Humans and animals...are we so different?

The Guardian · May 7th 2009, 6:41pm

Neal wrote:

I can't find what I'm looking for. I'm not sure how the () values of colors are relevant.

Red, Green and blue........ These are the primary colors, Neal. And is still use on PC's like the one you are sitting at.

In certain games, given the rights, one could manually change the color of his(her) character. The main frequencies, knock one out you lose a hell of a hell more than you think.

In other words, damage to the rods and cones sensitive to red frequencies of light, will cause the lose of that area. however it would be overlapped by the others.

It's a chart.

Neal · May 7th 2009, 6:45pm

The Guardian wrote:

Red, Green and blue........ These are the primary colors, Neal. And is still use on PC's like the one you are sitting at.

In certain games, given the rights, one could manually change the color of his(her) character. The main frequencies, knock one out you lose a hell of a hell more than you think.

In other words, damage to the rods and cones sensitive to red frequencies of light, will cause the lose of that area. however it would be overlapped by the others.

It's a chart.

So far, I can only conclude you are arguing either of these 2 possible arguments:

1.That red + blue = purple, so if 1 is red-green color-blind, that affects their seeing of purple.

Or.

2.That purple is it's only electromagnetic wavelength, and if 1 is red-green color-blind, they still cannot distinguish purple.

The Guardian · May 7th 2009, 9:57pm

DamnImGood wrote:

Well I'm glad you support the part where bacteria are millions of years old.

That's a theory, not a fact, Dig. Science suggesting, and science proving are to different things, of which had you payed attention those articles are suggest of the science when interpreted in such a from as a preconceived ideal or notion in this case, that their billions of years old.

Neal · May 7th 2009, 10:24pm

I guess a good question to ask is - how does a theory become fact?

Or.

2.What constitutes a fact?

Or.

3.What would actually constitute as proof or fact that bacteria are millions of years old, and if so, how is that different than our current method of coming up with the age of bacteria?

Or.

4.What would be the more approximate age of bacteria?

If the more approximate age of bacteria, for example, is 1% as old as million of years, how did science justify that?

And so and so forth.

LOLFag · May 9th 2009, 6:00pm

Can we just go back to the damn debate? Animals vs humans, and not drag in color blindness and bacteria!

---------- Post added at 10:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 PM ----------

The Guardian wrote:

lolfag, its not really mutation as much a adaptive rate to certain conditions, given the chance.

You do realize how animals obtain adaptations, do you? You mutate, and those with favorable mutations survive and make the most offspring. By the end of a few generations, the mutation prevails in the population and bingo! The population is well fit for the environment until another mutation comes up that's even better.

It is the mutation. It is a fact that bacteria mutate like crazy.

---------- Post added at 10:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 PM ----------

Neal wrote:

I guess a good question to ask is - how does a theory become fact?

Or.

2.What constitutes a fact?

Or.

3.What would actually constitute as proof or fact that bacteria are millions of years old, and if so, how is that different than our current method of coming up with the age of bacteria?

Or.

4.What would be the more approximate age of bacteria?

If the more approximate age of bacteria, for example, is 1% as old as million of years, how did science justify that?

And so and so forth.

1. A theory is anything used to explain an observation. Really, there is no such thing as fact. Nothing is for sure at all. But in short, theories are basically facts derived from previous facts analysed and spliced together to explain a new phenomenon. Or theories are based on evidence. Whichever way, theories are almost the same as fact because theories explain things, and when proven wrong, are wrong, but when proven right, are fact.

2. A fact is a generally accepted explanation for a given scenario. As quoted from Wikipedia: "A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied."

3. Bacteria are identified through fossil records. Their fossils are identified against an already established rock record. We also use carbon-dating to identify their ages if hopefully a remnant of the bacteria remains.

4. First prokaryote life came out 3.8 billion years ago. That's roughly a billion years after the creation of the Earth. These bacteria were chemoautotrophs because of the abundance of free elements on Earth.

cm43fan · May 9th 2009, 10:01pm

yes were very different but we share common ancestors

Vagos · May 10th 2009, 8:32am

+ We do also have a common ancestor with insects and plants

(eukaryotes).

LOLFag · May 10th 2009, 10:49am

We have a common ancestor with everything. We need to state a standard deviation to say how much genetic difference before saying that so and so have the same ancestor.

