CDZ Three unanswered yet interesting questions pertaining to life

[Asclepias]

I get this might not necassarily belong in CDZ, but since I can't stand any of the other forums, this is where I'm posting it. I hope that this becomes a fun conversation

First question: How did chemicals from lifeless reactions, turn into life?

Second: How did the early simple, single cell prokaryotic forms of life that had reached their available energy threshold, jumped to a higher energy threshold and turn into a eukaryotic form. A much more complex cell, that becomes the building block for complex life.

Finally: How did the jump happen from standard animal intelligence to human consciousness? Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

Right place, right time, right conditions.

See number 1

Fire.

There are animals out there that are smarter than humans. You are being a human chauvinist. One may say that animals are all smarter than humans. Humans are the only animals that mess up their environment intentionally.

A ridiculous thought. A bird will never get into a vehicle on vehicle accident, that does not make them smarter. Animals; outside of crows, Dolphins, some primates, and beavers, do not participate in manipulation of their surroundings to their advantage because they do not have the immense brain power, or energy to supply that brain power. Not out of altruism for Mother Earth. If what your saying is correct, zoology and behavioral psychology should not be considered sciences, since we have no way of measuring intelligence in any sort of way. So I'll ask again. Can we measure intelligence?

I dont see the relevance of a bird getting into an car accident. I said animals could be said to be smarter than humans. It all depends on who is doing the measuring. For example for years people have used an IQ test and its been discovered that there is no way that test can measure human intelligence simply because they werent smart enough to have it measure all types of intelligence. Even though there are other types of intelligence in humans whos to say they found them all?

I brought it up to illustrate a point. A bird won't get injured driving a car, not bc it thinks cars are unsafe, but bc it simply can't. What you suggested is that we are less intelligent than animals, bc animals do not harm the environment (cattle alone make up for 30 or so percent of carbon emissions according to the UN), implying they do so out of some sort of altruism.

You are also implying that we have no way to measure animal intelligence, since we can't know all of the types of intelligence. So we can understand the functions of each section of the brain in the animals, but we cannot accurately measure the intelligence on animals that have no concept of intelligence, nor a section of their brains dedicated to conceptualization?

Why would driving a car be a sign of intelligence? It kills people and emits poisonous gases which birds are intelligent enough not to do. Cattle only make up 30% of Co2 emissions because of humans. Without humans their numbers would be naturally kept in check by predators.

I'm mot implying we cant measure animal intelligence. I am saying its subjective because we are biased in what we regard as intelligence. We simply dont have the intellect to say what intelligence consists of for anything. My mention of the IQ test was to illustrate the inherent bias. What we know right now is bias in itself because we can discover a new form of intelligence tomorrow. During the dark ages in europe it was believed by "intelligent" people that water contained evil spirits so people rarely bathed.

 

[sealybobo]

Why did some animals evolve and some not?
Why are there no animals in "between" stages of evolution?

Why are species dying off?

Dunno, I'm no expert. Maybe.

I like a woman with a weak mind.....

yeah it's pretty lazy.
honestly, my mind is made up on things so - the debate seems pointless
I used to be an atheist as I have told you.
I know enough to be dangerous.
There are no concrete answers so it's a waste of time and brain power...

You're a better to be safe than sorry believer. Also a dash of wishful thinking and a hint of gullibility. Cute

 

[Asclepias]

I get this might not necassarily belong in CDZ, but since I can't stand any of the other forums, this is where I'm posting it. I hope that this becomes a fun conversation

First question: How did chemicals from lifeless reactions, turn into life?

Second: How did the early simple, single cell prokaryotic forms of life that had reached their available energy threshold, jumped to a higher energy threshold and turn into a eukaryotic form. A much more complex cell, that becomes the building block for complex life.

Finally: How did the jump happen from standard animal intelligence to human consciousness? Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

Right place, right time, right conditions.

See number 1

Fire.

There are animals out there that are smarter than humans. You are being a human chauvinist. One may say that animals are all smarter than humans. Humans are the only animals that mess up their environment intentionally.

A ridiculous thought. A bird will never get into a vehicle on vehicle accident, that does not make them smarter. Animals; outside of crows, Dolphins, some primates, and beavers, do not participate in manipulation of their surroundings to their advantage because they do not have the immense brain power, or energy to supply that brain power. Not out of altruism for Mother Earth. If what your saying is correct, zoology and behavioral psychology should not be considered sciences, since we have no way of measuring intelligence in any sort of way. So I'll ask again. Can we measure intelligence?

