The Human Animal - Page 3 - Political Forum

Ygorl · #21 (**permalink**) 01-10-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

Highly social and intellegent animals. Ants are also highly social (moreso than we are), but any creating or processing that happens, occurs among the hive as a whole. This is not better or worse than human society, but it is profoundly alien.

I'm sorry you feel that way, I can't help you with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

You are the one talking about raising and lowering here, not me. Both humans and animals are capapble of behaving in 'low' or 'elevated' ways, if you will. Our large brains give us enough foresight that we should know better- and advantage most other animals lack.
Anyway, what do you believe? That we are fundamentally different from other animals, and seperate from the rest of the life on this planet? Do we have a soul that animals lack?

I previously said:

The reason I ask is because it is this beleif that we humans are nothing more than advanced animals that is allowing some to constantly try to remove, change or redefine any societal laws, ethics or moral concepts we HAVE. If we're just animals, then everything is relative.

To which you said:

I don't see how that necessarily follows, and I wouldn't say nothing more than animals, as if to be an animal were a bad thing.

To which I said:

Raise up the animal so that it doesn't look so bad to lower the human.

You SAY:

I wouldn't say nothing more than animals, as if to be an animal were a bad thing.

Which suggests it's not so BAD to equate humans with animals. Animals aren't bad. So, you've suggested an elevated status to animals so it doesn't seem so BAD to equate and categorize humans AS nothing more than ANIMALS.

Yes, I'm "talking about raising and lowering here" because that is exactly what YOU are DOING. You continue with:

Anyway, what do you believe? That we are fundamentally different from other animals, and seperate from the rest of the life on this planet? Do we have a soul that animals lack?

I may seem foolish to many. That doesn't concern me in the least. That I can read between the lines is hard for some to accept. I know precisely where you're going with this and I'm not going to let you drag me there.

That we are fundamentally different from other animals...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

The only 'academics' debating the validity of evolution are the self-styled creation 'scientists' that shout from the fringes of biology.

That's simply not true. Believe what you will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

That debate occured when Origin was published, and has been over for a long time.

That's news to ME. I guess you're on the "cutting edge" of everything yes ?

Fossil records show all of the major animal groups appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago. Virtually no transitional life forms have been discovered to suggest that they evolved from earlier forms. This sudden eruption of multiple, complex organisms is referred to as the Cambrian Explosion. Even Darwin knew about the lack of evidence in the fossil record to support his theory a century and a half ago !

To explain this discrepancy, Darwin opined that the reason no transitional life forms had been found was because such organisms would have been too small or too fragile to become fossilized. The problem with this is that microfossils of single-celled organisms, that predate the Cambrian explosion by billions of years, have been discovered which are much smaller and more delicate than any transitional forms would have been. Also, around 70 % of the Cambrian era fossils found to date come from delicate, soft-bodied animals.

This led modern Darwinists to devise a more workable hypothesis called 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' which states that speciation occurs by sudden bursts of rapid change among small populations, with long periods of little change in between. Since the populations involved were small, and separated by great expanses of time, there would be little expectation of finding the transitional forms necessary to prove speciation.

This is a purely speculative hypothesis, that conveniently predicts the absence of its own supporting evidence, and it's not insignificant to note that Darwin himself opposed the notion of biological changes occurring in such a sudden, explosive manner.

The theory of Evolution has some major flaws which have not been, and in some cases, cannot be overcome scientifically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

What is still developing is our understanding of the mechanisms involved, and the specifics of history. A 'theory' in scientific terms does not mean a 'guess'; it is the term used for ideas that have the highest degree of confidence possible in this field.

To paraphrase Theodosius Dobzhansky, nearly everything we study in biology makes sense only in the context of one central unifying concept: evolution. Yet evolution is still quite "controversial," as a recent article and letter in this publication demonstrated (R. Lewis, The Scientist, May 12, 1997, page 13; M.J. Behe, The Scientist, June 9, 1997, page 10). Many people are still convinced it never happened. How is it that so many scientists can claim something is so certain, and so many people can be so sure it's wrong? Why can't scientists "show" the public the "truth"?

