So why do men have nipples?

[Hespera]

Your logic is valid, but unsound: Juv( ... is NOt evolved) is a false premise, since you ARE, in fact, evolved. You share the same proto-mammalian ancestor with all humans (and all modern mammals). Your insistence to the contrary doesn't change that fact.

In modern taxonomy, something is considered a mammal if it evolved from the original mammalian species (the species from which all mammals are descended, and from which no non-mammal is descended). There are defining traits, such as three middle-ear bones, but ancestry is the clincher.

Question: why do you think we (or, at least, you) are not an evolved form of proto-mammals?

you already know the answer to that. g'didit.

What i want is to see the same math technique used to demonstrate that the sun in fact still revolves around the earth like it used to.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

you already know the answer to that. g'didit.

What i want is to see the same math technique used to demonstrate that the sun in fact still revolves around the earth like it used to.

Well actually, velocity is relative, so it is perfectly valid to view the Sun as orbiting the Earth.

 

[juvenissun]

I doubt that most people on this forum, naked in the wilderness, could start a fire if their lives depended on it.
Most people, as the saying goes, "are too stupid to pour water out of a boot, if the directions were written on the sole."

See movie Cast Away? I bet everyone on this forum, include you, is able to start a fire under stress.

 

[juvenissun]

So what? You seem work under the assumption that intellectual superiority somehow equals absolute, unqualified superiority. Can you explain how the logic of that works? Why superiority in other things - swimming, smelling, living at high temperatures, anything - is somehow less significant?

I know this line of argument. It says: whatever we can do, some animal can do it better. To me, this is simply self-cheating. In fact, this category of argument has no chance to stand if the logic arguments are clearly listed.

 

[juvenissun]

Question: why do you think we (or, at least, you) are not an evolved form of proto-mammals?

Back to the old question.

I can do many many things ape could NEVER do. No matter how much time is given to them to evolve.

Yes, I could not do many things apes (and other animals) are doing today. But according to evolution, I might be able to do the same if enough time is given to me to evolve.

For example, I can raise a fire. Ape could not, can not and will not. We need to know that to start a fire is much much more than just a physical capability. And, ape has hair. But out hair could grow back if the earth started to freeze.

We are NOT evolved from apes.

 

[Hespera]

Ok so clearly list the 'logic arguments"

Its not true that ANYTHING people can do, some animal can do better. Play the sax, for example. Write stuff in a forum.

But, as for physical stuff, there is an animal that can out do us in nearly any category.

If drag-the-impla-up-the-acacia-tree-with-your-teeth were an Olympic event we'd never beat the leopard team.

Which logic argument is going to let people win that, or the swim underwater from Australia to South Africa contest?

 

[Hespera]

Juv, you can write the entire sentence in ALL CAPS but people will still be apes.

Why is the obvious so hard for you?

What exactly give you the power to predict that apes could not get any smarter?

Seriously, what barrier is there? They could get 2.86% smarter but not past 2.86?
Not 3.1? What is the mechanism involved?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Back to the old question.

I can do many many things ape could NEVER do. No matter how much time is given to them to evolve.

Well, what can humans do that the other apes can't? Why can't evolution account for them?

Yes, I could not do many things apes (and other animals) are doing today. But according to evolution, I might be able to do the same if enough time is given to me to evolve.

Nope: individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. Our descendants might, for instance, evolve the ability to fly, must as some species of dinosaur.

For example, I can raise a fire. Ape could not, can not and will not. We need to know that to start a fire is much much more than just a physical capability.

That we can do something they can't doesn't mean we don't share a common ancestor: one of the most powerful things about evolution is that explains how ones descendants can do things you are physically incapable of doing.

And apes can do many of the things we can do: they can read and understand complex language, they can make and use tools for specific functions, they mourn the dead, and they even have a sense of spirituality.

And, ape has hair. But out hair could grow back if the earth started to freeze.

Actually, we have as much hair as apes do: ours is simply thinner, because we became exclusively bipedal (that's why the hair on our heads stayed as thick as 'normal' ape hair: the tops of our heads are exposed to the Sun far more than the rest of our bodies).

Interestingly, our pubic hair strongly resembles gorilla hair. And pubic lice are descended from gorilla lice. I'll let you do the maths...

 

[juvenissun]

Juv, you can write the entire sentence in ALL CAPS but people will still be apes.

Why is the obvious so hard for you?

What exactly give you the power to predict that apes could not get any smarter?

Seriously, what barrier is there? They could get 2.86% smarter but not past 2.86?
Not 3.1? What is the mechanism involved?

Good question. I do not know a scientific explanation. But I know the fact. And I have a theological explanation.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, what can humans do that the other apes can't? Why can't evolution account for them?


Nope: individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. Our descendants might, for instance, evolve the ability to fly, must as some species of dinosaur.


That we can do something they can't doesn't mean we don't share a common ancestor: one of the most powerful things about evolution is that explains how ones descendants can do things you are physically incapable of doing.

And apes can do many of the things we can do: they can read and understand complex language, they can make and use tools for specific functions, they mourn the dead, and they even have a sense of spirituality.


Actually, we have as much hair as apes do: ours is simply thinner, because we became exclusively bipedal (that's why the hair on our heads stayed as thick as 'normal' ape hair: the tops of our heads are exposed to the Sun far more than the rest of our bodies).

