For or Against Animal Testing

[Nitrus]

Are you for or against the use of animals for testing of medicine?? (not cosmetics).

You are either for or against, no circumstance.

Vote!

[AlonzoMourning23]

If something is done it's done. If medicine already available has been tested on animals then there's no reason to refuse it, unless there is a reasonable alternative. But current and future testing that causes harm should stop. Allowing such significant suffering is not justifiable on the basis that it will allow others to avoid suffering. Since animals can't consent they shouldn't be force to endure it.

The only exception would be when it's done for the animals benefit. I had a pet on experimental cancer medication about a year ago. It was still in testing and my pet was technically a test subject, but it was only administered because other options failed and it was that or nothing. It was a last ditch effort.

[BoogyMan]

If animals are required to test drugs that can save human lives, then so be it.

[rodeojones903]

If animals are required to test drugs that can save human lives, then so be it.




Agreed.

[Nathan Brazil]

Why don't we limit testing of cosmetics to civil liability attorneys, or whichever branch of the legal profession specializes in suing companies for harm their products are alleged to cause to people.

I'll volunteer John Edwards as the first specimen, it's about time he does something useful with his life.

One needs to test products somehow. How much of the abuses of animal testing in the cosmetic field is to satisfy the silly environment created by the lawyers? We don't need to test a brand of shampoo by scrubbing pure forms of the stuff into rabbit's eyes, because no one in their right mind would do that to themselves or their children. But the testing has to be done because the lawyers have sued successfully, and for millions of dollars, because those tests aren't done.

Cosmetic companies don't want to do the tests, tests are expensive. But what are they supposed to do when parasites like Edwards are out there trying to steal from them?

Now, any real medical project requires animal testing. Period. Some computer simulations of interactions might provide guidance of how the product will work, and testing on various tissues will also help, but eventually a proper test on an appropriate animal is needed before the testing can be raised to the level of human experimentation.

[lily]

Did you actually read the question, Nathan?

Anyway.......I voted for. Any reptuable lab, would moniter the animal. They would have to, to know the side effects it would have on humans. I don't like to think of it being done........but then I don't like to think of butchering animals for food either and it's a necessity.

[AlonzoMourning23]

They don't always monitor them very well:

Nearly 700 lab animals die after power outage
Mice, rats, rabbit succumb to 105-degree temps in Ohio State facility

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Hundreds of laboratory mice and rats died when a power outage at Ohio State University produced sent room temperatures soaring as high as 105 degrees, the school said.

Power in six buildings on the medical campus went out Wednesday evening when an electrical generator failed. In one building, 598 mice, 90 rats and one rabbit died.

A second generator was offline because of a renovation project, so there was no backup, university research official Douglas Kniss said. When power was restored, the heat came on in some areas, he said.

“Temperature ranges went from the 80s in a couple of rooms to as high as 105 in one room,� Kniss said.

About 21 projects involving research into epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, cancer and cardiovascular disease were affected, Kniss said. Some researchers had been working on their projects for years, he said.....

The outage did not affect the university's hospital, which has separate emergency backups, the school said.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13880104/
http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/071606ohresearchanimals.html

[lily]

That sounds like a friekÂ*Â*accident to me, Al. Even your article states:

About 21 projects involving research into epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, cancer and cardiovascular disease were affected, Kniss said. Some researchers had been working on their projects for years, he said.....

Now, I know that they haven't used the same animal for years, but hear me out. As I stated, they do have to moniter the animals for side effects, otherwise they would not know what the side effects would be on a human.Â*Â*I'm not naive' enough to think that the animal doesn't suffer, or that they die, but somethings are necessiary, and one would hope that a reputable lab would moniter for pain also, while monitering liver function, blood pressure, kidney damage, heart damage, ect.

Not to go that far off topic, but what are your views on transpalnts? It had to be done on animals first and it's one of the biggest life savers we have today. I won't go off onto stem cells........that would get the crazies going.

Also, in your original post you mentioned:

The only exception would be when it's done for the animals benefit. I had a pet on experimental cancer medication about a year ago. It was still in testing and my pet was technically a test subject, but it was only administered because other options failed and it was that or nothing. It was a last ditch effort.
May I ask, was your pet on an experimental cance medication that would also be used on humans and it was the only thing that would save him? If so, then you were willing for other animals to try this out, before it was tried on your pet.

[Nathan Brazil]

Did you actually read the question, Nathan?

Yeah, why else would I argue in defense of something the pollster didn't want to hear about? He'd apparently excluded cosmetic testing because of all the airheads that thin...er FEEL that animal testing on cosmetics is unsupportable. I merely explained a viable alternative that wouldn't hurt any useful species of rat, and explained why the extraordinary extent of such testing has become legally necessary, thereby further increasing the justification I have for using the lower order of animal I recommended the use of.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Nathan, could we or could we not use people for medical testing? Take away the lawyers, would randomly picking out .5 percent of the population to test on be justifiable? It would dramatically improve research and the health of the other 99.5% of the population.

That's the issue here. You think that abortion is murder, it's just a line that cannot be crossed regardless of the reason. I assume you feel the same about the scenario mentioned above. It's the same for many people with this subject.

Not to go that far off topic, but what are your views on transpalnts? It had to be done on animals first and it's one of the biggest life savers we have today. I won't go off onto stem cells........that would get the crazies going.


Transplants should not be taken from animals to give to humans. But, as I said, what's done is done. If a method is available, due to being tested on other animals, then you should use it. If a method is available that was tested on animals, and a reasonable alternative (effectiveness, cost etc. are within the same ballpark) is available that was not tested on animals, then you should choose the one that wasn't tested on animals.

May I ask, was your pet on an experimental cance medication that would also be used on humans and it was the only thing that would save him? If so, then you were willing for other animals to try this out, before it was tried on your pet.

It was the only thing that was left to try, and it didn't work. It was a medication that had animal testing still under way and was undergoing initial tests in humans. Unlike other cancer medications, it only effected cancer cells, not every cell like traditional chemotherapy. It's called Nitrosylcobalamin. Cancer cells use massive amounts of b-12 when compared with normal cells, and the medicine acted as a trojan horse by using b-12 to have the medicine enter into the cancer cell. It works best with liver, lung etc. area, and worse the further away you get. It had no known side effects, at least as of a year ago.

Utilizing this medication was the same as utilizing any medication. I didn't authorize further animal testing, I didn't allow further animal testing to be conducted. I utilized an experimental drug that I would have tried if I had cancer and was in the same situation. If you want to argue that somehow I was increasing the likelihood of future animal tests by utilizing medicine already tested, that's not realistic. You'd never get enough people to stop using virtually all medication (which would be required), and all you'd be doing is harming yourself, or anyone you are in control of, for no reason. Refusing to fund animal research, publicizing the methods used, choosing alternative products when available, that is the best way to change things. Simply refusing it is a pointless protest that goes nowhere.

