Vegetarians please read...
- Thread starter Muslim
- Start date
You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an early stage mouse fetus or human fetus.
Anyway. Go to some crackpot site if you want to claim humans aren't animals. Maybe they are interested.
Take a look at this and try to find humans.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/index/metazoa.html
Anyway. Go to some crackpot site if you want to claim humans aren't animals. Maybe they are interested.
Take a look at this and try to find humans.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/index/metazoa.html
So we have 60% DNA that matches Bananas does that mean we are over half fruit?
More than half!
You should check out the biochemistry we have in common.
Y'know all that basic stuff required to make life happen.
Takes a lot of coding that does.
Not like the trivial arms, legs, hair, morphology type stuff.
That's just an afterthought.
Look at it this way. If there was one mile between bananas and humans then Natural Lakeland Gravel would lie outside the orbit of pluto.
Were practically the same thing!
It's only what we do thats different.
Dee Cee
More than half!
You should check out the biochemistry we have in common.
Y'know all that basic stuff required to make life happen.
Takes a lot of coding that does.
Not like the trivial arms, legs, hair, morphology type stuff.
That's just an afterthought.
Look at it this way. If there was one mile between bananas and humans then Natural Lakeland Gravel would lie outside the orbit of pluto.
Were practically the same thing!
It's only what we do thats different.
Dee Cee
spuriousmonkey said:
Oh right lets look at your logic now. So just because you can't make out what it is at an Early state we should pretend for the moment its what ever we want to believe it to be? What website might that be? they might actually take more sense then you. You're a Atheist you want to convert everyone to Atheism.
Also in America everyone is coming to there sense in places like Texas creationism is even taught in some American school, evolution is a flawed theory.
Muslim said:
I am merely referring to the fact you are the biggest arrogant moron visiting sciforums in the last year. I don't want to convert you. It's just a fucking disgrace anyone can post so much shit in such a short time.
Muslim:
Oh, give me a break. At least have the decency to read the thread before you repeat previous arguments. You can't really be this stupid, surely.
Just to recap, since I'm sure you won't bother exerting yourself to learn something - briefly:
1. You don't need to eat meat to get proteins.
2. Plants are different from animals in important ways which mean they are not entitled to be put on an equal ethical footing with sentient animals.
3. It is not "humane" to kill an animal for pleasure, even if it is done in such a way that the animal does not suffer at the time of killing. The animal still loses its life.
So, there can be no argument that humans are animals with you, because you have defined humans out of being animals. Basically, your argument that humans are not animals is no better than "Humans are not animals, because I say they are not."
Given that all practising biologists disagree with you, do you have anything better to offer than your own fiat on this matter?
Depends what you do. Do you dissect them and stare carefully? Or is your idea of staring the same as glancing from a distance?
How do you suppose all the information got into school books in the first place, Muslim? Was it handed down by Allah? Or is there some kind of grand Master Book from which all school books are copied? Or what?
So, your answer is "yes", in other words. You think a theory is the same as a "conjecture".
Tell me, how much confirming evidence do you think is usually required for something to be called a "theory" in science? None, a bit, a lot, or what?
You're asking if can I prove that humans are animals. Yes, it's very easy. But you'd have to let me use the definition that biologists use, and not your personal, idiosyncratic definition of the word "animal". Thankfully, it is the biologists' definition which appears in all the school books you regard as the font of all wisdom. So, if I quote you a statement from a year 10 biology textbook, will you be satisfied?
Yes. It's obvious. Ever had a pet?
How did Leonardo da Vinci become an expert on anatomy, do you think? How did Francis Crick and James Watson work out the double helix?
Do you think they read it in a school book? Or did Allah make them experts, perhaps?
No, we (humans) wouldn't be better off in water. The fish and plankton and sharks and whales already eat the food which is available in the water. We're better at getting our food from the land. Oh, and living on land, we can get food from both the water AND the land, not just the water. See?
Fish can't breathe in air. Duh!
Why didn't they evolve to breathe air? Well, some of them did. And some stayed in the water, because they were already supremely well-adapted to that environment and there were no evolutionary pressures forcing them to change.
What do you think adaptation is? Please explain in your own words. Or, if you like, consult a school book.
So, you accept evolution now. But God isn't allowed to evolve one species into another? Who are you to tell Allah what he can and can't do?
I guess we read about the brain in the Big School Book. How else could we know anything about it?
