example of this is monkeys learning to use simple tools and passing this behaviour on to their children.
> 
> saying animals will never increase their advancement through time is completely wrong because that denies evolution.



Dis, what do you think about humans halting our own 'natural' evolution through science/medicine. 

Is natural selection still occuring in humans??


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> Correction: I said animals never change, but humans do (be it for good or worse).



apologies - 
we agree that humans change (incl their religious teachings - and their height and their habits etc .... all change)

Animals are learning all the time (just as the Vatican is).  Plenty of examples of islands where evolution has been allowed to go its own way - Galapagos etc - and the resulting fauna is a microcosm of unique species, finches that use thorns as tools etc. 



> A Buffalo 100 yrs from now will still behave the same way as he did 100yrs ago.



I would say that buffalo have changed to the extent that they used to shy at the sound of arrows whistling past their ears - they now shy at the sound of bullets      As for do they still behave the same way as then? - my guess is the day will come when you'll see a buffalo standing on its back legs, and dancing on a human's grave. 

Dogs change for sure - half the breeds around today are only a few hundred years old or less  - but true, Man has played God on that occasion.


----------



## barnz2k (3 September 2007)

WaneL - Had a big huntsman in my room once, got him on a broom to carry him outside.. was too busy watching him and he started to run up the broom towards me hahaha - so ran outside with it.

Also Mice, our cats used to bring them in and want to play with them... Their a pain to catch.. turn the whole house upside down and move furniture and stuff to get to them or guide them outside. they fit in tiny spaces! Finaly threw a towel ontop of it and and picked him up.

Also a frog and I think a baby possum - put em on paper though cause if you touch em with our hands it aint good!

MONKY MAGIC
On the monkey talk yeah they learn etc. And there was a study recently putting touchscreen games in an enclosure to see if they would learn or just be repetitive, and if they are right they get food pellets.

As I said im an athiest, but I still like the quote
"If we evolved from monkies, why do we still have monkies?" haha

BABIES
I always wonder how babies communicate too - before they learn a language. They know to cry for food etc.. but h ow do you 'think' without words? Pictures?? They havent seen anything yet.. Just instinct?


----------



## disarray (3 September 2007)

kennas said:


> Dis, what do you think about humans halting our own 'natural' evolution through science/medicine.
> 
> Is natural selection still occuring in humans??




i don't think we are halting it, natural selection will always happen, it is a fundamental force of nature. stopping evolution in a species is like stopping gravity, you can't not be affected by the forces of nature. sure we can bend them or influence them, but we will always be subject to them.

a problem with this part of the discussion is that the term "natural" is very subjective. to my mind anything we do, including augementing our bodies with cybernetic equipment (anything from pacemakers to bionic ears to the inevitable brain augs and nanotech possibilities) can be considered natural because it is just part of our evolutionary process.

selective breeding of plants and animals to give us our labradors or food crops is widely considered to be "natural", so by extension why not modern gene-tech? even though genetic engineering is cutting the corners of reproductive biology, it is still "natural" in that we are merely guiding and manipulating the natural processes that are already in place. many of course would argue otherwise.



			
				barnz2k said:
			
		

> As I said im an athiest, but I still like the quote
> "If we evolved from monkies, why do we still have monkies?" haha




that is a good question. i think we still have monkeys because they haven't "needed" to change. evolution is a cause and effect type process, things evolve because their environment demands it. obviously there have been no pressures on monkeys to change how they are so there have been no major upgrades required. like sharks and crocodiles, mother nature got the blueprint for them right millions of years ago and so they can cruise along as they are with just little generational tweaks here and there.

something happened to humans a million years ago (many argue it was we started to eat meat) to set us on this path of explosive growth so once again we are just a lucky freak of nature. we have a short time span before the next major extinction event so we have to evolve quickly before we become just another roadkill in mother earths organic experiment (although some argue we are causing another mass extinction event ourselves).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event


----------



## Ageo (3 September 2007)

So if humans didnt exist then would animals still be able to do some of the things they do today?

Thats my question, because i personally believe they need help from humans (whether it be tricks or other forms of human distruption) in order to progress. On the other hand humans really dont need animals to progress (it will probably just slow it down).


----------



## stockGURU (3 September 2007)

barnz2k said:


> As I said im an athiest, but I still like the quote
> "If we evolved from monkies, why do we still have monkies?" haha




In short, humans did not evolve from modern apes but humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (3 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Agree. I have a resident jumping spider that has made himself at home on my trading desk; he's kind of like my mascot now.
> 
> Those Huntsmen still scare the bejeezuz out of me though.




Yes those little jumping spiders are cool. Huntsmen are creepy.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 September 2007)

Ageo
speaking of humans progressing
(which I would equate to evolving - but I suspect you'd call something else - maybe "thought-induced" or something), but
here's an extract from newspaper clipping - trends in waistlines
....
"waist not want not" as they used to say


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> So if humans didnt exist then would animals still be able to do some of the things they do today?
> 
> Thats my question, because i personally believe they need help from humans (whether it be tricks or other forms of human distruption) in order to progress. On the other hand humans really dont need animals to progress (it will probably just slow it down).





I think you are way way off track.Humans are the ultimate consumer.
Where as animals only take what they need in order to survive.

Animal existance is balanced.Mans existance is not.Training animals to do (and to some it is cruel and pathetic) "tricks" is smart man not.Yet we humans are taught to laugh at the tricks & enslavement of animals.How pathetic.

So my observation is if humans did not exist then animals would exist as per the survival imprint common to each species.*Progress* is a human word with a human decription.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (3 September 2007)

technically mate thats not true. Chimpanzee's have been observed in parts of Uganda (where food is plentiful) going on hunts and killing and eating other chimps. Fact is they are not hungry maybe they would kill to keep territory but why would they consume their enemy?.

There are plenty of other species that take more than they need. Consider a virus or bacteria that kills its host, wouldn't it be prudent to simply take what they need and keep themselves and the host alive?

As for Human evolution: Hard question Darwin would have us believe that you have to have isolation to evolve speciality features but with a global world how can we be truely isolated. Perhapes our isolation will become that of the entire world been isolated in space and we adapt to our influence on the planet. I here people say that people are bigger, taller etc and this is evolution. But I don't believe that is evolution. Its similar to south pacific islanders, throughtout their history the smaller/ weaker peoplewere killed and therefor after centuries the people as a whole are larger fitter and stronger. Nothing evolved they simply bred out some gene's.

My personal thought is that since we no longer need to physically evolve (unless we become immune to pollution) the next evolution willbe mental.


----------



## disarray (3 September 2007)

Killer whale plays tennis with a seal

nature is cruel. humans don't have the monopoly on murder, but we have certainly elevated it to an art form.



			
				Ageo said:
			
		

> So if humans didnt exist then would animals still be able to do some of the things they do today?




such as? if you mean jump through hoops then probably not as there is no advantage to doing so apart from entertaining us.

if you mean expand into populations that number in the billions (such as sheep) then probably not either, only our technology enables us to overcome the limitations imposed by nature (food production, water delivery etc.)

but then these things are not really necessary for animals to do for survival reasons so its not really important.



			
				Ageo said:
			
		

> Thats my question, because i personally believe they need help from humans (whether it be tricks or other forms of human distruption) in order to progress. On the other hand humans really dont need animals to progress (it will probably just slow it down).




all life from single cell organisms up to the blue whale evolve and progress. the sun rises, the earth turns, animals evolve, it is just a fact of living on this planet.

humans are also utterly dependent upon animals to progress. without domestication we would not have had access to the vast amounts of protein required to fuel 6 billion + brains. without beasts of burden we would not have had early industry. without living side by side with animals we would not have developed resistance to diseases. the planet is a self-contained biosphere, we are all subject to the same rules of nature and the complex interrelation of the species is an inescapable fact of our existence here on earth. we are one of many, just a bit smarter is all.