[lily]

alonzomourning23


Nathan, could we or could we not use people for medical testing? Take away the lawyers, would randomly picking out .5 percent of the population to test on be justifiable? It would dramatically improve research and the health of the other 99.5% of the population.
People volunteer all the time for testing. Whether it be for money or they are at the end of their rope and there is nothing else left.

As for "using people", I remember a conversation I had on another forum about using death row prisoners.........it didn't end well.

Transplants should not be taken from animals to give to humans. But, as I said, what's done is done. If a method is available, due to being tested on other animals, then you should use it. If a method is available that was tested on animals, and a reasonable alternative (effectiveness, cost etc. are within the same ballpark) is available that was not tested on animals, then you should choose the one that wasn't tested on animals.
I freeely admit, that I am not all that informed about the medication I take. How would one know if it was tested on animals?

I can see that this is something that you are pasionate about, and I do respect that.........but medication has to be tried to see if it works and what effects it will have on the body.Â*Â*The choices as I see it, are animals or humans.

[BoogyMan]

Alonzo,

Animal testing works, has worked, and will work well into the future. You want to be a test subject, go ahead, but leave the system that has worked for years alone.

[AlonzoMourning23]

People volunteer all the time for testing. Whether it be for money or they are at the end of their rope and there is nothing else left.


And that should be encouraged. But you wouldn't just force random people to participate against there will, would you?

I freeely admit, that I am not all that informed about the medication I take. How would one know if it was tested on animals?

There probably isn't much outside of traditional medication (medication that is essentially untested by modern science and may work, but may also be worthless) or alternatives that were made by companies that did not test their product on animals, but borrowed from others that did.


Alonzo,

Animal testing works, has worked, and will work well into the future.Â*Â*You want to be a test subject, go ahead, but leave the system that has worked for years alone.


Slavery worked for thousdands of years. Helped build nations, made economies grow, but the flip side, the pain caused to the slaves, was eventually viewed as too great a price.

I'm not saying it's an equal comparison (it just happens to be the only one I can think of at the moment), but my point is just because there are benefits doesn't mean that they outweigh the negatives. When a system causes massive amounts of harm is that something that should be ignored due to the benefits that accompany it?

If someone wanted to just randomly pick out .5 percent of the population to run scientific tests that benefited the other 99.5%, we wouldn't allow that. We would consider that cruel and immoral, despite the benefit it would offer to those not being tested.

A system that causes such massive harm cannot, in my mind, be said to be justifiable.

[bobbylien]

We should take criminals off death row and use them for tests. At least their lives would be worth something then. Save the animals, use the child rapists and killers instead.

[lily]

alonzomourning23


People volunteer all the time for testing. Whether it be for money or they are at the end of their rope and there is nothing else left.


And that should be encouraged. But you wouldn't just force random people to participate against there will, would you?


......and just who would be the ones volunteering? The poor, or the hopeless.

Let me ask you one more thing......are you a vegetarian?

[bobbylien]

Let me ask you one more thing......are you a vegetarian?

I am, but not for the sake of the animals. I just don't like all of my meals soaked in saturated fat.

[BoogyMan]

Slavery worked for thousdands of years. Helped build nations, made economies grow, but the flip side, the pain caused to the slaves, was eventually viewed as too great a price.

I'm not saying it's an equal comparison (it just happens to be the only one I can think of at the moment), but my point is just because there are benefits doesn't mean that they outweigh the negatives. When a system causes massive amounts of harm is that something that should be ignored due to the benefits that accompany it?


Alonzo, this is misdirection.Â*Â*You use an example and then try to backtrack on that example to take away the stinging rebuttal you know is coming.Â*Â*You equivocate people to animals, from your nonsensical comparison that one thing is VERY clear.

If the choice is humans or animals, it will be animals, EVERY TIME.

[AlonzoMourning23]

......and just who would be the ones volunteering? The poor, or the hopeless.

Well, we run plenty of studies on people already. Everytime I go on the subway I see signs encouraging people to join X study. People take part in tests that could be potentially dangerous as it is. Expanding that, while not exactly something I'm completely comfortable with (one of the reasons you mentioned), is much better than the current state since more concern will be given to the subjects well being, and the subject is a willing participant.

Let me ask you one more thing......are you a vegetarian?

Yes.

Alonzo, this is misdirection. You use an example and then try to backtrack on that example to take away the stinging rebuttal you know is coming.

I used the example to illustrate how something with plenty of benefit can be outweighed by the harm it causes. That was the point of the comparison and I made that clear. I can't think think of anything else at the moment that has had massive benefits in many societies, benefits which are outweighed by the harm it causes, and that everyone would essentially agree wasn't worth it. Everything else I can think of is still being debated, and I'm pretty sure we're on different sides on those.

[bobbylien]

Well, we run plenty of studies on people already. Everytime I go on the subway I see signs encouraging people to join X study. People take part in tests that could be potentially dangerous as it is. Expanding that, while not exactly something I'm completely comfortable with (one of the reasons you mentioned), is much better than the current state since more concern will be given to the subjects well being, and the subject is a willing participant.

Thats a good idea. I think humans should be able to do these tests provided they are told the risks up front.

[Nathan Brazil]

Nathan, could we or could we not use people for medical testing? Take away the lawyers, would randomly picking out .5 percent of the population to test on be justifiable? It would dramatically improve research and the health of the other 99.5% of the population.

No. There's the issue of informed consent. And the initial stages of testing at the animal level not enough information exists.

That's why I recommended using lawyers. They're not animals, and they're not people, either.

That's the issue here. You think that abortion is murder, it's just a line that cannot be crossed regardless of the reason. I assume you feel the same about the scenario mentioned above. It's the same for many people with this subject.

Umm...there's a minor difference betwixt people and animals. Lawyers cross it all the time, babies don't.

[quote]Not to go that far off topic, but what are your views on transpalnts? It had to be done on animals first and it's one of the biggest life savers we have today. I won't go off onto stem cells........that would get the crazies going.


Transplants. So what if they take a pig aorta and use it to repair a human aorta? The pig becomes bacon and gets a chance to clog it's own aorta. Who cares?

Transplants should not be taken from animals to give to humans. But, as I said, what's done is done. If a method is available, due to being tested on other animals, then you should use it. If a method is available that was tested on animals, and a reasonable alternative (effectiveness, cost etc. are within the same ballpark) is available that was not tested on animals, then you should choose the one that wasn't tested on animals.

Animals are animals. They got no rights at all. What do you think they have? A right to life? Tell it to those crocodiles watching the zebras crossing the river. Liberty? You yourself claim to own a pet, so you don't beleive that animals should be free. Pursuit of happiness? That's human attribute.

