The-Captain Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 So very true. Dolphins have names. Even rats can think using causal reasoning (some recent study showed that rats have a rudimentary logical ability.) I still want to know the answer to what zero divided by zero is. Antlerman, they forgot otters. Otters are tool users too. Not only do they pick up rocks to use as belly supported anvils to crack open shells, they also deliberately wrap themselves in seaweed to keep from floating off when they sleep. "I shall eat your entrails on my belly!" - South Park Furthermore these traits are just traits we pick up on because they bear similarity to some of our own. They in no way denote a species "advancement" or "primitive state", those are subjective ideas created by humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 True... by itemising them we are playing Yoyo's game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 So very true. Dolphins have names. Even rats can think using causal reasoning (some recent study showed that rats have a rudimentary logical ability.) I still want to know the answer to what zero divided by zero is. Antlerman, they forgot otters. Otters are tool users too. Not only do they pick up rocks to use as belly supported anvils to crack open shells, they also deliberately wrap themselves in seaweed to keep from floating off when they sleep. "I shall eat your entrails on my belly!" - South Park Furthermore these traits are just traits we pick up on because they bear similarity to some of our own. They in no way denote a species "advancement" or "primitive state", those are subjective ideas created by humans. True. And ants developing animal husbandry (aphid herds) is also pretty damn "advanced" (not to mention cool). And bugs in general are greater in number than any other multi-cellular life form on the planet, so that's makes them an even MORE "successful" species than humans. But the religious ignore details like that because they perceive the ability to make great cappuccino and sell it at $7.00 a cup as the hallmark of an "advanced life-form". Species-ists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Your kidding, right? So their just different. Well, hell Grandpa. I want my own business started and some really cheap help. How about you and I go and gather some apes up and train them to work a cash register, and keep the place running right. We can even appoint one as manager. Then you and I can go chill out and have a few drinks. Actually, chimps have superior memory skills than humans: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7124156.stm :lmao: :lmao: You guys are killing me. Open your mind up to suggestions. and with that the pot called the kettle 'nigger'... Yeah Gramps. I am spent. I think Yoyo needs a complete mental and emotional overhaul. Something dramatic. But I lack the ability and willingness to make an attempt. I feel somewhat dissappointed with myself. Gramps said that apes are just 'different'. In such a simplistic statement I could help myself with that response. Then NG, in grasping straws for Gramps, pops up a link to the smarts of chimps. So. Yes, Lr. Its getting a little dramatic to assume that an ape and a human are similar in ecological-evolutional advancement, there just different. Big difference, you think? No, it's not... simple as that. A Chimpanzee cannot be compared to a human and vice versa such that one is said to be more 'advanced' than the other... I notice you've quietly dropped the assertion we as the most 'complex' organism on the planet, having had your apologist arse handed to you, so you're now just TROLLING to make you feel better... well troll away you stupid little man... doesn't make you right, just loud... Alice? Tell me what there is to 'respect' now... Grandpa Harley, Why can I not compare a chimp to a human? That would be hypocritical of you since you compared the human species to a Squid earlier. Its comparable things. Apes are the closest in structure to a human being. Why wouldn't I compare? And, Yes. Why are we more advanced than the ape? Its obvious to any person that looks bluntly at the two species that theres a difference. Why try to convince me there is not a difference of the two, when there obviously is? I sincerely asked these questions because that part of the evolution process doesn't make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 So how exactly are humans "more complex"? BTW, they are actually far less well equipped for survival on the planet than other species. Other species are far more well adapted to survive in far wider ranges of environments. The only thing we've really go going for us is our brains and creativity, but that is also our greatest weakness. We destroy our own environments. We're hardly "God's" special jewel. The Holy Dragonfly is far superior to us naked apes. Thanks AM. Thats why I said correct me if I'm wrong here. So this person is basically saying we have a better ability to manipulate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Hans, No proof necessary. Do you think 'human will/emotions' are distinct and advanced in human evolution than the apes advancement of animal instinct? I would say yes to that because a will to do something or emotion that enables a human to go beyong the obvious to create the unknown, advances us in technology, intelligence as a species. Humans are clearly more advanced that Chimps (in the sense of language and inventiveness and some other faculties), but there are strong evidence that Chimps got emotions, a free will, to a certain level even an ability to reason and do rational decisions, and they have social bonds and structures in their