----------



## Ageo (3 September 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> I think you are way way off track.Humans are the ultimate consumer.
> Where as animals only take what they need in order to survive.
> 
> Animal existance is balanced.Mans existance is not.




hehe obviously you havent been in the australian outback much eh?

Feral animals such as foxes, cats, pigs etc... have and will continue to be responsible for killing off native animals/creatures. Many of those feral animals kill for pleasure as i have stated in another post so to me that doesnt seem like survival. 

And sorry for using the word progressing, it should have been "evolving"

Thanks 2020


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 September 2007)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> 1. Its similar to south pacific islanders, throughtout their history the smaller/ weaker people were killed and therefore after centuries the people as a whole are larger fitter and stronger.
> 2. Nothing evolved they simply bred out some gene's.
> 3.....the next evolution will be mental.



1. yep - the (late) king of Tonga went to visit a Uni in Hawaii (as a younger man) - insisted (against all advice) in attempting to go down a spiral staircase - got stuck lol - took two minders pushing and two pulling to get out lol.

2. I would disagree, why wouldn't that be evolution? - assuming it's across the board,  - the new generations would tend towards larger / stronger etc  -and 
.. the weaker jeans that fade 

3. yep , the next evolution could well be mental - might also be dental I suppose


----------



## barnz2k (4 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> hehe obviously you havent been in the australian outback much eh?
> 
> Feral animals such as foxes, cats, pigs etc... have and will continue to be responsible for killing off native animals/creatures. Many of those feral animals kill for pleasure as i have stated in another post so to me that doesnt seem like survival.




Again a lot of this is from human influence. A lot of damaging species were introduced from foreign countries, & feral cats are a product of humans over-breeding and letting them lose etc.


----------



## Sean K (4 September 2007)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> technically mate thats not true. *Chimpanzee's have been observed in parts of Uganda (where food is plentiful) going on hunts and killing and eating other chimps.* Fact is they are not hungry maybe they would kill to keep territory but why would they consume their enemy?.
> 
> There are plenty of other species that take more than they need. Consider a virus or bacteria that kills its host, wouldn't it be prudent to simply take what they need and keep themselves and the host alive?
> 
> ...



Kiwi, As you suggest I think the chimps are just defending their territory. If they consume their victim (as humans once did, and I think it's only recently stopped in the scheme of things), it may not be about hunting for 'extra' food they do not need....

In regard to the evolution comment, I think what you have described there is actually what Darwinian theory is: Natural Selection. We do not necessairly adapt to our environment, but those with the traits best for survival in their environment ultimately survive and thrive. You are right, the 'weakest' disappear. Isn't this part of the evolutionary process?


----------



## Sean K (4 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> Feral animals such as foxes, cats, pigs etc... have and will continue to be responsible for killing off native animals/creatures. Many of those feral animals kill for pleasure as i have stated in another post so to me that doesnt seem like survival.



Ageo, do we know it's for pleasure, or are we just assuming that? I think this is an interesting issue. Perhaps there is a reason for the hunting and killing?


----------



## wayneL (4 September 2007)

Re Animals & altruism: http://www.eurocbc.org/page157.html

... and an interesting article on Dolphins http://www.littletownmart.com/dolphins/


----------



## Sean K (4 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Re Animals & altruism: http://www.eurocbc.org/page157.html
> 
> ... and an interesting article on Dolphins http://www.littletownmart.com/dolphins/



Can I can convert to Dolphinism?


----------



## Ageo (4 September 2007)

kennas said:


> Ageo, do we know it's for pleasure, or are we just assuming that? I think this is an interesting issue. Perhaps there is a reason for the hunting and killing?





Kennas i have been hunting for many yrs now and have managed to speak to alot of farmers. They have had many lambs etc.. that have been killed by either foxes or feral cats and left to rot (sometimes a few at a time). To me thats just the thrill of the kill to them. So there is enough evidence to say that they kill for both food and pleasure (unless you call killing for fun something else?).


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (4 September 2007)

If evolution is simply the stronger genes or more useful traits becoming dominant then wouldn't animals technically have to start with every gene / characteristic possible then simply through natural selection become the specialised animal they are. 

My point is this(from one of darwins observations) a few finches travel to the galapogos islands say 3 groups. one group heads to mountains and eats nectar the other goes to the ocean eats fish the other moves inland and lives on the ground. These finchs start off the same but out of issolation one gets a long beak to get nectar, one changes body shape to dive for fish and the other looses its ability to fly. They didn't just loose all the other genes and get left with the speciality ones required for the habitate. My understanding is that genes can slightly mutate or become more dominant (which is also changing) in each generation thus creating changes.

Like saying they all started with genes 1, 2 and 3 then after years one species has 1 , 2a and 3c the other has 1f, 2 and 6. Some are slight variations of original genes and others can be total mutations. 

Apparently a new species on average is "created" every 10000 years.

One example to prove that sudden mutations can happen is a tiny organism that was spurring the intellegent design arguement. Its motor funtion is so complex that they think it could not gradually evolve as it would not work with even one tiny piece missing.


----------



## insider (4 September 2007)

Maybe you guys should read about the "Taipan" and the "Black Taipan". A perfect example of what 4000 years of isolation does to ya...


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 September 2007)

Big Numbers: a Concept Creationists Don't Understand

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=157044&highlight=creationists#post157044

according to this youtube, photos on that ASF link above, there are 40 million mutations separating chimp and man - and that could happen in about 4.57 million years  - but they concede this might be 6 million, - here's the summary slide on that youtube :-


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 September 2007)

this one you HAVE to listen to - just for the words - such a beautiful summary 

from the poetry thread 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=157373&highlight=sagan#post157373

"Sagan kicks humanity down some important knowledge" 
Beautiful words if you can make time to listen to them - 
philosophic
poetic, and
prophetic.
 Carl Sagan Speaks
(fantastic )


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 September 2007)

general summary of evolution - according to Carl Sagan 
 Carl Sagan - speaks about 4 billion years of evolution


----------



## wayneL (4 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Big Numbers: a Concept Creationists Don't Understand





I'm not a creationist, but that was the most appalling case to support the time argument.

Firstly you cannot compare linear systems such as walking, sound, and rate of erosion, to a chaotic system such as that postulated by the theory of evolution.

Secondly, this video presumes that genetic mutations occur to a single end. Thats just not how mutations happen. Most mutations are negative  or benign in effect and reduce chances of survival, not increase them.

There is more, but this is about as credible as the new earth creationists. 

Sorry


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 September 2007)

wayne - here's another by the same bloke .... , cdk007,  posts some interesting stuff (imo lol - maybe not yours)  - gets into a lot of detail - all about watches , lol (and computer simulation of evolution) - but not as easy to watch  as Sagan.


here's his CV - scientist - no mug  -

I believe these are all of his posts under that name (I've watched a couple but not all  - need more that a case of beer to get through them all lol) .... 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE  Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg  How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9u50wKDb_4  How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNgWwV_-wVs The Logic of God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCgt3qb-Kb0 Big Numbers: a Concept Creationists Don't Understand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZdCxk0CnN4 The Evolution of Irreducible Complexity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY8SMVPubKo The Creationist Concept of Kind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mPPnN1c0jk The Creation Museum Teaches Super Evolution


----------



## wayneL (4 September 2007)

Sagan video was great! That man uses words beautifully.

