humans_are_animals Question man Technically, we are animals. We aren't plants so we must be animals. Scientific fact 070719 ... gja A plague perhaps? 070719 ... Lemon_Soda "fact" = working theory 070720 ... They call me Truth animal is a scientific classification and according to the characteristics of this classification a human is an animal. Scientific fact is something totally different from truth. 070720 ... dafremen Being the science-minded sort, I would imagine, that you, like me, believe in evolution. Whether or not that is true, let me pose this question to you: How does pointing out the fact that we are descended from animals advance the cause of human evolution? In other words, if I were to begin to think of myself as being an animal today...and not much more..how would my newly adopted perspective help me, the individual, or my species advance? Seems to me, that to reiterate the nature of our heritage, and to call us to embrace it is a call to regress..a trumpet sounding a charge in the direction of evolutionary failure and eventual extinction. 070721 ... dosquatch On the other hand, I see the mindset that we are somehow "too special" for the classification to apply as folly. We are animals, in that we are meat and bone. Saying so is not a call for anarchy or developmental regression. 070721 ... z we are. 070721 ... . Some say we're viruses. 070721 ... z define virus. 070721 ... zeke dafremen: from your discourse above, i infer that you believe in a goal-oriented, or hierarchical version of the theory of evolution. mainstream science suggests no such thing. evolution is not a force, a description of quality or a movement towards some goal or some perfected state. evolution is a description of the past and the present. to think of species as more or less evolved is the province of comic books and faux scientific pop culture. evolution is the explanation we use to describe what came before our time, and how it may have happened. 070721 ... They call me Truth when it comes to people i believe we can evolve as people, grow, adjust, become more conscious and that we can pass that kind of mind state down. i believe we can push ourselves to do great things, break records once thought unbreakable, make our body capable of withstanding things that we could not previously through training and determination. That may not be the scientific version of evolution but it is evolving. Faux science and pop culture philosophy or not, whatever name you decide to give it, life is life, and science has not fully explained all aspects of life or of the universe. So lets take this in humility. humans have the potential to be much more than animals 070721 ... z humans are animals. 070721 ... z see: unintelligent_design and evolutionary_psycology 070721 ... that should be evolutionary_psychology 070721 ... dr. ameen dr_syed_ameen 070721 ... . thats all for now, i'm getting a migrane. 070722 ... . define human. 070722 ... dafremen When you say that evolution isn't a "goal-oriented" process, you undersimplify. Absolutely, it is a goal-oriented process. The goal is survival. Those organisms that are successful, are allowed, by the evolutionary process, to continue to exist, and take part in the pool of genetic material from which evolution draws its direction. To say that we are meat and bone may be true, but it's also a statement with no redeeming value whatsoever. In other words: to say it adds no value to either our knowledge of the human condition, nor does it do anything to advance that condition. Instead, it has the overall psychological effect of bolstering our view of human beings as mere objects surrounding us. All of the investment of a child stomping on ants in words that bolster the view that has kids pulling the trigger in classrooms with an almost casual disregard for human life: We are just things. We are just flesh and bone...we are just animals. 070722 ... dosquatch You overstate what I said. I am, among other things, meat and bone. I never said "just". Adding that word disregards all else I may also be, though nothing else I am changes the fact at I am also meat and bone. Pretending I am not is intellectual dishonesty. Pretending that's ALL that I am is equally intellectually dishonest. 070722 ... zeke dafremen: if i understand your comment, i am inclined to say that your argument is not from the platform of science, but from one of humanism. that is all well and good (and i approve of humanism in most cases) but it does not retroactively alter the scientific method, or it's conclusions. goals of the individual, though they may affect the outcome, are not those of evolution because it does not have goals (being a human construct used to understand the past). viruses have no goals, and neither do mollusks, grasses, mold, lichen, or arguably most complex animals. yet they comprise the vast majority of the history of evolution. the earth is not flat, the sun does not circle it and humans are animals. 070723 ... dafremen The question wasn't whether or not viruses have goals, but whether evolution itself exhibits the tendency toward one. In fact, you and I are having a conversation as a result of the almost one-way valve like insistence that evolution has of moving in the direction of continued survival..and apparently, this has led to advancement(?)of life to who knows what point? We could happily argue forever as to whether or not evolution always leads to improvements. I suppose "improvement" isn't a very objective term. But does the process of evolution have a goal? Absolutely. The goal? Always survival through adaptation. That isn't to say that there is some GOAL held in the heart of evolution, but rather that the process indicates the goal through both its motions, and by its definition. Is evolution sentient? Well that wouldn't be a very scientific notion now would it? 070723 ... zeke evolution is a verb, not a noun. a verb cannot have intention. even if you insist that evolution is a noun (which it is not) evolution is a dynamic noun like a river. a river has no goal. it does not even have a destination. it simply flows downhill until it is not recognizable as a river anymore. life (at basic) does not want anything, it just is. burdening yourself with the necessity for things to mean something (meaning is another verb that is often misused as a noun) is a form of anthropomorphism. meaning is a human construct. 