Looking for all the missing links

[NailsII]

Well you had best produce one of these 'good definitions' because I have never ever seen one. They only exist in your imagination and on your wish list.

You seem to feel that straining any point gives you some sort of come back. Well it doesn't. You know what a ghost is regardless of your belief in them. Regardless the majority of the human race have higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and sophisticated language. This is what makes us human and differentiates mankind from other primates.

The bottom line is that you have no definition of human. Hence mine outdoes yours because you have none.

You have a very poor, unworkable definition - I'd say that's worth no more than nothing.

I didn't strain the point, I pointed out the logical flaws in your argument.
Get over it, and alter your definition - as you so clearly want it to be right.

Personally - I have no need to define a human - I don't need to put everything into such descrete little boxes to make my life meaningful.

It's fun to claim that with capitols to make it proof. You must be right.

Is there any reason why we would not be animals?

Actually it is Evos that have the problem, because they do not want to accept that Humans cook their food and Apes do not cook their food. Humans do not need a strong jaw bone and jaw muscle the way Apes do. Humans do not need to spend so much time and energy to digest their food. Humans have less disease because cooked food is more healthy to eat. The people that claim raw food is better then cooked food are wrong. Unless your on a diet, because raw food is more difficult to digest. So Mr Sincere, did the common ancestor that Humans are said to have evolved from eat meat or just veggies? Did Erectus and Neanderthal cook their food?

Yeah, all 'evos' deny that humans cook their food.

* sigh *

Cooked food is not better than raw per se, it is just easier to digest - that means that you can extract a greater percentage of its calorie content and expend less energy doing so.

Personally I think that cooked food tastes better however.

As to our ancestors, probably and yes.

Evidence of controlled fire has been found in settlements attrributed to both species, including burnt animal bones.

 

[juvenissun]

Jro answered the question better than I could have. (BTW microsatellite DNA are non-coding short repeated sequences). There is no specific "horse gene" rather, one can find certain markers that are unique to horses, just like with different human groups.

So, can we use the genetic "markers" to define species? What do the genetic markers of human look like? May be that would be the best definition of human. Would it be appropriate?

Sorry to bother you with these questions. I wish someone can answer them. So far, you are the best one. I wish sfs were here.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

There are many concepts that we as humans use that are not precisely defined, yet still we know what they mean. "palatable". Give me a definition of that. Show me when some food changes from palatable to not palatable. When is a building a tall building?

However, what is "human" is a very well defined concept. Is there a single living, already born, organism alive today where there is any doubt whether this organism is human or not? I'd say no. Hence, "human" is one of the more crisp concepts we have.

Whether or not we can write a dictionary definition, which is what some of the argument on this thread is about, simply is a question of whether or not we can write a definition. That's an exercise in linguistics, and has nothing to do with biology.

 

[juvenissun]

There are many concepts that we as humans use that are not precisely defined, yet still we know what they mean. "palatable". Give me a definition of that. Show me when some food changes from palatable to not palatable. When is a building a tall building?

However, what is "human" is a very well defined concept. Is there a single living, already born, organism alive today where there is any doubt whether this organism is human or not? I'd say no. Hence, "human" is one of the more crisp concepts we have.

Whether or not we can write a dictionary definition, which is what some of the argument on this thread is about, simply is a question of whether or not we can write a definition. That's an exercise in linguistics, and has nothing to do with biology.

You are not looking at the problems.

Problem 1: Horse is an animal, dog is an animal, etc. But is human also an animal? To answer this question, we need to define human.

Problem 2: Human is easy to recognize. But are transitional species to human also easy to recognize? Absolutely not. That is why we need a definition of human.

Without a definition, even we can tell a human from a dog, we do can treat some humans as dogs.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

You are not looking at the problems.

Oh yes I am, you are trying to create artificial problems.

Problem 1: Horse is an animal, dog is an animal, etc. But is human also an animal? To answer this question, we need to define human.