groups, and I think I read somewhere they have a level of identity or consciousness too because they know they are "individuals". There are apes that have learned to communicate with sign language and can express love, hate, despise and other emotions and even argue to why they feel that way. Now, do you consider them purely robots or a low level of sentient beings? Again, asking "why?" is asking the "question without answer", or like asking "what is zero divided by zero?", and the answer is that you don't have an answer for it. Even if the answer was "God wanted it", the question is "why did God want it?", and no one can claim to know what this supposed God really wants, and the argument will have to go to emotional opinions. So again, "why are humans humans" is an unanswered question. YoYo, this is the kind of superiority that you are talking about. To you this idea proves human exceptionalism. Then somehow human exceptionalism proves God directed evolution. God has not been preparing the English speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing... He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the to forces of reaction throughout the earth. He has made us adept in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples... and of all our race He has marked the American People as His chosen nation to finally lead in the redemption of the world. Senator Albert J. Beveridge This is what folks have been trying to tell you. "Life is not a tale of progress. It is, rather, a story of intricate branching and wandering, with momentary survivors adapting to changing local environments, not approaching cosmic or engineering perfection." Stephen Jay Gould. Evolutionarily speaking we are a bud on a twig somewhere in the bush of life. There is nothing special about us except in our own minds. It still remains to be seen if our conquering behavior which is only about 10,000 years old is a good evolutionary idea or not. There is a good bit of evidence that it may not be. This computer may represent an evolutionary direction of survival or it may represent the death throes of an evolutionary oops. You are right right now that we can destroy anything including ourselves. If you want to call that superior then so be it. If this does show that evolution is directed you still have a long way to go to arrive at BibleGod as the director. One thread of theology that evolution directed or not makes ridiculous in the extreme is salvation and a savior, which pretty much leaves out the Christian bit of BibleGod. Thats what I was wondering, take God out of the equation for right now. What gives us that 'spirit of progress', or that extra push to expound on our capabilities. Though we are trained as well, we also have the ability to observe our niche, others and progress to inventing, renewing, planning, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 And, Yes. Why are we more advanced than the ape? Its obvious to any person that looks bluntly at the two species that theres a difference. Why try to convince me there is not a difference of the two, when there obviously is? I sincerely asked these questions because that part of the evolution process doesn't make sense to me. Aaah... So the problem you have is how we evolved from the chimps to humans in the sense of the more advanced intelligence etc? Like "why" is it more beneficial in the context of "survival"? Is that it? If so, then I'm sorry, a complete misunderstanding from my side. Most of the "why" questions about human existence presupposes some form of final cause argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 If Chimps had needed language, they'd have evolved it... they have a capacity of abstract thought. TBH, the descended larynx seems to be an adaptation for diving, not for speech... Chimps don't swim unless they fall in the water, thus they never needed to develop a descended larynx... and thus don't have the ability to make finely modulated sounds... And as to the complexity of speech, the song of whales seems to contain more information per minute than a single volume of Britannica... and a whales song can last for several days... we don't know what they're saying, but they appear to be communicating *something*... Thats a point though Grandpa Harley, They can't reason, plan, connect enough to say, We need a speech. If anything, the whales seem to have more human function than the apes. Ironic. Why would the whales need to sing songs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 So very true. Dolphins have names. Even rats can think using causal reasoning (some recent study showed that rats have a rudimentary logical ability.) I still want to know the answer to what zero divided by zero is. Antlerman, they forgot otters. Otters are tool users too. Not only do they pick up rocks to use as belly supported anvils to crack open shells, they also deliberately wrap themselves in seaweed to keep from floating off when they sleep. "I shall eat your entrails on my belly!" - South Park Furthermore these traits are just traits we pick up on because they bear similarity to some of our own. They in no way denote a species "advancement" or "primitive state", those are subjective ideas created by humans. I would think this notion of thought, would be just as subjective as 'picking them up along the way'. Agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Thats a point though Grandpa Harley, They can't reason, plan, connect enough to say, We need a speech. If anything, the whales seem to have more human function than the apes. Ironic. Why would the whales need to sing songs? Even dogs have a primitive way of communicating. Mostly by body language and smell, but a little