Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

"Is Man Just Another Animal?" Professor Steve Jones says...

gorski said:
Perhaps. And perhaps I need to take you to ABC school...
Click to expand...
you have nothing. you are attempting to be patronising, but you can only do that from a position of authority. if you can't accept evolution, it's you who needs to be educated.
 
gorski said:
Sadly, Knotted there is not more than that post in you, I fear... Not any more, if there ever was some potential... :D
Click to expand...
You have an extraordinary line of reasoning in all this. Somehow anyone who disagrees with your idea that humans are in some essential (but ill-defined) way transcendental over all other life is then denying themselves some bunch of (ill-defined) higher abilities.

Yet you present yourself on here as a complete idiot, who has no understanding at all of most of the stuff you rail against, using absurd terminology such as 'scientism'. You have entirely no idea what other posters know or have studied themselves, dismissing out of hand the very idea that they may know something you don't, and you're not prepared to engage in debate over any of the issues they raise.
 
It's OK to disagree with me IF you can come up with something that can pass some serious scrutiny. I have no problem in saying "I haven't thought of that"! But most of the time it's the sad old 'arguments' which only intellectual pygmy parrots do...

In the case of Orangutang, for instance - zip, zero, nada! Troll or lazy or - dunno what it is but can't come up with anything and yet he bitches... :facepalm::rolleyes:

I am not the one who's high on some stupid ideology here. But I am - it seems - one of very few people here who understand the difference between science and scientism, theory and religion/dogma. So far, at least in this thread, I am the only one showing some capacity and training in philosophical thinking. Sorry but it's true. LBJ, for instance, never mind Orang, would die before he would be able to even mildly consider such an idea... It matters not how much one is an expert in any other field, if you can't do this, than you can not understand my argument, period.

Moreover, there is an elementary difference between "we have evolved from" and "we are the same as" - it really is sad I have to point to that one, not once but hey... knock yourselves out... Even SJ can't get to you on that one and he isn't exactly a "philosophically obscurant type"...
 
You've misjudged and mischaracterised what various people on here are thinking on this and you've pushed hard on an open door. That's all that's happened. That nobody is drawing your conclusion is something for you to think about.
 
To be honest, I always thought the story that Adam was fashioned from the earth/soil was just another way of saying...Adam was from a single cell life form living in the soil/earth itself...
And maybe...as a single living cell ...maybe something happened to "single cell Adam" and "single call Adam" divided into more than a single cell.....and that second cell branched off and mutated into "single cell Eve"...Both of these single cell organisms then became life forms full of potential...ie:. having the building blocks of evolving life (DNA) in them... that would lead them and their fellow mutated offspring cells through billions of years of evolution to eventually: tada...homo sapiens.

So ... maybe the creation story as told is really a human attempt made 6000 years ago to interpret billions of years of evolution; starting with the big bang ...light out of darkness....the stars..the planets...the development of the atmosphere....the evolution of life itself
....right down to cellular division...from fish in the sea right up to homo sapiens.
And maybe those nomadic people of 6000 years ago had an idea that the 6 days represented billions of years. What does time mean if you're God?
Maybe a billion years is but a day ...to God.

Dunno....

Sorry Gorski...
..but evolution is no longer a philosophical argument BECAUSE scientific knowledge and understanding has leaped ahead and we KNOW beyond doubt what we came from....The facts we know do not exclude the idea that there may be a designer in all of this.

By the way,
Saying ..."we have evolved from" is NOT the same as saying "we are the same as".
If something evolves from something else then...it is NO LONGER THE SAME. That is what evolution IS. It is all about changing and afapting.

Evolution is about change and adaptibility.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-may-be-most-adaptive-species/#

There is room for evolution and philosophy and belief in God. So why stick rigidly to the idea that evolution excludes the other two? It's not like anyone can't hold 3 ideas together at the same time... even the pope can agree with evolution and still believe in God.