I dont see the relevance of a bird getting into an car accident. I said animals could be said to be smarter than humans. It all depends on who is doing the measuring. For example for years people have used an IQ test and its been discovered that there is no way that test can measure human intelligence simply because they werent smart enough to have it measure all types of intelligence. Even though there are other types of intelligence in humans whos to say they found them all?

And IQ is just a measure of critical thinking/problem solving. No one is out there claiming it's a comprehensive measure of intelligence

Plenty of people claim its a comprehensive measure of intelligence. In fact I would say most people believe this. The problem is that again what you may think is "critical thinking" is biased towards what you believe it should be.

 

[Asclepias]

Seriously, dude, the chimp has a better grasp of the epistemological issues in defining intelligence than your post displays. Ask the chimp, I don't have time for this stuff.

Is intelligence a measurable quality is what I'm asking. According to you, it is not.

The answer is always going to be subjective.

If you disagree with my original 3rd question, you are in disagrement with the smartest evolutionary biologist. I did not make up these questions. There are some of the most debated among evolutionary biologists, but they all agree on the premise that there's a stark difference with intelligence among humans vs everything else

I'm comfortably being in disagreement with what you subjectively call the smartest evolutionary biologist. I never have held in awe people that all agree humans are the most anything. Their view is subjective simply by virtue of them using human standards. I bet if cats had such musings they would think humans were a lower form of life.

Neil degrass Tyson said only 1% seperates us and the apes. Imagine a creature on another planet that is 1% smarter than us.

And then consider most humans aren't that smart. How many of us knows how to build an engine or survive in the woods with nothing for a month

Its not the knowing. Its the ability to learn.

 

[sealybobo]

Is intelligence a measurable quality is what I'm asking. According to you, it is not.

The answer is always going to be subjective.

If you disagree with my original 3rd question, you are in disagrement with the smartest evolutionary biologist. I did not make up these questions. There are some of the most debated among evolutionary biologists, but they all agree on the premise that there's a stark difference with intelligence among humans vs everything else

I'm comfortably being in disagreement with what you subjectively call the smartest evolutionary biologist. I never have held in awe people that all agree humans are the most anything. Their view is subjective simply by virtue of them using human standards. I bet if cats had such musings they would think humans were a lower form of life.

Neil degrass Tyson said only 1% seperates us and the apes. Imagine a creature on another planet that is 1% smarter than us.

And then consider most humans aren't that smart. How many of us knows how to build an engine or survive in the woods with nothing for a month

Its not the knowing. Its the ability to learn.

If the shit goes down and you need to survive in the woods for a month would you struggle without an expert to teach you? Us humans rely heavily on what our ancestors learned and wrote down or passed down verbally. And most of us rely heavily on Edison and kroger to survive. The know a lot about their profession but not much else. Are we like the Borg on star trek? Part of a collective one. Like bees

 

[Asclepias]

The answer is always going to be subjective.

If you disagree with my original 3rd question, you are in disagrement with the smartest evolutionary biologist. I did not make up these questions. There are some of the most debated among evolutionary biologists, but they all agree on the premise that there's a stark difference with intelligence among humans vs everything else

I'm comfortably being in disagreement with what you subjectively call the smartest evolutionary biologist. I never have held in awe people that all agree humans are the most anything. Their view is subjective simply by virtue of them using human standards. I bet if cats had such musings they would think humans were a lower form of life.

Neil degrass Tyson said only 1% seperates us and the apes. Imagine a creature on another planet that is 1% smarter than us.

And then consider most humans aren't that smart. How many of us knows how to build an engine or survive in the woods with nothing for a month

Its not the knowing. Its the ability to learn.

If the shit goes down and you need to survive in the woods for a month would you struggle without an expert to teach you? Us humans rely heavily on what our ancestors learned and wrote down or passed down verbally. And most of us rely heavily on Edison and kroger to survive. The know a lot about their profession but not much else. Are we like the Borg on star trek? Part of a collective one. Like bees

Not in the woods. I'm pretty good in the woods and would have no problem surviving as long as I had a water source.

 

[sealybobo]

Well I'm not arguing
We just don't know and people will lean one way or the other, and normally take the evidence that leans towards the way they WANT to to think more seriously.

It's always subjective and personal on some level.

Just imagine how we feel. Its like we are living in ancient Greece and someone telling an atheist that Zeus will send a lightening bolt if we speak ill of him. It must have been frustrating for an atheist when moses said God talked to him and when 11 guys went and spread the Jesus myth or the Mohammad or Joseph Smith stories.