The Guardian · May 10th 2009, 1:19pm

We share and/or are related to dirt, there is no "common ancestor" except that of personal belief in that we have a common ancestor. Chemicals, are relatively the same through-out the universe(as so far known).

As such we are not in any place to rule about the unknown. In this case you can say I believe in the common ancestor, however just because you belief it does not make it fact.

Another reason the evolutionary theory has never gone beyond anything other than theory, because it is a series of well-thought-out conclusions of the facts, and their personal interpretations of what they believe the facts, mean in this case genetics. You have fallen to the belief that they indeed are proof of evolution, when in fact its a fact and seeing it holds no bias it can be used by any theory that comes along.

And lol fag, there is no way in hell you can prove the age of those bacteria you can guess, or theorize whichever you prefer however you would never hit the nail on the head. Scientists failed during the predictions of Y2k, and I suspect the same about 2012.

::Paramore:: · May 11th 2009, 6:41am

Wow, this thread is at least 12 different topics in one. After reading half of this, I really don't feel like posting but it would be a waste if I didn't

1. Yes, we are similar to animals. We just try to come up with things like Love and Marriage to try and separate ourselves (but we fail at it)

2. Being a vegitarian is, sadly, useless. An experiment was done where they hooked a plant up to a lie detector thing, and when someone started attacking it, it's readings went through the roof. So, plants are like animals. Basically, we live in a world where survival means death to others.

3. no one can possibly know what animals think, so I can't be sure if animals know if they will eventually die. I do know that they know it is possible to die.

LOLFag · May 11th 2009, 10:56am

The Guardian wrote:

And lol fag, there is no way in hell you can prove the age of those bacteria you can guess, or theorize whichever you prefer however you would never hit the nail on the head. Scientists failed during the predictions of Y2k, and I suspect the same about 2012.

Is a Marine telling me that I don't know as much science as he does?

Yes, you can prove the age. You know what carbon dating is? Remnants of bacterial membranes exist and have been dated to roughly 3 and a half billion years ago. And carbon dating is amazingly accurate since carbon decays at a highly predictable rate. You know how we dated rock layers? Carbon dating, and based on what everybody knows, rocks are older than bacteria.

Besides, even IF there were no remnants of bacteria, there are still fossils. These fossils can be compared to a previously established rock timeline and can be accurately guessed how old the bacteria was.

tinhead · May 11th 2009, 11:11am

::Paramore:: wrote:

2. Being a vegitarian is, sadly, useless. An experiment was done where they hooked a plant up to a lie detector thing, and when someone started attacking it, it's readings went through the roof. So, plants are like animals. Basically, we live in a world where survival means death to others.

Lie detectors aren't able to monitor plants.

The Guardian · May 11th 2009, 2:31pm

LOLFag wrote:

Is a Marine telling me that I don't know as much science as he does?

Yes, you can prove the age. You know what carbon dating is? Remnants of bacterial membranes exist and have been dated to roughly 3 and a half billion years ago. And carbon dating is amazingly accurate since carbon decays at a highly predictable rate. You know how we dated rock layers? Carbon dating, and based on what everybody knows, rocks are older than bacteria.

Besides, even IF there were no remnants of bacteria, there are still fossils. These fossils can be compared to a previously established rock timeline and can be accurately guessed how old the bacteria was.

Only so slightly "more accurate" since they have tried to tune it. However even then, Derek, there are much more used and more reliable ways of measuring of which even then can still be questioned, just like the speed of light.

Of that, though it is still used does not mean it is, or even constitutes a fact. Ever heard of the geological time table?

Oh, yes they still use this. A huge fallacy here is that materials settle in by density, not age. I have not seen a fossilized bacteria, or heard of such, perhaps you could enlighten it. Of which you did an out standing job of proving nothing.

ON your knowledge of science, I do not know you or have I meet you, therefore I cannot judge you, move on.

tinhead wrote:

Lie detectors aren't able to monitor plants.

Yes, lie detectors really only monitor different rates of the human body like breathing and heart rate.

LOLFag · May 11th 2009, 4:43pm

The Guardian wrote:

Only so slightly "more accurate" since they have tried to tune it. However even then, Derek, there are much more used and more reliable ways of measuring of which even then can still be questioned, just like the speed of light.