It demands some serious introspection of humanity. (somehow I doubt the great bulk of us will do so however )


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 September 2007)

*Another of the remaining "big questions" is how and when did non-living molecules turn into life forms and begin to make copies of themselves. *


I`m all agreeing with the reproduction and adaption evidence that evolution poses.The "primordial soup" part is still hypothesis and may never be known unless a reproduction of the "primordial soup" can be made.From this soup life would have to be formed/created by a reaction between the chemicals , minerals , heat etcetera.  
This fellow demonstrated that amino acids can be created with electric current through methane.(lightening and methane back then i suppose)He says...



> Dr. Miller believes many other chemicals in addition to amino acids would have to have been present to facilitate the transition to living organisms. In particular, the presence of pantetheine could have enhanced the transition process. Pantetheine is related to coenzyme A, an essential component for protein formation. Coenzyme A is used by every known organism to assist in a wide variety of chemical reactions and it is possible that in the very earliest organisms this role was played by pantetheine alone, notes Miller.




So opening up  this possibility of how the first cell came about is the point I`m getting at.Since the "primordial soup" phrase is used often it is interesting to know how the first cell formed.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 September 2007)

The Origin of Life - Made Easy


> A vid by potholer54 "What, in simple terms, scientists believe about the origin of life on Earth. Christians are using arguments against atheism that are far too easily squashed, and really need to understand what the science is in order to disprove it."




potholer54 is allegedly an aussie - pretty smart one , and pretty english accent if he is, lol  - must work for the ABC 

wys - as they say "don't know why all this speculation about whether life can be made in a lab ! - 
heck ! - it's easy - as long as you have an attractive lab assistant )"


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 September 2007)

lol - here's a lighter one 
 Lewis Black-Fossils:The Devil's Handiwork(stand up comedy)

just to remind you what a fossil is lol (and some of the scientific study availble Paleontology etc - if you're interested) :-
 There are NO transition fossils!
 Transitional Fossils Redux


----------



## Woodchips (4 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> here's his CV - scientist - no mug  -




Gday 2020,

Just a comment on his CV - I get the distinct impression that he has his head firmly set up his own backside. Firstly, speaking as a scientist, I really dont like it when other scientist throw around terms like 'truth'. In the world of science absolute truths do not exist. We, as humans, have at our disposal brains which are finite in capability with which we have derived instruments and methods to apply order to an otherwise chaotic world around us. These instruments and methods (which we will put under the banner of science) are not infinitely accurate, far from it. So there is *always* error involved in *every* measurement behind *every* theory behind *every* piece of 'hard scientific fact'. And error *is *uncertainty - as a scientist you cant escape it, its everywhere. 

Unfortunately so many scientists are brilliant in applying empirical methodology but fail to see its constraints. These techniques are not impenetrable and (I know its an anticlimax for many) they don't reveal underlying truths about the world around us. If they did there would be no need for further investigation. On the contrary, science is an endless intellectual pursuit where everything is open to question. Thats what sets it apart from religion.

It is religion that speaks of absolute 'truths'. In doing so they have already agreed upon the unquestionable answer to everything. Such people start with the answer and they spend their time searching for evidence to back it up. Scientists go about things the other way around. So ironically (and probably without even realising it), this scientist by adopting his arrogant know it all attitude has actually managed to sound more like a creationist. 

And as for parading his qualifications around like that... what a wanker! :freak3:. But anyway, enough rambling from me.

WC


----------



## Whiskers (5 September 2007)

kennas said:


> I have previously been a very 'spiritual' person, and even called myself a Buddhist at one point, but a few years ago I had an epiphany, and I converted to become a Humanist.
> 
> I have come to firmly believe that humans are just another animal trying to survive on this rock. There is nothing spiritual, or mystical, about our existance, we are just another product of evolution and natural selection.




I guess I'm still having an 'epiphany'.  When I was about 12, being raised in christianity,  I started to feel that something wasn't right about the christian biblical notion of life on earth. Many years later I had cause to investigate various other religions and faiths, but never felt that any of the alternatives fitted the bill either. 

Years Later I came across Einsteins story - that movie might have had something to do with it  - and was fascinated with what he was working on when he died. 

It became known as string theory, and for me it holds some hope of solving the mystery of intelligence, spirituality and the meaning of life.

The main aspect of string theory is that there is something smaller than electrons, protons and neutrons of an atom, called strings (of energy). This link is a simple explanation for laymen. You might have seen it on TV. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

The 'big bang' still figures (I think loosely) in the hypothesis, but I reckon when they can split the individual components of the atom, as they are spending billions of dollars trying to do, then we should get a clearer understanding of life and who know's maybe an answer to... is there a God?:dunno:

The notion of warping time and other dimensions has got to give the potential some credence... hasn't it?


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 September 2007)

Woodchips said:


> Gday 2020,
> 
> 1. Just a comment on his CV - I get the distinct impression that he has his head firmly set up his own backside. Firstly, speaking as a scientist, I really dont like it when other scientist throw around terms like 'truth'. ...
> 
> ...



WC, wow - where did that criticism come from lol

let's start with a couple of easy ones  - 
a) you believe in evolution or not?  
suppose he uses the word truth - with qualifications as necessary? - no probs for me. 
what if a scientist (or a comedian) uses words like "blatant bull****" when faced with farcically stupid arguments?

b) any specific mistakes he made ?

could add I guess..
c) who's closer to the truth, in your opinion - him or creationists?

d) did you learn anything from him? ( i sure as hell did )  
e.g.   reminding me that to be a creationist, you actually had to believe in "super-evolution".  
He just states the reasons - sticks to the facts - and  personally I couldn't fault his argument. 

1. and 5. 
 He explains quite humbly that he has a PhD in the topic - so ??  surely that's relevant!

He explains that he's posting his qualifications because people like to attack the man and not the ball (gotta feeling you're getting dangerously close to proving him right on that one, lol) 

2. 3 and 4. 
-  in short I disagree completely that he has been unscientific. - leastways I didn't see any evidence. 

My only (INITIAL) criticism was that, in giving so generously of his time and effort in putting those youtubes together , and in going out of his way to investigate countless creationist arguments that might be put up against evolution (however stupid those arguments may be) , that it gets a bit long winded. 

But, then I realised he was just being thorough - (AND ARGUABLY JUST BEING POLITE AND TOLERANT towards his opposition) -  and indeed I was learning a lot from him - for example ,  creationists are actually arguing for super-evolution!!  the only way the number of species could have happened in such a short time since "the flood".

ok - he probably needn't have argued God's motives "why did god make species, just to drown them" etc.   But again, the creationists are so far away from reality (as Lewis Black says - lol)  - and we may not be aware that his motive for one or other of those youtubes was in reply to creationist youtube posts. 

I mean there are heaps of them out there - and in my opinion they are only good for a laugh.   Or of course exposure of blatant hypocrisy (as already posted elsewhere - Haggard etc) 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=189271&highlight=haggard#post189271

PS I won't bother to post my qualifications lol - they are in a field totally different to this stuff.   - but ask me about nuts and bolts and stuff, and I've got a 50-50 chance of getting it right 

PS Like CDK007, I'm not trying to convert anyone - could care less what others believe - but I have major problem with Genesis ( as I believe 100% of "scientists" also would do)


----------



## wayneL (5 September 2007)

Woodchips said:


> Such people start with the answer and they spend their time searching for evidence to back it up. Scientists go about things the other way around. So ironically (and probably without even realising it), this scientist by adopting his arrogant know it all attitude has actually managed to sound more like a creationist.



Agree with the general thrust of your post, however that chap's creationist style attitude is far more common in the scientific community than you are letting on.

