One other thing I should note here, so as to not introduce confusion...
I am perfectly willing to accept your position that for you, no such point of transition has ever taken place.
You realize you're utterly evading the question at hand, with a purely tautological pseudo-definition, right?
You can test for species X, demonstrating correspondence with your arbitrary declaration of what is included in a species. That is, demonstrating nothing relevant to my point.
Anyway, this has gone on too long. The issue is of rather particular practical application, and that application won't be soon, personally.
Sounds pretty vague, to me. Okay, let's have a specification, then. Just give me the DNA signature, -specifically-, that differentiates "human", including a test case consisting of a given point in human evolution, at which everything previous to it genetically is "animal", and everything after is properly called "human". Lacking that, a -specific- methodology that you think could possibly, even theoretically, result in such a specification, would assist your point. Bear in mind that a -definition- has nothing to do with what we observe in what we casually call "human" now, in terms of DNA, now that the genetics have diverged significantly to the point of obviousness--a DNA based -definition- should be able handle difficult cases and function as a -clearly defining- set of attributes. That includes the "first human". That includes chimeras, and no you -don't- get to assume the bipedal, clothed organism originating "part" of the chimera is "human" BEFORE YOU DEFINE VIA DNA ALONE WHAT HUMAN IS.
I'm hearing a lot of generalities and bare assertion in these replies, and very few quantifiable specifics.
No, you can test for what you informally call "human" (largely, probably via cultural assimilation). You do not have a basic differentiating definition of "human" as rendered in a particular DNA pattern.
If the notion of genetic "chimeras" doesn't make this clear to you, I'm not sure what will.
That's pretty tautological in terms of attempting a definition. There are a "large number of distinct and unique genetic differences" between every human on earth, other than identical twins. Same with animals. What would be needed is a -defining- characteristic, that cleanly differentiates all instances of "human" from "animal". As I noted previously, this would also require the ability to state a specific generation of cutover in evolution from "animal" to "human", and why that particular mutation should objectively be categorized as the latter.
That's pretty tautological in terms of attempting serious definition. There are a "large number" of unique genetic differences between every single person we categorize as "human"--other than identical twins. Same with animals. What is needed -definitionally- is a defining, or differentiating characteristic that cleanly splits all instances of "human" from "animal".
If I show you a mixed group of animals, you will be able to pick out the human every single time. If I show you every human on the planet and one chimpanzee, you will be able to pick out the chimpanzee every single time (I have faith in you).
Not an interesting test-case. If the distinction between "human" and "animal" is differentiable solely by DNA, objectively, you should be able to isolate the -precise generation- at which the transition took place. I doubt you can even broadly conceptualize how you would determine the point of "cutover".
As for the rest, in terms of philosophy, there's no issue making this differentiation, and justifying it, within a theistic framework. There's no scratching of my head at all--but, if you prefer, and lack such a rationale yourself, I'm willing to agree to your definition of -yourself- as an animal, with all the attendant implications for you in terms of such things as "rights".
Asserting something like "everybody knows" is, formally, wholly insufficient without an objective definition.
"This brings us much closer to understanding what makes us human," said Richard Gibbs, the project leader and director of Baylor's Human Genome Sequencing Center.
No scientific effort will ever differentiate the basic category of "human", much less tell us "what it means". From the perspective of DNA, we're simply a biological continuum with animals, and no further objective conclusions will be forthcoming on this question.
The basic ability to formulate this necessary distinction is based purely in metaphysics.
I'd suggest 1980's case law might yield some legal ammunition. Blue Boxing was routinely prosecuted as "computer fraud" (ahem), even when used only for residential phone to residential phone communications. Hence, it would seem, by legal precedent, the phone call was considered as going "over a computer network".
This model, though, may require revisitation as IBM is currently crunching the genetic numbers and indicating a single common ancestor for all of present-day humanity living tens of thousands, rather than millions, of years ago.
I just went over a transcript of the presentation:
My father, he had grown tobacco all his life. He stopped it. Whatever explanation that seemed to make sense in the past, just didn't cut it anymore. He stopped it. It's just human nature to take time to connect the dots. I know that. But I also know that there can be a day of reckoning when you wished you had connected the dots more quickly.
Perhaps I misunderstood an off-topic analogy between the tobacco industry and his global warming opposition as indicating a direct link of tobacco with his presentation's topic--though, I'm not entirely certain this ambiguity wasn't intentional.
In any case, though I thought I recalled a more direct statement, I can't find it--and your comment stands.
I think you missed my central point. Entropy states that no matter what, from a naturalistic viewpoint, each individual, and all societies, and all species, holding any viewpoint whatsoever, will all die off, given sufficient time.
Hence, a worldview incorporating "supernatural" elements, is the only one that could possibly "survive" in the context of evolution, by definition of physics.
He says it, almost verbatim, in the Inconvenient Truth documentary/film. He goes on to discuss a sense of being dismayed that his father was originally a tobacco farmer, and pleased that he switched to another crop. My link would be a link to the film itself, if I could find it on the 'net, though it's running on a cable movie channel in the U.S., I believe Showtime, right now.
