Complaining about your words being taken out of context is appropriate.
Complaining about your words being taken out of context while posting fake ‘quotes’ that misrepresent what others have said is massively hypocritical.
1 Like
Have you searched for information about these features in other living species?
Other living primates do not seem to have the morphology needed to speak such a language as humans do but they can learn to use symbols or signs instead of spoken words and communicate with humans using those signs.
For example, a gorilla known as Koko communicated with humans using signs. It is argued that Koko did not learn the syntax or grammar required of true language but that is not the point. Why would Koko need to learn the rules of a human language if she could communicate successfully without such?
Some animals, like apes, show behaviours showing they understand the difference between accepted behaviour (‘right’) and punishable behaviour (‘wrong’). For example, when nobody sees them, they may steal and then pretend to have not done it.
The same with sex: these animals may have ‘forbidden’ sex so that they try to hide it.
Self-awareness and identity are also something that can be shown in some animals.
Neanderthals made tools, cave art, burials that could be interpreted as ritual. Based on the available evidence, Neanderthals would need to be grouped with our species, Homo sapiens.
1 Like
Elephants cheat and mourn. Have irredeemable juvenile delinquents, if they survive being orphaned and bereft of matriarchs. Get confused doing maths under pressure the same way we do. And have prodigious memory.
We say ‘how human’. How absurd!
1 Like
Prcision, precision.
Comparing two or more humans is not the same as comparing a human to a chimp. Why should the principle be the same?
If you look at the basic morphology of humans and chimps logic would dictate that their genetic make up would be very similar! It proves nothing.
As we cannot “decode” DNA properly you could be comparing the existence of of a skeleton, or a heart, or an eyeball or two. Claiming similarity is direct ancestry is just a blinkered view that ignores any other reason for similarities. No matter how you look at it, there is going to be similarities!
Building bricks would be a much more logical way of looking at things than ancestry.
Richard
So we need to compare our brickwork.
You do not need to compare anything.
There is no reason on this earth why you or anyone else should understand creation or its origins. The fact that you keep trying just shows human vanity and self importance.
Richard
But it’s OK for you to?
???
That was uncalled for.
Richard
What was? I don’t understand?
You basically claimed that I excepted myself from that statement and thought that I knew how the world was created. I do not. (On both counts)
Richard
No. You’re claiming knowledge that doesn’t exist. Against knowledge that does.
It is not just that exon mutations cause death. But also natural section encourages the evolution of mechanisms which protect and repair exons more than unused portions of DNA*. Why not just protect everything equally? Because genome variation is an evolutionary advantage. This is why bacteria will cover UV damage to portions of their DNA to preserve it from their own DNA repair mechanisms. Except in the case of viruses, mutagenesis is not purely random over the whole genome – it is selective, protecting portions which are vital more than those which are not.
I am wary of the term “introns” defined as non-coding portions of DNA. Just because a portion is non-coding doesn’t necessarily mean it is unused. They can also have regulatory functions, which means they can also be vital and in need of protection. This is why I changed it to “unused portions of DNA.”
Are big cats really big cats ?
Arguing h.Sapien sapien isnt an ape is the same as saying a lion isnt a cat .
Do the rules apply across the board ? Or is there special pleading for h.s.sapien ?
Common Ancestry is held as reliable in a court of law during paternity testing , why would it not be reliable in distant relation ? At what point does it become unreliable ?
Maybe ive misunderstood your assertions …
5 Likes
Because in paternity testing you are comparing like to like. Common ancestry is comparing a Ferrari to a Model t Ford,
Richard
Both of which are cars.
2 Likes
Yeah right.
Richard
Like to like …
Ape to ape …
Cat to cat …
Where are you drawing the line of “ likeness “ ?
That’s very similar to the“ kinds “ argument…with equal reliability.
Vertabrate “ kind “ includes fish, birds , etc …are you the same “ kind” ?
Yes, right. Ferraris and Model T Fords are both cars. They are both derived from the earliest car designs. So if that’s your comparison for the common ancestry of humans and other primates, you are in fact confirming (accidentally?) that humans and chimpanzees are related.
I’m reminded that you don’t know what nested hierarchies are. So you probably shouldn’t be posting in this thread anyway, since it’s about a topic you don’t understand.
1 Like
(post deleted by author)