Actually, here we need to define animal, and see if human fits within the definition. Let's have a look at a dictionary definition.

an·i·mal   [an-uh-muhl] Show IPA
noun
1.
any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
2.
any such living thing other than a human being.
3.
a mammal, as opposed to a fish, bird, etc.
4.
the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of human beings; animality: the animal in every person.
5.
an inhuman person; brutish or beastlike person: She married an animal.

What definition of 'animal' is there that doesn't exclude human beings only through special pleading? (as definition 2 does)?

Problem 2: Human is easy to recognize. But are transitional species to human also easy to recognize? Absolutely not. That is why we need a definition of human.

No we don't. If we're talking about the evolution to modern unambiguous humans, it's entirely reasonable if some of the species along the path of or near to the line that developed into humans are "partially human". I.e. it is ambiguous whether or not we call them humans or not.

Without a definition, even we can tell a human from a dog, we do can treat some humans as dogs.

We can tell humans from dogs, even without a mutually agreed definition. If you put 100 humans and 100 dogs into an identity parade, and ask 100 people to say who is human and who is dog, then barring typo errors or deliberate mistakes, everyone will get it 100% correct.

Requiring a definition before we tell humans from dogs is absolutely not necessary.

 

[juvenissun]

Oh yes I am, you are trying to create artificial problems.



Actually, here we need to define animal, and see if human fits within the definition. Let's have a look at a dictionary definition.



What definition of 'animal' is there that doesn't exclude human beings only through special pleading? (as definition 2 does)?



No we don't. If we're talking about the evolution to modern unambiguous humans, it's entirely reasonable if some of the species along the path of or near to the line that developed into humans are "partially human". I.e. it is ambiguous whether or not we call them humans or not.



We can tell humans from dogs, even without a mutually agreed definition. If you put 100 humans and 100 dogs into an identity parade, and ask 100 people to say who is human and who is dog, then barring typo errors or deliberate mistakes, everyone will get it 100% correct.

Requiring a definition before we tell humans from dogs is absolutely not necessary.

Why bothered with "partial human"? It is an animal anyway. The reason you call it partial, because you have a definition of the whole. May I ask what is a "whole" human?

If human is an animal, why do we need the name human? Dog is an animal, horse is an animal, why tell them apart?

-------

See, that is an important reason that God wants Adam to "name" animals He created. So we know that this animal is different from that animal, because they have different name.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Why bothered with "partial human"? It is an animal anyway. The reason you call it partial, because you have a definition of the whole. May I ask what is a "whole" human?

If human is an animal, why do we need the name human? Dog is an animal, horse is an animal, why tell them apart?

-------

See, that is an important reason that God wants Adam to "name" animals He created. So we know that this animal is different from that animal, because they have different name.

I am using the terms in a fuzzy logic meaning.

Partial, in this context, doesn't mean "part of" it means "ambiguously". I.e. we have things (people living today) which fully satisfy the concept "human" and are unambiguously assigned to the set/concept "human". We have things, e.g. the bird that has just landed on the skylight above me, which unambiguously is not in the set "human". An early human fossil may be partially human because it's not unambiguously a member or not a member of the set of "humans". I.e. that this proto-human is partially human.

"human" is like "tall". There are some people who unambiguously are not "tall" like the shortest human on earth. And some are unambiguously "tall", like the tallest human on earth. Most of us are members of the concept "tall" to greater or lesser degrees (context, viewpoint, etc.) and hence are "partly" tall. Same for being human. If you include extinct humans, there is no clear dividing line between human and not-human, and some extinct species will be partly human.

And it is plain wrong to try to make a definition that crisply distinguishes between human and non-human, because no actual such crisp delineation exists in the real world.

 

[good brother]

And it is plain wrong to try to make a definition that crisply distinguishes between human and non-human, because no actual such crisp delineation exists in the real world.

Would you say there is a case then to be made for bestiality? If no clear destinction exists, that's gotta be great news to... well, uh... that crowd. But I bet you would say "...that's gross and of course I'm not promoting any idea like that..." So wouldn't that mean there IS a clear distinction that crisply defines human and non human?

GB

 

[Split Rock]

So, can we use the genetic "markers" to define species? What do the genetic markers of human look like? May be that would be the best definition of human. Would it be appropriate?