Imagine how frustrating it is for us. Shocking humans are still so unevolved. I guess we're only human

 

[sealybobo]

If you disagree with my original 3rd question, you are in disagrement with the smartest evolutionary biologist. I did not make up these questions. There are some of the most debated among evolutionary biologists, but they all agree on the premise that there's a stark difference with intelligence among humans vs everything else

I'm comfortably being in disagreement with what you subjectively call the smartest evolutionary biologist. I never have held in awe people that all agree humans are the most anything. Their view is subjective simply by virtue of them using human standards. I bet if cats had such musings they would think humans were a lower form of life.

Neil degrass Tyson said only 1% seperates us and the apes. Imagine a creature on another planet that is 1% smarter than us.

And then consider most humans aren't that smart. How many of us knows how to build an engine or survive in the woods with nothing for a month

Its not the knowing. Its the ability to learn.

If the shit goes down and you need to survive in the woods for a month would you struggle without an expert to teach you? Us humans rely heavily on what our ancestors learned and wrote down or passed down verbally. And most of us rely heavily on Edison and kroger to survive. The know a lot about their profession but not much else. Are we like the Borg on star trek? Part of a collective one. Like bees

Not in the woods. I'm pretty good in the woods and would have no problem surviving as long as I had a water source.

I hate the cold especially without proper footwear. I have a flint stick for fire and magifine glass in binoculars. I'm a good hunter, sorta. I think I need to polish up and get more ready for just in case. Worms are very nutricious

 

[Asclepias]

I'm comfortably being in disagreement with what you subjectively call the smartest evolutionary biologist. I never have held in awe people that all agree humans are the most anything. Their view is subjective simply by virtue of them using human standards. I bet if cats had such musings they would think humans were a lower form of life.

Neil degrass Tyson said only 1% seperates us and the apes. Imagine a creature on another planet that is 1% smarter than us.

And then consider most humans aren't that smart. How many of us knows how to build an engine or survive in the woods with nothing for a month

Its not the knowing. Its the ability to learn.

If the shit goes down and you need to survive in the woods for a month would you struggle without an expert to teach you? Us humans rely heavily on what our ancestors learned and wrote down or passed down verbally. And most of us rely heavily on Edison and kroger to survive. The know a lot about their profession but not much else. Are we like the Borg on star trek? Part of a collective one. Like bees

Not in the woods. I'm pretty good in the woods and would have no problem surviving as long as I had a water source.

I hate the cold especially without proper footwear. I have a flint stick for fire and magifine glass in binoculars. I'm a good hunter, sorta. I think I need to polish up and get more ready for just in case. Worms are very nutricious

I hate the cold too. Dry leaves and pine needles work great as insulation. Learn your wild plants that are edible in your area and get a BB gun. A real rifle would make a lot of noise and attract other people that may not be friendly.

 

[sealybobo]

Neil degrass Tyson said only 1% seperates us and the apes. Imagine a creature on another planet that is 1% smarter than us.

And then consider most humans aren't that smart. How many of us knows how to build an engine or survive in the woods with nothing for a month

Its not the knowing. Its the ability to learn.

If the shit goes down and you need to survive in the woods for a month would you struggle without an expert to teach you? Us humans rely heavily on what our ancestors learned and wrote down or passed down verbally. And most of us rely heavily on Edison and kroger to survive. The know a lot about their profession but not much else. Are we like the Borg on star trek? Part of a collective one. Like bees

Not in the woods. I'm pretty good in the woods and would have no problem surviving as long as I had a water source.

I hate the cold especially without proper footwear. I have a flint stick for fire and magifine glass in binoculars. I'm a good hunter, sorta. I think I need to polish up and get more ready for just in case. Worms are very nutricious

I hate the cold too. Dry leaves and pine needles work great as insulation. Learn your wild plants that are edible in your area and get a BB gun. A real rifle would make a lot of noise and attract other people that may not be friendly.

That's a great idea. I still have my Daisy red rider but your probably talking a ten pump. Good for squirrel birds groundhogs woodchucks possums. Never thought of that.

I have a crossbow too. No noise and I can take down a bear pig or deer.

 

[sakinago]

I get this might not necassarily belong in CDZ, but since I can't stand any of the other forums, this is where I'm posting it. I hope that this becomes a fun conversation

First question: How did chemicals from lifeless reactions, turn into life?

Second: How did the early simple, single cell prokaryotic forms of life that had reached their available energy threshold, jumped to a higher energy threshold and turn into a eukaryotic form. A much more complex cell, that becomes the building block for complex life.

Finally: How did the jump happen from standard animal intelligence to human consciousness? Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

Right place, right time, right conditions.