That comment demonstrates the "scale" of the problem. What specific point(s) of "research" and "evidence" do you consider questionable/lies?
His assertion that second-hand cigarette smoke is a large contributor to global warming. While cigarettes are a perennially tempting punching-bag/revenue-source for the government, I think it worth noting that cigarettes are, at base, very small quantities of leaves. If cigarettes are a significant contributor, home fireplaces must be an ecological disaster.
This assertion markedly decreased the credibility of his Inconvenient Truth presentation, for me personally.
Pretty obviously, though, a non-sequitur specifically striving to connect "obedience to authority" with religion, because attacking religion is how Dawkins makes book-cash.
It at least equally applies to the notion of a genetic predisposition to follow the Department of Motor Vehicles, but that, while being more logically sound and less arbitrary, would undoubtedly be a less controversial and profitable assertion.
Well... with heavy qualification in the case of Buddhism. In the West, it is generally less oriented toward the supernatural--one might conjecture that Buddhism attracts favorable attention from those contrasting from the dominant religion of Christianity, that is, a philosophy for those already disposed to be atheistic, and is "colored" in terms of Western practice by this.
Some reading on the scope and popularity of Pure Land Buddhism from a global perspective should make the need for this qualification clear.
Sine you seem to actually be having this conversation with some imaginary friend of yours rather than me, and are addressing his opinions, probably best we stop now.
Though, as for the "location" of heaven and hell, though I don't claim certainty, I consider the dimensions postulated by M-Theory to be an interesting candidate.
Assuming that wasn't sarcasm, I'd suggest starting with the book of John in the canonical bible.
Beyond that, and with respect to the earlier Thomas references, I'd suggest "Beyond Belief" by Elaine Pagels for someone newly approaching the subject from a 21st-century postmodern mindset.
Fair warning, the Gospel of Thomas is a source of considerable controversy in the Church right now, but at least with Pagels you'll do better than Dan Brown's thoroughly clueless interpretations.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Dear +4... Insightful...:
At least one person out there did, in fact, get this.
I'm not clear on why you're blaming me for what your own position logically necessitates. That seems rather like your issue, not mine.
One other thing I should note here, so as to not introduce confusion... I am perfectly willing to accept your position that for you, no such point of transition has ever taken place.
If you're scared of what they might find...
In what way could I possibly be, Mr. AC?
You realize you're utterly evading the question at hand, with a purely tautological pseudo-definition, right?
You can test for species X, demonstrating correspondence with your arbitrary declaration of what is included in a species. That is, demonstrating nothing relevant to my point.
Anyway, this has gone on too long. The issue is of rather particular practical application, and that application won't be soon, personally.
"globally more similar"
Sounds pretty vague, to me. Okay, let's have a specification, then. Just give me the DNA signature, -specifically-, that differentiates "human", including a test case consisting of a given point in human evolution, at which everything previous to it genetically is "animal", and everything after is properly called "human". Lacking that, a -specific- methodology that you think could possibly, even theoretically, result in such a specification, would assist your point. Bear in mind that a -definition- has nothing to do with what we observe in what we casually call "human" now, in terms of DNA, now that the genetics have diverged significantly to the point of obviousness--a DNA based -definition- should be able handle difficult cases and function as a -clearly defining- set of attributes. That includes the "first human". That includes chimeras, and no you -don't- get to assume the bipedal, clothed organism originating "part" of the chimera is "human" BEFORE YOU DEFINE VIA DNA ALONE WHAT HUMAN IS.
I'm hearing a lot of generalities and bare assertion in these replies, and very few quantifiable specifics.
No, you can test for what you informally call "human" (largely, probably via cultural assimilation). You do not have a basic differentiating definition of "human" as rendered in a particular DNA pattern.
If the notion of genetic "chimeras" doesn't make this clear to you, I'm not sure what will.
That's pretty tautological in terms of attempting a definition. There are a "large number of distinct and unique genetic differences" between every human on earth, other than identical twins. Same with animals. What would be needed is a -defining- characteristic, that cleanly differentiates all instances of "human" from "animal". As I noted previously, this would also require the ability to state a specific generation of cutover in evolution from "animal" to "human", and why that particular mutation should objectively be categorized as the latter.
That's pretty tautological in terms of attempting serious definition. There are a "large number" of unique genetic differences between every single person we categorize as "human"--other than identical twins. Same with animals. What is needed -definitionally- is a defining, or differentiating characteristic that cleanly splits all instances of "human" from "animal".
If I show you a mixed group of animals, you will be able to pick out the human every single time. If I show you every human on the planet and one chimpanzee, you will be able to pick out the chimpanzee every single time (I have faith in you).
Not an interesting test-case. If the distinction between "human" and "animal" is differentiable solely by DNA, objectively, you should be able to isolate the -precise generation- at which the transition took place. I doubt you can even broadly conceptualize how you would determine the point of "cutover".
