what seperates humans from animals

[matthewmunari]

Originally Posted by Home Wrecker

Seriously?

do u know anything about edgar cayce??? he knew NOTHING as far as medicine was concerned, yet he would self induce a trance like state, that would 99% accurately diagnose a patients illness, and he would prescribe cures......its all been documented by a woman named gladys davis? i think thats her last name, anyways, he predicted atlantis would be found in '68 or 69', and whattya know, the "bimini road" was discovered in 1968....edgar cayce said he tapped into a "universal conciousness" that with enough practice, anyone could do.......he was not educated past the 5th grade, yet knew more than dr.'s did at that moment in history.....theres quite a few really good books on cayce, http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce

he was the genuine article....

[tedkennedy]

Originally Posted by Home Wrecker

Seriously?

whether or not atlantis or an underwater city really exists,
the point he is making is legitimate.

many low-landing particularly in poor 3rd world countries and low lieing islands around australia are going to be under water within 100 years or less due to global sea rise .


the icecaps are melting at a very worrying pace but it is not talked about much

although global warming is recent it is plausible that some ancient cities were taken over by rising water levels, however in my experience it is usually the case where ancient cities that were once built at the water shore, in modern times the water usually recedes due to sediments building up and pushing the shoreline back for miles. there are other circumstances where the water in lakes are mis-used and within a very short period of time cities that were once on the coast of a lake are in the middle of a desert. never heard of a city being taken over by water but ill look into it.

[Legal lies]

Originally Posted by AfroHorse

some say humans have self awareness and animals do not

These animals have been proven to have at least some form of self-awareness-elephants, bottleneck dolphins, and the great apes (that includes us).

Elephants pass mirror test of self-awareness | Science | The Guardian

[ziplock]

Originally Posted by tedkennedy

as i said before it is pointless for me to keep arguing because you still think you right...

everything i have said is not my opinion or my argument but proven scientific theory and i merely tried to relate the information. but even the simplest statement is the topic of this large debate so as i said before it is pointless for me to even try to continue to prove i am right.

/end.

Show me a peer-reviewed scientific article that states the sole goal of all organisms in existence is to pass on their genetic information. I don't think I'm right, as I have yet to state my interpretation of the subject. All I have done is point out the illogical and fallacious aspects of yours. And on that note, keeping in line, all you have done is appeal to authority.

/end.

Regurgitation seems to be your forte, not genuine discussion. Ahh, the marvels of the modern education system.

[Legal lies]

Originally Posted by ziplock

Show me a peer-reviewed scientific article that states the sole goal of all organisms in existence is to pass on their genetic information. I don't think I'm right, as I have yet to state my interpretation of the subject. All I have done is point out the illogical and fallacious aspects of yours. And on that note, keeping in line, all you have done is appeal to authority.

/end.

Regurgitation seems to be your forte, not genuine discussion. Ahh, the marvels of the modern education system.

From a biological point of view, the point of life is for organisms to propagate their genes, or at least to ensure the survival of other individuals with a similar genetic makeup (this accounts for altruistic behaviors). Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene would be an example of a book that rather militantly advances this perspective (hence Dawkin's nickname, "Darwin's bulldog"). This perspective could be wrong, but most of the evidence seems to fit this model. It is falsifiable, however, as all good science is.

This perspective only addresses biological function. Subjective goals and meanings are entirely up to organisms capable of this type of thinking (humans and possibly other animals). Our genes have their goals, we're capable of coming up with our own.

[ziplock]

Originally Posted by Legal lies

From a biological point of view, the point of life is for organisms to propagate their genes, or at least to ensure the survival of other individuals with a similar genetic makeup (this accounts for altruistic behaviors).

From a biological point of view, it is observed universally with a seemingly great importance that organisms propagate their genes, or at least ensure the survival of other individuals with a similar genetic makeup (this could account for altruistic behaviors).

The ascription of "meaningful" concepts such as meaning, "the point", "the sole goal," to empirical phenomenon is a human activity akin to ascribing human characteristics to our concepts of "God" (which by definition transcends any human characteristics). Thus my remark that I feel like I'm arguing about God. It has no validity outside of the compulsions of the individual citing them. To say that biology or any scientific field says anything in regards to "the point of" or the "goals of" something is a tragic misunderstanding of science. As said before and I'm sure will be said again, an action taking place does not mean it is the "point" or "goal" of anything. The one doesn't necessitate the other.

[Legal lies]

Originally Posted by ziplock

To say that biology or any scientific field says anything in regards to "the point of" or the "goals of" something is a tragic misunderstanding of science. As said before and I'm sure will be said again, an action taking place does not mean it is the "point" or "goal" of anything. The one doesn't necessitate the other.

The "point" of our lungs is respiration. Their "goal" is to attach oxygen molecules to hemoglobin so that oxygen can be distributed throughout the body. All this about the points or goals is merely to say that this seems to be what it is that they do, that it is their function. Our course our lungs don't have conscious goals-I don't think that the terminology implies this. It is merely a useful way of speaking.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding science, I think you're overanalyzing things.