What's the difference between using a pig aorta and eating the pig? There's none at all. Both acts preserve the life of a human, both acts kill the pig.

Since there's no moral difference between eating the things and using their body parts for medical spares, footballs, or shoes, there's no real basis to complain about testing on animals, either.

[Nathan Brazil]

And that should be encouraged. But you wouldn't just force random people to participate against there will, would you?

Animals aren't people, unless your discussion specifically includes the species homo sapiens.

[Nathan Brazil]

Well, we run plenty of studies on people already. Everytime I go on the subway I see signs encouraging people to join X study. People take part in tests that could be potentially dangerous as it is. Expanding that, while not exactly something I'm completely comfortable with (one of the reasons you mentioned), is much better than the current state since more concern will be given to the subjects well being, and the subject is a willing participant.

Studies advanced enough to require and permit human testing have either already proceeded through the preliminary animal testing stage or the risk has been deemed low enough that animal testing is not required.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Umm...there's a minor difference betwixt people and animals.Â*Â*Lawyers cross it all the time, babies don't.

Embryo's don't think or feel, yet rats, pigs, chimps etc. do.




Animals are animals.Â*Â* They got no rights at all.Â*Â*What do you think they have?Â*Â*A right to life?Â*Â*Tell it to those crocodiles watching the zebras crossing the river.Â*Â*Liberty?Â*Â*You yourself claim to own a pet, so you don't beleive that animals should be free.Â*Â*Pursuit of happiness?Â*Â*That's human attribute.

If you go up to a dog and shoot it you may end up in jail. They do have some rights.

Yes, animals are animals, and humans are animals. The distinction between us is we evolved different, yet so did dolphins, chimps etc. The determining factor should be intelligence, awareness of pain etc. You don't believe in God, what do you think makes us so special? The distinction is just degrees. We just have more advanced forms of some things.

Happiness is not a uniquely human emotion. And keeping pets is not immoral. All my pets were adopted from shelters or rescued in some other form. Rats, dogs etc. I'm not creating more pets, I'm giving homes to the ones that already exist. It would be foolish and cruel to let ideology so blind you to the point that you would refuse to help animals that are already born simply because you don't like the concept. Even the most extreme groups, like the Animal Liberation Front, don't oppose keeping pets under those conditions.

What's the difference between using a pig aorta and eating the pig?Â*Â*There's none at all.Â*Â*Both acts preserve the life of a human, both acts kill the pig.Â*Â*

I wouldn't do either.

[Labrocca]

We eat them..I don't see the problem with testing with them.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The difference between eating and using them is transplants is not much. But there is a difference in experiments. Yes, the treatment of many in factory farms is poor, and horrible things occur. But the particularly heinous actions, such as throwing them against walls, pulling off limbs etc. are illegal. The conditions endured by many animals involved in testing is worse than a properly run farm, that's the point. A farm cannot legally do some of the things labs do. They can't place an animal in a cage and repeatedly shock it. They can't break break their bones and then try out varying techniques of healing them.

[lily]

Al, as I said I do respect your point of view. But I think you're thowing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't doubt the horrors of what you are saying is true. But this as in your last link, where the power went out, I believe are not the norm. Those are the ones you should be railing about and demand closure. Not the reputable labs, that do treat their animals with care.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Lily, I just posted that as an example of carelessness. Heat stroke is a less painful, and quicker, way to die than many of the other experiments that occur. Shocks, vivisection, breaking bones, poisoning etc. And some research is not physically painfull, but psychologically. Such as studying the effects of removing baby chimps from their parents (though many places are reluctant to allow testing on higher primates now, due to ethical issues). Some are a combination, such as having an animal undergo physical pain (such as shocks) to see if it increases the risk of developing diseases.

[Nathan Brazil]

Umm...there's a minor difference betwixt people and animals.Â*Â*Lawyers cross it all the time, babies don't.

Embryo's don't think or feel, yet rats, pigs, chimps etc. do.

Embryo's are human. Rats, pigs, chimps and abortionists are not.






Animals are animals.Â*Â* They got no rights at all.Â*Â*What do you think they have?Â*Â*A right to life?Â*Â*Tell it to those crocodiles watching the zebras crossing the river.Â*Â*Liberty?Â*Â*You yourself claim to own a pet, so you don't beleive that animals should be free.Â*Â*Pursuit of happiness?Â*Â*That's human attribute.

If you go up to a dog and shoot it you may end up in jail. They do have some rights. [/quote]

Yeah. The essence of that law is the destruction of property and the human sense of compassion with animals. The dog doesn't have any rights.

People don't have any rights, either. What they have are agreed upon limits of what others (government) can do to them, and those limits aren't constant. Sometimes there are no limits, as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot have shown.



Yes, animals are animals, and humans are animals. The distinction between us is we evolved different, yet so did dolphins, chimps etc. The determining factor should be intelligence, awareness of pain etc. You don't believe in God, what do you think makes us so special? The distinction is just degrees. We just have more advanced forms of some things.

The limiting factor is power, as is always the case when discussing "rights". That's because power exists, and rights do not.

Happiness is not a uniquely human emotion. And keeping pets is not immoral. All my pets were adopted from shelters or rescued in some other form.

Well, you see, you were keeping an animal restrained, thus denying him his right to freedom. Now, I say animals don't have rights, so I don't care, but you claim animals have rights, yet you're denying an animal it's freedom. And if you've gotten an animal from the pound, it's nuts have been cut off or it's been spayed. Is that any less an intrusion on his consent than experimenting on him for a useful human purpose?

Man, your hypocrisy on this issue is enormous.

Rats, dogs etc. I'm not creating more pets, I'm giving homes to the ones that already exist. It would be foolish and cruel to let ideology so blind you to the point that you would refuse to help animals that are already born simply because you don't like the concept. Even the most extreme groups, like the Animal Liberation Front, don't oppose keeping pets under those conditions.

Needless to say, ALF isn't a model of logic or reason, and since it's a terrorist organization, it shouldn't even be permitted to exist. Again, I have no difficulty with people keeping pets. I'm not a hypocrite. Animals are property and they have economic value. You're the one drawing lines defining acceptable exploitation of animal resources as that which enables you to do what you wish while preventing others from doing as they desire.

What's the difference between using a pig aorta and eating the pig?Â*Â*There's none at all.Â*Â*Both acts preserve the life of a human, both acts kill the pig.Â*Â*

I wouldn't do either.

More bacon for me, then. Ham, too. And nothing like a nice pork chop breaded with a mixture of bread crumbs, parsely, parmesan cheese and fried in olive oil.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Embryo's are human.Â*Â*Rats, pigs, chimps and abortionists are not.