See number 1

Fire.

There are animals out there that are smarter than humans. You are being a human chauvinist. One may say that animals are all smarter than humans. Humans are the only animals that mess up their environment intentionally.

A ridiculous thought. A bird will never get into a vehicle on vehicle accident, that does not make them smarter. Animals; outside of crows, Dolphins, some primates, and beavers, do not participate in manipulation of their surroundings to their advantage because they do not have the immense brain power, or energy to supply that brain power. Not out of altruism for Mother Earth. If what your saying is correct, zoology and behavioral psychology should not be considered sciences, since we have no way of measuring intelligence in any sort of way. So I'll ask again. Can we measure intelligence?

I dont see the relevance of a bird getting into an car accident. I said animals could be said to be smarter than humans. It all depends on who is doing the measuring. For example for years people have used an IQ test and its been discovered that there is no way that test can measure human intelligence simply because they werent smart enough to have it measure all types of intelligence. Even though there are other types of intelligence in humans whos to say they found them all?

I brought it up to illustrate a point. A bird won't get injured driving a car, not bc it thinks cars are unsafe, but bc it simply can't. What you suggested is that we are less intelligent than animals, bc animals do not harm the environment (cattle alone make up for 30 or so percent of carbon emissions according to the UN), implying they do so out of some sort of altruism.

You are also implying that we have no way to measure animal intelligence, since we can't know all of the types of intelligence. So we can understand the functions of each section of the brain in the animals, but we cannot accurately measure the intelligence on animals that have no concept of intelligence, nor a section of their brains dedicated to conceptualization?

Why would driving a car be a sign of intelligence? It kills people and emits poisonous gases which birds are intelligent enough not to do. Cattle only make up 30% of Co2 emissions because of humans. Without humans their numbers would be naturally kept in check by predators.

I'm mot implying we cant measure animal intelligence. I am saying its subjective because we are biased in what we regard as intelligence. We simply dont have the intellect to say what intelligence consists of for anything. My mention of the IQ test was to illustrate the inherent bias. What we know right now is bias in itself because we can discover a new form of intelligence tomorrow. During the dark ages in europe it was believed by "intelligent" people that water contained evil spirits so people rarely bathed.

It requires what we consider a lower level of intelligence to drive a car, a feat that we couldn't even train animals to do as a trick. You also are implying that animals have some inherent knowledge to the evils of automobiles, and this is their reason for not driving a car. Also that they have some concept of being environmentally conscious, which is not based in reality. They react simply in a way to survive, not in a way to preserve their environment. If the cattle population is cause for 30% of carbon emissions (think about that), what are the carbon emissions from every other aerobic organism on the planet? What sort of damage is the out of control wildabeast, rodent, cat, or vulture populations doing? Do they have any concept of what they are doing?

 

[Asclepias]

Right place, right time, right conditions.

See number 1

Fire.

There are animals out there that are smarter than humans. You are being a human chauvinist. One may say that animals are all smarter than humans. Humans are the only animals that mess up their environment intentionally.

A ridiculous thought. A bird will never get into a vehicle on vehicle accident, that does not make them smarter. Animals; outside of crows, Dolphins, some primates, and beavers, do not participate in manipulation of their surroundings to their advantage because they do not have the immense brain power, or energy to supply that brain power. Not out of altruism for Mother Earth. If what your saying is correct, zoology and behavioral psychology should not be considered sciences, since we have no way of measuring intelligence in any sort of way. So I'll ask again. Can we measure intelligence?

I dont see the relevance of a bird getting into an car accident. I said animals could be said to be smarter than humans. It all depends on who is doing the measuring. For example for years people have used an IQ test and its been discovered that there is no way that test can measure human intelligence simply because they werent smart enough to have it measure all types of intelligence. Even though there are other types of intelligence in humans whos to say they found them all?

I brought it up to illustrate a point. A bird won't get injured driving a car, not bc it thinks cars are unsafe, but bc it simply can't. What you suggested is that we are less intelligent than animals, bc animals do not harm the environment (cattle alone make up for 30 or so percent of carbon emissions according to the UN), implying they do so out of some sort of altruism.

You are also implying that we have no way to measure animal intelligence, since we can't know all of the types of intelligence. So we can understand the functions of each section of the brain in the animals, but we cannot accurately measure the intelligence on animals that have no concept of intelligence, nor a section of their brains dedicated to conceptualization?

Why would driving a car be a sign of intelligence? It kills people and emits poisonous gases which birds are intelligent enough not to do. Cattle only make up 30% of Co2 emissions because of humans. Without humans their numbers would be naturally kept in check by predators.

