Existence

[Firelight]

I am not withholding the information. I simply don't have the information and did not look it up.

I am a scientist.

Human beings have all the characteristics of mammals. Do you deny that?

Have you written such a list? Does it mean that we are not mammals? Can you show me?

Saying you’re a scientist does not refute my comment, if that was your intention.

Yes! I DENY that human beings have the four characteristics that a scientist chose and defined for mammals.

I wrote you a list, I’m choosing not to use time to write more. Yes, it means we are not mammals. How do you want to be shone when we have one huge difference? You accept the scientist’s definition and categorizing as being correct, I don’t.

 

[Firelight]

Does being different from other animals mean we are not animals or not mammals? Lists of characters of dogs could be made that differentiate them from all other living things, but they are still mammals.

Yes, it does. You seem to not understand, or accept, that just the sophistication of the human brain alone separates them from the animal kingdom.

 

[Firelight]

What motives do you think are in play? Are you saying that scientists have a motive to make stuff up or that they are part of some greater conspiracy against God?

I have challenged scientists many times and been challenged in turn.

I’m saying, just because a scientist makes animal observations, then makes the decisions how to define and classify animals, and considers humans to be animals and apes, DOES NOT make his classifications absolute facts that everyone needs to, or should, accept. Science is always changing. Other scientists come along and agree or disagree. People may disagree or agree.

Stating that human beings evolved from apes, trying to pass it off as fact, and arguing that it’s fact are all against God. God created the first humans beings, a male and a female, and gave them the power to procreate. Same with the animals. He created them individually and gave them power to procreate. A fish did not evolve into an amphibian, or so on. An ape did not evolve into a human.

Yes, some scientists work together and spend their entire lives trying to prove there is no God.

God’s scientific knowledge is perfect. He knows how to create the universe, animals, plants, and humans. He knows how to keep us all alive by providing plants, seeds, animals, water, and sunshine to the earth. Man’s scientific knowledge is as a drop in the ocean compared to God’s and it isn’t perfect or complete.

 

[Firelight]

Well, shall we see how we can classify things?

1) Are you made of complex cells with internal organelles? If so, you are a eucaryote.

The alternatives are to be a procaryote or to be an archaebacterium. Both of those are single celled.

2) Do your cells have membranes made of lipids rather than walls made from glucosides and are they surrounded by an extracellular matrix composed of collagen and glycoproteins? Then you are an Animal.

Alternatives here include Plants and Fungi.

3) During embryo development, does the blastopore (the first opening) become the anus? Then you are a Deuterostome.

The alternative here is to be a Protosome, like insects, for example.

4) Do you have a head, backbone, brain, red blood cells, and kidneys? Then you are a Vertebrate.

There are a large number of types of invertebrates.

5) Are air-breathing, have hair, three ear bones, sweat glands, the ability to regulate internal temperature and specialized teeth? Then you are a Mammal.

Alternatives are to be various types of Fish, Amphibians, or Reptiles (there are many different classes of Fish, by the way).

6) Do you lack an epi-pubic bone and do females like you have a uterus which produces a placenta during pregnancy? Then you are a placental Mammal.

Again, alternatives are the Marsupials


Now, these seem like definitions that are based on easily tested characteristics of the specimens involved.



Except that by reasonable classification schemes like above, we are not in a class of our own. We are squarely in the category of Placental mammals.



Yes, and those are relevant for the later aspects of classification. Sophisticated brains happen in other animals, but are not relevant for most of the classification tree. Standing upright is a relatively minor variation. Our bones reflect that change. But you do get a few things wrong.

Other animals see colors, some see much more than we do. For example, we only have three types of color receptors while ducks have seven. A duck can see more variety of color than a human.

Other placental mammals have families and raise their young for extended periods of time. And yes, we do have hair. That is one of the characteristics of mammal.

I can also go on and on.

You don’t get what I am saying, either. You are trying to pass off the classifications by certain scientists as facts. You also expect everyone to believe and accept them as facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Saying you’re a scientist does not refute my comment, if that was your intention.

Yes! I DENY that human beings have the four characteristics that a scientist chose and defined for mammals.

I wrote you a list, I’m choosing not to use time to write more. Yes, it means we are not mammals. How do you want to be shone when we have one huge difference? You accept the scientist’s definition and categorizing as being correct, I don’t.