Why does that matter? You don't believe in God, and I assume you don't believe in souls. Therefore, what in science indicates a distinction of kind, not just degree? If an animals mind is far more complex, aware etc. than many stages of humans, why should that be ignored? Why should you be concerned about harming something that has no functioning brain, cannot feel, think etc., yet have no concern over things much more complex?

And, with your insistance that humans have no rights other than what's granted, why are you concerned about abortion at all? Embryo's have no rights according to the law and society as a whole.


Yeah.Â*Â*The essence of that law is the destruction of property and the human sense of compassion with animals.Â*Â* The dog doesn't have any rights.Â*Â*

That's not true, you can't go and shoot a stray either. You can't go outside and shoot squirrels (well, it's illegal in many, including where I live), raccoons etc. And court cases, while usually decide on based on property, some have gone beyond that. And there are laws governing what farms can legally do, to go and beat up your own cow and then cut off it's head would be illegal.

People don't have any rights, either.Â*Â*What they have are agreed upon limits of what others (government) can do to them, and those limits aren't constant.Â*Â*Sometimes there are no limits, as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot have shown.

And when those leaders, or followers if leaders are unavaible, lose their state and protection then they are often prosecuted.

Though, with that statement, your opposition to abortion is astonishing.





The limiting factor is power, as is always the case when discussing "rights".Â*Â*That's because power exists, and rights do not.

So you had no problem with american slavery then? After all, whites had power and were just doing what the law says they could.


Well, you see, you were keeping an animal restrained, thus denying him his right to freedom.Â*Â*Now, I say animals don't have rights, so I don't care, but you claim animals have rights, yet you're denying an animal it's freedom.Â*Â*And if you've gotten an animal from the pound, it's nuts have been cut off or it's been spayed.Â*Â*Is that any less an intrusion on his consent than experimenting on him for a useful human purpose?

Man, your hypocrisy on this issue is enormous.

So, basically, letting an animal starve or be killed, because no one will adopt it or because you're an idiot and let an animal unable to survive in the wild out into the wild, is not hypocritical? If you were living in 1600's america and some cruel slave owner came up to you and said "I don't want this slave anymore, you take him" do you refuse based on some absurd notion of the morality of slavery, or do you take him, knowing that his fate is much worse if left in his current condition?

Seriously, letting something die in misery due to some idiotic ideological hangup would be absurd and cruel.

Reason has never been your strong point.


Needless to say, ALF isn't a model of logic or reason, and since it's a terrorist organization, it shouldn't even be permitted to exist.Â*Â*Again, I have no difficulty with people keeping pets.Â*Â*I'm not a hypocrite.Â*Â*Animals are property and they have economic value.Â*Â*You're the one drawing lines defining acceptable exploitation of animal resources as that which enables you to do what you wish while preventing others from doing as they desire.

So the fact that even the most extremist elements of a viewpoint don't oppose something is meaningless?

[Labrocca]

I don't doubt that some of the experiments on animals are terrible. However that's not my job so why should I care what they do? I think it's funny that people want to give Animals rights. The whole 'rights' thing is very insane to me.

[Nathan Brazil]

Embryo's are human.Â*Â*Rats, pigs, chimps and abortionists are not.

Why does that matter? You don't believe in God, and I assume you don't believe in souls.

Nope, I'm not superstitious. I hold people to my standards of equality because I'm not personally fond of possibly becoming the next class of people destined to be declared sub-human and marched into the gas chambers. That's why I expect a minimum assumption of equality among humans...to limit the power of people who would want to fire up the ovens.

Again, it's about power. As always.

Therefore, what in science indicates a distinction of kind, not just degree? If an animals mind is far more complex, aware etc. than many stages of humans, why should that be ignored?

Because they're not human. Because we do have the power to use them, and they don't have the power to prevent it. Because in so using those animals human life made be made better, possibly mine, which is all that matters.

Why should you be concerned about harming something that has no functioning brain, cannot feel, think etc., yet have no concern over things much more complex?

Because it's human. Bush doesn't seem to have a functioning brain, but I don't want anyone to shoot him.

And, with your insistance that humans have no rights other than what's granted, why are you concerned about abortion at all? Embryo's have no rights according to the law and society as a whole.

Human's have no rights. Human's group together and define limits on governmental power to protect their lives and their liberty and their property. That usually includes some limits on killing innocents. When embryos can be charged with a crime (mere existence isn't a crime), and allowed to confront his accusers, then I'll accept abortion as a legal extension of state sanctioned murder.

It's funny that you don't want animals used usefully but have no qualms about so using the most defenseless of humans. You shouldn't attempt pointing the accusing finger of hypocrisy when you're in a room full of mirrors.

Yeah.Â*Â*The essence of that law is the destruction of property and the human sense of compassion with animals.Â*Â* The dog doesn't have any rights.Â*Â*

That's not true, you can't go and shoot a stray either. You can't go outside and shoot squirrels (well, it's illegal in many, including where I live), raccoons etc.

Ummm...you missed the part where I said "and the human sense of compassion", didn't you?

People don't have any rights, either.Â*Â*What they have are agreed upon limits of what others (government) can do to them, and those limits aren't constant.Â*Â*Sometimes there are no limits, as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot have shown.

And when those leaders, or followers if leaders are unavaible, lose their state and protection then they are often prosecuted.

And this invalidates what I said in what way?

Though, with that statement, your opposition to abortion is astonishing.

Not when the assumption of "no man is born superior to others" is applied. Without innate superiority, no man can rationalize stealing, and what is murder but the theft of life?

The limiting factor is power, as is always the case when discussing "rights".Â*Â*That's because power exists, and rights do not.

So you had no problem with american slavery then? After all, whites had power and were just doing what the law says they could.

Ah, the race card comes into play? When played, reason departs. Also, you're busy putting words in my mouth because you can't argue against the words I'm actually using.

Well, you see, you were keeping an animal restrained, thus denying him his right to freedom.Â*Â*Now, I say animals don't have rights, so I don't care, but you claim animals have rights, yet you're denying an animal it's freedom.Â*Â*And if you've gotten an animal from the pound, it's nuts have been cut off or it's been spayed.Â*Â*Is that any less an intrusion on his consent than experimenting on him for a useful human purpose?

Man, your hypocrisy on this issue is enormous.

So, basically, letting an animal starve or be killed, because no one will adopt it or because you're an idiot and let an animal unable to survive in the wild out into the wild, is not hypocritical?

No, actually, its not hypocritical. Hypocrisy is the contradiction between one's stated opinions and his actions. A person that says he doesn't give a crap about animals and then lets animals run around wild, or starve, or if he shoots them or poisons them when they become annoying, is being honest.

The person that claims to be against animal testing but makes sure his dog is surgically mutilated to conform to his idea of an ideal pet, is a hypocrite.

If you were living in 1600's america and some cruel slave owner came up to you and said "I don't want this slave anymore, you take him" do you refuse based on some absurd notion of the morality of slavery, or do you take him, knowing that his fate is much worse if left in his current condition?