I'm mot implying we cant measure animal intelligence. I am saying its subjective because we are biased in what we regard as intelligence. We simply dont have the intellect to say what intelligence consists of for anything. My mention of the IQ test was to illustrate the inherent bias. What we know right now is bias in itself because we can discover a new form of intelligence tomorrow. During the dark ages in europe it was believed by "intelligent" people that water contained evil spirits so people rarely bathed.

It requires what we consider a lower level of intelligence to drive a car, a feat that we couldn't even train animals to do as a trick. You also are implying that animals have some inherent knowledge to the evils of automobiles, and this is their reason for not driving a car. Also that they have some concept of being environmentally conscious, which is not based in reality. They react simply in a way to survive, not in a way to preserve their environment. If the cattle population is cause for 30% of carbon emissions (think about that), what are the carbon emissions from every other aerobic organism on the planet? What sort of damage is the out of control wildabeast, rodent, cat, or vulture populations doing? Do they have any concept of what they are doing?

You could say flying requires a lower level of intelligence, a feat that birds couldnt train humans to do as a trick. I'm not implying animals have inherent anything. No one knows what they are thinking and no one can prove they are not thinking about keeping their environment clean. Of course they act in a way to preserve their environment. They dont do anything to mess it up. You keep bringing up cattle which I have already pointed out is a problem caused by humans not the animals. Left to their own devices they wouldnt cause that much Co2 emmisions. Human cause this by over breeding by force and manipulating nature.

 

[sakinago]

A ridiculous thought. A bird will never get into a vehicle on vehicle accident, that does not make them smarter. Animals; outside of crows, Dolphins, some primates, and beavers, do not participate in manipulation of their surroundings to their advantage because they do not have the immense brain power, or energy to supply that brain power. Not out of altruism for Mother Earth. If what your saying is correct, zoology and behavioral psychology should not be considered sciences, since we have no way of measuring intelligence in any sort of way. So I'll ask again. Can we measure intelligence?

I dont see the relevance of a bird getting into an car accident. I said animals could be said to be smarter than humans. It all depends on who is doing the measuring. For example for years people have used an IQ test and its been discovered that there is no way that test can measure human intelligence simply because they werent smart enough to have it measure all types of intelligence. Even though there are other types of intelligence in humans whos to say they found them all?

I brought it up to illustrate a point. A bird won't get injured driving a car, not bc it thinks cars are unsafe, but bc it simply can't. What you suggested is that we are less intelligent than animals, bc animals do not harm the environment (cattle alone make up for 30 or so percent of carbon emissions according to the UN), implying they do so out of some sort of altruism.

You are also implying that we have no way to measure animal intelligence, since we can't know all of the types of intelligence. So we can understand the functions of each section of the brain in the animals, but we cannot accurately measure the intelligence on animals that have no concept of intelligence, nor a section of their brains dedicated to conceptualization?

Why would driving a car be a sign of intelligence? It kills people and emits poisonous gases which birds are intelligent enough not to do. Cattle only make up 30% of Co2 emissions because of humans. Without humans their numbers would be naturally kept in check by predators.

I'm mot implying we cant measure animal intelligence. I am saying its subjective because we are biased in what we regard as intelligence. We simply dont have the intellect to say what intelligence consists of for anything. My mention of the IQ test was to illustrate the inherent bias. What we know right now is bias in itself because we can discover a new form of intelligence tomorrow. During the dark ages in europe it was believed by "intelligent" people that water contained evil spirits so people rarely bathed.

It requires what we consider a lower level of intelligence to drive a car, a feat that we couldn't even train animals to do as a trick. You also are implying that animals have some inherent knowledge to the evils of automobiles, and this is their reason for not driving a car. Also that they have some concept of being environmentally conscious, which is not based in reality. They react simply in a way to survive, not in a way to preserve their environment. If the cattle population is cause for 30% of carbon emissions (think about that), what are the carbon emissions from every other aerobic organism on the planet? What sort of damage is the out of control wildabeast, rodent, cat, or vulture populations doing? Do they have any concept of what they are doing?

You could say flying requires a lower level of intelligence, a feat that birds couldnt train humans to do as a trick. I'm not implying animals have inherent anything. No one knows what they are thinking and no one can prove they are not thinking about keeping their environment clean. Of course they act in a way to preserve their environment. They dont do anything to mess it up. You keep bringing up cattle which I have already pointed out is a problem caused by humans not the animals. Left to their own devices they wouldnt cause that much Co2 emmisions. Human cause this by over breeding by force and manipulating nature.