[ziplock]

Originally Posted by Legal lies

The "point" of our lungs is respiration. Their "goal" is to attach oxygen molecules to hemoglobin so that oxygen can be distributed throughout the body.

The "function" of our lungs falls in the category of respiration. They carry out this function by... blah blah blah.

Originally Posted by Legal lies

All this about the points or goals is merely to say that this seems to be what it is that they do, that it is their function. Our course our lungs don't have conscious goals-I don't think that the terminology implies this. It is merely a useful way of speaking.

The terminology is flawed in it's logic. It can be much more accurately described in a number of other fashions as I have demonstrated. I can interpret many reasons from evolutionary theory to support a more grandiose point to all of this. That is however simply supporting an opinion, it's not "fact", it's not an accurate description of what is occurring. It is flawed.

Originally Posted by Legal lies

I don't think I'm misunderstanding science, I think you're overanalyzing things.

Or am I simply taking the time to analyze things fully? Isn't that in a sense a large part of science? Attempting to fully analyze and accommodate in theory/models what is taking place?

[badgoalie85]

^now i think you're overanalyzing

[marauder]

i am an animal. humans just took the right path in evolution. animals shouldve followed us

[ziplock]

A point is relative. For instance, I can say the point of cells is to pass on their genes, or to integrate to form organs. Or it could be to integrate to form complex organisms such as humans. Or I could say the point is to progress towards universal order to this great unification of consciousness and physical material. The point is relative, the goal of stuff is relative, as a prerequisite for a goal or point is reason. That attribution of reason to empirical data is a purely human act of fancy.

This all is to point out a flaw in modern thinking, that is to say that our methods of describing the universe also determine the "point" of things. "The body functions in this and this way, you're just a big ball of biomass and there is no point to life," is a common statement that stems from this that is inherently flawed. There is a whole shit load of stuff along these lines that all falls back on this popular flaw and misperception. There is no validity in it. Saying that the sole goal of all organisms is to pass on genetic information IS NOT fact, it's opinion. Saying that all organisms can and for the most part do pass on genetic information IS fact. There is a WORLD of difference between the two.

Make sense?

[tedkennedy]

Originally Posted by ziplock

A point is relative. For instance, I can say the point of cells is to pass on their genes, or to integrate to form organs. Or it could be to integrate to form complex organisms such as humans. Or I could say the point is to progress towards universal order to this great unification of consciousness and physical material. The point is relative, the goal of stuff is relative, as a prerequisite for a goal or point is reason. That attribution of reason to empirical data is a purely human act of fancy.

This all is to point out a flaw in modern thinking, that is to say that our methods of describing the universe also determine the "point" of things. "The body functions in this and this way, you're just a big ball of biomass and there is no point to life," is a common statement that stems from this that is inherently flawed. There is a whole shit load of stuff along these lines that all falls back on this popular flaw and misperception. There is no validity in it. Saying that the sole goal of all organisms is to pass on genetic information IS NOT fact, it's opinion. Saying that all organisms can and for the most part do pass on genetic information IS fact. There is a WORLD of difference between the two.

Make sense?

no shit sherlock

you wouldn't do very good on a science test trying to argue that a "point is relative". as i said before, it is the context in which the statement is said in the context of evolution the driving force of animal behavior and natural selection is reproduction, and animal behavior is driven by their sole purpose to pass on their genetic information. this is the foundation of genetics and evolution.

as i have said before , this little argument was and still is pointless.

[Legal lies]

Originally Posted by ziplock

The "function" of our lungs falls in the category of respiration. They carry out this function by... blah blah blah.The terminology is flawed in it's logic.

My point is that I mean (and I think most people mean) exactly the same thing when I say point or goal as you do when you say function or something else. This is a different use of the term goal/point than we would use to say someone has a point/goal. To assume that I and others like me must be misunderstanding the point of science comes off as condescending.

Originally Posted by ziplock

a prerequisite for a goal or point is reason

Not always, only conscious human goals/points have reasons. The terms can be used in other ways:

goal-A noun or noun phrase referring to the place to which something moves

point-A quality or characteristic that is important or distinctive, especially a standard characteristic used to judge an animal. [observed universally with a seemingly great importance that-hmmm, seems like your long phrase could be simplified into 'point']

[reverie]

Originally Posted by tedkennedy

in the context of evolution the driving force of animal behavior and natural selection is reproduction, and animal behavior is driven by their sole purpose to pass on their genetic information. this is the foundation of genetics and evolution.

Evolution is a very complex and dynamic subject matter. It involves much more than genetics and reproduction. For if the sole purpose of Evolution was just to reproduce, humans would not have gotten or care to have gotten to where we are today. There would be no technology because there would be no need for it in the evolutionary process and there would even be no Science, because there would be no need for it. No advanced societies , no spiritual organizations. etc etc. All of it would've been futile and ignored by the Human Agenda if it was soley about passing on genetics.