If a slave owner came up to me and gave me his slaves, I'd accept them. Then I'd free them. That would be the moral thing to do, from my viewpoint 141 years after the demise of slavery in America.

Now, why are you making up ridiculous hypotheticals? If I lived 150 years ago, who knows what my opinions on the topic would be? I was raised in a more enlightened era, and I can only answer from the perspective gained by living in a 21st Century eqalitarian society. Damn few of the abolitionists viewed the black man as their equal, they just thought slavery was evil.

Seriously, letting something die in misery due to some idiotic ideological hangup would be absurd and cruel.

And, naturally, I never signed onto all and any testing, merely legitimate scientific testing. Do I get to define what's legit and what's not? Nope.

Do real businesses want to waste their money on non-productive random animal testing just to have fun? Nope.

Real animal testing is about finding solutions to problems not solvable by other means. That's it. Laika the Space Dog was launched in Sputnik II because not even the Soviets were willing to send a human on a one-way trip to orbit. They could easily have found a convict to use from the gulags, which would have given them a 1:1 correspondence to future cosmonauts, but they sent a bitch instead.

Do you think the Soviets should have used a convict instead of a dog on that flight?

Reason has never been your strong point.

And ad hominem attacks are the white flags of incompetence.


Needless to say, ALF isn't a model of logic or reason, and since it's a terrorist organization, it shouldn't even be permitted to exist.Â*Â*Again, I have no difficulty with people keeping pets.Â*Â*I'm not a hypocrite.Â*Â*Animals are property and they have economic value.Â*Â*You're the one drawing lines defining acceptable exploitation of animal resources as that which enables you to do what you wish while preventing others from doing as they desire.

So the fact that even the most extremist elements of a viewpoint don't oppose something is meaningless?

They're lunatics. That means they're not capable of reason. That means they use their hormones and their emotions to guide their acts. That means their viewpoints are meaningless, unless you too can ascribe meaning to surging estrogen levels.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Show me something concrete that puts humans on an entirely different plane from other animals. Not just a matter of degrees. You don't think humans are special due to their intelligence, what is it? If power is the whole argument then I see no reason not to apply that to humans who are powerless. What argument, beyond "I said so", distinguishes who power applies to and why?

It's funny that you don't want animals used usefully but have no qualms about so using the most defenseless of humans. You shouldn't attempt pointing the accusing finger of hypocrisy when you're in a room full of mirrors.

Neutering and spaying are done for many reasons. In some animals it is necessary (if you don't spay a female ferret, and don't breed it, it will die), and it also has many health benefits. For example, in rats it reduces the rate of mammary tumors from about 50% to about 5%. It is not about creating a "perfect pet", it is about stopping overpopulation and creating a healthier animal. Animals are abused, killed etc., things that wouldn't happen if the population was limited. By not neutering and spaying you are increasing the pets available, increasing the chance abusive owners get them, and increasing the chance they will be euthanized.

Ah, the race card comes into play? When played, reason departs. Also, you're busy putting words in my mouth because you can't argue against the words I'm actually using.

No, it had to do with your statement that power is everything and humans have no rights. Slavery is a perfect example of that.

They're lunatics. That means they're not capable of reason. That means they use their hormones and their emotions to guide their acts. That means their viewpoints are meaningless, unless you too can ascribe meaning to surging estrogen levels.

And even the lunatics aren't so extreme to oppose all pet ownership.

[Nathan Brazil]

Show me something concrete that puts humans on an entirely different plane from other animals.

http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/images/C45-021359-lrg.jpg

[AlonzoMourning23]

Nope, that's an advance form of skills found in other animals. Tool use and problem solving, both found in many animals, the most obvious of which would be chimps, gorillas etc.

[lily]

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:76vkH0PQEN1buM:www.bfro.net/avevid/nelson/images/beaver%2520dam.jpg

Beavers do a dam good job too!

[Nathan Brazil]

I knew you were going to put up the ignorant beaver dam in response. That's because many species of animals, like the beaver, respond blindly and predictably to specific stimuli. Beavers throw logs in by instinct, plug up the holes by instinct, and are too damn stupid to understand what it is they do.

The Hoover Dam was a visualized whole before it became a mathematical construct before it became an actual construct. The difference isn't one of degree, it's one of kind. The combination of self-awareness, vision, symbolic thought, and mechanical ability is unique among the animal kingdom.

That's how we got to the top of the food chain so we could argue that it's okay to cut dogs balls off for fun and profit but it's not okay to use other biological resources to explore ways to improve the human condition.

Name the other species of animals that have put their own footprints on the moon.

[AlonzoMourning23]

But everything required to do those things, reason, problem solving, tool use, culture etc. is there to a different degree in others in other animals.

Humans lived for tens of thousands of years before even building their first town, but they were modern humans. They weren't another species. Yet they had no ability to do anything that you pointed out. Many groups of humans, to this day, cannot do many of these things. These are a biproduct of reason, culture, toll use and problem solving.

[Nathan Brazil]

No, animals don't have "culture", that's strictly human. Nor is reason a major component of animal survival, they being more specially evolved for their niches than man, and "tool use" in humans is the use of tools to make tools, again, a trait possessed by no other animal.

Humans 20,000 years ago didn't have the ability to imagine the non-existent? What the hell do you think religion is, except an instinctual delusion? They couldn't think symbolically? What the hell is language except symbol?

But, let's adopt your argument, and claim that humanity has no unique attributes (which flies in the face of any definition of species, but we're flying on feeling when following this particular path anyway)....then, as animals, we're perfectly justified in treating other animals as resources, which is EXACTLY what any animal does when it has the need and the ability to do so. Welcome to the jungle, my friend.

[AlonzoMourning23]

No, animals don't have "culture", that's strictly human.Â*Â*Nor is reason a major component of animal survival, they being more specially evolved for their niches than man, and "tool use" in humans is the use of tools to make tools, again, a trait possessed by no other animal.

Humans 20,000 years ago didn't have the ability to imagine the non-existent?Â*Â*What the hell do you think religion is, except an instinctual delusion?Â*Â*They couldn't think symbolically?Â*Â*What the hell is language except symbol?

But, let's adopt your argument, and claim that humanity has no unique attributes (which flies in the face of any definition of species, but we're flying on feeling when following this particular path anyway)....then, as animals, we're perfectly justified in treating other animals as resources, which is EXACTLY what any animal does when it has the need and the ability to do so.Â*Â*Welcome to the jungle, my friend.



A biological definition of culture is the ability to pass on behaviour through social learning, as well as through the genes, so in that sense chimps now join humans as the only cultured beings on Earth.