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Why did some animals evolve and some not?
Why are there no animals in "between" stages of evolution?

Why do you assume that no animals are in "between " stage? And I don't think evolution is a process with a beginning and a final product, rather it is a continually change of living things adapting to their environment.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Considering how large the universe is and the fact that we have absolutely no indication that there is intelligent life anywhere but here.

Say what???...do you have any idea just how infinitesimal percentage of the universe we have looked?

 

[Asclepias]

I dont see the relevance of a bird getting into an car accident. I said animals could be said to be smarter than humans. It all depends on who is doing the measuring. For example for years people have used an IQ test and its been discovered that there is no way that test can measure human intelligence simply because they werent smart enough to have it measure all types of intelligence. Even though there are other types of intelligence in humans whos to say they found them all?

I brought it up to illustrate a point. A bird won't get injured driving a car, not bc it thinks cars are unsafe, but bc it simply can't. What you suggested is that we are less intelligent than animals, bc animals do not harm the environment (cattle alone make up for 30 or so percent of carbon emissions according to the UN), implying they do so out of some sort of altruism.

You are also implying that we have no way to measure animal intelligence, since we can't know all of the types of intelligence. So we can understand the functions of each section of the brain in the animals, but we cannot accurately measure the intelligence on animals that have no concept of intelligence, nor a section of their brains dedicated to conceptualization?

Why would driving a car be a sign of intelligence? It kills people and emits poisonous gases which birds are intelligent enough not to do. Cattle only make up 30% of Co2 emissions because of humans. Without humans their numbers would be naturally kept in check by predators.

I'm mot implying we cant measure animal intelligence. I am saying its subjective because we are biased in what we regard as intelligence. We simply dont have the intellect to say what intelligence consists of for anything. My mention of the IQ test was to illustrate the inherent bias. What we know right now is bias in itself because we can discover a new form of intelligence tomorrow. During the dark ages in europe it was believed by "intelligent" people that water contained evil spirits so people rarely bathed.

It requires what we consider a lower level of intelligence to drive a car, a feat that we couldn't even train animals to do as a trick. You also are implying that animals have some inherent knowledge to the evils of automobiles, and this is their reason for not driving a car. Also that they have some concept of being environmentally conscious, which is not based in reality. They react simply in a way to survive, not in a way to preserve their environment. If the cattle population is cause for 30% of carbon emissions (think about that), what are the carbon emissions from every other aerobic organism on the planet? What sort of damage is the out of control wildabeast, rodent, cat, or vulture populations doing? Do they have any concept of what they are doing?

You could say flying requires a lower level of intelligence, a feat that birds couldnt train humans to do as a trick. I'm not implying animals have inherent anything. No one knows what they are thinking and no one can prove they are not thinking about keeping their environment clean. Of course they act in a way to preserve their environment. They dont do anything to mess it up. You keep bringing up cattle which I have already pointed out is a problem caused by humans not the animals. Left to their own devices they wouldnt cause that much Co2 emmisions. Human cause this by over breeding by force and manipulating nature.

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

 

[sakinago]

I brought it up to illustrate a point. A bird won't get injured driving a car, not bc it thinks cars are unsafe, but bc it simply can't. What you suggested is that we are less intelligent than animals, bc animals do not harm the environment (cattle alone make up for 30 or so percent of carbon emissions according to the UN), implying they do so out of some sort of altruism.

You are also implying that we have no way to measure animal intelligence, since we can't know all of the types of intelligence. So we can understand the functions of each section of the brain in the animals, but we cannot accurately measure the intelligence on animals that have no concept of intelligence, nor a section of their brains dedicated to conceptualization?

Why would driving a car be a sign of intelligence? It kills people and emits poisonous gases which birds are intelligent enough not to do. Cattle only make up 30% of Co2 emissions because of humans. Without humans their numbers would be naturally kept in check by predators.

I'm mot implying we cant measure animal intelligence. I am saying its subjective because we are biased in what we regard as intelligence. We simply dont have the intellect to say what intelligence consists of for anything. My mention of the IQ test was to illustrate the inherent bias. What we know right now is bias in itself because we can discover a new form of intelligence tomorrow. During the dark ages in europe it was believed by "intelligent" people that water contained evil spirits so people rarely bathed.

