Humans are animals

[Sean K]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[wayneL]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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'. ...

2. .... On the contrary, science is an endless intellectual pursuit where everything is open to question. Thats what sets it apart from religion.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. And as for parading his qualifications around like that...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.