"Chimp communities differ from each other not in just one behaviour, but in a whole suite of patterns," says the team leader, Professor Andrew Whiten at St Andrew's University in Scotland

"This seems much more like what we see in human cultures, where different societies vary in many ways, like their technologies, cuisines and manners," he says....

In West Africa, a chimp will remove a tick from the fur of a friend, place the bug on its forearm, and crush it with a jab of the forefinger. But at Gombe, Tanzania, the parasite will be placed on a leaf before being squashed.

And chimps at one site in Uganda go as far as picking a leaf, placing the bug on it for inspection, and then either discarding or eating it.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/370807.stm

Chimpanzee culture 'confirmed'....

Chimpanzees in West Africa, for example, use stones and pieces of wood to crack open nuts for food; but this has never been observed in chimps living in East Africa.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4166756.stm

Some orangutan parents teach their offspring to use leaves as napkins. Others say good night with a spluttering, juicy raspberry. And still others get water from a hole by dipping a branch and then licking the leaves....

These are examples, researchers say, that prove the orangutan is a cultured ape, able to learn new living habits and to pass them along to the next generation.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20030102-1202-culturedapes.html

Stone-tool expert Nick Toth, an anthropologist renowned for carrying rocks with him in his briefcase wherever he goes, wanted to know whether apes could create the same types of tools early human ancestors fashioned from stone. Toth and Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, who has studied the bonobo Kanzi's use of sign language, created a "tool station," consisting of various rocks and a box containing food, secured with a thick rope. In front of Kanzi, Toth banged rocks together, in a very precise manner, to form rock flakes sharp enough to cut rope. Toth then used the best flakes to cut the rope to get a treat for himself. Without any active tutoring, Kanzi learned the importance of selecting the sharpest rocks, and then on his own began trying to make sharp flakes, imitating Toth's methods.

At one point, a frustrated Kanzi handed the stones to Savage-Rumbaugh, in an appeal for her to make the flakes for him. Refused this request, Kanzi seemed to reflect for a few moments, and then stood up and threw the stone against the hard floor, shattering it into shards. He had overcome the problem with a novel solution. The scientists then thought to put in a soft carpet to prevent this from happening again. Once again, Kanzi outwitted them. He pulled up a corner of the carpeting, revealing the hard floor, and smashed the rock against it.

On one other occasion, while working with the tools outside, Kanzi came up with yet another novel approach: throwing the rock against a large boulder to break it apart. Thus, Kanzi came up with new solutions three times in his quest to form the proper tool for the task. In addition to his invented techniques, Kanzi has been able to form flakes in the conventional manner employed by Toth.


http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/1995/6/chippingaway.cfm

So his team studied 100 hours of videotape showing Kanzi's day-to-day interactions and analysed the sounds he made at various times. They picked situations in which the bonobo's actions were unambiguous: for example, while he was eating a banana, pointing to the symbol for "grapes", or responding to a request to go outside by leaving the cage.

They identified four sounds that Kanzi made in different contexts - banana, grapes, juice and yes. In each of these contexts, Kanzi made the same sound. "We haven't taught him this," says Taglialatela. "He's doing it on his own."

Emotional state
Some will argue that the sounds are simply the result of differences in Kanzi's emotional state. Taglialatela concedes that emotions may play a part, but says they are not the whole story. For instance, Kanzi's sound for "yes" stayed the same across very different emotional states.


http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3218

Three members of the family of great apes have a crucial speech-related brain feature previously thought unique to humans...

Brodmann's area 44 is part of the Broca's area in the human brain.

It is critical for speech production and it is larger in the left hemisphere than in the right.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1680851.stm

Human ability simply builds upon abilities that exist in other animals. If you take, say, a 4 year old human, and make it so that they are the norm among humans, that every human will not exceed that point in cognitive development, then most of the differences disappear, leaving you with little distinction other than full speech (other animals, barring a few birds, cannot produce the proper sounds due to the position of the larynx) what is to be found between differing species.

Even language and symbolic thought is not unique, as other primates can acquire langauge, form sentences using sign language and understand word order (ie. put the rock on the paper gets a different response than put the paper on the rock), the basic ability is there, it's just a degree.

Animals, like humans, are cruel. The more intelligent the animal, the increase is cruelty. For example, dolphins have been observed engaging in rape and whales and dolphins have been observed "playing" with prey before killing it.

Chimps have been observed actively seeking out rivals. Packs of chimps will patrol their territory, moving in single file, a few steps then stopping, few steps than stopping, hoping to catch chimps from rival groups who are alone (or a few weak individuals) so they can attack them. They have also been observed wiping out rival groups over a period of multiple assaults, distinct from violence resulting from confrontation seen in animals such as lions, as they are actively seeking out these confrontation for the purpose of attacking and killing. I saw one video where they not only hunted down a lone chimp from a rival group (who was trying to run away), the whole group of chimps on patrol actively took turns beating him up. After getting a few hits in they backed off and waited for others to get a shot before attacking again.

Rape, senseless killing etc. are not unique to humans and are not behavior we consider moral either.

But there is also a distinction between killing for necessity and killing for fun, or killing with cruelty. In our society, for example, the methods of factory farming is much crueler than hunting animals like tribal groups used to do. Subjecting animals to months, or years, of repeated torture in experiments is not the same.

[Nathan Brazil]

Right, you're arguing that humans are no different than other animals.

That being the case in your view, why should humans act differently towards other animals than other animals act towards each other?

The logical endpoint of your argument. It ends opposite the position you seek to reach.

Too bad, eh?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Right, you're arguing that humans are no different than other animals.

You haven't explained how we are distinct. If we evolved from the same source, and there isn't a supernatural, then there must be some other spark that makes humans special, above everything else, something that is not the result of intelligence, awareness etc., since you think embryo's are equal even though they lack those things.

Our cities, weapons etc. can only be reproduced through intelligence. Yet, that's not what defines value in your mind.

That being the case in your view, why should humans act differently towards other animals than other animals act towards each other?

The logical endpoint of your argument.Â*Â*It ends opposite the position you seek to reach.

Too bad, eh?


Organisms need to eat to survive. Organisms have a right to engage in that function. Animal experiments, while increasing survival chances, are not a natural function of survival. Neither is factory farming. They are not natural methods of survival. You going out hunting for food (not for fun or sport) is a natural method of survival.

But increasing intelligence allows for increased sympathy and understanding towards others. For example, rape, theft and murder are part of the nature of human society (and the societies of some other animals). That doesn't mean it's moral or justifiable.

[Nathan Brazil]

Right, you're arguing that humans are no different than other animals.

You haven't explained how we are distinct.

Oh, I thought this thread made that abundantly clear.

What are we arguing? Ethics.

But, all I did in the last post was to adopt your position that there's no distinction between man and other animals, and then applied that to the concept of ethics...oh, wait, the only ethos in the non-human world is survival. Those critters don't have what it takes to consider abstract issues, so if an action will help them survive, they do it. And that means, if humans are no different than other animals, it's perfectly okay for them to use other animals for their survival.