I have one group of friends laden with PhDs and one particular friend (a PhD) responsible for overseeing some aspects of research into GE. 

You should hear them slate the integrity of scientific research!! Basically the same attitude you ascribe to creationists (which is spot on) they ascribe to science.. i.e. start with the answer and they spend their time searching for evidence to back it up.

It's pretty much a human trait and scientific training only ameliorates that in a minority.

Also I have read hundreds of research abstracts in the field of equine exercise physiology and I can tell you that most of these were laughable, some outright frauds with obvious commercial imperatives. The "process" was in the majority of cases designed with a specific result in mind.

The genuine stuff was a very small minority.


----------



## wayneL (5 September 2007)

Whiskers said:


> It became known as string theory, and for me it holds some hope of solving the mystery of intelligence, spirituality and the meaning of life.



Yes, agree there. Interesting stuff.


----------



## Sean K (5 September 2007)

Ageo said:


> Kennas i have been hunting for many yrs now and have managed to speak to alot of farmers. They have had many lambs etc.. that have been killed by either foxes or feral cats and left to rot (sometimes a few at a time). To me thats just the thrill of the kill to them. So there is enough evidence to say that they kill for both food and pleasure (unless you call killing for fun something else?).



Maybe the 'thrill of the kill' is an inbuilt psychological mechanism to ensure the animals have the desire and skills to continue to kill and survive. Watching big cat cubs play is an interesting phenomenon. They 'play' as if they are trying to kill each other. This 'playing' is teaching them vital skills in hunting and protecting themselves and family later in life. These other wild animals may be killing for pleasure as part of this natural instinct. Maybe. Dawkins would have the answer to this I think. Wish I could just pick up the phone.....


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS Like CDK007, I'm not trying to convert anyone - could care less what others believe - but I have major problem with Genesis ( as I believe 100% of "scientists" also would do)



correction -  I guess I do care about what others believe - after listening to Dawkins, especially if they are one of the other members of a group / clan / coalition of the willing etc  - that I am going to be identified with.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=189271&highlight=haggard#post189271

I mean, is it not up to all of us to challenge the US Bible belt (and their leaders) that Noah was a load of nonsense. ?   

When we follow these idiots into wars. ?

George Bush says that "the jury is still out on evolution" 
"well helllloo" as John Howard would say : 2twocents 

And I'm also concerned with what the pope preaches because of his massive influence - at the same time pleased to see he recently stepped back from backing "intelligent design" and embracing evolution (if not embracing, at least accepting) - great!  the penny drops in the Vatican ! - 

I don't have a problem with the Amish btw - or Buddhists (of course).   If others want to dig in their heels believing something else  - and GENUINELY peacefully - and GENUINELY tolerantly go about their lives - believing in genesis (creationists / Amish) - and believing in forgiveness (Amish) - thrift concerning use of energy (Amish and Buddhists) - or reincarnation (Bhuddists) - then that's ok.  

But 
a)  isn't it the nature of science that people try to convince others of truths they consider to be self evident? and   
b) I don't see much in common between George Bush and the Amish (or between GB and Buddhists) 

Back to Genesis - there are heaps of youtubes out there which give shades of grey here 
a) God invented the components that would come together as DNA - or 
b) somehow gave things a nudge along so that DNA was more than just chance , etc , then great !! he started the ball rolling !!" -  but let's not imagine that 
c) a couple of elephants, and a couple of giraffes, polar bears,  etc suddenly appeared on the third day ? - (fourth ? whatever),  evolved over eons maybe - but "appeared"? and/or suddenly out of nowhere? - (forget the "on a given day" bit lol - leave that one to the comedians) ? 

d) only to have to be rounded up from all corners of the world by Noah a few years later.   sheesh. 

At least he didn't have to round up the fish 

So yes, I guess I do care about what others believe - after listening to Dawkins, especially if 
a) they are one of the other members of a group / clan / coalition of the willing etc  - that I am going to be identified with, and
b) surely no one wants to see backward progress, and the inhabitation of the world (with it's tricky scientific problems and finite resources) by people who stick their head in the sand on matters of scientific fact.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 September 2007)

repost of this one 
"From nothing nothing comes, Something is, therefore something eternally was” 
(just one of the-logical arguments out there
maybe not on of the theological ones) 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=189780&highlight=sylligism#post189780


----------



## Woodchips (5 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Agree with the general thrust of your post, however that chap's creationist style attitude is far more common in the scientific community than you are letting on.




Hey Wayne,

Yea you're right! That attitude is quite common. But when scientists talk like that they sound no different to their religious counterparts in my opinion.  



wayneL said:


> Basically the same attitude you ascribe to creationists (which is spot on) they ascribe to science.. i.e. start with the answer and they spend their time searching for evidence to back it up... some outright frauds with obvious commercial imperatives. The "process" was in the majority of cases designed with a specific result in mind.




Yea to some extent I think this is true also. Its just an unfortunate fact of life that in a capitalist world science is inevitably tied to profit. Most scientific research is linked to industry, industry wants certain outcomes, so industry funds science to find ways of achieving those outcomes. 'Investigation for the sake of investigation' is pretty much a thing of the past. But that doesn't mean that all standards are necessarily thrown out the window. They still must conform to acceptable forms of methodology if they are to get any credibility within the wider scientific community (I would hope!). In my experience the wider scientific community keeps the game fairly honest (most of the time). But I could simply be more of an idealist than I first thought!



2020hindsight said:


> WC, wow - where did that criticism come from lol




OK it was a bit left field I admit :. But I write my posts the way I would chat to my mates over a beer at the pub, completely honest and uncensored. People are obviously finding it a little aggressive so I think Ill work on that. But  being critical within reason is a good thing, keeps us all honest.

With regard to that scientists CV, I was criticizing his usage of the word 'truth' with reference to the information that he had provided. Regardless of whether the specific detail of his youtubes is accurate (they're great from what ive seen), his wording in his CV gives the impression to the uninitiated that science is infallible, which it isn't. Thats all I was pointing out. You may shrug it off as just his wording, but I think its important the way in which science markets itself to the public. 

As for what I believe, well genetics is my area of research so obviously I believe in evolution. I don't believe in creationism, or intelligent design because I can see critical flaws in the thinking behind those arguments. Which one is closer to the truth? I have no idea. I'm not even sure what truth is to be honest. All I know is that in this day and age science is the accepted explanation because it is by far more useful in manipulating nature. I think we tend to gravitate towards the most useful explanation at any particular time and we call it the 'truth'. 

If people disagree, feel free to rip in!

WC :sheep:


----------



## Happy (5 September 2007)

> Humans are animals




This is a statement to me; it doesn't need any proof.

We are 98% identical to Orangutans.
Probably high 80% to mice, rats and pigs.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 September 2007)

Happy said:


> This is a statement to me; it doesn't need any proof..



Must admit I agree happy lol.  - absolutely!

Not sure why science is getting such a grubbing here. 

the youtubes posted in this post on "videos with a message" thread (at least first part) are a great example of undeniable scientific fact - surely. 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=198903&highlight=potholer54#post198903

"for 100,000 years men have looked up at the night sky and wondered - we are the first people in history to look up and not to wonder, not to guess, but to know. "  
ok - it's mainly about stars and the age of the earth - but surely that is linked to the rest of creation, and surely Genesis is immediately plunged into doubt.  (and all that that entails with respect to evolution, Garden of Eden etc)


----------



## wayneL (5 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Must admit I agree happy lol.  - absolutely!
> 
> Not sure why science is getting such a grubbing here.
> 
> ...



