Don't get your hopes up on that one. The same was said by religious folks about quantum mechanics and that turned out bad for them.doublestuforeo wrote:
The OP might be suggesting something like a spirit. Something that we currently cant measure scientifically. (Maybe later when we understand "string" theory better).Bubbalo wrote:
You know what's funny? You're arguing that we have to be made by God because 2% isn't enough for all those differences, but that's all there is. Even if God exists, we're still only 2% different.
More interestingly: if we are created by God, why are we so similar?
2 % is a huge amount in DNA terms. / End
Sorry madam, I was running naked and I stumbled and my dick ended in your pussy.chittydog wrote:
Mistake? How do you accidentally open a second account and start posting controversial topics with it?doublestuforeo wrote:
I already made it clear that I am also weamo8. (I have contacted a mod about my mistake and will have one account deleted, or I will get banned or something) However, I am not righthandfork (although I do like his style).chittydog wrote:
Anyone notice you never see righthandfork and doublestuforeo in the room at the same time...
Believe me or not, I dont really care. And quite frankly, I dont know why you do care.
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-04-05 15:06:31)
LOL, sergeriver. I hate when that happens
OP: 2% can be a lot. Which is true when talking about genetic material. If u had a value instead of a % I don't think you would have as much trouble believing what a difference it makes.
OP: 2% can be a lot. Which is true when talking about genetic material. If u had a value instead of a % I don't think you would have as much trouble believing what a difference it makes.
Let’s summarize the arguments:
I said 2% can’t explain a man on the moon vs. chimpanzees eating termites with a stick.
Most of the rest of you said 2% is a lot and can explain the gap that exists.
As my evidence, I said take any two species in the animal kingdom with a 2% difference and compare them. For example a deer and a moose. Every other species will be similar with slight advantages in speed, eyesight, sense of smell etc. adapted to their particular environment. But the gap is always manageable. Now something either went freakishly wrong (or right depending on your perspective) that makes the human gap so extreme that there is not a single other example that even comes close in the entire history of the natural world.
As your evidence, you present what? You tell me not to watch PBS documentaries, while Wikipedia is the de facto authority in this forum? Amusing.
I said 2% can’t explain a man on the moon vs. chimpanzees eating termites with a stick.
Most of the rest of you said 2% is a lot and can explain the gap that exists.
As my evidence, I said take any two species in the animal kingdom with a 2% difference and compare them. For example a deer and a moose. Every other species will be similar with slight advantages in speed, eyesight, sense of smell etc. adapted to their particular environment. But the gap is always manageable. Now something either went freakishly wrong (or right depending on your perspective) that makes the human gap so extreme that there is not a single other example that even comes close in the entire history of the natural world.
As your evidence, you present what? You tell me not to watch PBS documentaries, while Wikipedia is the de facto authority in this forum? Amusing.
No, what is amusing is your persistent attempts at using flawed logic to convince us of the existence of an omnipotent being.
2% explains a lot when it goes into a little extra intelligence and speech.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No, what is amusing is your persistent attempts at using flawed logic to convince us of the existence of an omnipotent being.
Last edited by King_County_Downy (2007-04-05 16:33:56)
Yes. Just 2% ! Amazing isn't it!righthandfork wrote:
Can 2% of our DNA really explain why a satellite is orbiting the earth, beaming precise pulses of waves to the DirectTV dish of some farmhouse in Ohio, and the family inside is watching The Matrix Reloaded on their High-Definition Plasma TV, while a chimpanzee is picking its nose in the jungle?
It isn't just 'biology'.righthandfork wrote:
What if our biology isn’t everything that makes us human?
In a sense they are.righthandfork wrote:
What if all these great accomplishments are expressions of something more godly than a modified ape?
What is? You only asked questions, made no statements. Anyhoo, I'll to correctly intuit what you meant...righthandfork wrote:
For me, that is the more logical interpretation of the evidence.
Your conclusion is not a "logical interpretation of the evidence".
It is, on the otherhand, a subjective, intuitive and illogical interpratation of the evidence.
Science views the world with eyes and mind wide open. Yours appear to be blinkered. Open your eyes. Open your mind. See just how amazing reality really is.
I am still waiting for an example of two species that share 98% of their genetic code but are so fundamentally different that they shouldn't even belong to the same planet.
Last edited by righthandfork (2007-04-05 16:07:03)
And I am still waiting for your photograph of you giving God the bunny ears.righthandfork wrote:
I am still waiting for an example of two species that share 98% of their genetic code but are so fundamentally different that they shouldn't even be on the same planet.
Alright, I'll take the time to explain my take on all of this. Binobo Chimps, 98% genetically identical to homosapiens. Right. What separates us from them? Aquatic skin. (our fat attaches to our skin, not to our muscles like in land mammals.) This fat depository redistribution allows the fat to attach to the lining of the skull and minimally to the brain cells themselves. This in turn allows electrical signals to travel more efficiently throughout the brain.righthandfork wrote:
I am still waiting for an example of two species that share 98% of their genetic code but are so fundamentally different that they shouldn't even belong to the same planet.