As for the rest, in terms of philosophy, there's no issue making this differentiation, and justifying it, within a theistic framework. There's no scratching of my head at all--but, if you prefer, and lack such a rationale yourself, I'm willing to agree to your definition of -yourself- as an animal, with all the attendant implications for you in terms of such things as "rights".
Asserting something like "everybody knows" is, formally, wholly insufficient without an objective definition.
"This brings us much closer to understanding what makes us human," said Richard Gibbs, the project leader and director of Baylor's Human Genome Sequencing Center.
No scientific effort will ever differentiate the basic category of "human", much less tell us "what it means". From the perspective of DNA, we're simply a biological continuum with animals, and no further objective conclusions will be forthcoming on this question.
The basic ability to formulate this necessary distinction is based purely in metaphysics.
I'd suggest 1980's case law might yield some legal ammunition. Blue Boxing was routinely prosecuted as "computer fraud" (ahem), even when used only for residential phone to residential phone communications. Hence, it would seem, by legal precedent, the phone call was considered as going "over a computer network".
If she's called Eve then I'll pick up Richard Dawkins' coat along with mine on the way out ;-)
;)
That's fine, but, of course, neither of you have anywhere to go.
This model, though, may require revisitation as IBM is currently crunching the genetic numbers and indicating a single common ancestor for all of present-day humanity living tens of thousands, rather than millions, of years ago.
It's an interesting project. More information on ibm.com as well.
Hmm...
I just went over a transcript of the presentation:
My father, he had grown tobacco all his life. He stopped it. Whatever explanation that seemed to make sense in the past, just didn't cut it anymore. He stopped it. It's just human nature to take time to connect the dots. I know that. But I also know that there can be a day of reckoning when you wished you had connected the dots more quickly.
(Here)
Perhaps I misunderstood an off-topic analogy between the tobacco industry and his global warming opposition as indicating a direct link of tobacco with his presentation's topic--though, I'm not entirely certain this ambiguity wasn't intentional.
In any case, though I thought I recalled a more direct statement, I can't find it--and your comment stands.
I think you missed my central point. Entropy states that no matter what, from a naturalistic viewpoint, each individual, and all societies, and all species, holding any viewpoint whatsoever, will all die off, given sufficient time.
Hence, a worldview incorporating "supernatural" elements, is the only one that could possibly "survive" in the context of evolution, by definition of physics.
He says it, almost verbatim, in the Inconvenient Truth documentary/film. He goes on to discuss a sense of being dismayed that his father was originally a tobacco farmer, and pleased that he switched to another crop. My link would be a link to the film itself, if I could find it on the 'net, though it's running on a cable movie channel in the U.S., I believe Showtime, right now.
Interesting view, given yours would be the position that -cannot- survive, -by definition-, and -by your own definition-.
It's called "entropy".
As for me, I'm personally willing to dominate the opposition in as fully of an evolution-positive manner as God may allow me in the afterlife.
That comment demonstrates the "scale" of the problem. What specific point(s) of "research" and "evidence" do you consider questionable/lies?
His assertion that second-hand cigarette smoke is a large contributor to global warming. While cigarettes are a perennially tempting punching-bag/revenue-source for the government, I think it worth noting that cigarettes are, at base, very small quantities of leaves. If cigarettes are a significant contributor, home fireplaces must be an ecological disaster.
This assertion markedly decreased the credibility of his Inconvenient Truth presentation, for me personally.
Given you've sort-of called me out by name, I'll help as far as a link. ;)
Pretty obviously, though, a non-sequitur specifically striving to connect "obedience to authority" with religion, because attacking religion is how Dawkins makes book-cash.
It at least equally applies to the notion of a genetic predisposition to follow the Department of Motor Vehicles, but that, while being more logically sound and less arbitrary, would undoubtedly be a less controversial and profitable assertion.
Well... with heavy qualification in the case of Buddhism. In the West, it is generally less oriented toward the supernatural--one might conjecture that Buddhism attracts favorable attention from those contrasting from the dominant religion of Christianity, that is, a philosophy for those already disposed to be atheistic, and is "colored" in terms of Western practice by this.
Some reading on the scope and popularity of Pure Land Buddhism from a global perspective should make the need for this qualification clear.
FWIW, I heard much the same thing, from the even-more-awesome vector of "Yeah, I think I read that in a gaming magazine once."
Though, a quick googling reveals some remnants of that apparent history.
Sine you seem to actually be having this conversation with some imaginary friend of yours rather than me, and are addressing his opinions, probably best we stop now.
Though, as for the "location" of heaven and hell, though I don't claim certainty, I consider the dimensions postulated by M-Theory to be an interesting candidate.
And, naturally, I lean toward the Everett Interpretation.
Assuming that wasn't sarcasm, I'd suggest starting with the book of John in the canonical bible.
;)
Beyond that, and with respect to the earlier Thomas references, I'd suggest "Beyond Belief" by Elaine Pagels for someone newly approaching the subject from a 21st-century postmodern mindset.
Fair warning, the Gospel of Thomas is a source of considerable controversy in the Church right now, but at least with Pagels you'll do better than Dan Brown's thoroughly clueless interpretations.