You are assuming that the sole purpose of evolution is reproduction. Yes it is something we do, but we also do many other things by default. You allocating all purpose to one aspect of the human experience is subjective and your personal opinion, It is not the absolute truth.

[Legal lies]

Originally Posted by reverie

here would be no technology because there would be no need for it in the evolutionary process and there would even be no Science, because there would be no need for it.

Huh? Technology allowed humans to become more likely to survive, thus increasing the odds that individuals will pass on their DNA. Ditto with science. Ex. Guns allow us to defend ourselves against animals, hunt more successfully than ever before, etc.
Science allows us to overcome disease (childhood deaths have been vastly reduced and these individuals will now survive to pass on their genes), predict natural disasters, etc.

I'm not sure I disagree with all of your underlying points, but technology and science fit very well into evolutionary theory.

[tedkennedy]

Originally Posted by reverie

Evolution is a very complex and dynamic subject matter. It involves much more than genetics and reproduction. For if the sole purpose of Evolution was just to reproduce, humans would not have gotten or care to have gotten to where we are today. There would be no technology because there would be no need for it in the evolutionary process and there would even be no Science, because there would be no need for it. No advanced societies , no spiritual organizations. etc etc. All of it would've been futile and ignored by the Human Agenda if it was soley about passing on genetics.
.

actually, contrary to popular belief, evolution is quite simple and makes perfect sense. its very predictable...

i said humans were different than non-human animals because they have defeated non kin conflicts of interest which allowed brain expansion and kinship independent co-operation. so yes, they are different in that they THINK abstractly about things and produce art and culture, in this sense we are unique, i have said this from the beginning.

you are still caught up on the this one statement which is merely a factual foundation for proving the rest of theory i provided, which i have already repeated in this thread and other threads so i am just being redundant.

as i have said before you can subjectively think your sole purpose is whatever you want it to be, but for the sake of making a scientific theory about human evolution you have to go on facts. and the FACT IS that animal behavior is driven by the sole purpose of an organism to pass on its genetic information.

Originally Posted by Legal lies

Huh? Technology allowed humans to become more likely to survive, thus increasing the odds that individuals will pass on their DNA. Ditto with science. Ex. Guns allow us to defend ourselves against animals, hunt more successfully than ever before, etc.
Science allows us to overcome disease (childhood deaths have been vastly reduced and these individuals will now survive to pass on their genes), predict natural disasters, etc.

I'm not sure I disagree with all of your underlying points, but technology and science fit very well into evolutionary theory.

you are under-estimating the implications of guns and projectile weapons. the ability to project co-ersive threat is the driving for for human evolution and adaptive revolution.

i have explained this before and i still feel like a jackass for repeating myself for the 100th time, but i will sum it up in the simplest way possible, by the way this is an overview of human history predicted and proven by the theory that human uniqueness is driven by our active suppression of non-kin conflicts of interest using coersive threat. this is all proven by archaelogical evidence which i wont go into detail , im learnin it in school and i find it extremely interesting so i know it really well:

1st) human ancestor evolved ability for elite throwing, this made them very good hunters and ecologically dominant but they were still basically behaving like apes for the most part. this creature quickly evolves the physiology for speech because with the ability with elite throwing, comes suppression of non-kin conflicts of interest. to elaborate on this with simpler terms, when you have the ability to throw you can easily kill anyone who tries to go against you. therefore people form small non-kin groups and start working together. in the animal word this never happens because animals are always in competition with non-kin for resources and mates.

2nd) the atlatl is invented. a tool which allows a spear to be projected at high velocity. humans become "behaviorally modern" even though they are not physiologically different. rapidly after the atatl other tools such as handaxes and more complex cutting stones show up. the atlatl is better at projecting co-ersive threat therefore it forces people to co-operate with each other on a larger scale. this is the period of time when humans out-compete the neanderthal, the neanderthal was physiologically similiar but the key factor is that the neanderthal does not have the atlatl

3rd) the bow shows up in the fossil record. small sedentary towns form and shortly after agriculture. the bow allows anyone to use lethal force if neccesary.

4th) the bronze age. small civilizations and empires start forming. the majority of people are slaves and peasants whom are dominated by an elite group of bronze weapon and armor carrying elite.

5th) the iron age. iron is much more plentiful than bronze as well as stronger. weapons like the katana (although iron doesnt reach japan until about 800 years after iron technology is invented in turkey) can be made which are vastly superior, as well as iron armor. almost instantaneously all bronze age empires collapse and new empires form. This is the period of the roman empire, a similiar empire occurs in china, in japan and in the americas the incans, mayans, and aztecs have an extremely advanced society based on their own warrior class which predominantly uses cotton armor. to note the fact that these societies relied on coersive threat keep in mind that the romans were extremely brutal and they consta