Sorry to bother you with these questions. I wish someone can answer them. So far, you are the best one. I wish sfs were here.

Very good! Yes, there is a lot of research now being carried out using genetics to differentiate species. Recently, they created a new elephant species based on genetics (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101221172244.htm). Also a lot of research now is being used to try and work out species among mircoorganisms, which is a real problem because they exchange DNA and don't form sexually reproducing populations. In all these cases researchers are looking at how much the genome of one popualtion differs from another population. Nevertheless, the amount of difference that would qualify as a different species remains arbitrary.

As far as the rest, we are humans. This is by definition. Are you looking for some wider definition that could apply to our ancestors? Or even toward an alien species??

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Would you say there is a case then to be made for bestiality? If no clear destinction exists, that's gotta be great news to... well, uh... that crowd. But I bet you would say "...that's gross and of course I'm not promoting any idea like that..." So wouldn't that mean there IS a clear distinction that crisply defines human and non human?

This is a severe mis-characterisation of my point. I said that among currently living things, there was no ambiguity as to what is human and what is non-human. The only ambiguity is if we look on the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, and small branches off this line. So, the concept of bestiality is clear because if two organisms have sex, there is no ambiguity at all as to whether both of them are human, or if one is human and one is not.

If we found a living population of Homo habilis or something, then we'd have to address the issue of whether sex between Homo sapiens and Homo habilis should be allowed or not. But since there are no semi-human species around today, there is no such problem.

As this was clearly stated in my original post, I am a bit disappointed that you asked the question, as I feel it's based on a misunderstanding of my point.

The only way there could be sexual contact between humans and proto-humans that I can see is if someone used proto-human bones and other fossils/relics as sexual aids. I can't see anything morally wrong with that, but feel that such people are less likely to injure themselves using modern properly designed sexual aids instead of old bones.

 

[Split Rock]

You are not looking at the problems.

Problem 1: Horse is an animal, dog is an animal, etc. But is human also an animal? To answer this question, we need to define human.

Problem 2: Human is easy to recognize. But are transitional species to human also easy to recognize? Absolutely not. That is why we need a definition of human.

Without a definition, even we can tell a human from a dog, we do can treat some humans as dogs.

All members of our species are humans. In the past, certain popualtions were branded as "sub-human" and yes you are correct that that led to treating some people as even less than dogs. How do we apply the term to other hominds? If they were around today, how would we treat them? All very good questions... but there are no black and white answers.

Why bothered with "partial human"? It is an animal anyway. The reason you call it partial, because you have a definition of the whole. May I ask what is a "whole" human?

If human is an animal, why do we need the name human? Dog is an animal, horse is an animal, why tell them apart?

-------

See, that is an important reason that God wants Adam to "name" animals He created. So we know that this animal is different from that animal, because they have different name.

We differentiate ourselves from other animals because we are a social species and out of self-centerism. "We" are more important than other species. A human life is worth more than other species. This is admittedly subjective.

 

[good brother]

This is a severe mis-characterisation of my point. I said that among currently living things, there was no ambiguity as to what is human and what is non-human. The only ambiguity is if we look on the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, and small branches off this line. So, the concept of bestiality is clear because if two organisms have sex, there is no ambiguity at all as to whether both of them are human, or if one is human and one is not.

If we found a living population of Homo habilis or something, then we'd have to address the issue of whether sex between Homo sapiens and Homo habilis should be allowed or not. But since there are no semi-human species around today, there is no such problem.

Man, if you can't tell a huge unambigious difference between this:

and this:

, then I really don't know what to tell you. I am positive I could tell unambigiously the differences between human and non human.

GB

 

[Split Rock]

Man, if you can't tell a huge unambigious difference between this:

and this:

, then I really don't know what to tell you. I am positive I could tell unambigiously the differences between human and non human.

GB

I agree that probably wouldn't really be an issue, but what about Neanderthals?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Man, if you can't tell a huge unambigious difference between this:

and this:

, then I really don't know what to tell you. I am positive I could tell unambigiously the differences between human and non human.