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'

Nobody has all the answers Gorski. It's not like anyone has to choose only one. But evolution is not an idea anymore... it's a fact.

Maybe in the future other ideas will become facts too but until then they are beliefs and ideas and theories and we all have a choice as to whether to accept them or not until they become fact. Some would call that process "belief" or "faith" or even "philosophy".
 
We heard all this many times before and you know what - science has nothing to say on the subject. Once they try, they are no longer on scientific but philosophical grounds.

A very old thing you are just not familiar with, obviously. So, not taking it against you...

K, complete nonsense! :D But (you will) carry on... :p
 
gorski said:
We heard all this many times before and you know what - science has nothing to say on the subject. Once they try, they are no longer on scientific but philosophical grounds.

A very old thing you are just not familiar with, obviously. So, not taking it against you...

K, complete nonsense! :D But (you will) carry on... :p
Click to expand...

There was a time when everyone "knew" that the world was flat. Philosophy didn't prove it was either flat or spherical. Religion didn't either..... Good old maths and science proved it was spherical ....despite persecution....
End of the philosophical and religious arguments ensued.

There was a time when the only explanations of life were philosophical and religious.....
Not any more....and that's definitely a good thing.

Philosophy is great but don't make the mistake of believing it defines or even describes reality in anything other than philosophical terms.... It's very much in the realm of imagination, theory and procrastination.
 
gorski said:
It's worse than trolling, it's like a bad version of Monty Python's sketch, but only you are saying "yes we are", whereas I actually make an effort and give reasoned arguments against... So, you can stop your "contributions" now, thanx a bunch, since nothing is actually coming from you...
Click to expand...
The majority of your posts on this and the other thread are actually you just being rude and putting other people down. Your lack of self insight is one of the most amusing things about them.
 
gorski said:
It's OK to disagree with me IF you can come up with something that can pass some serious scrutiny. I have no problem in saying "I haven't thought of that"! But most of the time it's the sad old 'arguments' which only intellectual pygmy parrots do...

In the case of Orangutang, for instance - zip, zero, nada! Troll or lazy or - dunno what it is but can't come up with anything and yet he bitches... :facepalm::rolleyes:

I am not the one who's high on some stupid ideology here. But I am - it seems - one of very few people here who understand the difference between science and scientism, theory and religion/dogma. So far, at least in this thread, I am the only one showing some capacity and training in philosophical thinking. Sorry but it's true. LBJ, for instance, never mind Orang, would die before he would be able to even mildly consider such an idea... It matters not how much one is an expert in any other field, if you can't do this, than you can not understand my argument, period.

Moreover, there is an elementary difference between "we have evolved from" and "we are the same as" - it really is sad I have to point to that one, not once but hey... knock yourselves out... Even SJ can't get to you on that one and he isn't exactly a "philosophically obscurant type"...
Click to expand...
It's you who needs to come up with an argument. We have science and evolution behind us. Humans are homo sapiens, a species of the animal kingdom. You cannot evolve from an animal into something else. Just another animal. The burden of proof is on your side, not mine.
We are certainly unique animals, but we are still animals, regardless.
 
Orang Utan said:
It's you who needs to come up with an argument. We have science and evolution behind us. Humans are homo sapiens, a species of the animal kingdom. You cannot evolve from an animal into something else. Just another animal. The burden of proof is on your side, not mine.
We are certainly unique animals, but we are still animals, regardless.
Click to expand...
Biggest problem with the gorski line of thinking is that it adds nothing and risks losing things. We lose nothing in our understanding either of ourselves or of other life forms by not assuming that humans are somehow special, but we most certainly risk missing things by assuming specialness. And gorski is the perfect example of what you risk missing - he simply isn't interested in looking at the lives of other animals. He's already decided that they're not capable of lots of things, so he doesn't even look for them. And he just closes his ears when anyone who actually has looked at the lives of others contradicts him with pesky facts.
 
