Evolution for Dummies and Christians

Find me, in the animal kingdom, a single species that claims to build nests. Not any that do it that we can see, just those that claim it. What about scaly marine vertebrates who appear to be fishes but do not claim it?Human beings are animals whether or not we were created 6,000 years ago or evolved through a complicated process beginning 3.75 bya. Our species is subject to the same physiological constraints of any other given our environments. History has no bearing. Our opinions of ourselves has no bearing.Because of our particular trait of language we have a unique opportunity to examine the minds of our fellow humans. But we do not know what happens in the minds of other animals, or even if they have minds as we understand them.

This has to be about the worst application of 'logic' I have ever seen.You seem deeply, deeply confused - neither your arguments nor your conclusions make sense.As far as we know, no other animal denies it is an animal. erm...as far as we know, no other animal is able to do so. What does that prove?As far as we know, no other animal worships god. erm....as far as we know, no other animal is able to do so. What does that prove?>a) If we are to believe evolution theory incorporates man: Because
> a large amount of humans are denying their animal nature, they are
> doing something that no other animal has ever done.Yes.... there are a lot of things that all sorts of animals have done that no others have.> b) If we believe creationism incorporates man: We were created by
> God.
> c) Some other scientific theoryWhat, if anything, is your actual point?

We're glad you found your way home. Pull up a stump and set a spell. Kep your feet to the fire and the smoke never gets in your eyes.At the end of this message are some links to threads that might make your stay here more enjoyable.

---

"Chickens? I had an uncle once who thought he was a chicken. My aunt almost divorced him but we needed the eggs." Look, no offense, but I don't see how you can deny that you're an animal. You're not a plant, right? Nor a protist? Not an archeobacterium? Didn't think so.You eat the same food animals do; sometimes you even eat animals, probably. You sleep and have sex, and animals do those things too. Look if you can put a pig's heart in a human being, or use sheeps' insulin to cure a diabetic, which you can, then the difference between humans and your average animal is probably not all that great.Here, if you're so sure there's a huge difference, tell me which of these is the human cell and which is not:That's what I thought. Have you ever migrated halfway around the world on the strength of your arms with only the magnetic iron deposits in your brain to guide you? No? Then a whole lot of birds are doing something that no human has ever done. Are we unique? Sure. Are the the only unique animal? Hardly. So what?

I love your pictures, Crashfrog.

Hi, all...srry to butt in at such a late moment in the debate...
BUT THE TOPIC WAS SO ENTICING!!!Anyways, I'm not entirely certain what the specific topic is at the moment, but have gathered that we are attempting to descern whether a human being is an "animal" or not. If so, I shall not be wasting my time in posting what I believe to be true.First, to define any living thing within the category of "animal" one must first understand the very definition of animal itself. To me, an animal is a being whose actions are defined and determined by its instincts, a driving inner force, being embedded within their very DNA from conception, which determines what they do on an hourly, daily and life-long basis. What goals they pursue, which items to focus on, how to react to certain circumstances as a result of their "guiding system" which has been "tuned" by their past experiences. If we were to have evolved from such beings one would be led to conclude that we, ourselves, are also animals. Certainly such a conclustion seems logical. We have the same basic traits, the same impulses to survive and fulfill a certain purpose.As stated clearly by crashfrog, we can't even truly descern between the cells of other creatures and those of ourselves. It all points in the same direction- we...are...animals.HOWEVER, allow me to submit you this... what if, at one point in evolution (assuming evolution was the cause of our conception) we had broken apart from the tract we are associating ourselves with? What if we became higher beings, with a further driving purpose than simply to conform to instinctual drives? I believe that our simple ability to rationalize (and make appealing posts on the internet being fueled by logic and morals) and our ability to inherently depict what is right from what is wrong that has seperated us from animals.I ask you to present to me any other creature which can do so; choose between right and wrong, or what's more, discern right from wrong (the ability we gained as a result from the forbidden apple, I believe). Yes, apes can assign certain colors to remembered objects and parrots can imitate the vibrations of our vocal cords (talk), but where is the rationalization of that?What I am saying is that these "animals" have great skills, some which surpass our own, in their senses and perception, but that they can go no further. There is a definable and perceptable mental wall between the animals and ourselves. WE....ARE...NOT...ANIMALS, no matter what links, or similarities we might share with the animals, as stated previously, there is a certain distinction between them and ourselves, one which I believe is very difficult to overlook... added line breaks to make reading easier - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 09-20-2005 08:11 AM