with tone of voice. They bark different for different things. High pitched, low pitched and other variations, and they mean "lets play", "watch out", "someone's coming", "stay back", "give me food", "let me in" ... I saw a video once of a dog that did understand simple English. He couldn't speak it, but he did understand commands (with the guy hidden behind a screen). And the dog did count correctly up to ten, if I remember correctly. We consider ourself "conscious" and "highly aware", and that animals are low. But if a higher being came to this planet, wouldn't they think we were no more than animals too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 True. And ants developing animal husbandry (aphid herds) is also pretty damn "advanced" (not to mention cool). And bugs in general are greater in number than any other multi-cellular life form on the planet, so that's makes them an even MORE "successful" species than humans. But the religious ignore details like that because they perceive the ability to make great cappuccino and sell it at $7.00 a cup as the hallmark of an "advanced life-form". Species-ists. Why is that? What part of the evolution process determined them to mass reproduce? These are the questions I seek from evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 If Chimps had needed language, they'd have evolved it... they have a capacity of abstract thought. TBH, the descended larynx seems to be an adaptation for diving, not for speech... Chimps don't swim unless they fall in the water, thus they never needed to develop a descended larynx... and thus don't have the ability to make finely modulated sounds... And as to the complexity of speech, the song of whales seems to contain more information per minute than a single volume of Britannica... and a whales song can last for several days... we don't know what they're saying, but they appear to be communicating *something*... Thats a point though Grandpa Harley, They can't reason, plan, connect enough to say, We need a speech. If anything, the whales seem to have more human function than the apes. Ironic. Why would the whales need to sing songs? Listen up... all you're doing is showing a basic ignorance of animal behaviours... try watching more science programs, and reading something other than the damned Bible and apologists and you may actually be less of fool... Hell, how much is Sci Am a month? But no, you just plug away at being ill informed like it's a fucking virtue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Thats a point though Grandpa Harley, They can't reason, plan, connect enough to say, We need a speech. If anything, the whales seem to have more human function than the apes. Ironic. Why would the whales need to sing songs? Even dogs have a primitive way of communicating. Mostly by body language and smell, but a little with tone of voice. They bark different for different things. High pitched, low pitched and other variations, and they mean "lets play", "watch out", "someone's coming", "stay back", "give me food", "let me in" ... I saw a video once of a dog that did understand simple English. He couldn't speak it, but he did understand commands (with the guy hidden behind a screen). And the dog did count correctly up to ten, if I remember correctly. We consider ourself "conscious" and "highly aware", and that animals are low. But if a higher being came to this planet, wouldn't they think we were no more than animals too? Thats a good thought Hans. I see human communication, as we didn't have to have the capability; as (I think) 90% of human interaction is through body language. In that, we are just as the animals, yet we have evolved into a communicating species superior to the rest. We have the capacity to learn several different languages at that. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Why is that? What part of the evolution process determined them to mass reproduce? These are the questions I seek from evolution. It's a slow development. First you had a ape. One day, one family of apes give birth a one ape that is just a little smarter, not much, but just a little smarter than the others. He's not as smart as us, but he's an Einstein among apes. Of some reason, one day when the lions attacked for food, this ape managed to save a few females and himself, by using some smart plot, like hiding in a place no one had thought about before, lets say a cave. The rest of the family died, except him and a few really cute looking ape females. They do have fun in the hay in the cave and have offspring, and because his smartness is to large part explained that his brain got a fraction more brain mass then the other apes, and it's because of a genetic shift in his DNA. To everyones surprise, his offspring inherited the same trait, also a bit smarter than the common ape. They withdraw to caves and slowly so it happens, the smarter and smarter genetic traits are more favorable for survival over time, and the smartest wins (in the sense of ingenuity to be "not eaten by predators") and the dumbest gets eaten a slightly more often. The reason why an animals like us had a better chance of survival could be that we had evolved to such intelligence that we could start and save fire, and could survive better at the edge of the large ice masses after the ice age and could avoid predators that way too. Humans have the ability to find ways to stay alive in many different situations and environments. So why does this help to mass reproduce? I guess it's because we don't get eaten as much as other animals. It kind of follows. More fit to survive, means that you survive more and longer as a species, and your "mass" reproduction is just a matter of that