I think it's dangerous to think that we're not part of the animal kingdom. The animal, plant and the other four kingdoms are all part of the Earth's ecosystem. Much of it exists in a complex symbiosis. Humans are part of this whether we like it or not and human behaviour is destroying that delicate balance to the detriment of the whole ecosystem.
Thinking humans are not part of this is dangerous and irresponsible.
 
fredfelt said:
This might be of interest - The cultural life of whales..

The cultural life of whales | Feature
Click to expand...

This is what gorski cannot consider:

Whales, largely, sense and communicate acoustically, whereas we do most of our sensing visually. They live in a three-dimensional world; we live in a two-dimensional world. We are trying to relate them to what we are in metrics that correspond to how we see the world. This is likely severely to underestimate their capabilities.
Click to expand...
 
But whether or not other animals have culture is irrelevant. Us being animals is a simple physical fact that has nothing to do with a species' individuality
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
There was a time when everyone "knew" that the world was flat. Philosophy didn't prove it was either flat or spherical. Religion didn't either..... Good old maths and science proved it was spherical ....despite persecution....
End of the philosophical and religious arguments ensued.

There was a time when the only explanations of life were philosophical and religious.....
Not any more....and that's definitely a good thing.

Philosophy is great but don't make the mistake of believing it defines or even describes reality in anything other than philosophical terms.... It's very much in the realm of imagination, theory and procrastination.
Click to expand...

Confidence comes with ignorance. Keep proving you're arrogant and ignorant, with a dash of aggression to boot. Who am I to stop you?

It came out of Ancient Greek Philosophy! A bit of IIYF would do you good...

maomao said:
The majority of your posts on this and the other thread are actually you just being rude and putting other people down. Your lack of self insight is one of the most amusing things about them.
Click to expand...

Check this one out, before you make yourself as above and see who starts it, me or somebody else, despite my polite request to debate the issues and issues only... So, go away, please!

joustmaster said:
has he posted why he thinks man isn't an animal?

Is he saying it because of religious reasons?
Click to expand...

Another one - why do you bother if you can't be bothered to either read at all or read with understanding? Is this mob mentality the only thing loads of you can do and want to do? Shameless!!!

littlebabyjesus said:
Biggest problem with the gorski line of thinking is that it adds nothing and risks losing things. We lose nothing in our understanding either of ourselves or of other life forms by not assuming that humans are somehow special, but we most certainly risk missing things by assuming specialness. And gorski is the perfect example of what you risk missing - he simply isn't interested in looking at the lives of other animals. He's already decided that they're not capable of lots of things, so he doesn't even look for them. And he just closes his ears when anyone who actually has looked at the lives of others contradicts him with pesky facts.
Click to expand...

You are bonkers and shallow to the bone! You neither can nor do you want to even consider understanding anything outside your comfort zone. I have been through your little dogma before you pissed in the sand, you arrogant and ignorant twat! Yeah, you will teach it to me... My word, some people have no sense of minimal decency and self-control...

Orang Utan said:
I think it's dangerous to think that we're not part of the animal kingdom. The animal, plant and the other four kingdoms are all part of the Earth's ecosystem. Much of it exists in a complex symbiosis. Humans are part of this whether we like it or not and human behaviour is destroying that delicate balance to the detriment of the whole ecosystem.
Thinking humans are not part of this is dangerous and irresponsible.
Click to expand...

FINALLY!!! :D At least you gave something of "your" fears, hopes, leanings, some kind of "reason" for anything!!!! THANK FOOK!!! :D

None of this is in dispute by me or anyone with any brains. Quite the opposite. So, you have to work harder to understand my point.

Knotted said:
This is what gorski cannot consider:
Click to expand...

Nah, you can't consider this is not "culture". Which proves you haven't been reading my posts, you silly old troll... :p The main issue is valid for LBJ, too, 'course... ;)
 
No. Now, go away, please.