I'm guessing you struggle to understand philosophy and mathematics and all that abstract shit. So, you try to pretend it doesn't matter. You're one of those people that says "book learning is good for nothing". Yet, strangely, you say that book learning is the only way to get knowledge.
You're an enigma, Muslim - you contradict yourself. What do you really believe?
Here's the glimmer of an argument.
So, does the 2% difference in genes between chimpanzees and humans make humans completely different from chimps? I can point to different types of fish which differ by more than 2% in their genetic code. Are they completely different from each other, too? I'd guess that cats and dogs have more than 2% of their DNA different. So, they'd be completely different too, right?
If cats and dogs are completely different, why do we call them both "animals"? We should invent a new class name for one of them, shouldn't we?
But cats and dogs are both animals (or maybe you disagree?). But they're not the same. Or do you think they ARE the same?
If you don't know this, then trying to argue a complex thing like evolution is probably beyond you. Better stop now and go read a school book. You have some catching up to do.
Oh, give me a break. At least have the decency to read the thread before you repeat previous arguments. You can't really be this stupid, surely.
Just to recap, since I'm sure you won't bother exerting yourself to learn something - briefly:
1. You don't need to eat meat to get proteins.
2. Plants are different from animals in important ways which mean they are not entitled to be put on an equal ethical footing with sentient animals.
3. It is not "humane" to kill an animal for pleasure, even if it is done in such a way that the animal does not suffer at the time of killing. The animal still loses its life.
So, there can be no argument that humans are animals with you, because you have defined humans out of being animals. Basically, your argument that humans are not animals is no better than "Humans are not animals, because I say they are not."
Given that all practising biologists disagree with you, do you have anything better to offer than your own fiat on this matter?
Depends what you do. Do you dissect them and stare carefully? Or is your idea of staring the same as glancing from a distance?
How do you suppose all the information got into school books in the first place, Muslim? Was it handed down by Allah? Or is there some kind of grand Master Book from which all school books are copied? Or what?
So, your answer is "yes", in other words. You think a theory is the same as a "conjecture".
Tell me, how much confirming evidence do you think is usually required for something to be called a "theory" in science? None, a bit, a lot, or what?
You're asking if can I prove that humans are animals. Yes, it's very easy. But you'd have to let me use the definition that biologists use, and not your personal, idiosyncratic definition of the word "animal". Thankfully, it is the biologists' definition which appears in all the school books you regard as the font of all wisdom. So, if I quote you a statement from a year 10 biology textbook, will you be satisfied?
Yes. It's obvious. Ever had a pet?
How did Leonardo da Vinci become an expert on anatomy, do you think? How did Francis Crick and James Watson work out the double helix?
Do you think they read it in a school book? Or did Allah make them experts, perhaps?
No, we (humans) wouldn't be better off in water. The fish and plankton and sharks and whales already eat the food which is available in the water. We're better at getting our food from the land. Oh, and living on land, we can get food from both the water AND the land, not just the water. See?
Fish can't breathe in air. Duh!
Why didn't they evolve to breathe air? Well, some of them did. And some stayed in the water, because they were already supremely well-adapted to that environment and there were no evolutionary pressures forcing them to change.
What do you think adaptation is? Please explain in your own words. Or, if you like, consult a school book.
So, you accept evolution now. But God isn't allowed to evolve one species into another? Who are you to tell Allah what he can and can't do?
I guess we read about the brain in the Big School Book. How else could we know anything about it?
I'm guessing you struggle to understand philosophy and mathematics and all that abstract shit. So, you try to pretend it doesn't matter. You're one of those people that says "book learning is good for nothing". Yet, strangely, you say that book learning is the only way to get knowledge.
You're an enigma, Muslim - you contradict yourself. What do you really believe?
Here's the glimmer of an argument.
So, does the 2% difference in genes between chimpanzees and humans make humans completely different from chimps? I can point to different types of fish which differ by more than 2% in their genetic code. Are they completely different from each other, too? I'd guess that cats and dogs have more than 2% of their DNA different. So, they'd be completely different too, right?
If cats and dogs are completely different, why do we call them both "animals"? We should invent a new class name for one of them, shouldn't we?
But cats and dogs are both animals (or maybe you disagree?). But they're not the same. Or do you think they ARE the same?
If you don't know this, then trying to argue a complex thing like evolution is probably beyond you. Better stop now and go read a school book. You have some catching up to do.
Are you not supposed to be a moderator around here? You out of all people you should not be acting like this and calling me names.