We're often tempted to blame it on "them"- these "zealots" who reject evolution, who have been so blinded, their minds so closed to the truth, that nothing we can do will sway them. But, in truth, we can't lay the blame so easily. As scientists and teachers, we've dropped the ball. Many of us don't even try to teach evolution, or we just put it out there without trying to engage the students, for fear we'll open a Pandora's box that we won't be able to close or that we'll be out in territory we don't think we can adequately defend. In arguing with the students on this point, we might risk looking like we don't know it all. Indeed, many of us have holes in our understanding of evolution, and even doubts, because we too have been taught by people who were afraid of the topic.

I myself am guilty. I've often taught evolution of genes, avoiding the actual topic of evolution of species or humans, because teaching at a religiously linked Southern college, I knew I'd have a tough time with it. I'd like to share a few of the tools I use to attempt to clarify the controversy to my students.

One of the major problems with our understanding of evolution is how we define it. "Evolution" and "natural selection" are terms used to explain the origin of the universe and of life on Earth, as well as processes in business, behavior, product development, and more. There is no consensus of the term's meaning even among biologists and authors of biology texts (see Y. Linhart, Bioscience, 47[6]:385, 1997), which certainly adds to the confusion. In his letter to The Scientist, Michael Behe points out there are three aspects to the term "evolution." Unfortunately, the word is used in far more than three different ways. The solution suggested by Linhart and others is to use the term evolution as broadly as possible; I believe we must limit its use to one. "Evolution," in the context most biologists intend to use it, is correctly defined simply as "descent with modification." That's the way Darwin introduced it, and that's the way in which it is basically incontrovertible. Darwin argued that species were created from other species through a process of change over time, by natural selection. Period.

It's important to note that Darwin did not comment on the origin of life, and we need to stop linking the concept of the biochemical origin of life with the term "evolution."

The Scientist : The Problem With Evolution: Where Have We Gone Wrong?

I'll say it again for you:

The THEORY of evolution (which is continually evolving ITSELF) does that. Not so well either. That is a rather big argument among academics actually. One I'll let THEM bandy about for eternity.

The theory of Evolution has some major flaws which have not been, and in some cases, cannot be overcome scientifically.

Now, you can claim that "the debate is over and has been for a long time" all you WANT. That doesn't make it so. The "debate" isn't over and it never WILL be over.

Ygorl · #22 (**permalink**) 01-10-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

Are humans any different from other animals? I've heard arguments such as a dog will give it's life to save an owner, which gives it compassion and choice. I've heard that squirrels save nuts for the winter, giving them the ability to plan -- all traits that we have. But is there anything that really makes us different? If so, what do you think that is? Common answers tend to be logic, the ability to belief, consciousness, greed, malice. I'll post my opinion, but I'd like to hear others first.

We're waiting

Otter · #23 (**permalink**) 01-10-2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thane

I'm sorry you feel that way, I can't help you with that.

Don't be. I take comfort in my kinship with other species. I'd think this was obvious, given my username.

Quote:

Yes, I'm "talking about raising and lowering here" because that is exactly what YOU are DOING. You continue with:

This is only true if you approach it from the viewpoint that humans are inherently superior, rather than exceptionally adapted.

Quote:

Anyway, what do you believe? That we are fundamentally different from other animals, and seperate from the rest of the life on this planet? Do we have a soul that animals lack?

I may seem foolish to many. That doesn't concern me in the least. That I can read between the lines is hard for some to accept. I know precisely where you're going with this and I'm not going to let you drag me there.

So.. just where do you think this is going? I'm not 'going' anywhere in particular with this, just enjoying a philsophical discussion on the status of humans and other animals. You're starting to sound paranoid.

Quote:

That we are fundamentally different from other animals...

Well, what do you think? You want to hear others ideas- how about some of your own?

Quote:

That's simply not true. Believe what you will.

That's news to ME. I guess you're on the "cutting edge" of everything yes ?

Ah.. not everything, but I was an evolutionary biologist before vet school.

Nice.. the below (in red) is from the American Conservative Union Foundation:American Conservative Union Foundation (not a scientific source, by the way). If you are going to quote, you really ought to cite. You give the impression that this is from 'The Scientist (which you do cite below).

Quote:

Fossil records show all of the major animal groups appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago. Virtually no transitional life forms have been discovered to suggest that they evolved from earlier forms. This sudden eruption of multiple, complex organisms is referred to as the Cambrian Explosion. [b]Even Darwin knew about the lack of evidence in the fossil record to support his theory a century and a half ago !