Interestingly, our pubic hair strongly resembles gorilla hair. And pubic lice are descended from gorilla lice. I'll let you do the maths...

Your argument is the same as the one by Naraoia on #120, which I said is a argument of self-cheating (academically not honest).

 

[ranmaonehalf]

reminder for those that dont know
Avet and Juvi are Ptroells

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Your argument is the same as the one by Naraoia on #120, which I said is a argument of self-cheating (academically not honest).

Yes, you said it was self-cheating, but you didn't explain why it's self-cheating, or even what that means.

You said we're superior to apes because we can do things they can't. But apes and other animals can do things we can't: by your logic that makes them superior.

It's a counter-argument, not an argument in and of itself: we're refuting your claim by citing counter-examples.

The fact that we can make fire doesn't make us superior to other apes, and it certainly doesn't disprove the notion that we share a common ancestor.

 

[Hespera]

Your argument is the same as the one by Naraoia on #120, which I said is a argument of self-cheating (academically not honest).

Hard to think of anything more intellectually or academically dishonest than resort to "godidit" regardless of any and all counterevidence.

 

[Naraoia]

I know this line of argument. It says: whatever we can do, some animal can do it better.

It doesn't. It says: we are good at some things, other animals are good at other things. The question that follows is: why are some abilities "better" than others? Is it just because it strokes your ego, or do you have some objective metric?

To me, this is simply self-cheating. In fact, this category of argument has no chance to stand if the logic arguments are clearly listed.

Then please list those logic arguments.

Back to the old question.

I can do many many things ape could NEVER do. No matter how much time is given to them to evolve.

Again, how in the world do you know that? If anything, this is self-cheating. You're absolutely convinced about something you can't possibly know.

Yes, I could not do many things apes (and other animals) are doing today. But according to evolution, I might be able to do the same if enough time is given to me to evolve.

Enough time, lucky mutations and the right environment.

That we can do something they can't doesn't mean we don't share a common ancestor: one of the most powerful things about evolution is that explains how ones descendants can do things you are physically incapable of doing.

'nuff said.

And apes can do many of the things we can do: they can read and understand complex language, they can make and use tools for specific functions, they mourn the dead, and they even have a sense of spirituality.

Spirituality?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Spirituality?

Yep: the mourn the dead. The anecdote I remember most is where the alpha male of a group of apes fell from the trees and died. The rest of the pack who was with him at the time just sat around the body in a circle in silence for hours. Then, one female went up, gently prodded the body, and they all walked off.

Creepy.

Ah, I think this was the article I read it in. Fascinating stuff!

 

[Naraoia]

Ah, I think this was the article I read it in. Fascinating stuff!

But, from a quick look-through, all anecdotal, and it's very hard to tell what's going on inside chimps' heads while they sit around a corpse or watch the sunset. (I also wouldn't call empathy spiritual).

I'm not saying they aren't spiritual, only that it's almost impossible to tell from anecdotes where a thousand different things could be going on. Especially the "reverence of nature" examples look like they are in danger of too much anthropomorphising.

 

[Hespera]

But, from a quick look-through, all anecdotal, and it's very hard to tell what's going on inside chimps' heads while they sit around a corpse or watch the sunset. (I also wouldn't call empathy spiritual).

I'm not saying they aren't spiritual, only that it's almost impossible to tell from anecdotes where a thousand different things could be going on. Especially the "reverence of nature" examples look like they are in danger of too much anthropomorphising.

One of my friends is from a poor third world agriculture back ground.

Talking to her, I have learned some interesting things about how she sees the world, and how some of that has changed.

To her, any plant or animal that is not either harmful, or has some direct economic use is of no interest or value.

Not saying that she never noticed a sunset, or that a nice flower is ignored.
But living on the land amid a hard struggle for survival, the aesthetics take a deep second place to practicality.

It wasnt until after she'd been here a while that the concept of valuing or seeing something to revere in "nature" even came into her mind.

I just totally dont believe chimps care one way or the other about beauty in nature.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But, from a quick look-through, all anecdotal, and it's very hard to tell what's going on inside chimps' heads while they sit around a corpse or watch the sunset. (I also wouldn't call empathy spiritual).

I'm not saying they aren't spiritual, only that it's almost impossible to tell from anecdotes where a thousand different things could be going on. Especially the "reverence of nature" examples look like they are in danger of too much anthropomorphising.

Agreed, but I have a hard time knowing what else to explain it as: reverence for the dead implies they know that the corpse is qualitatively different to the living thing they once had a relationship with: it's different to "Oh, it's dead, I'll move on"; it's mourning for what has been lost. Which in turn shows us that they think something has indeed been lost: I reckon it's the thing which theists like to call a spirit or soul.

How would you explain their reverence for the dead?

 

[juvenissun]

You are absolutely dishonest if you said that we are not far far better than animals.

I don't care what example you use for the argument.

 

[Hespera]

You are absolutely dishonest if you said that we are not far far better than animals.

I don't care what example you use for the argument.

Getting emotional and making accusations of dishonesty is totally inappropriate here.

A bird is better at flying than the wombat; but the wombat is better at digging. A chainsaw is better at cutting than a ferrari is; yet the ferrari is a better racecar than it is a submarine.


Anymore examples needed?