Let me quote what I said: “…Also we can use an argument another poster proposed…” notice what I said there? I think you should apologize to me for name calling as seen as though you’re a moderator you should be setting an example. This is supposed to be a science.
1. But its better to eat meat and get proteins from there such as chicken. I mean your argument is like saying there is a sea why do you get your water from a tap why don’t you take a bucket to the sea and get the water like that – it’s not convient and it’s not clean and is a waste of time.
2. Plants are living too, don’t try to confuse me with the word sentient, you know am not English expert but anyway how do you know plants are not sentient, what proof do you have for this?
3. I can use the same argument it’s not “humane” to kill plants. Yeah and when you eat a plant what do you think? The plant doesn’t die? You’re presenting a really very weak argument here.
How can you not agree on a definition I did not just make that up, it comes directly from the dictionary. So I don’t know what you’re trying to get at here.
Let me school you once more:
So clearly you don’t have any idea of what you’re talking about. Sometimes scientists agree with each other, sometimes they have their own ideological agenda and so do many others who supposedly rewive their work.
Here you go again, try to argue on the definition, and it’s not my “personal idiosyncrasy definition” look stop using big words trying to confuse me talk in a language everyone can understand stop trying to be a Greek.
You’re lying. We can do a simple experiment maybe I’ll do one later – I just don’t want animal rights campaigners sending me death threats. But I would like to see you prove to everyone here that animals can reason.
We are talking about Darwin not these other people. And Allah can do what he wills so stop sounding like a broken record, and repeating the same thing over and over again.
uhhh what are you talking about, we have animals on the land we can be attacked by who also eat most of the vegetation that argument doesn’t wash (notice the pun) its pathetic argument. Its like saying to get rid of poverty we should give everyone BMWs because rich people drive BMWs. So, I know animals that can live in the water and on land like Crocodiles, we can say they have the best of both worlds they can get food from the land and the sea, these are weak arguments you’re presenting here.
Actually you’re wrong, I’m assuming when you say air you mean oxygen right? Anyway fish use oxygen to service to technically they do breathe air.
They did everything that lives in the water does breath air (oxygen) so stop making things up just so you can make your argument look stronger. And then you go on to say there was no evolutionary pressures, one minute you say humans moved out of the water because there was pressure but the fish didn’t who were also human according to you. I think you’ve been watching too many “little mermaid” movies lol
An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment. The key word here is improvement not change into another creature. By the way this is the definition from the American Heritage dictionary. You can look it up yourself.
No god just creates new species and then he makes them evolver, he is the creator and the evolver – he can do what he will. Am not going to tell Allah what to do and what not to do, he has told us what he does do and what he doesn’t do with respect to evolution and creation. Look, for once spices to change into another there must be a mutation and that is random it happens randomly with so Darwin’s theory of “natural selection” goes straight out of the window. Adaptation on the other hand is not random it’s a process and a process cannot be random.
OK tell me this does abstract thinking have any application in life? It’s pointless! It was invented by losers just to look smart. I never said book learning is the only way to get knowledge please tell me where I said this. You’ve resorted to making lies up against me to back this stupid theory of Darwin’s this theory is retarded. I believe in what ever I want to believe in and one is going to change my mind, sure am not a scientist but, I can see right through a load of bullshit.
It’s not on the 2% differences like I said you before scientist don’t have an advanced understanding of DNA yet. And I even proved that even one person can have two forms of DNA in “Chimeras” I mean there was a program on this on channel 5 it’s called “The Twin Inside me” so don’t even try to debate on this. I don’t like people who try to be smart when they’re not really like Greeks so stop it.
I do know much about evolution, I my teacher who I had a crush on used to go on about it in school and so I used to pay lots of attention to her. And I don’t have any catching up to do; I think I know enough to school a few evolution expert scientists on the subject, I mean if they really cut out the bullcrap of using big words and confusing me I’d own them.
If chickens can get their protein from plants, why can't humans?
I'm no bio expert, but you need a central nervous system to be considered sentient.
The plant doesn't realize it's going to die because it's not sentient. And since they don't have a CNS, they feel no pain.
Xerxes said:
Still, that is like saying OK if someone can't feel it its alright to kill them. Yeah lets mix some arsenic into coffee and kill ppl and then say to the judge you know its all evolution and shit hay they guy didn't feel any pain.
Also, the chicken gets its proteins from plants, that is not actually true. Chickens also eat other creatures you know like worms and stuff like tha.
Also, chicken tastes better then grass.