you can do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 If Chimps had needed language, they'd have evolved it... they have a capacity of abstract thought. TBH, the descended larynx seems to be an adaptation for diving, not for speech... Chimps don't swim unless they fall in the water, thus they never needed to develop a descended larynx... and thus don't have the ability to make finely modulated sounds... And as to the complexity of speech, the song of whales seems to contain more information per minute than a single volume of Britannica... and a whales song can last for several days... we don't know what they're saying, but they appear to be communicating *something*... Thats a point though Grandpa Harley, They can't reason, plan, connect enough to say, We need a speech. If anything, the whales seem to have more human function than the apes. Ironic. Why would the whales need to sing songs? Listen up... all you're doing is showing a basic ignorance of animal behaviours... try watching more science programs, and reading something other than the damned Bible and apologists and you may actually be less of fool... Hell, how much is Sci Am a month? But no, you just plug away at being ill informed like it's a fucking virtue. Its not ignorance unless they have the capacity to put their thoughts and reasons into action and then don't. I don't think they have that capacity. I think they are animals in a setting showing, some amazing qualities in their niche, yet are inferior in areas that obviously humans succeeded. Why do whales sing Grandpa Harley? Why did we develop the larynx, and only use it 20% of the time to communicate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Can you not use Google or something? ATM all you're doing is going 'Look Goddidit!' and we answer 'No, he didn't' so what the hell do you want here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Thats a good thought Hans. I see human communication, as we didn't have to have the capability; as (I think) 90% of human interaction is through body language. That's very true, and that's part of why I misunderstood your question! Internut isn't the best place for body language... it kind of gets lost at the point of the keyboard... In that, we are just as the animals, yet we have evolved into a communicating species superior to the rest. We have the capacity to learn several different languages at that. Right? There is a theory (or several) that our intelligence, understanding of the world, religion, math, science, all of it is basically thanks to the skill of Language. I think it's only partially true. I think part of our advances can be because of imagination and ability to create symbols, art, representations of things. That's something animals don't do. They don't create symbolic representations of the real things. Or put it in Biblical terms, our ability to create idols is what makes us different from animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Why is that? What part of the evolution process determined them to mass reproduce? These are the questions I seek from evolution. It's a slow development. First you had a ape. One day, one family of apes give birth a one ape that is just a little smarter, not much, but just a little smarter than the others. He's not as smart as us, but he's an Einstein among apes. Of some reason, one day when the lions attacked for food, this ape managed to save a few females and himself, by using some smart plot, like hiding in a place no one had thought about before, lets say a cave. The rest of the family died, except him and a few really cute looking ape females. They do have fun in the hay in the cave and have offspring, and because his smartness is to large part explained that his brain got a fraction more brain mass then the other apes, and it's because of a genetic shift in his DNA. To everyones surprise, his offspring inherited the same trait, also a bit smarter than the common ape. They withdraw to caves and slowly so it happens, the smarter and smarter genetic traits are more favorable for survival over time, and the smartest wins (in the sense of ingenuity to be "not eaten by predators") and the dumbest gets eaten a slightly more often. The reason why an animals like us had a better chance of survival could be that we had evolved to such intelligence that we could start and save fire, and could survive better at the edge of the large ice masses after the ice age and could avoid predators that way too. Humans have the ability to find ways to stay alive in many different situations and environments. So why does this help to mass reproduce? I guess it's because we don't get eaten as much as other animals. It kind of follows. More fit to survive, means that you survive more and longer as a species, and your "mass" reproduction is just a matter of that you can do it. Why didn't some animals when going extinct, obtain the ability to mass produce to stay alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Its not ignorance unless they have the capacity to put their thoughts and reasons into action and then don't. I don't think they have that capacity. I think they are animals in a setting showing, some amazing qualities in their niche, yet are inferior in areas that obviously humans succeeded. I disagree to some extent. I think animals can put thought and reason into action, but they just can't make as much thought and reasoning as we can, because they can't get educated through such an advanced program we do, using language. There are certain parts of the brain in humans that are more developed. One day they will be able to pinpoint the genomes that causes it. Why do whales sing Grandpa Harley? They do