what seperates humans from animals

[Tr3n7]

I'll just quote Homer Simpson on this one, "Weaseling out of things is what separates us from the animals...except for the weasel."

[tedkennedy]

Originally Posted by Praise Jah

The fact thats your only goal in life may have something to do with why your a lowly dope feind. Theres a lot more than that to life.

you suck.

Originally Posted by badgoalie85

^whoa who says i don't know anything about biology? who says i wasn't listening to you? i wasn't attacking evolution, man, i'm a strong believer in biology and the ability of science to explain things. however, i also think that it could be possible for the human mind to transcend certain evolutionary boundaries. i mean, you yourself said it's every single organism's sole goal to pass on its genetic information. i'm telling you that that is not my sole goal, so that theory pretty much breaks down right there (at least in my case). it doesn't mean that darwinism isn't correct, it just means that perhaps i have a mind which is capable of transcending my biological instincts (i.e. to pass on my genetic information).

come down off your high horse, man, there are other people who have studied biology on this forum other than yourself.

i was aiming my criticism towards praise_jah and ziplock. your opinion was valid and you stated it in a respectful way, and you seem like a smart person.

its just frustrating when i spent the time to type out something that is basically widely accepted as factual and people try to criticize it as if they know what they are talking about. in the context of what i was speaking i was entirely correct, and then people who dont even try to understand what i am explaining try pick out one sentence and then take it out of context and try to argue it for absolutely no reason, and they offer absolutely no evidence or ideas to support their opinion. i personally dont care if you know something or not, at least be respectful about your opinion and other peoples views.

[ziplock]

It is not necessary for a species or organisms sole goal to be passing genes in order for that passing to take place. The fact that the passing of genes does take place does not mean that it is their sole goal. With this kind of reasoning, it could be argued that any biological function that has some part in survival of the self or the species is the sole goal of an organism. To even assume that there is but one singular goal for all organisms in existence is extremely oversimplified.

There is nothing in your argument that compels me to believe that the ONE AND ONLY SOLE GOAL of all organisms in existence is to pass on genes. All organisms pass on genes, yes, however why does that mean it has to be their sole goal? Badgoalie destroyed that blanket statement with the very valid assertion that that is indeed not his goal, and that passing on his genes can even be contradictory to his goal (to be happy). Because badgoalie is an organism, the fact that it is not his goal to pass on genes contradicts your statement that it's every organism in existence's sole goal to pass on genes rendering it false. There is also the existence of symbiotic relationships within the "animal kingdom." Thus falsifying the conclusion you drew in regards to cooperation.

Logically, your argument falls flat on it's face. It is simply your arbitrary attribution of a reason to a behavior. It cannot even be argued that single celled organisms have goals, as goals are desired results and single-celled organisms do not have the supporting biological faculties for such a desire. It could however be argued that their sole purpose is to pass on their genes, purpose being determined by their biological makeup. That they have drives derived from this biological, and that this promotes various behaviors. Your use of the term goal was a stupid move.

Anyways, whatever tickles your fancy. I don't think it's a loss if you believe your sole goal in life is to fuck and die. Carry on. Hopefully your close-minded arrogance doesn't make it into the next generation.

Originally Posted by tedkennedy

its just frustrating when i spent the time to type out something that is basically widely accepted as factual and people try to criticize it as if they know what they are talking about. in the context of what i was speaking i was entirely correct, and then people who dont even try to understand what i am explaining try pick out one sentence and then take it out of context and try to argue it for absolutely no reason, and they offer absolutely no evidence or ideas to support their opinion. i personally dont care if you know something or not, at least be respectful about your opinion and other peoples views.

I didn't offer an opinion. I inquired about yours. Wrong again. Also, you were in no way respectful in your treatment of my views and I had done nothing to warrant that. Therefore, you are a hypocrite.

I don't think you should be talking about people's intelligence, ted. Sorry to tell ya.

[tedkennedy]

Originally Posted by ziplock

It is not necessary for a species or organisms sole goal to be passing genes in order for that passing to take place. The fact that the passing of genes does take place does not mean that it is their sole goal. With this kind of reasoning, it could be argued that any biological function that has some part in survival of the self or the species is the sole goal of an organism. To even assume that there is but one singular goal for all organisms in existence is extremely oversimplified.