B]
Darwin knew that there was enough evidence in the fossil record, and that more would be found. The Cambrian explosion marks the beginning of the evolution of hard bodied animals- before that there are few (not none) fossils because soft bodied animals don't fossilize well. In fact, the Burgess shale (National Museum of Natural History - Paleobiology) is a rare find, in that soft parts of many organisms were preserved when an underwater mud slide carried animals into the oxygen-poor depths, were they were buried in an environment more favorable to fossilization than decomposition.

Quote:

To explain this discrepancy, Darwin opined that the reason no transitional life forms had been found was because such organisms would have been too small or too fragile to become fossilized. The problem with this is that microfossils of single-celled organisms, that predate the Cambrian explosion by billions of years, have been discovered which are much smaller and more delicate than any transitional forms would have been. Also, around 70 % of the Cambrian era fossils found to date come from delicate, soft-bodied animals.

Soft bodied things do fossilize very occasionally, but we have plenty of transitional forms. Archaeopteryx, Ambulocetus, the 'whale with legs', Tiktallik, the tetrapod fish, and my personal favorite, the Eurypterida; 'sea scorpion' ancestors of spiders and scorpions, who made the transition to land well before vertebrates did.

Quote:

This led modern Darwinists to devise a more workable hypothesis called 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' which states that speciation occurs by sudden bursts of rapid change among small populations, with long periods of little change in between. Since the populations involved were small, and separated by great expanses of time, there would be little expectation of finding the transitional forms necessary to prove speciation.

Wrong. Punctuated equilibrium was a hypothesis of Gould and Elredge, and was suggested by the apparent suddenness of the Cambrian diversification.
It explains one possible pattern of evolution, and of course all it really says is that evolutionary change occurs at different rates. Some species may be well adapted and remain fairly static for long periods of time (like sharks), while others move into new environments and radiate rapidly (like the lake Victoria cichlids)

Quote:

This is a purely speculative hypothesis, that conveniently predicts the absence of its own supporting evidence, and it's not insignificant to note that Darwin himself opposed the notion of biological changes occurring in such a sudden, explosive manner.

"Sudden and explosive' is a misnomer. Remember we are still talking about tens to hundreds of thousands of generations, even with the most 'punctuated' of equilibria. What you are referring to is evolution by saltation, which was suggested by Richard Goldschmidt (I think in the 1940's), and is not well supported or generally accepted, though there have been some interesting investigations of large phenotypic shifts through mutations and duplications of homeobox genes, that code for body structure and are the genetic underpinning of segmentation.

Quote:

To paraphrase Theodosius Dobzhansky, nearly everything we study in biology makes sense only in the context of one central unifying concept: evolution. Yet evolution is still quite "controversial," as a recent article and letter in this publication demonstrated (R. Lewis, The Scientist, May 12, 1997, page 13; M.J. Behe, The Scientist, June 9, 1997, page 10). Many people are still convinced it never happened. How is it that so many scientists can claim something is so certain, and so many people can be so sure it's wrong? Why can't scientists "show" the public the "truth"?

We're often tempted to blame it on "them"- these "zealots" who reject evolution, who have been so blinded, their minds so closed to the truth, that nothing we can do will sway them. But, in truth, we can't lay the blame so easily. As scientists and teachers, we've dropped the ball. Many of us don't even try to teach evolution, or we just put it out there without trying to engage the students, for fear we'll open a Pandora's box that we won't be able to close or that we'll be out in territory we don't think we can adequately defend. In arguing with the students on this point, we might risk looking like we don't know it all. Indeed, many of us have holes in our understanding of evolution, and even doubts, because we too have been taught by people who were afraid of the topic.

I myself am guilty. I've often taught evolution of genes, avoiding the actual topic of evolution of species or humans, because teaching at a religiously linked Southern college, I knew I'd have a tough time with it. I'd like to share a few of the tools I use to attempt to clarify the controversy to my students.

One of the major problems with our understanding of evolution is how we define it. "Evolution" and "natural selection" are terms used to explain the origin of the universe and of life on Earth, as well as processes in business, behavior, product development, and more. There is no consensus of the term's meaning even among biologists and authors of biology texts (see Y. Linhart, Bioscience, 47[6]:385, 1997), which certainly adds to the confusion. In his letter to The Scientist, Michael Behe points out there are three aspects to the term "evolution." Unfortunately, the word is used in far more than three different ways. The solution suggested by Linhart and others is to use the term evolution as broadly as possible; I believe we must limit its use to one. "Evolution," in the context most biologists intend to use it, is correctly defined simply as "descent with modification." That's the way Darwin introduced it, and that's the way in which it is basically incontrovertible. Darwin argued that species were created from other species through a process of change over time, by natural selection. Period.