How and why we have aquatic skin remains a mystery. I blame Aliens.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
Was that an argument for or against me?King_County_Downy wrote:
Alright, I'll take the time to explain my take on all of this. Binobo Chimps, 98% genetically identical to homosapiens. Right. What separates us from them? Aquatic skin. (our fat attaches to our skin, not to our muscles like in land mammals.) This fat depository redistribution allows the fat to attach to the lining of the skull and minimally to the brain cells themselves. This in turn allows electrical signals to travel more efficiently throughout the brain.righthandfork wrote:
I am still waiting for an example of two species that share 98% of their genetic code but are so fundamentally different that they shouldn't even belong to the same planet.
How and why we have aquatic skin remains a mystery. I blame Aliens.
Both actually. You are 100% correct when you said that " two species that share 98% of their genetic code but are so fundamentally different that they shouldn't even belong to the same planet".righthandfork wrote:
Was that an argument for or against me?King_County_Downy wrote:
Alright, I'll take the time to explain my take on all of this. Binobo Chimps, 98% genetically identical to homosapiens. Right. What separates us from them? Aquatic skin. (our fat attaches to our skin, not to our muscles like in land mammals.) This fat depository redistribution allows the fat to attach to the lining of the skull and minimally to the brain cells themselves. This in turn allows electrical signals to travel more efficiently throughout the brain.righthandfork wrote:
I am still waiting for an example of two species that share 98% of their genetic code but are so fundamentally different that they shouldn't even belong to the same planet.
How and why we have aquatic skin remains a mystery. I blame Aliens.
My explanation is aliens messed with the Binobo DNA, perhaps a cross breeding of chimp and dolphin.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
But we are not so fundamentally different from the primates that we share 98% of our genetic code with.righthandfork wrote:
I am still waiting for an example of two species that share 98% of their genetic code but are so fundamentally different that they shouldn't even belong to the same planet.
This is a great point that you're making. The problem is that the human genome project never actually mapped every gene. There were gaps that they believed contained the "human soul". I don't know if it's actually true, but it could make sense. You have to realize that we evolved to survive. We originated from the middle of africa, which is probably one of the most hostile places to a man. We developed our brains to think of solutions to problems like migrating and the ice age. They geniuses that make weapons and coats lived to develop our modern brain, and the idiots died off. That's just what i believe.
The fundamental difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom is 1)Self Awareness (Knowing that we will someday die) and 2) the ability to reason. Reasoning is very different than instinct and "learned behavior" which we've learned through the studies of Maslow.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
But we are not so fundamentally different from the primates that we share 98% of our genetic code with.righthandfork wrote:
I am still waiting for an example of two species that share 98% of their genetic code but are so fundamentally different that they shouldn't even belong to the same planet.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
Self awareness and the ability to reason are not unique to humans.King_County_Downy wrote:
The fundamental difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom is 1)Self Awareness (Knowing that we will someday die) and 2) the ability to reason. Reasoning is very different than instinct and "learned behavior" which we've learned through the studies of Maslow.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
But we are not so fundamentally different from the primates that we share 98% of our genetic code with.righthandfork wrote:
I am still waiting for an example of two species that share 98% of their genetic code but are so fundamentally different that they shouldn't even belong to the same planet.
Examples? Memory has been shown in animals such as Elephants, but to prove they know that they will die themselves cannot. I'd be really interested if you could back up that claim.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Self awareness and the ability to reason are not unique to humans.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
Even more amusing is your shaky grasp of science. You seem to be determined to have found fault, but you know little about the subject other than a primitive attempt to use simple numbers as your proof. Much more complex than that. Evolution can explain human achievement, if you at least try to use the science correctly.righthandfork wrote:
Let’s summarize the arguments:
I said 2% can’t explain a man on the moon vs. chimpanzees eating termites with a stick.
Most of the rest of you said 2% is a lot and can explain the gap that exists.
As my evidence, I said take any two species in the animal kingdom with a 2% difference and compare them. For example a deer and a moose. Every other species will be similar with slight advantages in speed, eyesight, sense of smell etc. adapted to their particular environment. But the gap is always manageable. Now something either went freakishly wrong (or right depending on your perspective) that makes the human gap so extreme that there is not a single other example that even comes close in the entire history of the natural world.
As your evidence, you present what? You tell me not to watch PBS documentaries, while Wikipedia is the de facto authority in this forum? Amusing.
For 'ability to reason' - Caledonian Crows : http://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/tools_main.html, http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/050113.shtml ...King_County_Downy wrote:
Examples? Memory has been shown in animals such as Elephants, but to prove they know that they will die themselves cannot. I'd be really interested if you could back up that claim.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Self awareness and the ability to reason are not unique to humans.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-04-05 16:45:39)
This question is exactly why I am studying evolutionary biology AND evolutionary psychology.
That 2 percent in dna difference does not explain the total variance of it.
2 may seem like a small number, but it may be one section of dna that repeatedly changes. thus, it is vastly different, but only the same amount has changed...
evolution explains nearly everything in life... it's just a matter of truly understanding the process of natural selection.