There is nothing in your argument that compels me to believe that the ONE AND ONLY SOLE GOAL of all organisms in existence is to pass on genes. All organisms pass on genes, yes, however why does that mean it has to be their sole goal? Badgoalie destroyed that blanket statement with the very valid assertion that that is indeed not his goal, and that passing on his genes can even be contradictory to his goal (to be happy). Because badgoalie is an organism, the fact that it is not his goal to pass on genes contradicts your statement that it's every organism in existence's sole goal to pass on genes rendering it false. There is also the existence of symbiotic relationships within the "animal kingdom." Thus falsifying the conclusion you drew in regards to cooperation.

Logically, your argument falls flat on it's face. It is simply your arbitrary attribution of a reason to a behavior. It cannot even be argued that single celled organisms have goals, as goals are desired results and single-celled organisms do not have the supporting biological faculties for such a desire. It could however be argued that their sole purpose is to pass on their genes, purpose being determined by their biological makeup. That they have drives derived from this biological, and that this promotes various behaviors. Your use of the term goal was a stupid move.

Anyways, whatever tickles your fancy. I don't think it's a loss if you believe your sole goal in life is to fuck and die. Carry on. Hopefully your close-minded arrogance doesn't make it into the next generation.I didn't offer an opinion. I inquired about yours. Wrong again. Also, you were in no way respectful in your treatment of my views and I had done nothing to warrant that. Therefore, you are a hypocrite.

I don't think you should be talking about people's intelligence, ted. Sorry to tell ya.

its called context ..........
you could change the context and make up whatever you want.

however in terms of evolutionary biology, the only relevant purpose of a organism is to pass on genetic information, all other behaviors can be explained in terms of achieving that single goal.

[reverie]

..jumping in.

Originally Posted by tedkennedy

its called context ..........
you could change the context and make up whatever you want.

however in terms of evolutionary biology, the only relevant purpose of a organism is to pass on genetic information, all other behaviors can be explained in terms of achieving that single goal.

Once upon a time hundreds of thousands of years ago, it was very important to our evolutionary process that we reproduced to keep our biology and species going, so it could evolve. We had to also fight various environmental factors much harder (other animals, weather, diseases etc). Fast forward through evolution to our current year, such things are significantly less issues for our concerns. And considering our problems with our expanding population, it is not necessary for an individual to reproduce to keep our biology going. Many humans can and do choose not to reproduce now a days and it does not affect the effectiveness of our species, in fact it is currently helping it with all our demanding environmental risks.

Also keep in mind that humans as a species are made up of individuals, and because we are individuals purpose is found on a relative scale.

[tedkennedy]

Originally Posted by reverie

..jumping in.

Once upon a time hundreds of thousands of years ago, it was very important to our evolutionary process that we reproduced to keep our biology and species going, so it could evolve. We had to also fight various environmental factors much harder (other animals, weather, diseases etc).
Fast forward through evolution to our current year, such things are significantly less issues for our concerns. And considering our problems with our expanding population, it is not necessary for an individual to reproduce to keep our biology going. Many humans can and do choose not to reproduce now a days and it does not affect the effectiveness of our species, in fact it is currently helping it with all our demanding environmental risks.

Also keep in mind that humans as a species are made up of individuals, and because we are individuals purpose is found on a relative scale.

yea but if you go back to what i was explaining in the first place, i was explaining non-human animal behavior and how non-human animals behave precisely as vehicles for passing on genetic information because they haven't defeated non-kin conflicts of interest, which humans have.

humans can subjectively have different goals (or at least think they have different goals) but in terms of a species and evolution and the context of what i was trying to explain, reproductive success is basically still the ultimate goal.

[verklingen]

^ i say our goal should be quality over quantity.

edit: WHOA i totally don't mean that like in a eugenics sense. lol. i just mean the should focus on the quality of life for those who are alive, and do what we can to eliminate physical pressures altogether. we all have something to contribute to the human experience, and the expression of that something ought to be supported in every way. we really won't evolve much more physically. . . the continued evolution of our species is driven entirely by social pressures.

[tedkennedy]

Originally Posted by verklingen

^ i say our goal should be quality over quantity.

it has more so to do with the way DNA replicates itself. only DNA which is good at replicating itself, IE an organism which is reproductively succesful, gets passed onto the next generation.

thus through natural selection, DNA creates organisms that are the best at reproducing themselves, and if they werent good at reproducing they would die off

in the animal world this is extremely evident because most non-human animals behavior is genetically programmed, unlike humans which rely heavily on extra-genetic information. thus animals act explicitly as if their sole purpose is to replicate genetic information because simply genetic information is why they exist in the first place and they are essentially programmed to behave in a way that hopefully should lead them to reproduce.

[Praise Jah]

Originally Posted by tedkennedy

you suck.

I appologise for the dope fiend remark, honest. But I fail to see why I should stop talking.