GB

Clearly there's a difference, which is why they are typically assigned to different species, but enough difference to make one fully human and the other fully non-human. Particularly since you've chosen a particular person (Jenifer Aniston I believe) who looks more different from the early proto-human you picture than the average human. Try this:

But even then, there's not just one proto-human, and if people draw "the line" in different places, that still creates ambiguity and a fuzzy concept.

How about this species? Is this fully human or not?

Alan Titchmarsh has prosthetic makeup done to him to make him look Neanderthal, and then walked out on the street to test the common claim that if Neanderthals were around, we'd recognise them as humans. He appeared to pass quite well. He says that he is so well known that people recognise him in the street, and in the Neanderthal make-up, he was pleased to find that not being recognised he actually fit in better than he normally does.

I don't think anyone here will be PM'ing me asking who the hunk is and do I know their contact details, but it would take a ..... "particular personality" to claim that someone who looked like that wasn't human.

 

[USincognito]

Would you say there is a case then to be made for bestiality?

Well, if one wants to take juvvies tack with the English language and make words mean anything one wants them to rather than go with what every other English speaker on earth thinks they mean, I suppose one could make such a case.

Or one could use words in the way every other speaker of the English language on earth uses them and take beastiality to mean "human sex with non-human animals".

I guess that's between you, juvvie and the barnyard.

 

[good brother]

But even then, there's not just one proto-human, and if people draw "the line" in different places, that still creates ambiguity and a fuzzy concept.

How about this species? Is this fully human or not?

Alan Titchmarsh has prosthetic makeup done to him to make him look Neanderthal, and then walked out on the street to test the common claim that if Neanderthals were around, we'd recognise them as humans. He appeared to pass quite well. He says that he is so well known that people recognise him in the street, and in the Neanderthal make-up, he was pleased to find that not being recognised he actually fit in better than he normally does.

I don't think anyone here will be PM'ing me asking who the hunk is and do I know their contact details, but it would take a ..... "particular personality" to claim that someone who looked like that wasn't human.

I would argue that the three you posted are more human than this:

Sorry, I couldn't help it. I am not trying to derail the thread and will cease and desist with the pics. Just having a bit of fun.

GB

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I would argue that the three you posted are more human than this:

Sorry, I couldn't help it. I am not trying to derail the thread and will cease and desist with the pics. Just having a bit of fun.

GB

I don't think your image derails the thread at all. I can get a better "matching" homo sapiens picture if I trawl through the great variability of the human race. But I thought posting a more similar to the proto-human photo was in general .... not being nice. However, the person in your picture CHOSE to look like that, and hence I think is fairer game for the comparison.

 

[Jro]

Very good! Yes, there is a lot of research now being carried out using genetics to differentiate species. Recently, they created a new elephant species based on genetics (Africa has two elephant species, genetic analysis confirms). Also a lot of research now is being used to try and work out species among mircoorganisms, which is a real problem because they exchange DNA and don't form sexually reproducing populations. In all these cases researchers are looking at how much the genome of one popualtion differs from another population. Nevertheless, the amount of difference that would qualify as a different species remains arbitrary.

As far as the rest, we are humans. This is by definition. Are you looking for some wider definition that could apply to our ancestors? Or even toward an alien species??

It's crazy how many cryptic species are popping up these days, I feel like every single critter I start researching they've split it into two or three groups. I've heard some researchers start to talk about how we should do away with the term 'species' and just use operational taxonomic units.

 

[SkyWriting]

I agree that probably wouldn't really be an issue, but what about Neanderthals?

They may be better looking than chimps we see today or they may be much uglier than the average human. Neither situation proves them to be your ancestors. DNA is thought to be the miracle identifier, but it's mostly for directing the shape of the lifeform. Similar shapes may have similar DNA independent of it's history.

 

[good brother]

It's crazy how many cryptic species are popping up these days, I feel like every single critter I start researching they've split it into two or three groups. I've heard some researchers start to talk about how we should do away with the term 'species' and just use operational taxonomic units.

I am genuinely interested i what you are talking about here. Can you either PM me or post some sites I can read more about "operational taxonomic units"? I looked at a Wiki page but it hardly had anything at all.

Thank you very much.

In Christ, GB