Your definition of animal is wrong. To quote wikipedia:

quote:

---

Animals are a major group of organisms, classified as the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa. In general they are multicellular, capable of locomotion and responsive to their environment, and feed by consuming other organisms. Their body plan becomes fixed as they develop, usually early on in their development as embryos, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on.

---

Humans:

• are multicellular
• are capable of locomotion
• are responsive to enviroment
• consume other organisms
• have a fixed body plan

Homo sapiens are animals.This message has been edited by DrJones*, 09-19-2005 11:39 PM

---

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Better not mention this to Koko (or as she likes to call herself 'Fine animal person gorilla'). She thinks she is human, or at least equal. Her Internet Chat----Page not found – The Gorilla Foundation

An "animal" is any member of kingdom Animalia; these organisms are characterized by a metazoan form, feeding on other organisms as a sole source of energy, and eukaryotic cells that lack cell walls.Let me just check something - yup, humans are animals. Oh, I see. You're going to invent your own definitions for words. Gotcha. Evolution doesn't work like that. Even if we have unique abilities of reason and moral inspection, we're still merely animals who have those unique abilities. Any one of our closely-related primate cousins is capable of these feats. Pick whichever one you like. Well, how do any of us know that you're capable of rationalization? How do we know that this written post of yours is not simply the result of you imitating, via instict, the written communications of others?That's why your post is essentially circular reasoning. Because you assume that animals cannot reason or be moral, any example of animal reasoning or morality must simply be "instict" or "imitation" and thus, you know that animals cannot reason or be moral.Since the appearance of reason is all you need, apparently, to conclude that humans reason, the appearance of reason in some animals is proof that some animals can reason, as well.

Historical accident.In various times and places the week has not been seven days. However, the Romans had a seven day week when they ruled the Western world, so we got stuck with it (originaly the Romans had an 8 day week). It originated with the Babylonians, who were big into numerology and astrology. The Hebrews picked it up from them.It's also a convenient division of the lunar month.

The last point is probably the biggest reason. For primitive peoples, the moon is the most readily available clock and 7, 14, 21, 28 is a handy way to break it up with visible clues.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

First, to define any living thing within the category of "animal" one must first understand the very definition of animal itself. To me, an animal is a being whose actions are defined and determined by its instincts, a driving inner force, being embedded within their very DNA from conception, which determines what they do on an hourly, daily and life-long basis. What goals they pursue, which items to focus on, how to react to certain circumstances as a result of their "guiding system" which has been "tuned" by their past experiences. If we were to have evolved from such beings one would be led to conclude that we, ourselves, are also animals. Certainly such a conclustion seems logical. We have the same basic traits, the same impulses to survive and fulfill a certain purpose.
  —michah

---

'animal' is just a word. humans are always trying to put order to the universe and give everything a name. fact is, we are carbon-based life forms just like every other living thing on this planet. though i agree with the statements towards the end of this paragraph, most of it is just opinion. All human actions are swayed by instinct.

quote:

---

HOWEVER, allow me to submit you this... what if, at one point in evolution (assuming evolution was the cause of our conception) we had broken apart from the tract we are associating ourselves with? What if we became higher beings, with a further driving purpose than simply to conform to instinctual drives? I believe that our simple ability to rationalize (and make appealing posts on the internet being fueled by logic and morals) and our ability to inherently depict what is right from what is wrong that has seperated us from animals.
  —michah