It wasn't offered to refute anything. Why would you think that? Nothing I posted indicates that I was using it to refute anything. You asked if I had ever challenged scientists and I gave you some context. I can hardly imagine how my original response would lead you to conclude that I simply accept anything a scientist says. That seems a bit premature and unwarranted based on my response. It could indicate a bias against science without understanding or review of the science.

I am pretty sure there are more than four characteristics that define us as mammals, but I will look at your list to see what you are referring to.

We are mammals. You can deny it. But there is no valid reason to do so other than willful disregard of the evidence.

I do accept the science of taxonomy. I don't except every hypothesis, but that is detail I doubt you would be equipped to understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, it does. You seem to not understand, or accept, that just the sophistication of the human brain alone separates them from the animal kingdom.

That we have these sophisticated brains does not mean we are not animals. There are many animals with very sophisticated brains. It is one of the traits that defines us as human among the other animals.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Saying you’re a scientist does not refute my comment, if that was your intention.

Yes! I DENY that human beings have the four characteristics that a scientist chose and defined for mammals.

I wrote you a list, I’m choosing not to use time to write more. Yes, it means we are not mammals. How do you want to be shone when we have one huge difference? You accept the scientist’s definition and categorizing as being correct, I don’t.

Is this the list that you included in a previous post?

I suspect that you are one of those people for whom no amount of evidence and reason will be sufficient to persuade you to the reality of life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, it does. You seem to not understand, or accept, that just the sophistication of the human brain alone separates them from the animal kingdom.

No it does not. I understand quite well. A sophisticated brain defines us as human, but not outside of the animals or mammals.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m saying, just because a scientist makes animal observations, then makes the decisions how to define and classify animals, and considers humans to be animals and apes, DOES NOT make his classifications absolute facts that everyone needs to, or should, accept. Science is always changing. Other scientists come along and agree or disagree. People may disagree or agree.

Stating that human beings evolved from apes, trying to pass it off as fact, and arguing that it’s fact are all against God. God created the first humans beings, a male and a female, and gave them the power to procreate. Same with the animals. He created them individually and gave them power to procreate. A fish did not evolve into an amphibian, or so on. An ape did not evolve into a human.

Yes, some scientists work together and spend their entire lives trying to prove there is no God.

God’s scientific knowledge is perfect. He knows how to create the universe, animals, plants, and humans. He knows how to keep us all alive by providing plants, seeds, animals, water, and sunshine to the earth. Man’s scientific knowledge is as a drop in the ocean compared to God’s and it isn’t perfect or complete.

People may agree or disagree based on the evidence. Not on made up notions or subjective beliefs that cannot be demonstrated.

The evidence shows that we evolved from apes. You cannot demonstrate otherwise even if you believe otherwise. Believe as you like and let it go then.

I don't dispute the intellect of God, but he gave us the brains and means to view and understand His creation and I don't think he wants us to lie about what we observe and come to understand.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, it does. You seem to not understand, or accept, that just the sophistication of the human brain alone separates them from the animal kingdom.

Actually, it does not. Other animals have sophisticated brains (dolphins, chimps, elephants). And we know that brains change rapidly in evolutionary terms.

Our brains pick us out among the primates.

 

[Polymath257]

I’m saying, just because a scientist makes animal observations, then makes the decisions how to define and classify animals, and considers humans to be animals and apes, DOES NOT make his classifications absolute facts that everyone needs to, or should, accept. Science is always changing. Other scientists come along and agree or disagree. People may disagree or agree.

Stating that human beings evolved from apes, trying to pass it off as fact, and arguing that it’s fact are all against God. God created the first humans beings, a male and a female, and gave them the power to procreate. Same with the animals. He created them individually and gave them power to procreate. A fish did not evolve into an amphibian, or so on. An ape did not evolve into a human.

Yes, some scientists work together and spend their entire lives trying to prove there is no God.

God’s scientific knowledge is perfect. He knows how to create the universe, animals, plants, and humans. He knows how to keep us all alive by providing plants, seeds, animals, water, and sunshine to the earth. Man’s scientific knowledge is as a drop in the ocean compared to God’s and it isn’t perfect or complete.

I think you completely misunderstand the motivations of scientists. They are NOT trying to 'show there is no God'. In fact, many of them are believers themselves.

What they are trying to do is understand the world around us and look for patterns. Those patterns put humans as apes in no uncertain terms.