2020

I'm not sure who is arguing for genesis here, or why you insist that it's either genesis or Dawkins.

* Science gets a drubbing because it presents theory as fact.

* You see this statement - "we are the first people in history to look up and not to wonder, not to guess, but to know. " - is absolute garbage of the worst variety. Mankind is still guessing... a much better idea yes, but still guessing. There are so many holes in mainstream astronomical theory, and alternative theories challenging it altogether, that to claim "fact" is utterly outrageous.

* You will never be able to prove to the creationists that genesis is wrong, they won't listen, it's futile. (Never try to teach a pig to sing. It will frustrate you, and it annoys the pig.  )

* We ain't plants. The fact we are animals is not even in dispute.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> 1. You see this statement - "we are the first people in history to look up and not to wonder, not to guess, but to know. " - is absolute garbage of the worst variety. Mankind is still guessing... a much better idea yes, but still guessing.
> 
> 2. creationists
> 
> 3. We ain't plants. The fact we are animals is not even in dispute.



1. gee Wayne I still reckon you're misquoting these scientists. 
misquoting their youtube posts whatever. 
I mean it has to be in the context of his youtube.
He clarifies that there are things you can guess at if you wish (hence the closed box simile) - 
then he makes a heap of scientific statements.

and my question then, of you or anyone else  
are any of those statements wrong ?
I reckon no.  

(PS he also says that we know this  - "and we are still learning!" - he happily concedes what you criticise him about  ) 


2. creatistists ? yeah ok, but 51% of americans believe the earth is less than 6K years old   it sounds stupid when you or I say that - but , lol - that's what we're up against here (and what Dawkins is fighting)

in summary , you are right - unless we define our terms we're all wasting our time - I assumed that the thread is about creationists (whereby man is "above" animals) versus evolutionists. 

3. and following on from that , you say it's not in dispute that we are animals  - so whence the controversy implied in the thread title?.   The only controvery I can imagine is between creationists and evolutionists. 

4. you could ask people who come to this thread ...their opinion on ...

a) do they believe in DNA - who knows, a few bible belters might say no
b) that DNA evolves and has evolved from a simple one celled thingo protozoan whatever (you can probably ignore it's origin I guess) 
c) and every now and again there is a milestone which is called a species 
d) and why wouldn't man be just a species like any other animal
e) do we have a soul that differs from other animals
f) are we created in god's image where other animals are not
g) do we go to heaven where others do not
h) are we reincarnated where others are not  (optional) 
etc 

i) further left field questions - maybe we'll come back as another type of animal (seriously optional)

But with the current thread title, I agree, most (aussies) would surely say "or course we are animals" - EXCEPT those very religious people who believe we are created in God's image ( or vice versa ?) , that we have a soul where animals don't - and old testament etc etc - Adam, Eve, Noah , etcetc - and in some states of the USA this would probably be the majority from what I can gather.


----------



## Rafa (6 September 2007)

2020, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder mate...
no ones ever suggesting that we are not animals... as wayne said... the fact we are animals is not even in dispute.

i see no controversy implied in the title of thread... the controversy is in your mind...Why... that is something only you can truly answer

And as for Dawkins, he is no more or less fundamentalist that those very people he is trying to disprove!


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 September 2007)

Rafa said:


> 2020, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder mate...
> no ones ever suggesting that we are not animals... as wayne said... the fact we are animals is not even in dispute.
> i see no controversy implied in the title of thread... the controversy is in your mind.
> Why... that is something only you can truly answer



I'm perfectly balanced, m8 - 
 got a chip on both shoulders 

Rafa - I think everyone is telling me that this thread (by contrast) only has one side , lol

I probably have a problem understanding a long conversation - that goes on for pages and pages - with heaps of posts - and now you tell me
lol
we've all been agreeing with each other 
sheesh 
gimme a bit of conjecture any day  
adios amigos


----------



## Sean K (6 September 2007)

Happy said:


> This is a statement to me; it doesn't need any proof.



Hi happy, I deliberately made it a statement to make more of impact I suppose. I was expecting the more 'outerworldy' to chip in a bit more perhaps.

There has been some outstanding discussion here about the nuances of what it is to be human. Most entertaining. 

I was actually hoping for more chat down the mysical and spiritual lines. There are far too many people agreeing with each other for my liking! LOL.  

I'll somehow find a way to discuss the possibility that we might be more than just a bunch of cells, or strings.


----------



## wayneL (6 September 2007)

kennas said:


> Hi happy, I deliberately made it a statement to make more of impact I suppose. I was expecting the more 'outerworldy' to chip in a bit more perhaps.
> 
> There has been some outstanding discussion here about the nuances of what it is to be human. Most entertaining.
> 
> ...



K,

I would bet there would be plenty that would enjoy that discussion, I know I would, but it's a bit dodgy on an open forum. Those with other agendas are extremely disruptive to that sort of conversation, as can be seen on this thread to a certain extent.

Are we more than just a bunch of cells. Based on my personal experiences, most definitely. But beyond that certainty, I wouldn't have a ****ing clue, just making a bunch of guesses.


----------



## Sean K (6 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> K,
> 
> I would bet there would be plenty that would enjoy that discussion, I know I would, but it's a bit dodgy on an open forum. Those with other agendas are extremely disruptive to that sort of conversation, as can be seen on this thread to a certain extent.
> 
> Are we more than just a bunch of cells. Based on my personal experiences, most definitely. But beyond that certainty, I wouldn't have a ****ing clue, just making a bunch of guesses.



 Yeah, I agree. Perhaps what we could be talking about are the 'possibilities' to explain the 'known unknows' (thanks Don) which might be interesting. Perhaps after my next sharman visit  I could add some colour.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 September 2007)

kennas said:


> Yeah, I agree. Perhaps what we could be talking about are the 'possibilities' to explain the 'known unknows' (thanks Don) which might be interesting. Perhaps after my next sharman visit  I could add some colour.



kennas and wayne
a) Science, 
b) Metaphysical 

SCIENCE
concerning thread titles 
maybe the negative suggestion? lol - a thread titled "does anyone DISAGREE with the theory that we are no more special spiritually than the other animals" ...

(or 
"does anyone DISAGREE with big bang theory?" for that matter) 

If "modern" propositions are more likely than not - and those who post otherwise (who put forward less scientific "traditional" or even totally "unscientific" proposals, biblical whatever ) have to state their case (like the French courts under Rober Pierre) - the onus of proof might swing to the defenders of the older establishment traditional views ( from the bible or whereever) . 

IT IS MUCH HARDER to justify said traditional faithbased stuff than modern scientific stuff that I would still call fact. (despite Wayne's disagreement) - big bang etc? - fact imo etc. 


METAPHYSICAL
Other than traditional there is also ( or course ) the metaphysical and angels and "out-of-body experiences" etc -  mmm , lol bit hard to prove them one way or the other.  

I remain a 100% sceptic on the existences of angels I'm afraid - If Zimmerman started a church, I'd be the first to sign up.    (but I concede that religious people may receive real beneft from them IF they believe in them - it's like chicken-and-egg for mine, - which came first ? the belief or the benefit.  I mean I've never heard of a non believer getting help from angels  ) 

I wouldn't sign up to this one for instance (angels etc)- 
http://www.northwindsprod.com/links/angels.html 

whereas this one is about expansion of consciousness, and I'd be more inclined to go there - EXCEPT that I'm pretty sure about my own beliefs - and I know I can learn more in this direction simply by meditating.
http://www.metaphysicalsociety.com/

Should I fall ill with say cancer, then the only "angel" that I see that I could call on to come to my aid would be one I could summon up from my own subconscious - just a simple sense of well being achieved with meditation   - has been found to work in a couple of recorded cases .