Of that, though it is still used does not mean it is, or even constitutes a fact. Ever heard of the geological time table?

Oh, yes they still use this. A huge fallacy here is that materials settle in by density, not age. I have not seen a fossilized bacteria, or heard of such, perhaps you could enlighten it. Of which you did an out standing job of proving nothing.

ON your knowledge of science, I do not know you or have I meet you, therefore I cannot judge you, move on.

Addressing your points. First and foremost, there is ALWAYS a margin of error. Nothing is completely accurate. But carbon dating is probably the most accurate way of measuring time we have available due to carbon's predictable decay patterns. This is the best we have, and this is how we determined the age of the first prokaryotes.

I said the geological time table is to be used as a secondary priority. First carbon dating, and for those who don't believe in carbon dating, simply examine where bacteria lies. It's relatively inaccurate compared to carbon dating, but it is still an option. Nevertheless, you do realize that fossils cannot settle? They are holes, for crying out loud. How do they move about? The thing you are looking for here is a mold.

I never said there was fossilized bacteria. I said there were remnants of its membrane, and if you had the time to watch Discovery Channel, you would find out that it is indeed a reality.
Fossil Record of the Bacteria
Fossil Record of the Cyanobacteria
Fossil bacteria
Choose any, they all do a fine job proving the earliest bacteria began 3.5 billion years ago. Found in West Australia, where the Earth hasn't changed much since the beginnings of the Earth.

Now, what's the point of all this anyway? What was te original question? You questioned whether evolution is true or not?

The Guardian · May 11th 2009, 5:10pm

lol, discovery Channel..... 'Billions of years ago... *Animation sequence for animal evolving* this animal was ________.

I know,:rolleyes:, point me to the actual sub site of for this.

Neal · May 11th 2009, 9:33pm

The Guardian wrote:

That's a theory, not a fact, Dig. Science suggesting, and science proving are to different things, of which had you payed attention those articles are suggest of the science when interpreted in such a from as a preconceived ideal or notion in this case, that their billions of years old.

I guess my real question is the correlational argument upon what parts of science you believe in and what parts of science you don't believe in.

For example, what do you reject besides evolution and geology? Nothing else?

For example, you haven't showed us any disagreement on electrochemistry or organic chemistry, but will show disagreement in geology and biology.

What is the camouflage correlational argument based upon what you accept and what you don't accept?

Why, anything that doesn't contradict the Bible!

Okay, we get your idea. The earth is only 6,000 years old. So no bacteria or evolution can exist before then.

But seriously though, if I were you, I wouldn't try to make it obvious. I'd make it hard to figure out what I accept and what I don't accept in science.

For example, why not reject electrochemistry but accept organic chemistry?
Or why not accept electrochemistry, but reject organic chemistry?

Or why not just be skeptical about science entirely?

Oh I know, no need to, because it doesn't contradict the Bible. Because the Bible can't be wrong about anything.

The other thing I would do if I were you, is to just step up, and be a man, and say "I rejet whatever contradicts the Bible," rather than come up with some crap system where we have to figure out why you selectively pick what to accept and what not to accept.

Oh yeah, and you can't outrule that the age of the Earth is young because you find Creationism to be right. You can't infer that because you forget the possibility that when God created the world in 6 days - he could have made the age of it billion of years old. Why? So 6,000 years later, to test our faith. If that were the case, there would be no reason to reject *anything* in science.

Sigh.

Aunt Jemima · May 12th 2009, 1:41am

I think this qualifies as more of a discussion than a debate. It's mostly just my random thoughts coming out...

Me and my girlfriend kinda had a little argument about me being jelous. And I'm not denying that...but that isn't the point. I said that it's a man's instinct to be jelous, especially with his girlfriend/partner/anything of the sort, and that it's an animal's instinct too. The males fight with each other over the females. She said, "So is that all you are? an animal?"

How are we different from any animal? animals are fueled by their instincts, and so are we. Yes, we are intelligent, but if you really think about it, that intelligence is fueled by instinct as well. Humans are considered animals.