If we evolved from the same source, and there isn't a supernatural, then there must be some other spark that makes humans special, above everything else, something that is not the result of intelligence, awareness etc., since you think embryo's are equal even though they lack those things.

Human embryos are merely passing through a developmental stage and most will eventually get there. The rest join PETA.

Organisms need to eat to survive. Organisms have a right to engage in that function. Animal experiments, while increasing survival chances, are not a natural function of survival.

Sure it is. The natural human mode of survival is exploration of the environment to find resources to use for advantage. Science is an efficient search method, animal experimentation is nothing but a branch of science. Perfectly natural to the human animal.

But increasing intelligence allows for increased sympathy and understanding towards others.

No, that's not intelligence, at least not all of it. It's only an aspect, and it's certainly possible to conceive of cold intelligences that don't have compassion or altruism. And we don't have to go to Beta Corvi to find them, we have them here. They're called "sociopaths".

And I see your post failed to address the nuking of your position by standing in your position and seeing what's really there.

[AlonzoMourning23]

But, all I did in the last post was to adopt your position that there's no distinction between man and other animals, and then applied that to the concept of ethics...oh, wait, the only ethos in the non-human world is survival. Those critters don't have what it takes to consider abstract issues, so if an action will help them survive, they do it. And that means, if humans are no different than other animals, it's perfectly okay for them to use other animals for their survival.

That's not true, animals will bring food to sick individuals, guard them etc. If survival of the self was the only purpose then no animal would do anything to aid or defend others.

Sympathy and Empathy are a mental capacities seen in other animals, even mice as a recent study showed. More intelligent and more social animals have higher capacities for that. Which is why many humans want to limit the suffering they cause to others. But that capacity rarely surfaces itself, even in humans, unless those individuals see an underlying connection between them and the other. You and I are perfect examples, animals, to you, are completely distinct from humans and you have no concern for them. I view all animals as existing on the same continuum. And that position seems much more credible scientifically, as what makes humans human had to come from somewhere. Everything has its roots somewhere.


Koko, a gorilla that researchers say has a vocabulary estimated at more than 500 sign-language words, cried after it was told that its pet cat had been killed, officials said Tuesday.

The 12-year-old female gorilla, which has appeared on television and has been the subject of magazine and newspaper articles about its ability to communicate, asked for a cat last year through sign language and got it...

The tailless cat, which Koko had named ''All Ball'' in sign language and often held or carried around, disappeared Dec. 21. The next morning a volunteer found the cat beside the road, apparently the victim of a passing car.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE6D9163BF933A25752C0A9639482 60[

Some animals can think abstractly, as you yourself pointed out language is abstract, and gorillas, chimps etc. can communicate using sign language. They can name things (as in the story above) and studies have even shown that dolphins have individual names and will even refer to a 3rd (not present) dolphin by its name when 2 are communicating.

More than that, two dolphins may refer to a third by the third animal's name, said Laela Sayigh, one of three authors of a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=sportsNews&storyID=2006-05-08T210348Z_01_N08213486_RTRUKOC_0_US-SCIENCE-DOLPHINS.xml

Sure it is. The natural human mode of survival is exploration of the environment to find resources to use for advantage. Science is an efficient search method, animal experimentation is nothing but a branch of science. Perfectly natural to the human animal.


Science is a result of the transmission of human culture building up over thousands of years. It is not part of the natural state of humanity, unlike hunting and gathering. Though, wonder, and likely religion, are part of humanity, modern science, while coming from those basic characteristics, is no more part of the natural state of humanity as is driving a car.

But you haven't done anything to show why humans are distinct. Why, if the average intelligence of chimps, if it was increased to the average intelligence of humans, why they would not be essentially equal? Without religion, or the supernatural, when you are left with purely natural phenomena, with evolution, what causes the distinction?

No, that's not intelligence, at least not all of it. It's only an aspect, and it's certainly possible to conceive of cold intelligences that don't have compassion or altruism. And we don't have to go to Beta Corvi to find them, we have them here. They're called "sociopaths".

But those are psychological issues. Social groups don't survive because of people with antisocial personality disorder. They are harmful to the group. They are not psychologically healthy individuals, they do not help the survival of the group. I did not say intelligence and compassion were an "if A then B" situation, I said it allows for it. High levels of empathy and sympathy do not exist without adequate levels of intelligence.

And I see your post failed to address the nuking of your position by standing in your position and seeing what's really there.


I find it odd that the worst debaters are the ones most likely to claim victory. I don't see a single point that you "nuked".

[Nathan Brazil]

That's not true, animals will bring food to sick individuals, guard them etc...

I wrote a long response to your post, then trashed it. What's the point? You're arguing that there's no difference between man and animal, therefore man should treat animals differently.

Animals do not hesitate to use the animals in their environment if they can dominate them. Why should humans be different, especially when you keep claiming there's no difference?

I find it odd that the worst debaters are the ones most likely to claim victory. I don't see a single point that you "nuked".


The worst debaters are the blind ones.

[AlonzoMourning23]

You're arguing that there's no difference between man and animal, therefore man should treat animals differently.

Humans are animals, the behavior of us right here is the behavior of an animal. Behaving in the way of a human is behaving in the way of an animal.

Animals have varying levels of empathy and sympathy, humans have very high levels of it. As we become aware of the similarity between different animals, and the intelligence of many other animals, our natural tendency towards those emotions makes humans want reduce the harm they inflict on others.

We don't have to start behaving like an animal because we are in the same continuum, because we have always behaved like an animal.

Animals do not hesitate to use the animals in their environment if they can dominate them.

Unless they choose not to. Animals often help weaker ones, bring them food etc. and, as in the case of Koko crying over her dead pet (and pets have been given to other primates), they will show concern for another animal they can easily control. The same emotions that lead to that behavior are in humans, and humans have a greater capacity for that (as far as we know). Significant amounts of humans did not begin to care about the suffering of other animals until they were aware that they did suffer. 2,000 years ago most humans behaved the same as every other animal in this respect, and their understanding of other animals suffering would be no greater than the level of understanding held by a dolphin. But we understand more now.

But you're main argument is not "you're wrong because of x", but instead "you're wrong because I don't like x". You're not explaining what spark all humans have that all other animals lack. If evolution is correct, if there is no god, supernatural etc., if those things do not exist, and if I rememer correctly you believe they don't, what makes humans special? If they come from the same ancestors, something happened along the way to make us "special". What is it? It has to be relatively recent, as we broke off from the same line as chimps only about 6 million years ago.

You have conducted the worst "nuking" of an argument I've ever seen in my life.