For instance... apes, because of their climate, predators and other aspects of their living situation, developed into herbivores, walked on 4 appendages, and didn't have language.
Modern humans, however, having originated in Africa, were not herbivores, had to hunt, and because of their need for hunting and traveling (to follow herds), communication became essential. The ability to conceive language exists in Apes (Koko the Gorilla... google it), but they do not NEED to learn language because of how they live.
Back to humans though... so, as language developed, SO DID THE PARTS OF OUR BRAIN THAT COULD IDENTIFY LANGUAGE. If you could not speak, you would be left out, and often died... survival of the fittest. So, we developed language because we were nomadic hunters...
we are different because we are 1337.
Evolution is 1337.
Sorry... have to go somewhere. I'll end this less shittily later.
That 2 percent in dna difference does not explain the total variance of it.
2 may seem like a small number, but it may be one section of dna that repeatedly changes. thus, it is vastly different, but only the same amount has changed...
evolution explains nearly everything in life... it's just a matter of truly understanding the process of natural selection.
For instance... apes, because of their climate, predators and other aspects of their living situation, developed into herbivores, walked on 4 appendages, and didn't have language.
Modern humans, however, having originated in Africa, were not herbivores, had to hunt, and because of their need for hunting and traveling (to follow herds), communication became essential. The ability to conceive language exists in Apes (Koko the Gorilla... google it), but they do not NEED to learn language because of how they live.
Back to humans though... so, as language developed, SO DID THE PARTS OF OUR BRAIN THAT COULD IDENTIFY LANGUAGE. If you could not speak, you would be left out, and often died... survival of the fittest. So, we developed language because we were nomadic hunters...
we are different because we are 1337.
Evolution is 1337.
Sorry... have to go somewhere. I'll end this less shittily later.
Wow, cool sight ok, point proven on that one, now on to self awarenessScorpion0x17 wrote:
For 'ability to reason' - Caledonian Crows : http://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/tools_main.html, http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/050113.shtml ...King_County_Downy wrote:
Examples? Memory has been shown in animals such as Elephants, but to prove they know that they will die themselves cannot. I'd be really interested if you could back up that claim.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Self awareness and the ability to reason are not unique to humans.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
Yeah, self awareness is a little more tricky - firstly it depends on what we mean by 'self awareness', secondly it's hampered by our inability to just ask them - what set of behaviours shows 'awareness of mortality'?...King_County_Downy wrote:
Wow, cool sight ok, point proven on that one, now on to self awarenessScorpion0x17 wrote:
For 'ability to reason' - Caledonian Crows : http://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/tools_main.html, http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/050113.shtml ...King_County_Downy wrote:
Examples? Memory has been shown in animals such as Elephants, but to prove they know that they will die themselves cannot. I'd be really interested if you could back up that claim.
In my opinion, from the evidence I've seen, there's a grey-scale of 'self-awareness' just as there's a grey-scale of 'ability to reason' and, again in my opinion, virtually every living thing is 'self-aware' to some, still significant, degree.
You’re right, I don’t know as much about science as you do. But will you admit that humans are an anomaly in the theory of natural selection? And if they are not, then give some examples of where something similar has happened before. This is all I have been asking for. Continued avoidance of this problem is an admission that the reality around us does not always conform to scientific theories. I use the term “theories” as opposed to “fact,” because science is in a constant state of flux. Throughout history new discoveries have led to complete revisions of scientific paradigms. Or have we finally reached the “truth?” Do our models of the natural world finally conform to reality and there is no need for advancement?Drakef wrote:
Even more amusing is your shaky grasp of science. You seem to be determined to have found fault, but you know little about the subject other than a primitive attempt to use simple numbers as your proof. Much more complex than that. Evolution can explain human achievement, if you at least try to use the science correctly.righthandfork wrote:
Let’s summarize the arguments:
I said 2% can’t explain a man on the moon vs. chimpanzees eating termites with a stick.
Most of the rest of you said 2% is a lot and can explain the gap that exists.
As my evidence, I said take any two species in the animal kingdom with a 2% difference and compare them. For example a deer and a moose. Every other species will be similar with slight advantages in speed, eyesight, sense of smell etc. adapted to their particular environment. But the gap is always manageable. Now something either went freakishly wrong (or right depending on your perspective) that makes the human gap so extreme that there is not a single other example that even comes close in the entire history of the natural world.
As your evidence, you present what? You tell me not to watch PBS documentaries, while Wikipedia is the de facto authority in this forum? Amusing.
How can humans be an anomaly? Human acheivement makes perfect sense. Now the only thing that can stop our survival as a species is pretty much the destruction of the planet.
And soon (especially in evolutionary terms), even THAT won't do it. Once we make it to the stars, the only thing that can stop humanity is humanity itself becoming more than merely human.
And soon (especially in evolutionary terms), even THAT won't do it. Once we make it to the stars, the only thing that can stop humanity is humanity itself becoming more than merely human.