communicate. "Hot water", "lots of fish", "no fish here" ... just like bees dance to communicate direction and amounts of pollen. Why did we develop the larynx, and only use it 20% of the time to communicate? Some people use it more than 20%... I belong to such a family where talking is a way of breathing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Its not ignorance unless they have the capacity to put their thoughts and reasons into action and then don't. I don't think they have that capacity. I think they are animals in a setting showing, some amazing qualities in their niche, yet are inferior in areas that obviously humans succeeded. I disagree to some extent. I think animals can put thought and reason into action, but they just can't make as much thought and reasoning as we can, because they can't get educated through such an advanced program we do, using language. There are certain parts of the brain in humans that are more developed. One day they will be able to pinpoint the genomes that causes it. Why do whales sing Grandpa Harley? They do communicate. "Hot water", "lots of fish", "no fish here" ... just like bees dance to communicate direction and amounts of pollen. Why did we develop the larynx, and only use it 20% of the time to communicate? Some people use it more than 20%... I belong to such a family where talking is a way of breathing... Fair enough. So my question comes down to a certain part of our brain that is still being researched. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Why didn't some animals when going extinct, obtain the ability to mass produce to stay alive? Wait wait. You've been asking questions about why evolution happened looking for a godditit gap. NOW you are switching gears asking why evolution did NOT do something to justify goddidit too? And quit treating evolution (a SLOOOW process) as though it either "could" or "would" bequeath survival abilities instantly like some kind of magical ability gained at a certain level in a video game. Evolution is a process. Evolution itself is NOT sentient! Quit trying to make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Why didn't some animals when going extinct, obtain the ability to mass produce to stay alive? Mass reproduction is just a side effect of efficiency of staying alive. I think the estimate is that the total biomass of cockroaches are larger than the biomass of humans. So already there we are beat. We don't reproduce as fast and in mass as bugs. Your question is a little strange by the way, animals can't go "extinct" and "gain" an ability. They're dead. Some animals did rule the world for a while and then died out because the climate changed. Dinosaurs for instance. The thing is that the world, Earth, is not constant. It has changed in the Environmental setup many times over. One reason why humans have been so successful the last 10,000 years is because Earth actually has been in a very stable climatological configuration. Before the ice age it had gone through many changes, and we're most likely facing new ones in the future, and humans might not survive, unless we figure out ways to stay alive. But we might fail, because we're not competing to survive anymore, but we're fighting of idea or religion have the right to kill the others. We're are our worst enemies. You see, the temperature, climate, winds and the oceanic conveyors kind of got into balance about 10,000 years ago, and it's been like that until now, and hopefully it will stay that way, and this setup was most beneficial for us. Our size, and the gestation time, food requirement, all of it, was perfect for this environment. If this changes, we might be nothing more than something for future intelligent species to examine in dig sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Can you not use Google or something? ATM all you're doing is going 'Look Goddidit!' and we answer 'No, he didn't' so what the hell do you want here? Assumptions. Why assume? I don't assume every non-Christian here is going to give me the same end response that you do every time. My motive is understanding the gaps of evolution, especially directed toward humans, and in actual thought and responding with a effort to get the answer to my question, Hans has pinned it to the human brain, and the still being researched parts of it. Thank you though for some of your replies. I was really hoping that you would reply an entire post without any sarcastic comments, but failed to see it Hey grandpa.......were all 'different' I love you man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Fair enough. So my question comes down to a certain part of our brain that is still being researched. Right? Almost right. They know what parts of the brain are different, but they don't know exactly what genetic sequence that causes it. (That's if I'm correctly informed, but I could be wrong and they have found it by now.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Furthermore these traits are just traits we pick up on because they bear similarity to some of our own. They in no way denote a species "advancement" or "primitive state", those are subjective ideas created by humans. I would think this notion of thought, would be just as subjective as 'picking them up along the way'. Agree? I meant we tend to focus on these traits and consider them "advanced" because we possess similar traits. Why didn't some animals when going extinct, obtain the ability to mass produce to stay alive? You should probably read up on the subject you are discussing before trying to make a point. Or are you just asking for education's sake? The short of it, evolution doesn't work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts