There similar but look at how much larger the human brain is. The last time i checked 98% percent of our genes are the same (correct me if im wrong) that leaves 2% that isnt shared. Im not sure what areas the 2% affects but id guess the brain.
Atheists
- Thread starter Muslim
- Start date
spiritual_spy said:
That still doesn't sound logical. even if your argument is true modern humans have been empathetic and reasoning for a very long time. A ape isn't going to look at a panting and think wow thats beautiful its just going to look as a splash of different colors. Am sure is we had acquired reasoning through evolution some species animals would be showing this. Even Homo Sapiens showed reasoning.
maybe for the last 100,000 years (i think thats when the latest artwork has been found, correct me if im wrong) but evolution takes millions of years. It does however work at diffrent speeds. Plus if i remeber right apes have some pretty complicated social systems.Muslim said:
spiritual_spy said:
You're wrong, the art work found dates back to 1.5 million years ago found in European caves. However, in general, it is believed that this period began somewhere around 3 million years ago, starting with the first hominid tool-making in Africa. So 3 million years ago humans started to reason and show empathy. Yet you're here trying to have a logical argument claiming that animals can't show empathy because their brain isn't advanced enough. And its because of the 2 % difference 3 million years ago there was probably less the 2% difference yet humans showed reasoning and empathy.
Ah. i had a feeling it was a little later than that.
Of course they do.Muslim said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animalshttp://cogprints.org/1042/00/preston_de_waal.html
For further info search for ethology and empathy.
~Raithere
(edit: added another link)
No i just now saw the rest of the post. As i said evolution is an extremly slow process. Plus who is to say it was always 2%? It could have been more or less over time. i havent researched the genetics of apes that much so for me to give a good awnser on how that works id have to get back to you on that.
Weird. I never knew animals did things like that. ill have to look up that some more.Raithere said:
i have the basic knowledge of human evolution just not ape genetics.Muslim said:
Sorry bukko, it's a public board and I have the right to interject if I wish.Muslim said:
Of course, you're free to ignore anything that discredits your argument. That's your perogative.
All in all Wikipedia does a pretty good job. As with most of their articles there are external sources available if you are skeptical.
But hey, let's go with something a bit stronger. How about PubMed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16048075&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16274983&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=12625087&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum
~Raithere
Muslim said:
Then why don't you test the assertion against reality? Take two cats (siblings) and take them to a bathroom. Give one cat a bath. Every time the bath cat 'meows' in desperation, the other cat will do the same.
Repeat this experiment and monitor the mirror neurons of both cats. What you will see is that the second cat experiences the emotional state of the first cat. Thats animal empathy in non-human's demonstrated ala-reality.
spiritual_spy said:
Maybe the spark of consciousness in everybody, and in animals too is what people call God? Perhaps that would explain the origin of this innate "moral compass"!
To say humans care for other humans only if we share genes or as a reciprocal agreement seems to me to be stretching it. It seems very reductionistic even when applied to animals, but is certainly not a good predictor for human behaviour. Are you related to your cat or dog?
For myself, I think ethical values (including judging altruism as "good") derive from what we value most e.g. life, ideals, virtues such as courage etc.
Last edited:
What a wonderfully closed mind you have.Muslim said:
"Introduction - PubMed, available via the NCBI Entrez retrieval system, was developed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the National Library of Medicine (NLM), located at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Entrez is the text-based search and retrieval system used at NCBI for services including PubMed, Nucleotide and Protein Sequences, Protein Structures, Complete Genomes, Taxonomy, OMIM, and many others. PubMed was designed to provide access to citations from biomedical literature. LinkOut provides access to full-text articles at journal Web sites and other related Web resources. PubMed also provides access and links to the other Entrez molecular biology resources. "
~Raithere
Muslim said:
Well, I'm an atheist and I have moral and ethical values. More so than you I suspect. Humans (and animals) all have a basic set of skills and instincts that they are born with, such as the need to feed, to stay warm, to find shelter, and many other variations depending on your species. The only reason human babies are so helpless is because it's part of human nature to care for our young until they can care for themselves. If this wasn't in our nature then all human babies would die shortly after birth and our species would become extinct. Complex emotions have developed over our human evolution because our nature as a social species has allowed this. It's very similar in other social species, such as primates and other mammals. A lot of it comes down to working together for the better of the group, and in turn each individual. You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. Yes, humans hurt each other, and we can attribute this to all sorts of complex emotional motives, but for the most part it's out of greed and self interest/preservation. We see this in animals that fight for the chance to mate and breed, or fight for food. I know that hurting people is wrong because I don't wish to be hurt myself, and since I'm not an alien it's fair for me to assume that other humans (and animals) don't want to be hurt either. To say that you follow the laws of god is ridiculous, since nobody can prove god exists, let alone prove what laws god has written down for humanity to follow. If what you say is true then why is it so many people that believe in god and follow a religion choose to hurt and kill.
Muslim said:
No, it is not based on a fallacy, but on hard facts.
The Muslim Clergy is, of course, a minority.
But those clerics are the religious elite and their
influence is tremendous. In other words, the
Muslim masses, in comparison, are nothing but
sheep that must revere their clerics and follow
their fatwas!
Moreover, to confront those nutty clerics does not mean to play
the role of a policeman and jail them!
But to use your 'right to freedom of speech' effectively
against their fatwas and debunk and demolish their arguments.
Can you do it?