For those that believe in God, the conclusion is that evolution is how God made humans.

 

[Polymath257]

You don’t get what I am saying, either. You are trying to pass off the classifications by certain scientists as facts. You also expect everyone to believe and accept them as facts.

It is a fact that similarities between living things allow classification on the basis of those similarities. And, the simple fact that we have extraordinary brains does not mean we are not animals. Our very cells say that we are.

And yes, that is a fact.

Here's a challenge: go and really study biology. Look at the variety of different species. Think about how *you* would classify them and see what the most efficient classification scheme is.

If you come up with a better one that explains what we actually observe better, the scientists will follow your lead. But if you do not, you will be ignored (justifiably).

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

I disagree with the implication of the first 3 words, yes.

Well, since I disagree with what it says, obviously I consider myself to be correct.
And it sounds like you don't know what "moving the goal post" means. You're not using it correctly.

I've already told you several times: Abiogenesis.

A scientist that studies evolution, doesn't do abiogenesis research.

You missed the step where all the evidence is gathered and studied and then leads to the conclusion that A and B share ancestry. Off course, when you ignore that little step, then it looks as if the conclusion is invented from thin air.

But off course it isn't.

Evolution explains how you can get from a single population to bazibillions of species.
Evolution does not explain how the first population comes about.
Evolution deals with the process that existing life is subject to.
Evolution does not deal with how first life (ie, the first replicating organic thing) came about.
It only addresses that which happened to it after it came about.

I don't know how many times it needs to be stated before it will sink in.

Every theory has scope.

The scope of evolution theory is the origin of species.
How life changes over time. The processes that drive and regulate that change.

lol

So TagliatelliMonster, evolutionist, has differing opinion from the theory of Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution as prescribed by britannica encyclopedia. His understanding of "theory of evolution" is essentially Mendelian genomics.

Neo-Darwinism | biology
Neo-Darwinism, Theory of evolution that represents a synthesis of Charles Darwin’s theory in terms of natural selection and modern population genetics.

A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry | Nature
Abstract - "Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory1."

Then, why are you even opining on a discussion with subduction zone about the religious nature of Neo -Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Your opinion does not matter as genomics are of peripheral concern. What is the point of arguing mathematical tools on a religious forum and purporting to be informational?

You have proved one thing evolutionary theory is not in crisis. It is on it's deathbed.

I will leave you with the last word.

 

[Firelight]

We are mammals. You can deny it. But there is no valid reason to do so other than willful disregard of the evidence.

Scientists are foolish to classify human beings as animals or mammals. Scientists doing so is what I willfully disregard. I have very valid reasons for doing so, you simply ignored those reasons or disagreed with them. They are valid to me and that’s all that matters.

 

[Firelight]

That we have these sophisticated brains does not mean we are not animals. There are many animals with very sophisticated brains. It is one of the traits that defines us as human among the other animals.

To me, it means we are not animals. Who are in cages at the zoo? Humans or animals? Is there any animal with a sophisticated enough brain that it can build a zoo?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientists are foolish to classify human beings as animals or mammals. Scientists doing so is what I willfully disregard. I have very valid reasons for doing so, you simply ignored those reasons or disagreed with them. They are valid to me and that’s all that matters.

Your personal, subjective reasons do not form a logical basis for classification or the rejection of classifications.

They can be valid to you and still be invalid in the grander scheme and to others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To me, it means we are not animals. Who are in cages at the zoo? Humans or animals? Is there any animal with a sophisticated enough brain that it can build a zoo?

Humans are a type of animal. Being in a cage is not a character for classification. I am not even sure why you brought that up. Humans build zoos. That defines us as a particular type of animal. There is nothing about that which delimits our classification as an animal.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To me, it means we are not animals. Who are in cages at the zoo? Humans or animals? Is there any animal with a sophisticated enough brain that it can build a zoo?

Have you ever had any biology or other science classes?

 

[Firelight]

I suspect that you are one of those people for whom no amount of evidence and reason will be sufficient to persuade you to the reality of life.

Who’s evidence and reasoning? Man’s? You’re absolutely right. No amount of man’s evidence and reasoning will convince me that humans evolved from apes. Man’s knowledge is no match for God‘s knowledge. I will continue to accept God‘s knowledge as reality.

 

[Firelight]

No it does not. I understand quite well. A sophisticated brain defines us as human, but not outside of the animals or mammals.

You know I disagree.