070723 ... fuffle is a Rainbow a verb or a noun ? 070723 ... dosquatch So many problems here. A goal indicates some destination, some end game, some point of completion. "Adapt or die" is not a destination, it is a mission statement. There is no goal. As long as our environment continues to change, life within it will continue to adapt. At the point where this stops, we're all dead. Unless you're indicating that the ultimate purpose of evolution is total extinction, I think "goal" is the wrong word. "Goal" also indicates an awareness of a change over time towards some end. Evolution is a process. It is not self-aware. It cannot have such a goal. It cannot have a goal at all. It simply is. As water flows downhill by the force of gravity, if you will. Gravity has no goal. The flow of water has no goal. They simply are, and are doing what it is in their nature to do. Evolution isn't even a force of its own. It is a collection of things that just happen, organized under a banner, by humans and for our convenience in discussion only. Any "goal" with which you might paint this banner is pure anthropomorphic filtering. You say "goal" because you are aware of the changes that have taken place over time, but that is thrust upon it. Evolution still has no goal in and of itself. And to say that evolution is a push to improve the species is a grave misunderstanding of the process. The process is to allow the strong to survive by killing off the weak. Improvement is a byproduct. But it's no fun to say that, it sounds pretty lame as a goal. Nevermind that it's true. Evolution is what it is. The same processes and forces would still be at play even without us here to name and analyze it. 070723 ... dosquatch dang, z, you must've been posting at the same time I was. You hit half the points I did, too. Ah, well. At least that means somebody agrees with me. 070723 ... (z) (yes, we seem to to be on the same page) 070723 ... dafremen It seems apparent that our Western way of thinking has inextricably tied itself to your perspective. To see the various components of a process as all remaining independent from that process is a bit isolationist and unrealistic. Ecosystems don;t necessarily have sentience, but they certainly have a progression, a life cycle and history. These encompass the individual lifetimes of all of the creatures and objects which bring about those moments. We have biologists who don't study individual organisms so much as the interplay of those organisms within the framework of "ecosystem." Evolution is no different. To insist on viewing it as a bunch of pieces interacting, instead of the complete puzzle that it is..seems a bit short sighted. But then, that's just my opinion. (Ol' sack of meat and bones that I am.) 080423 ... blather grammar check "evolution" is the noun form of the verb "evolve" 080423 ... They call me Truth Humans are animals. "animal" is a label given to organisms that possess certain characteristics. we possess those characteristics. we do, however, operate in ways different than other animals (most animals operate in unique ways) we do have our unique characteristics. we have built things in larger extent than other animals on our planet and we have done this for specific purposes. There are no animals that rival us in this. "Evolution" can be a noun and a verb. Language in itself is evolution. Evolution can be used to refer to different things, and not only the evolution of organisms. The argument I find on this page is more of a language issue. Animal seems to carry with it a connotation that has been interpreted as negative. This is an interpretational issue. The word animal has a simple denotation and a complex connotation. And this is where the disagreement comes in. Some people believe that the term "animal" means "lacking in somthing" whether it be thinking or action. Other people have a more observational view of an animal. Multi-celled organism and so forth. This is not wrong. It is a more denotative interpretation of the term. In constructs such as language, words are given a number of meanings. Meaning can be a noun and a verb. Meaning is the very reason why language exists (humble opinion). LANGUAGE is a method that transmits meaning from one individual to another through the use of words. these MEANINGS that are attributed to words are used to promote undertanding among humans. Words like "animal" and "evolution" have many meanings. When someone does something animalistic it implies that they did something that was lacking in civilized behavior. Arguing over meaning (a construct) does not lead to understanding, hoever, understanding that an issue is due to differences in meaning leads to profound understanding. 080423 ... jane humanimal 080423 ... f the evolution of ideas... science with proof... how about believing in the unknown and accepting that you are an idiot to be religious if you are alive? words are a crap form of communication, its a diversion of looking into someone's soul. 080423 ... z dafremen: "To see the various components of a process as all remaining independent from that process is a bit isolationist and unrealistic." i don't think that i ever said that there were no interrelationships, no whole, as you imply. i merely pointed that evolution was not goal oriented. i do, however, have a tendency (as does science) towards reductionism. that is because it becomes impossible to apply the scientific method in experiments that have too many variables. it causes generalized observation, generalized conclusions and ultimately, junk science. it frequently takes science huge amounts of time to establish principles that we knew intuitively, all along. but, when we are wrong, we really learn something important. either way, it is worth the effort. "Ecosystems don;t necessarily have sentience, but they certainly have a progression, a life cycle and history" i have never heard of any evidence for sentient ecosystems. if there is any, i would be interested in reading about it. progress implies a goal<