It's important to note that Darwin did not comment on the origin of life, and we need to stop linking the concept of the biochemical origin of life with the term "evolution."

The Scientist : The Problem With Evolution: Where Have We Gone Wrong?

Uh.. yeah. Do you realise that this article does not support creationism? That evolution does not even adress the origin of life, only what happens once it is present.

Quote:

I'll say it again for you:

The THEORY of evolution (which is continually evolving ITSELF) does that. Not so well either. That is a rather big argument among academics actually. One I'll let THEM bandy about for eternity.

Does what?

Quote:

The theory of Evolution has some major flaws which have not been, and in some cases, cannot be overcome scientifically.

Name one flaw that can't be overcome scientifically. We can discuss it- it will be fun.

Quote:

Now, you can claim that "the debate is over and has been for a long time" all you WANT. That doesn't make it so. The "debate" isn't over and it never WILL be over.

the debate is over whether evolution is a good enough theory to use as a framework for exploration is long over. The dabate on how it works, what happened in our history, and the importance of various processes, genes, and relationships is ongiong (duh, otherwise I couldn't have worked in the field) and I hope it will continue for a long time.

Ygorl · #24 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

So.. just where do you think this is going? I'm not 'going' anywhere in particular with this, just enjoying a

philsophical discussion on the status of humans and other animals. You're starting to sound paranoid.

But of course

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

Well, what do you think? You want to hear others ideas- how about some of your own?

It's very simple. We ARE "fundamentally different" than animals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

Ah.. not everything, but I was an evolutionary biologist before vet school.

Then you know the real, full title of our hero Charlie D.s BOOK then yes ? Or would that be NO ?

You were an evolutionary biologist were you ? Maybe it's just ME, but I'm having trouble beleiving that from what you've said in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

Nice.. the below (in red) is from the American Conservative Union Foundation:American Conservative Union Foundation (not a scientific source, by the way). If you are going to quote, you really ought to cite. You give the impression that this is from 'The Scientist (which you do cite below).

I wasn't quoting from that internet writing actually. Now, let us argue and discuss who we're quoting and citing and what we can "dismiss"

Thats always a good way to ignore shortcomings of your own argument. Find a way, ANY way to dismiss items that expose the weaknesses of your argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

The only 'academics' debating the validity of evolution are the self-styled creation 'scientists' that shout from the fringes of biology.

Ah. They're shouting from the fringes of "biology" are they ?

Here's the truth.

That is your opinion. It's not fact. There is not, and never WILL be a consensus about evolutionary theory among academics.

There's not even a consensus among academics about the meaning of the TERM "evolution".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

Uh.. yeah. Do you realise that this article does not support creationism? That evolution does not even adress

the origin of life, only what happens once it is present.

I'm not sure what your point is in pointing this out. That you seem focussed on getting rid of any ideas of "creationism" I find interesting. In a perverse way :-) What is your fascination with making sure nobody beleives in "creationism" ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

Does what?

You said:

The way I see it, all life on this planet is related- we are all kin. If you belong to a large family, does that mean you are nothing more than a family member? Of course not- you are also an individual, with abilities, ideals and aspirations that may be very different from your kin.

To which, I said:

The ability to discriminate the difference between humans and animals and the difference between individuals OF a related human family doesn't somehow tie humans as the kin to animals. The THEORY of evolution (which is continually evolving ITSELF) does that. Not so well either. That is a rather big argument among academics actually. One I'll let THEM bandy about for eternity.

The theory of evolution does that. Does WHAT ? Tries to show how humans are "kin" to animals.

I said:

Not so well either.

Because it doesn't.

And yes, whether you like it, beleive it or accept it or not, academics ARE still debating this concept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

Name one flaw that can't be overcome scientifically. We can discuss it- it will be fun.

There are too many to name. Obviously your religious faith in science and the theory of evolution will blind you to any honesty in discussing them. My interest in this is waning.

What might be FUN is exposing your hero Charlie boy for what he really WAS.

