Japan approves research method to grow human organs inside animals

[Hank77]

Talk in science. Do you know the average age?

It's stated in the article. What I gather is that if a chimp is well cared for in captivity it's possible for them to live much longer than average.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So what are you trying to accomplish here?

Sometimes it's worth correcting an error just to have the correction 'on record', e.g. for future reference, for lurkers, etc.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Talk in science. Do you know the average age?

For chimps in the wild, the life span is 40 to 50 years.

The average life expectancy of humans in the 17th century was around 35 years. Of course, such averages depend on things like child mortality, which can skew the expected result.

 

[juvenissun]

I gave you real-world examples based on known data. Responding with a hypothetical view as how we ought to view things isn't useful unless you can substantiate why we should follow your reasoning and back up with with real world data.

Let me know when you can do that.

You do not understand why is your data useless in your argument. Don't you? Fine, you do not understand my explanation and do not want to understand. Suit yourself.

 

[juvenissun]

For chimps in the wild, the life span is 40 to 50 years.

The average life expectancy of humans in the 17th century was around 35 years. Of course, such averages depend on things like child mortality, which can skew the expected result.

I don't know. I think historically, the average life span of human without modern medical care is about 40+ if not counting infant mortality.
I guess that for chimp could be somewhere around 20+. What you said is the age at the high end.

And, there are legend everywhere in the world that ancient people, in fact, have much higher longevity than later people. I don't know why. But that is what's said in literatures. The Genesis describes the max. human age decreased from 900 to 200, then to 120. It is a puzzle to me, but I believe it is true.

 

[juvenissun]

It's stated in the article. What I gather is that if a chimp is well cared for in captivity it's possible for them to live much longer than average.

So is human.

 

[pitabread]

You do not understand why is your data useless in your argument.

Data schmata, amirite?

At any rate, you're basically contradicting yourself here. On the one hand, you're claiming what I am presenting is irrelevant. But on the other hand, you can't support your own position.

If you can't support your own position, then you can't know that my position is incorrect or that the information I gave you about tardigrades is "useless".

My suggestion is for you to take some time to actually think about what you are trying to argue for in this thread and then present it in a more thoughtful, meaningful manner.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No word game this time.

Good. It won't surprise me, though, to see you continue your word games with others in this thread.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't know.
... What you said is the age at the high end.

Lol! you don't know, but you think the figures from real-world observation are 'at the high end'...

And, there are legend everywhere in the world that ancient people, in fact, have much higher longevity than later people. I don't know why. But that is what's said in literatures. The Genesis describes the max. human age decreased from 900 to 200, then to 120. It is a puzzle to me, but I believe it is true.

Myths and legends are poor guides to reality - as, it follows, are your beliefs.

 

[juvenissun]

Lol! you don't know, but you think the figures from real-world observation are 'at the high end'...

Myths and legends are poor guides to reality - as, it follows, are your beliefs.

One legend or local legend may only be taken as a reference. But a legend of global nature across cultures definitely says something. Overlook this fact is not scientific.

Yes, that is what I think. Is that what you "think" too? Why should I think the same way as you do?

 

[juvenissun]

At any rate, you're basically contradicting yourself here. On the one hand, you're claiming what I am presenting is irrelevant. But on the other hand, you can't support your own position.

I see no contradiction. You are wrong does not necessary mean I know something.

 

[pitabread]

I see no contradiction. You are wrong does not necessary mean I know something.

You don't appear to know anything about the discussion in question and therefore wouldn't have any basis to gauge whether I am correct or not.

You kinda need, y'know, some knowledge for that.

On top of that, I already know that I'm not wrong since as I explained it really comes down to whatever specific measurements you want to talk about.

For example, if you wanted to compare how long the human body can go without food or water before death happens there are numerous organisms that have us beat in that category. So by definition the human body can't be superior based on those types of metrics.

Since this is stuff that can be objectively measured, it's not even a matter of personal opinion. This goes back to my 2+2 = 4 analogy from earlier in the thread.

 

[juvenissun]

I just watched this video.
I am not sure, but I think the human ears are very good. It should be better than 95% of animals'.

 

[Lost4words]

"Is that a new nose or snout i see on you?" Said the manager to his employee.....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

One legend or local legend may only be taken as a reference. But a legend of global nature across cultures definitely says something. Overlook this fact is not scientific.

I agree. Humans have a strong creative imagination for how things could be and how they could have been, a strong tendency to interpret the world in terms of agency and teleology, especially in explaining the unknown, and an equally strong tendency to generate narratives, to tell, embellish, and elaborate stories.

Mythical, magical, supernatural, legendary creatures, spirits, sprites, fairies, gods, devils, demons, etc., recurring across many cultures. There's no evidence any of them are or were real. On the other hand, we do have evidence of many extraordinary creatures that are real, and none appear to have supernatural powers or abilities...

... Why should I think the same way as you do?

I don't think that's possible, we all think in uniquely individual ways. But there are useful tools and aids to thinking that are worth considering, like rationality, scepticism, critical thinking, Bayesian thinking, etc. These can help clarify and resolve matters, e.g. help in distinguishing fact from fiction, probable from improbable, real from unreal, etc.