A POINT OF ORDER:

Who needs such "contributors" who do not care whether or not they do injustice to those they are debating with, as they just can't be bothered reading WTF they are debating with AND they just LOVE jumping on the bandwagon and regurgitating other's old and tired BS!!!

Have some self-control and minimal decency, at least, FFS!!!
 
Last edited:
With respect, you haven't contributed your own thoughts, beyond the ridiculous assertion that counters biological fact.
You've posted a 50 minute video which you've misinterpreted. Don't expect people to watch it. Make the case with your own words.
 
You really need to look in the mirror on this one.

You - who barely said anything, other than other's old, tired, nowadays "common sensical", non-critical assertions - have the cheek to tell me off and I posted a lot on the topic but you just won't read/can't read (at least with any understanding)...

Blimey!
 
gorski said:
No. Now, go away, please.

A POINT OF ORDER:

Who needs such "contributors" who do not care whether or not they do injustice to those they are debating with, as they just can't be bothered reading WTF they are debating with AND they just LOVE jumping on the bandwagon and regurgitating other's old and tired BS!!!

Have some self-control and minimal decency, at least, FFS!!!
Click to expand...
I'd genuinely like to hear your point of view.
I'm looking for an explanation of your point of view in your words. I can't find it.

I'm ignoring your shouting and insults, as I really want to understand what you are saying.

Please can you write out why you think that humans aren't part of the classification kingdom of Animalia
 
We have two definitions of culture in this thread. The first from me:

information or behaviour – shared within a community – that is acquired from conspecifics through some form of social learning
Click to expand...

The second from gorski:

the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, defined by everything from language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts.
Click to expand...

The second is human-specific, but what aspect of this human-specific definition is not contained in the former non-human specific definition? And what is added by the second, aside from unnecessary baggage? Which definition here really gets to the heart of what culture is?
 
gorski said:
You really need to look in the mirror on this one.

You - who barely said anything, other than other's old, tired, nowadays "common sensical", non-critical assertions - have the cheek to tell me off and I posted a lot on the topic but you just won't read/can't read (at least with any understanding)...

Blimey!
Click to expand...
I've read the entire thread and you've not made your case at all.
You've been asked valid questions and not answered them, just insulted people for asking them, loftily dismissing them from a perch you have no business being on
 
Heheheheeeee... For crying out loud JM - leave the "classifications" alone, for once and start thinking...

We are alive, creatures of this Earth, we are related to anything and everything on it, this is not in dispute - why are you constantly knocking on an open door? Do you not get tired of regurgitating the same old same old? Do you have no thirst for a different perspective, to get out of the well trodden path? If you do - start reading and thinking!

Well, I'll take you seriously: read my posts in this thread slowly and carefully. There is another thread, now in the "Bin" section, also loaded with what I "really think". The two have lots of stuff that pretty precisely works "on top" of what SJ is saying. His arguments are carefully based from what he reads, what he studied etc. And he is very careful, honest and doesn't take huge steps from the evidence he has at his disposal, which is why I respect him! No scientism, no far reaching conclusions, always carefully concluding as much as he can but no more. That deserves respect!

My arguments are "different" to your everyday, BBC "we are animals" so called science. You must get into them and if you can post a counter argument that has any merit - hat down. If such "definitive proof" from science was available - we would all know.

Just stop the crap "we evolved from... hence we can not be but the same as that", pretty please. It is getting really tiresome...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

steveo87
Is it possible to change an atom by physically adding or taking away electrons?
Replies
23
Views
598
steveo87
steveo87
StoneRoad
URGENT [Another] petition to protect Bees from neonictiniods / pesticides
Replies
3
Views
267
bcuster
bcuster
Sasaferrato
Is there a physicist or possibly chemist in the house.
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
kabbes
K
Nylock
Well, this isn't good: The north Atlantic current may shut down as soon as 2025...
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Nylock
Nylock
H
Two-dimensional polymer helps create a new lightweight material that is stronger than steel
Replies
1
Views
314
weltweit
weltweit
Back
Top Bottom