[reverie]

Originally Posted by tedkennedy

yea but if you go back to what i was explaining in the first place, i was explaining non-human animal behavior and how non-human animals behave precisely as vehicles for passing on genetic information because they haven't defeated non-kin conflicts of interest, which humans have.

humans can subjectively have different goals (or at least think they have different goals) but in terms of a species and evolution and the context of what i was trying to explain, reproductive success is basically still the ultimate goal.

Many animals who are non-kin of and not of the same species exist mutually without conflict. Elephants and birds, have a mutually understood and appreciated relationship with one another, one providing food and the other acting as an alert system. Dogs befriend other dogs upon meeting or even upon the introduction into the home environment. Both of these are not acts of sexual or reproductive concern.

Evolution and the success of a species involves many aspects in life. It involves pretty much everything in regard to that specific species. Because, what is evolution? It is growth and adaption to external things within that growth. So whatever can grow is a part of that process - physical growth, mental growth, linguistic growth, philosophical growth etc etc. Yes that means there are different contexts of relation, which simply means its all that harder to define what is the single sole goal to that process/species. Is there even an ultimate one? Could one not say they all play into each other in a mutually benefiting balance? For if it wasn't for the evolution of hunting and gathering, the human could not evolve the reproductive aspect because they would die off before that could happen.

So yes, reproduction is an important goal..but it is not the sole purpose because there are other phenomenons in place that make or allow for the others to happen. Take a look at romantic interest now.. If one does not find the one they'd like to settle down with that may very well mean they will never have kids. So now instead of the goal being reproducing, the goal is finding a complimentary spouse to allow that to happen. Some individuals could even care less for children, ever. We are far evolved beyond the point of survivalistic interests, we are complex emotional beings who find meaning on a relative scale. And since we find that meaning on a relative scale that determines where we allocate our focus. If we dont care about future generations, and keeping our species going..we wont. For example, why do people not take action to improve our environment? Because their concern is with their own current life, and what is most efficient for them. Where making attempts to improve the environment would have a great impact on the fruitfulness of their future offspring's life and survival. This shows our species operates on a basis that is less survivalistic and more emotional/ self concerning.

[tedkennedy]

Originally Posted by reverie

Many animals who are non-kin of and not of the same species exist mutually without conflict. Elephants and birds, have a mutually understood and appreciated relationship with one another, one providing food and the other acting as an alert system. Dogs befriend other dogs upon meeting or even upon the introduction into the home environment. Both of these are not acts of sexual or reproductive concern.

first off, both of those animals benefit from the symbiotic relationship. they evolved in a way where they tolerated each other simply because they both benefited. and they benefit in a way that makes them more reproductively successful, which made them evolve to accept the relationship. symbiosis has nothing to do with non-kin conflicts of interest because you arent in competition with another animals that is helping you. you are in competition with your own species for mates and resources :P

dogs are pack animals. they are social creatures by nature.
i dont know anything about wolves so i will go what i found off the first website that came up on google:

"A wolf pack is like a family unit, consisting of an adult pair and their mostly grown offspring. Members of the pack form strong social bonds that promote internal cohesion. Order is maintained by a dominance hierarchy."

the wolf pack is all the same family, hence they have some of the same genetic information and that is why they work together on a limited basis. they have large conflicts of interests with other wolve packs and even within the same pack they fight for dominance because even between brothers there is only about 50 percent genetic relatedness

domesticated dogs and cats for that matter are notably more docile creatures and thats why they can tolerate each other. even so, most dogs i know that are the same sex will not get along because they have non-kin conflict of interest. male and female dogs can get along because they need each other for sex, and when you have the same sex together they would be fighting for mates and dominance so they know whom should get the mate if one comes along.

Originally Posted by Praise Jah

I appologise for the dope fiend remark, honest. But I fail to see why I should stop talking.

apology accepted, we cool. im sorry i rude and in the future i will be more respectful

Originally Posted by reverie

So yes, reproduction is an important goal..but it is not the sole purpose because there are other phenomenons in place that make or allow for the others to happen. Take a look at romantic interest now.. If one does not find the one they'd like to settle down with that may very well mean they will never have kids. So now instead of the goal being reproducing, the goal is finding a complimentary spouse to allow that to happen. Some individuals could even care less for children, ever. We are far evolved beyond the point of survivalistic interests, we are complex emotional beings who find meaning on a relative scale.

this still boils down to the fact that humans have defeated non-kin conflicts of interests allowing brain expansion and more complicated thought...