---

the only way we are seperated from other animals is that we have greater brain power. That and our hands are our only assets in this world. we have seperated from other animals, just like they seperated from their anscestors and so on to the dawn of life. But we are still very much animals, driven by instinctual desires, though culture has caused us to hide these desires.

quote:

---

I ask you to present to me any other creature which can do so; choose between right and wrong, or what's more, discern right from wrong (the ability we gained as a result from the forbidden apple, I believe). Yes, apes can assign certain colors to remembered objects and parrots can imitate the vibrations of our vocal cords (talk), but where is the rationalization of that?
  —michah

---

dogs, cats, dolphins, really anything if you ask such an open ended question. There is no right or wrong. But there is morality in a certain population or society. Do you have a pet dog? Haven't you taught it not to defecate on the floor? And it learned that pooping on the floor was wrong, didn't it? Without morality, there would be no social animals such as ourselves. Dolphins group together and they have their own morality. So do whales. Any animal that nurtures its young has morality. And apes are the closest to us, socially and in many other ways (they are our ancestors).

quote:

---

What I am saying is that these "animals" have great skills, some which surpass our own, in their senses and perception, but that they can go no further. There is a definable and perceptable mental wall between the animals and ourselves. WE....ARE...NOT...ANIMALS, no matter what links, or similarities we might share with the animals, as stated previously, there is a certain distinction between them and ourselves, one which I believe is very difficult to overlook...
  —michah

---

there is a distinction between every animal. to say that a great difference between us and other animals prooves we are not animals is just ignorant. first, you are arguing about a name. its like saying that george patton is not a patton because he doesn't have the same nose pattons normally have. but the fact is, patton is a name, and patton is really a human. 'animal' describes certain similarities that a group of organisms have. also, there is no limit to how far an animal's 'skills' as you put it, can evolve. if there were i doubt humans would have come to be. perhaps in another million years or more dogs will start building cities and wrting books. but by then they wont be called dogs anymore, they'll be mogs. who really knows?yes humans have an overwhelming capability to analyze and rationalize and communicate these things. That is why we are humans and not apes. humans will have to evolve a lot more before we are considered a different type of organism other that animal. if we survive that long.

First you said "All human actions are swayed by instinct." So your saying that it is instinct for you to believe in evolution and for me to beleive in creation even though we come from the same ancesters as you would say? that instinct says to kill our brothers? What if your wrong about these instincts are really free will with hints from a devine creator?Second you said Instinctual Desires. What do you mean by instinct? What about desires? you also mentioned morality whats your definition of those words? The way im reading your statement these instincts can have good and bad consequences. i mean look at moths for instance the same bright colors that bring them to a flower might also bring them to a candle flame burning them. instinct is non discriminatory where as we as humans can discern between flowers and fire right? when was the last time you burnt yourself because you thought the candle was a yellow rose? and these desires you talk about these yearnings could they be hints from a devine creator? could God be trying to say something? what if your wrong about these so called instintual desires?You mentioned there was no right or wrong, that statement cant be true then can it? that statement could be right for me but wrong for you or the exact opposite. It could be indiffrent. was what hittler did wrong? executing jews for their faith. how about dr. jack kevorkian? helping people commit suicide? what of abortion? where do you stand on abortion?Teaching a dog not to poop on the floor is merely cause and effect not development between right and wrong. a dog knows that there is a punishment after pooping on the floor so it learns and retains that piece of information. its instincts are to eat, recreate, and protect it self from harm, it the dog gets kicked when it pees on my shoes it might not do it after a few tries. i recently read about an expirement where a man turned on a light and put a bowl of dogfood on the porch and the dog would come eat. after awhile he didnt put the food out but turned on the light and instantly the dog began to salivate, is having a light turned on instinct? no its a training

Oh yeah? Then why doesn't he do it when you're not around?If cause and effect is all it takes to internalize a moral code, why can't that explain your internal moral code? What's the difference between training a dog not to poop and training a child not to steal?

first i was wondering if you would oblige me by answering my other questions and secondly, what would you accept as evidence in the diffrence between training a dog and instructing a child?

---

akldema