THIS IS JUST MY FORM OF PRAYER.
One could argue that people get REAL benefit from prayer ( no argument from me there).  BUT I would argue it's from within the body that the extra cavalry arrives - not external.   

that the quote " we can do whatever we believe we can do - with God's help" - 
has three superfluous words at the end (imo) 

(PS as for "do we have a spiritual side?" -  I think it's more about self hypnonsis than anything else - obviously others will disagree )


----------



## wayneL (6 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> IT IS MUCH HARDER to justify said traditional faithbased stuff than modern scientific stuff that I would still call fact.



2020,

True, but you are still stuck in a binomial contest. The discussion has moved on from there. You are considering point A verses point B on a two dimensional plane, whereas we can discuss the infinite number of points in an infinite universe of uncovered possibilities, both physical and metaphysical.



2020hindsight said:


> big bang etc? - fact imo etc.



Think about this. Your acceptance of big bang as fact has no basis other than "faith". There are serious holes in the theory and even competing theories such as the Electric Universe theory. Even the theory I made a mash of trying to describe. Therefore your standard of evidence is no better than the creationists in ascribing fact to events which cannot be proven. You merely have "faith" that it is true.

Perhaps there are concurrent physical and metaphysical factors at play. I don't know. But I know that I don't know, although I have my own "theories".

There is one thing I do know. No single theory fits all the known absolutes, therefore, we can't say any model of the origin of the universe is fact with even the remotest certainty. It's ALL theory.


----------



## Rafa (6 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I'm perfectly balanced, m8 -
> got a chip on both shoulders




 LOL...

Kennas, i had no idea you were trying to be controversial... 

I think WayneL summed it up the best...
Its not black and white and anyone who thinks that is a fundamentalist ... i.e a danger to society... and that goes for Mr Dawkins as well the usual suspects.


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 September 2007)

I wanted to be spiritual when I was younger so I read books about being spiritual.10 years on and I realize spiritualism is another `state of mind` or `way of thinking` or `path to be on`.We all have to believe in something (or someone) I suppose.Extreme, imaginative or simplistic.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Think about this. Your acceptance of big bang as fact has no basis other than "faith". There are serious holes in the theory and even competing theories such as the Electric Universe theory.  It's ALL theory.



Wayne, 
You find and post the holes in it, I'll find and post the reasons that it's better than simple faith


----------



## Flying Fish (6 September 2007)

Yes humans are animals, and we fight to survive like any other living thing.


----------



## wayneL (6 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne,
> You find and post the holes in it, I'll find and post the reasons that it's better than simple faith



You've missed the point. Big Bang is a theory, you said it was fact. On that basis, your faith is no different to Christian or any other faith.



> What Big Bang?
> 
> The Big Bang is already dead! The unheralded "Galileo of the 20th century", Halton Arp, has proven that the universe is not expanding. The Big Bang theory is based on a misinterpretation of redshift. The redshift of a distant galaxy is measured in the light coming from that galaxy. Lines in the spectrum of that galaxy show a shift toward the red compared with the same lines from our Sun. Arp discovered that high and low redshift objects are sometimes connected by a bridge or jet of matter. So redshift cannot be a measure of distance. Most of the redshift is intrinsic to the object. But there is more: Arp found that the intrinsic redshift of a quasar or galaxy took discrete values, which decreased with distance from a central active galaxy. In Arp's new view of the cosmos, active galaxies "give birth" to high redshift quasars and companion galaxies. Redshift becomes a measure of the relative ages of nearby quasars and galaxies, not their distance. As a quasar or galaxy ages, the redshift decreases in discrete steps, or quanta.
> 
> The huge puzzle for astrophysicists is why a galaxy should exhibit an atomic phenomenon. So we turn to particle physics. This difficulty highlights the fact that quantum "mechanics" applied to atoms is a theory without physical reality. The weirdness of quantum theory has been attributed to the subatomic scale to which it applies. But now that we have quantum effects in something the size of a galaxy, this convenient nonsense is exposed. If Arp is right many experts are going to look very silly. His discovery sounded the alarm in some halls of Academe and since nobody likes a loud noise - particularly if they are asleep - the knee-jerk response was to attack the guy with his finger on the alarm button. Arp's telescope time was denied, papers rejected, and he was forced to leave the US to pursue his work.



Furthermore:



> �The most merciful thing in the world ... is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but someday the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality... That we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.� - H. P. Lovecraft
> 
> In a broadly interdisciplinary inquiry such as this, communication itself can pose quite a challenge. Typically, the greatest difficulties in communication will occur when one is questioning something already "known" to be true. On matters of underlying principle, the confidence behind established ideas can be so high that discussion itself may seem quite senseless. This difficulty is aggravated by fragmentation of the process by which information is gathered and evaluated. The specialization of intellectual inquiry carries with it certain risks when assumptions within one discipline rest upon prior assumptions in other disciplines. No one can be an expert on everything, and when considering possibilities outside one's personal expertise, it is only natural to defer to what specialists in other studies claim to know. But what are the consequences of this when theoretical suppositions, though perceived as fact, cannot account for compelling new fields of data?
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> You've missed the point. Big Bang is a theory, you said it was fact. On that basis, your faith is no different to Christian or any other faith.



thanks  - I'll research that...  if they are saying that red shift is wrong then ... mmm ... i might need some further research (sounds like a fringe dweller to me lol) 

red shift is still how they predict distances to stars, yes? 
and the distances all point to one thing - a central big bang. 
The multiple coincidences are just too strong to ignore (according to some sources lol).  

btw, and i concede, I was using the word "fact" loosely - i.e. "fact imo" - in the same way the 95% probability of steel being as strong as it is claimed is considered "safe" when an engineer designs a bridge for instance.  (plus 5% probability of exceedence of loads).  

I mean I know what a fact is - at least I think I do - lol
(not sure if anything is "a fact" if people want to be super pedantic - "Cogito ergo sum" "I think therefore  I am " was the best Descartes could come up with to prove that he himself wasn't fiction , lol 

but equally you are missing my point - that there is absolutely no evidence for most of the old testament other than faith - let's be super generous and say 5% is (woops)  potentially consistent with scientific observations

so we are comparing 95% with 5% in my opinion. 

but I'll do some more research. 

meanwhile lol even Descartes comes in for a serve ....
and btw much of this is bulls eye relevant to this thread 
(and btw he seems to believe that men are men, and "brutes are brutes" )



> http://teachanimalobjectivity.homestead.com/files/return2.htm This is René Descartes (1596-1650). A French philosopher and mathematician who was called "The father of modern philosophy." Because he wanted to eliminate the uncertainties in philosophy, and make it more like the "certainties" of mathematics he proceeded to discard all preconceived philosophic notions and started from what he conceived to be a rock solid foundation. The only thing Descartes found certain was the fact he was thinking. He further felt that thought was not a thing-in-itself, and had to proceed from somewhere (viz., cause and effect), therefore since he was thinking the thoughts, he existed --by extension--also. Hence, "thought" and "extension" were the very beginnings from which all things proceeded, "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). His scrapping of previously accepted philosophies marked the beginning of the Man-centered universe beliefs that currently drive Western thought.
> 
> Anyone of a scientific bent knows that a theory is only as strong as it's foundations in established logic (Here's where the animal tie-in occurs so listen up). *Descartes needed a way to vault Man to the pinnacle of God's creation as it wasn't enough to place him second-in-line after thought. Since Man wasn't the only seemingly independent lifeform on the Earth, Descartes needed a way to diminish other animate life. He found his answer in his theory of "automata." In essence he said, ". . .the greatest of all prejudices we have retained from infancy is that of believing that brutes think."*
> 
> ...





> I Think, therefore I am . . . NOT!
> (The failure of Cartesian dynamics to define Man's superiority)





> " 'Cogito ergo spud' -I think therefore I yam." -- A LaCarte (Denny's hometown menu circa 199?)
> "I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam!" -- Popeye the Sailor Spud (apologies to Segar)



 Popeye - I Yam What I Yam - Robin Williams Shelley Duvall
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/desc.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 September 2007)

> ....5% is (woops)  potentially consistent with scientific observations



(although lol - I'd challenge people to find those 5% on anything other than trivial stuff , like the sky is blue maybe 

i mean lol - Hovind claims that dinasaurs are definitely mentioned in the old testament - except that they were called "unicorns" - yeah right lol

he also claims that men and dinasurs coexited (as they must have done according to bible).  It is just so stupidly easy for a blind man to drive a bus through the gaping holes in creationism.


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> (although lol - I'd challenge people to find those 5% on anything other than trivial stuff , like the sky is blue maybe




The sky is blue only via agreement .(nice set up lol)










p.s.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 September 2007)

This is part 2 ( part 1 is also out there in cyberspace - but this is more relevant - at the 3.5 minute mark I extracted the jpegs below. 

An Introduction to the Big Bang Theory (Part 2)

I'll post part one just for completeness :-
 An Introduction to the Big Bang Theory (Part 1)  
there are a lot of extraneous bits of info - not relevant imo. (especially as I haven't got a clue what he's talking about lol) 

it mentions that the theory predicts peaks in the cosmic background  radiation - and "observed" exactly matches "predicted" - 
now I'm not gonna pretend to understand 100% what he's talking about - or where or how they measured it - I'll leave it to scientists to add any details, lol - but if it's true , then he's onto something you'd think ...

( back to Part 2 for a minute) he concludes that 


> "big bang theory has made predictions that have turned out to be incredibly accurate , and the evidence for it being right is , well , overwhelming .
> *theory may mean " guess" in everyday english, but not in science. *"



I mean it's a damned site more feasible than this version which follows below .... ( to which people around here arguably want to give equal merit) 

.... the bible (you need a lot of faith for this one lol) says on day 1 he made "light"

etc ... day 3 the forests were made, 

then day 4 the sun moon and stars 

I've never thought of this before (it's just so wierd) but - how did God light things up without the sun and the stars ??


> DAY 1.
> 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
> the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
> ...





> DAY 2
> 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,
> and let it divide the waters from the waters.
> 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were
> ...





> DAY 3
> 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together
> unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
> 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of
> ...





> DAY 4
> 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven
> to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for
> seasons, and for days, and years:
> ...





> DAY 5
> 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
> creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the
> open firmament of heaven.
> ...





> DAY 6
> 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
> his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his
> kind: and it was so.
> ...



if this isn't a "guess", then I'm a monkey's nephew


----------



## wayneL (6 September 2007)

*FFS 2020!!*

You continue to hammer the binomial, big bang vs genesis despite trying to gently point out that that is not where this discussion is at. *Nobody is interested!* 

You are Dawkins' answer to Bullmarket.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (7 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Yes that's exactly what I was getting at, clumsily.
> 
> I no longer wonder why we're here and just try to enjoy the ride. That does not preclude a journey of discovery however, whether spiritual, philosophical, of the planet, whatever.
> 
> ...





Can't say I've ever wondered why "I am here"!, I know exactly why I am here


----------



## Woodchips (7 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> It is just so stupidly easy for a blind man to drive a bus through the gaping holes in creationism.





Yes mate, it is, but once upon a time it wasn't. It's easy to fault creationism today because science is the dominant discourse thus scientific evidence is the accepted form of evidence. But remember there was also a time when it was *so easy* for a blind man to drive a bus through the gaping holes in *scientific theory*. Not because one theory was right or wrong, true or false, fact or fiction, but because what counts as a gaping hole is _relative_ to what you believe in.

The Big Bang Theory? No one is denying that the Big Bang is the accepted theory *at present*. It is the theory that best fits the _available_ scientific evidence. But a major discovery in the future might change all of that. If all scientists adopted your attitude (and it would seem, the attitude of Mr I Can Reveal The Truth To You on Youtube, Everyone Else Is Lying - Here Look At My Qualifications) you can bet that Quantum Mechanics would never have been dreamed up. In the end, the cutting edge of any discipline - *the people who make the biggest changes*, the people who instigate the paradigm shifts, are the people who _question_ the fundamentals that everyone else takes for granted. To do that requires a completely different outlook/attitude to the one that you seem to have adopted. If you want to set yourself apart from the creationists simply adopt a more open minded attitude, don't just say that you're right and they're wrong, no one cares about that. What creationists (and interestingly many science graduates) so desperately lack is the ability to question, to rationalise and to think 'outside the square'. 

WC


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 September 2007)

woodchips and wayne and rafa
(and anyone else  who has taken or might have taken offence at my posts trying to establish the world's - and man's - origins, so that we can understand better what we are dealing with when we compare men and animals ....)

here's a poem I just posted in poetry thread
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=199827&highlight=evolution#post199827

btw, I don't recall insisting that it’s either genesis /creationism, or Dawkins  - and I personally love to think outside the square .... but I think that all of us should be able to say we are "closer to Dawkins" or "closer to a totally faith based religion".   Trouble I have with the latter - and the US Bible belt (Hovind etc) in particular - is that their faith overrides evidence - i.e. their religion INSISTS that they reject (or twist) scientific evidence. 

lol - As for thinking outside the square - I might be a square, but don't think I haven't been a-round as they say 

As I explain there (on poetry thread).... 
- once I get a theory that makes sense with the available scientific data
or I’m told it does lol
(but by people who make sense to the limit of my understanding) 
then I happily “sign up the adoption papers” and take that theory on board 
whether its a 'possible' or a 'probable' or a near bludy 'certainty' (in part or in full) may vary from theory to theory 

- if what I’ve adopted grows with time, then that is good
- if it changes due to refinements around the edges, then that's ok as well 

(supporters of Johnny Howard can think of it as "core promises" and "non-core promises" lol)

but if what I’ve adopted turns out to be just hot air, 
then it can be released into the rest of the atmosphere  (like a bad smell lol) 
with a clear conscience  (preferably not in a lift)
because it was “nothing-nil-zilch” in the first place to owe allegiance to.

I wrote some comments on Descartes back there - where he tries to argue that men are totally different to animals - a point that we were all saying was wrong , and beyond question -  but that's a slightly different point - and the subject of another post .


----------



## Happy (11 September 2007)

We seem to have covered few aspects of the subject.

I would like to point out some artificial differences.
I am quick to acknowledge; that I probably benefited and will most likely benefit in the future from our man made rights.

Few rights are down right dangerous to long term survival of our race.

We seem to use antibiotics as there is no consequence and as if there is something else after we become resistant to vancomycine.

We can make indiscriminate choice of partner, which if we look at the consequences might be one of the reasons for our demise.

Let’s say that this has no bearing on future of the human race. But if this is so good, why animals breeding is selective? Why animals are culled if they do not satisfy certain criteria?
Why there is such an outrage because Belgium has 26 weeks cut off point for premature babies.


I can be wrong but we promote weaker and weaker genetic material to slip though natural selection process.


Probably enough to get bashed, hope will not cause bull-thing resurrection.


----------



## happytown (11 September 2007)

kennas said:


> I converted to become a Humanist.






hey rocky watch me pull a hat out of my hat



> Just an animal with some special talents
> 
> ...
> 
> Are we any more special than just being an 'animal'?




link below to some recent stories in der spiegel:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,504423,00.html



> Toddlers Are Smarter Than Apes, but Not by Much
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




linking to the study:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/317/5843/1402

*note: sub reqd*



> Science 7 September 2007:
> Vol. 317. no. 5843, pp. 1360 - 1366
> DOI: 10.1126/science.1146282
> 
> ...




further,



> Science 7 September 2007:
> Vol. 317. no. 5843, p. 1308
> DOI: 10.1126/science.317.5843.1308
> 
> ...




linking to:



> Science 7 September 2007:
> Vol. 317. no. 5843, pp. 1402 - 1405
> DOI: 10.1126/science.1144663
> 
> ...




as if that was not bad enough for us humanists:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,504508,00.html



> Behavioral Science Turns to Dogs for Answers
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




kinda get the feeling we are gonna be learnin' from them and about them for years to come but wonder whether they already know all they need too about us

having said that it will be a stellar day for planet earth when we truly learn how to communicate with our fellow animals  

cheers


----------



## Julia (11 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> *FFS 2020!!*
> 
> You continue to hammer the binomial, big bang vs genesis despite trying to gently point out that that is not where this discussion is at. *Nobody is interested!*
> 
> You are Dawkins' answer to Bullmarket.




Yep.  And we all know what eventually happened to Bullmarket!
A little reasoned conciseness would be wonderful, 2020.


----------



## disarray (11 September 2007)

Happy said:


> I can be wrong but we promote weaker and weaker genetic material to slip though natural selection process.




this thread leads to a long and slippery slope that ends at eugenics. i happen to agree with it and would support eugenic programs if humans could be trusted to manage it the right way, however the likelihood of this occurring is zero.


----------



## happytown (11 September 2007)

kennas said:


> ...
> 
> Our unique capabilites include:
> 
> ...




and on that note, (yawn):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/sep/11/1



> Why engineers yawn less than psychologists
> 
> Psychologists have shown that a phenomenon called "contagious yawning" is strongest in people who are more empathetic and have a more developed sense of social awareness.
> 
> ...




cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

Currently on  
question is ..
Are chimps Humans ???  lol


> Chimps Are People Too
> Time: Sunday, September 23, 8:25 PM
> Channel: SBS
> Duration: 55 minutes
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

ahh  - wassies !
if you can make the time to watch that last mentioned show on SBS
it's a classic !! lol


----------



## Whiskers (23 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Currently on
> question is ..
> Are chimps Humans ???  lol






> He visits a sanctuary where chimps are studied and experiments are carried out to work on their problem-solving ability, and they pass with flying colours.




Saw a little of it 2020. The high gene similarity to humans has got to say something eh!

I have had an affinity for animals all my life and am not at all surprised by what they can do. I definetly think some people have more of a natural talent for communating with animals though. Most people who have pets have probably seen little examples of problem solving. 

One of my pet cats, the smallest female, worked out for herself that she could get more to eat if she put her paw in the feed dish and pulled it away from the others. 

A male worked out by himself that the new bags of dry feed are always tastier than the opened one and promptly bites a hole in the side of the new plastic bag and claws out the little biscuits to eat.

And of course they talk to me, and I back to them.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 September 2007)

Whiskers said:


> Saw a little of it
> 
> ... I have had an affinity for animals all my life and am not at all surprised by what they can do.



Hey whiskers what did you think of the problem solving ...

like they put a chimp in a cage where he has the ability to unlock the door for a second chimp to join him IF he needs help with a problem.

Then they give him a problem where a plank in yet another neighbouring cage has bananas on it - and a rope tied to each end, and those ropes accessible to him in his cage. (too wide apart for him to pull on both concurrently) . 

Now the problem is that only with both ropes (one at each end) being pulled towards him can be get the bananas - he needs his friend's help.
So ALMOST IMMEDIATELY he twigs to this ( faster than I would have lol) - and goes to the latch of the second chimps cage and lets him in - they both immediately solve the puzzle ( I suspect they'd done t before sheesh) .

THEN, lol - just to prove how human they really are - 
 they give him a problem where he can solve it alone, and he has the option of letting his friend in to help finish off fthe bananas - lol - Friend? - what friend ?!!  he polishes them off himself, with the other chimp rattling at his prison gate - locked out of the "kitchen" 

a Jack man ?
or a Jack Chimp ? 
(PS I get the feeling that different chimps would behave differently btw)


----------



## Whiskers (25 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Hey whiskers what did you think of the problem solving ...
> 
> (PS I get the feeling that different chimps would behave differently btw)




Yeah, me too. I think some of these sorts of tests are a bit arbitrary. Some humans grow up to be not very good problem solvers either. Let an animal interact with humans like a child does, to learn the strings a bit over time and the communicative interaction, intelligence and problem solving becomes more apparent, I reckon. Guide dogs for the blind for e.g. never cease to amaze me.


----------



## Julia (26 September 2007)

Whiskers said:


> And of course they talk to me, and I back to them.




LOL:  say this to someone who doesn't connect with animals and they will regard you as certifiable!


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 September 2007)

Speaking of problem solving ...
This could be on the "all creatures great and small" thread - except equally it shows that animals are almost human  dog scratching its back down a hill

ok here's a light hearted ad for some roofing material (flexibond?) - even lizards can (attempt to ) solve problems


----------



## Whiskers (27 September 2007)

Julia said:


> LOL:  say this to someone who doesn't connect with animals and they will regard you as certifiable!




Yeah funny thing that, and animals can generally pick them out and let you know pretty quickly.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 September 2007)

Adam Smith may be onto something 



> Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this - no dog exchanges bones with another.
> ..... Adam Smith
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Adam Smith may be onto something




Incisive comment by Adam.Mankind needs more wise seers of his ilk if humanity is to take the next evolutionary step.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 September 2007)

Wys
Apart from the fact that I want to research that quote about animals trading more  
Like has sex ever been used for trading amongst (other) animals for instance ....

but   because and only because it's a long weekend coming up lol
like, 3 days of happy hour 
I offer this light hearted comment (not intended as a crude joke - although it probably achieves that I guess ) :-



> Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this - no dog exchanges bones with another.
> ..... Adam Smith



Then there are those really really classy pickup lines  ...
http://www.alternativereel.com/streams-of-consciousness/Worst_Pickup_Lines.html ("I [Ain't] Gonna Get Laid Tonight!": The Worst Pick-Up Lines of All Time)
like this one (one of the classiest )
"You've got 206 bones in your body. Want one more?"

Then you ask yourself, - as often as not , well 10% of the time - is it the ladies who're doing the trading here ?
(PS maybe this should be on one of those raunchier threads - like prostitutes etc )


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 September 2007)

AUNG SAN SUU KYI
writes in her paper "Freedom From Fear"  (last paragraph) 
"It is his capacity for self-improvement and self-redemption which most distinguishes man from the mere brute."

She might be onto something too 



> http://www.uscampaignforburma.org/assk/sakharovessay.html
> 
> The wellspring of courage and endurance in the face of unbridled power is generally a firm belief in the sanctity of ethical principles combined with a historical sense that despite all setbacks the condition of man is set on an ultimate course for both spiritual and material advancement. *It is his capacity for self-improvement and self-redemption which most distinguishes man from the mere brute.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 September 2007)

Another example of humans are not animals.

Many humans don`t know when to feed.They do not feed when they need to , only when they want to.Decision making on when to feed instead of need to feed.All other living organisms feed to survive.

Seen any out of proportion animals lately?Mind is strength and mind is weakness.


----------