yea you could subjectively think you have a different purpose in life, but that doesnt change the fact that for the past 5 billion years all of the life proccesses have built up to the creation of your body. did any of the same cells keep living? no... the only thing that gets passed on is genetic information. thousands if not millions or billions of your cells are dieing and being created every day by your body. do you think they givfe a fuck what their purpose is? no, they are just programmed by genetic information. dna replicates itself... its just what it does. the human is more complicated, and can think abstractly about things, but really all that does is to allow it to be more ecologically dominant and reproductively successful.

do you think peopel go around thinking to themselves "i need to reproduce!". No, they dont. but they live their lives and one day an attractive person of the opposite sex comes along and they unconciously start getting sweaty and "fall in love", which is a chemical reaction in the brain by the way. and they marry and they have kids and no coincidence when there children are born it is the "happiest day of their life". of course you could try and apply the open minded "higher thoughts" appraoch that everything is subjective and open to relative experiences but then why does science exist? the fact remains that there are six billion humans on the planet, so in light of the huge population explosion please continue to argue that a persons ultimate purpose is not to reproduce because apparently alot of people think that their purpose is to reproduce.

[zoltron]

The fact that us humans ain't as ignerant as aminals and we's no how to talk english verry goodly.




That & thumbs.

[ziplock]

Originally Posted by tedkennedy

its called context ..........
you could change the context and make up whatever you want.

however in terms of evolutionary biology, the only relevant purpose of a organism is to pass on genetic information, all other behaviors can be explained in terms of achieving that single goal.

Starting to draw conclusions such as passing genetic information being the sole goal of all organisms in existence is taking it a step beyond the terms of evolutionary biology. Biology studies these actions, behaviors, the correlations, consequences, so on and so forth, creating theories and models to represent these phenomenon. Purpose, reason, goals, these are subjective concepts taking part in the human mind that we then associate to these phenomenon. It's like I'm arguing about God with you. The fact that something takes place does not immediately mean that it is important, the "sole goal," "meaningful," or anything else. It just means that it happens.

Also, you can go right ahead and now make an exception for humans and dance around that. That however does not negate the fact that your original statement was directed at all organisms in existence which obviously includes humans. You can also call some foul play on manipulating the context, however there is no other logical way to interpret your statement. All organisms, sole goal. Which is wrong. There are also plenty of examples of cooperation within species of organisms and between species.

The brunt of your argument is just unreasonable. That is reducing all organisms down to simply a vehicle to pass genetic information. One can just as easily interpret it another manner and the field of biology doesn't say anything one way or another. The people who study biology are the ones jumping to the conclusions as you have here.

[Patrick Rue]

Originally Posted by reverie

If one does not find the one they'd like to settle down with that may very well mean they will never have kids.

I can't even really see where you're coming from on this one.

There are a lot of babies mommas out there.

[reverie]

first off, both of those animals benefit from the symbiotic relationship. they evolved in a way where they tolerated each other simply because they both benefited. and they benefit in a way that makes them more reproductively successful, which made them evolve to accept the relationship. symbiosis has nothing to do with non-kin conflicts of interest because you arent in competition with another animals that is helping you. you are in competition with your own species for mates and resources :P

dogs are pack animals. they are social creatures by nature.
i dont know anything about wolves so i will go what i found off the first website that came up on google:

"A wolf pack is like a family unit, consisting of an adult pair and their mostly grown offspring. Members of the pack form strong social bonds that promote internal cohesion. Order is maintained by a dominance hierarchy."

the wolf pack is all the same family, hence they have some of the same genetic information and that is why they work together on a limited basis. they have large conflicts of interests with other wolve packs and even within the same pack they fight for dominance because even between brothers there is only about 50 percent genetic relatedness

domesticated dogs and cats for that matter are notably more docile creatures and thats why they can tolerate each other. even so, most dogs i know that are the same sex will not get along because they have non-kin conflict of interest. male and female dogs can get along because they need each other for sex, and when you have the same sex together they would be fighting for mates and dominance so they know whom should get the mate if one comes along.

Competition is competition, organisms don't have to be of the same species to share resources. Birds eat berries and Bears eat berries..If there are no more berries for the Bear..It does not matter if it was another Bear who took them or a Bird, the fact remains the same that the Bear may be in danger of not having a source of food for a while which is a threat to survival. Who is to say that humans didn't befriend other humans in the same way animals involved in symbiosis did?.. I could make a hefty argument how other humans are truly benefited by other humans (which they are). Sharing resources, learning of dangers through communication etc. Many animals of the same species already do similar things.

Dogs of the same sex who are non-kin can and do get along. Goto a dog dark on any given day of the week, you see all kind of dogs running with wagging tails to