It requires what we consider a lower level of intelligence to drive a car, a feat that we couldn't even train animals to do as a trick. You also are implying that animals have some inherent knowledge to the evils of automobiles, and this is their reason for not driving a car. Also that they have some concept of being environmentally conscious, which is not based in reality. They react simply in a way to survive, not in a way to preserve their environment. If the cattle population is cause for 30% of carbon emissions (think about that), what are the carbon emissions from every other aerobic organism on the planet? What sort of damage is the out of control wildabeast, rodent, cat, or vulture populations doing? Do they have any concept of what they are doing?

You could say flying requires a lower level of intelligence, a feat that birds couldnt train humans to do as a trick. I'm not implying animals have inherent anything. No one knows what they are thinking and no one can prove they are not thinking about keeping their environment clean. Of course they act in a way to preserve their environment. They dont do anything to mess it up. You keep bringing up cattle which I have already pointed out is a problem caused by humans not the animals. Left to their own devices they wouldnt cause that much Co2 emmisions. Human cause this by over breeding by force and manipulating nature.

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

When an invasive species comes into a new environment, does it show any remorse, signs of hesitation, signs of putting itself in check? A better question is why have the term invasive species if nature is "perfect"? They do not care what damage they do to the environment. And before you blame humans for invasive species, it happens in nature, naturally all the time. Do beavers show any remorse for damning? What natural predator did the bison have before humans to keep them in check? And would there be any less cattle had there been no humans? Like I said bison were doing quite well. Wildabeast are dominating Africa. Do they care? Noooo, they're quite happy. They are too stupid to have any idea or concept of what they are doing in the realm of the environment, again "environment" a concept that they have no grasp of. Are they still somehow smarter than us now? Because they might have some unknown knowledge of running on four legs that we just can't grasp?

And if you recognize that all animals do emit co2, then what percentage do the wild animals in the us emit over the domesticated? Is it more or less than cattle? Now apply that number to the entire animal animal population of the entire planet.

What proof do you have that animals act with intent to preserve the environment? You haven't mentioned your proof, just your assertions that nature is perfect. Yet 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. A vast majority before us evil humans came into the picture. Humans, the only species ever with the ability to save the planet from some of the cataclysmic events that have decimated "perfect" nature in the past.

 

[Never3ndr]

Considering how large the universe is and the fact that we have absolutely no indication that there is intelligent life anywhere but here.

Say what???...do you have any idea just how infinitesimal percentage of the universe we have looked?

I do...considering that we believe the universe to be infinite, the best numerical percentage representation of the part we have looked at would be 0%.

With that said, my words were "we have absolutely no indication that there is intelligent life anywhere but here." So, what does the percentage of the universe we have looked at have anything to do with my statement? Logically, it has nothing to do with it. If you have cancer, feel great, and don't get checked out...you may have cancer, but you still have no indication that you have it. Indication is not a statement saying, with assertion, that something is or is not. What it IS saying, is that we have no evidence to support a belief...only postulation.

Now, if you actually want to directly refute my claim, please provide us scientific evidence with directly provides proof of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Why would driving a car be a sign of intelligence? It kills people and emits poisonous gases which birds are intelligent enough not to do. Cattle only make up 30% of Co2 emissions because of humans. Without humans their numbers would be naturally kept in check by predators.

I'm mot implying we cant measure animal intelligence. I am saying its subjective because we are biased in what we regard as intelligence. We simply dont have the intellect to say what intelligence consists of for anything. My mention of the IQ test was to illustrate the inherent bias. What we know right now is bias in itself because we can discover a new form of intelligence tomorrow. During the dark ages in europe it was believed by "intelligent" people that water contained evil spirits so people rarely bathed.

It requires what we consider a lower level of intelligence to drive a car, a feat that we couldn't even train animals to do as a trick. You also are implying that animals have some inherent knowledge to the evils of automobiles, and this is their reason for not driving a car. Also that they have some concept of being environmentally conscious, which is not based in reality. They react simply in a way to survive, not in a way to preserve their environment. If the cattle population is cause for 30% of carbon emissions (think about that), what are the carbon emissions from every other aerobic organism on the planet? What sort of damage is the out of control wildabeast, rodent, cat, or vulture populations doing? Do they have any concept of what they are doing?

You could say flying requires a lower level of intelligence, a feat that birds couldnt train humans to do as a trick. I'm not implying animals have inherent anything. No one knows what they are thinking and no one can prove they are not thinking about keeping their environment clean. Of course they act in a way to preserve their environment. They dont do anything to mess it up. You keep bringing up cattle which I have already pointed out is a problem caused by humans not the animals. Left to their own devices they wouldnt cause that much Co2 emmisions. Human cause this by over breeding by force and manipulating nature.