What does our intelligence do for us? We make inventions and learn about the world around us. It's instinct to better our situation. Things like cars, planes, and tools are made to help make our lives easier. Sure, you could walk to the grocery store, but you would be mich happier driving. You might be able to turn that bolt without a wrench, but it would be extremely difficult. Out intelligence is used for nothing more than satifying out instincts.
Self preservation is another instinct. This is why we build weapons: to defend ourselves. The instinct to eat is a huge part of this. Think of all the things man has created to make the act of eating more efficient. Not only that, but we have an instinct to eat much more and much more often then we should. This is because an animal would never know when their next meal could be. In today's society that isn't a huge concern, so this instinct can do more harm than help. And so we have obesity. Of course instincts can be overcome with our intelligence. You could force yourself to stop eating or sit in a puddle of mud, but you wouldn't be the least bit happy. In the end, it all comes down to our core instincts. We are no different from animals.

Just a few of my recent thoughts...enjoy, and thanks for reading =]

No, although seeing your stupidity makes me reconsider my answer.

The Guardian · May 12th 2009, 3:37am

DamnImGood wrote:

So in your opinion, how old is bacteria?

LOLFag wrote:

I said the geological time table is to be used as a secondary priority. First carbon dating, and for those who don't believe in carbon dating, simply examine where bacteria lies. It's relatively inaccurate compared to carbon dating, but it is still an option. Nevertheless, you do realize that fossils cannot settle? They are holes, for crying out loud. How do they move about? The thing you are looking for here is a mold.

Dude, I have no clue but I noticed this after I went through again. There is a density to very object or thing in this universe, of which the exact opposite is nothing( a vaccum).

Yes, there are some that contain air pockets, however they have a density and therefore will settle by that. Actually if you wish to see something settle very fast, grab different types of dirt. then place them all in a jar add rocks whatever you please, and add water. It will then settle in a matter of minutes or at max an hour.

Neal wrote:

I guess my real question is the correlational argument upon what parts of science you believe in and what parts of science you don't believe in.

For example, what do you reject besides evolution and geology? Nothing else?

For example, you haven't showed us any disagreement on electrochemistry or organic chemistry, but will show disagreement in geology and biology.

What is the camouflage correlational argument based upon what you accept and what you don't accept?

Why, anything that doesn't contradict the Bible!

Okay, we get your idea. The earth is only 6,000 years old. So no bacteria or evolution can exist before then.

But seriously though, if I were you, I wouldn't try to make it obvious. I'd make it hard to figure out what I accept and what I don't accept in science.

For example, why not reject electrochemistry but accept organic chemistry?
Or why not accept electrochemistry, but reject organic chemistry?

Or why not just be skeptical about science entirely?

Oh I know, no need to, because it doesn't contradict the Bible. Because the Bible can't be wrong about anything.

The other thing I would do if I were you, is to just step up, and be a man, and say "I rejet whatever contradicts the Bible," rather than come up with some crap system where we have to figure out why you selectively pick what to accept and what not to accept.

Oh yeah, and you can't outrule that the age of the Earth is young because you find Creationism to be right. You can't infer that because you forget the possibility that when God created the world in 6 days - he could have made the age of it billion of years old. Why? So 6,000 years later, to test our faith. If that were the case, there would be no reason to reject *anything* in science.

Sigh.

Do I reject science? try again, sarcasm in your case Neal does not help you at all.

LOLFag · May 12th 2009, 4:19am

I still believe you are missing my point. I shall say this one last time.

Carbon dating has proved that bacteria is 3.5 billion years old. This is irrefutable evidence.

Furthermore, how is the Earth only 6000 years old?! There have been texts and written records back in Babylonian times that showed civilization began at up to 5000 BC, and countless more evidence that life began billions of years earlier

What is your main point, anyway?

The Guardian · May 12th 2009, 4:42am

That is estimated age, Derek. Based off the current tested decay rate of the element, in this case carbon, of which can be rapidly sped up. Thus the reason they have moved on to other methods of dating. Can you provide that?

Humans and animals...are we so different?

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

Neal wrote:

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

The Guardian wrote:

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

DamnImGood wrote:

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

The Guardian wrote:

Neal wrote:

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

The Guardian wrote:

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

::Paramore:: wrote:

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

LOLFag wrote:

tinhead wrote:

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

The Guardian wrote:

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

The Guardian wrote:

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

DamnImGood wrote:

LOLFag wrote:

Neal wrote:

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

Re: Humans and animals...are we so different?

Share