Here are some facts you probably don't know because of academically suppressed history:

Suppressed History

Obliterating Politically Correct Orthodoxies pgs. 113-116

The full title of Darwins most famous book IS:

On the Origin of Species by means of natural Selection or the presevation of Favoured Races in the struggle for life

Darwin was a racist. It's been shown in his writings:

In, The Descent of Man he wrote:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."

He doesn't say the races of animals. He says the races of MAN.

On July 3, 1881 he wrote a letter to W. Graham (life and letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 1, 316, cited in Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, 1959, p.343). He wrote the following:

"The more civilized so-called caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."

Darwins friend Ernst Haeckel served Adolf Hitler. Hitler loved Darwins writings. He borrowed his title Mein Kampf (my struggle) from Darwins subtitle the presevation of Favoured Races in the struggle for life.

Stalin, who murdered millions loved Darwins writings. The book Landmarks in the life of Stalin by Emelian Yaroslavsky, documents a conversation between Stalin and one of his ecclesiastical school classmates, wherein Stalin says, "I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense."

His classmate said:

"What book is that ?"

Stalin replied:

Darwin. You must read it."

Like Stalin and Hitler, you'll dismiss anything with any connotation of religion. But, you'll accept a theory spawned by an early racist.

Fascinating.

Ygorl · #25 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

Beth, interesting. Do you feel the reason many animals tend to live by instinct isn't so much because they're limited to it, but rather they are forced to?
What I wonder isn't so much whether animals experience pain, but rather in what sense are they conscious of pain, and what does it mean to them. What I’m saying is that human beings, as social beings, impute meaning to our physiological processes in a way that is denied to non-human animals.

I would also say that Choice is that unique gift humans are blessed with that animals are not. And I don’t mean that a hyena for example does not know when to attack its victim or when to wait. That hyena will only make a choice based on the situation (Is it a good time to hunt? Are there many animals to hunt? Am I in great danger if I hunt? And so on). However, the moral choice is not there; what will this do to the family of my victim? For what reason do I hunt these animals if I can eat grass of vegetables? Why can I not eat vegetables? And so on.

But I would say that animals can be greedy, maybe even have hints of malice. Logic is there at least in bits as why else would a squirrel save nuts for the winter?

Is that all your gonna give us ?

You started this, get over here and add more :-)

Everyones probably tired of reading me and Otters views

FRYandBENDER · #26 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 02:45 PM

I'm not a monkey damnit, I'm a WOMAN!!!!

If your not watching South Park you don't know what your missing. This last season they had an episode that tackled the athiest v/s believers topic. Here is an excerpt where Mrs. Garrison (Formerly Mr. Garrison) reluctantly "teaches" the theory of evolution to the students after being told by Principle victoria that she had to.

Quote:

Mrs. Garrison: All right kids, it is now my job to teach you the theory of evolution.

Now I, for one, think evolution is a bnuch of BULLCRAP. But I've been told I have to teach it anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this: [goes up to a large poster of evolution and begins pointing things out with her pointer.] In the beginning we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its [waves his left hand limply] mutant fish hands... and it had buttsex with a squirrel or something and made this. [points to a rodent] retard frog squirrel, and then that had a retard baby which was a... monkey fish-frog... And then this monkey fish-frog had buttsex with that monkey, and... that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey and... that made you! [faces the class. A new girl is seated in the front row, looking around] So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys havin' buttsex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!

The two episodes don't primarily deal with evolution, but this was a pretty good little spat.

FRYandBENDER · #27 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 02:46 PM

Science damnit, that picture cracks me up.

Izzibeth · #28 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 02:57 PM

Otter, I agree with... pretty much everything that you have said. I was going to post more but I would basically be repeating everything you said which is ... pointless.

Fry... those two episodes were super funny. My boyfriend almost had a heart attack when Mrs. Garrison finally showed her boobages.

FRYandBENDER · #29 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 03:12 PM

The best line was when he/she told Richard, "Yeah, I'm a monkey, pound my monkey hole."

Those guys should be president.

Otter · #30 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 04:05 PM

I'm on surgical duty this week, and don't have time to fully adress this - I'll get to it later, but answer one question right now- yes, my MS thesis was on the adhesive mechanisms and evolution of spider capure thread, focusing on the transition from dry cribellar to glycoprotein adhesive thread. The paper comes up on pubmed if you put in the search criteria 'cribellar thread', if anyone is interested