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

When an invasive species comes into a new environment, does it show any remorse, signs of hesitation, signs of putting itself in check? A better question is why have the term invasive species if nature is "perfect"? They do not care what damage they do to the environment. And before you blame humans for invasive species, it happens in nature, naturally all the time. Do beavers show any remorse for damning? What natural predator did the bison have before humans to keep them in check? And would there be any less cattle had there been no humans? Like I said bison were doing quite well. Wildabeast are dominating Africa. Do they care? Noooo, they're quite happy. They are too stupid to have any idea or concept of what they are doing in the realm of the environment, again "environment" a concept that they have no grasp of. Are they still somehow smarter than us now? Because they might have some unknown knowledge of running on four legs that we just can't grasp?

And if you recognize that all animals do emit co2, then what percentage do the wild animals in the us emit over the domesticated? Is it more or less than cattle? Now apply that number to the entire animal animal population of the entire planet.

What proof do you have that animals act with intent to preserve the environment? You haven't mentioned your proof, just your assertions that nature is perfect. Yet 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. A vast majority before us evil humans came into the picture. Humans, the only species ever with the ability to save the planet from some of the cataclysmic events that have decimated "perfect" nature in the past.

Co2 is not bad. Plant's require it, and the Ocean absorbs all of the excess...that is, before industrialization.

 

[Asclepias]

Why would driving a car be a sign of intelligence? It kills people and emits poisonous gases which birds are intelligent enough not to do. Cattle only make up 30% of Co2 emissions because of humans. Without humans their numbers would be naturally kept in check by predators.

I'm mot implying we cant measure animal intelligence. I am saying its subjective because we are biased in what we regard as intelligence. We simply dont have the intellect to say what intelligence consists of for anything. My mention of the IQ test was to illustrate the inherent bias. What we know right now is bias in itself because we can discover a new form of intelligence tomorrow. During the dark ages in europe it was believed by "intelligent" people that water contained evil spirits so people rarely bathed.

It requires what we consider a lower level of intelligence to drive a car, a feat that we couldn't even train animals to do as a trick. You also are implying that animals have some inherent knowledge to the evils of automobiles, and this is their reason for not driving a car. Also that they have some concept of being environmentally conscious, which is not based in reality. They react simply in a way to survive, not in a way to preserve their environment. If the cattle population is cause for 30% of carbon emissions (think about that), what are the carbon emissions from every other aerobic organism on the planet? What sort of damage is the out of control wildabeast, rodent, cat, or vulture populations doing? Do they have any concept of what they are doing?

You could say flying requires a lower level of intelligence, a feat that birds couldnt train humans to do as a trick. I'm not implying animals have inherent anything. No one knows what they are thinking and no one can prove they are not thinking about keeping their environment clean. Of course they act in a way to preserve their environment. They dont do anything to mess it up. You keep bringing up cattle which I have already pointed out is a problem caused by humans not the animals. Left to their own devices they wouldnt cause that much Co2 emmisions. Human cause this by over breeding by force and manipulating nature.

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

When an invasive species comes into a new environment, does it show any remorse, signs of hesitation, signs of putting itself in check? A better question is why have the term invasive species if nature is "perfect"? They do not care what damage they do to the environment. And before you blame humans for invasive species, it happens in nature, naturally all the time. Do beavers show any remorse for damning? What natural predator did the bison have before humans to keep them in check? And would there be any less cattle had there been no humans? Like I said bison were doing quite well. Wildabeast are dominating Africa. Do they care? Noooo, they're quite happy. They are too stupid to have any idea or concept of what they are doing in the realm of the environment, again "environment" a concept that they have no grasp of. Are they still somehow smarter than us now? Because they might have some unknown knowledge of running on four legs that we just can't grasp?

And if you recognize that all animals do emit co2, then what percentage do the wild animals in the us emit over the domesticated? Is it more or less than cattle? Now apply that number to the entire animal animal population of the entire planet.

What proof do you have that animals act with intent to preserve the environment? You haven't mentioned your proof, just your assertions that nature is perfect. Yet 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. A vast majority before us evil humans came into the picture. Humans, the only species ever with the ability to save the planet from some of the cataclysmic events that have decimated "perfect" nature in the past.

Invasive species are always introduced by....you guessed it. Humans. When do invasive species happen in nature without the assistance of man? Why would a beaver show remorse by damming? Bisons had wolves, bears, and cougars to keep them in check. Yes there would be less cattle had there been no humans. Yes i say they are smarter than us because they dont poison their environment.

Are you claiming that without humans the CO2 emitted by animals would endanger the earth?

The proof I have is by watching animals not poison their environment.