[Nathan Brazil]

Humans are animals, the behavior of us right here is the behavior of an animal. Behaving in the way of a human is behaving in the way of an animal.

Right. So it's perfectly reasonable for humans to treat animals as a resource to be consumed in any fashion needed for survival, and leave the use of animals as surrogate babies to the mentally disturbed.

Animals have varying levels of empathy and sympathy, humans have very high levels of it. As we become aware of the similarity between different animals, and the intelligence of many other animals, our natural tendency towards those emotions makes humans want reduce the harm they inflict on others.

Nah, some people just want to pretend their chihuahua is their baby.

We don't have to start behaving like an animal because we are in the same continuum, because we have always behaved like an animal.

Bingo! Sometimes you can see the truth. But I'm sure your next statement will reveal your failure to get it.

Unless they choose not to. Animals often help weaker ones, bring them food etc.

Yeah, I've seen those amazing videos of the hyena bringing spare meat to the sick lioness. It's very touching.

and, as in the case of Koko crying over her dead pet (and pets have been given to other primates),

Yeah, other primates can also mal-imprint on the cute and cuddly and behave as if they're babies of the same species. It's very pathetic.

The same emotions that lead to that behavior are in humans, and humans have a greater capacity for that (as far as we know).

Yeah, it's called mal-imprinting. So what? The "mal" part means it's wrongly applied, very much like a baby duck locking onto a pair of moving boots as it's mother.

Significant amounts of humans did not begin to care about the suffering of other animals until they were aware that they did suffer. 2,000 years ago most humans behaved the same as every other animal in this respect, and their understanding of other animals suffering would be no greater than the level of understanding held by a dolphin. But we understand more now.

No, it's clear they don't "understand" any more now than they did before, it's just that the affluence of modern society means that we can afford pets and that in their ignorance many of the female persuasion or wanna-be femal persuasion develop maternal bonds to what should be potential food objects.

But you're main argument is not "you're wrong because of x", but instead "you're wrong because I don't like x".

Actually, you're just wrong because you're wrong. In other words, you're both arguing that because humans are animals that humans don't have an innate superiority to use other animals, and then arguing that humans have a much higher degree of compassion and empathy, and therefore we shouldn't use other animals.

On the one hand, if we're just another animal, our evolution was successful precisely because we used other animals for our survival.

Then again, if we're superior, there's no reason not to use animals.

Either way, you're arguing the wrong way, and so you're wrong on a logical basis.

You're not explaining what spark all humans have that all other animals lack. If evolution is correct, if there is no god, supernatural etc., if those things do not exist, and if I rememer correctly you believe they don't, what makes humans special?

You say we're not special, therefore we can use them, as they would use us. See how you argue against your own logic?

You have conducted the worst "nuking" of an argument I've ever seen in my life.

Yeah, total devastation is pretty bad. But you keep coming back to use the same flawed arguments over and over.

What are you going to say next, that humans aren't different, therefore we shouldn't be like other animals and use them as resources, or that humans are different, and therefore we shouldn't use animals as resources?

My argument is that we can, therefore we should, because that's what survival is about.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Caring for pets is beneficial:

Most households in the United States have at least one pet. Why do people have pets? There are many reasons. Some of the health benefits of pets are listed below.

Pets can decrease your:

Blood pressure
Cholesterol levels
Triglyceride levels
Feelings of loneliness

Pets can increase your:

Opportunities for exercise and outdoor activities
Opportunities for socialization

http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/health_benefits.htm


Actually, you're just wrong because you're wrong.

You really need a new argument, this ones getting old.

In other words, you're both arguing that because humans are animals that humans don't have an innate superiority to use other animals, and then arguing that humans have a much higher degree of compassion and empathy, and therefore we shouldn't use other animals.

As far as we know, those emotions are more developed in humans. The same is true of a 20 year old human and a 4 year old human.


on the one hand, if we're just another animal, our evolution was successful precisely because we used other animals for our survival.

Which entails the lifestyle of hunting and gathering. Killing beyond what is needed for survival is not part of that. Scientific experiments and huge factory farms are not part of basic survival, they are luxuries. They go well beyond what the natural order entails.

You yourself oppose rape, murder etc. All things that occur naturally in human society, and other animals. But humans, despite these things being party of our society, have decided that it is wrong to engage in those behaviors due to the pain and suffering it causes, and it is especially wrong to do it to something that can't properly defend itself, like a child. If you take a 4 year old child, it's mental capabilities are less developed than an adult chimp. There's no unique process or awareness that the human child has that the chimp lacks. The only thing the human child has going for it is superficial appearances, because the biological processes controlling the 2 beings are more complex in the adult chimp. We reign in our own desires to spare humans of suffering, we should do the same with other animals capable of suffering.

Our society reigns in natural human urges because we consider them to be harmful. Many animals do the same, but we go further because other emotions, such as sympathy and empathy, are more developed, primarily due to our intelligence. And when we start to be aware that our emotions are not unique, that causes people to want to reign in harm caused to other animals capable of suffering, just as we reign in our instincts to minimize suffering on humans. The same pattern of behavior is seen in other animals, and clearly in primates with their capability of having "pets". But with increased intelligence it becomes easier to understand the viewpoint of another, something that humans struggle to do throughout much of childhood.

And you've yet to give 1 reason why humans, despite evolving from other animals, despite being controlled by natural, not supernatural processes, why they're different. Intelligence, sympathy etc. are only different in humans by degree. Because of that we behave a certain way, ways that are human. A dolphin behaves like a dolphin, a dog like a dog, and a human like a human. There is no one way an animal behaves, despite all sharing some base similarity (ie. to survive), the degree, and expression, of that instinct differs greatly. One species will do everything to survive, another will risk its own life to save another that it cares about. And those exist to varying degrees in individuals within species.

Human behavior is the behavior of the human animal. How we behave is the behavior of an animal, and the result of animal processes. Both my viewpoint and yours result from that. The way we behave now is the result of various levels of development of animal characteristics. To suggest that we need to change our behavior to behave like an animal is absurd, since we already behave like an animal, both of us. Just different sides of that behavioural spectrum are winning out.

[Nathan Brazil]

Caring for babies is even more so.Â*Â*That's why using a surrogate pet instead of baby is beneficial.Â*Â*

Tell, me, do I have to read your whole post, or does your argument, once again, boil down to:

People are no different from animals therefore they should treat animals differently than animals treat each other,

again?

Edit: No, I didn't have to read it, it's the same drivel, with details of irrelvancy.

HINT: Using animals in medical experimentation IS using animals to enhance human survival.

duh.:rolleyes:

[AlonzoMourning23]

But it's not a natural method necessary for survival. It's not in the same realm as hunting to eat. It's a luxury of technology. Not required for survival.

But I see that you have no scientific reason for a distinction.

[Nathan Brazil]

YOU"RE the one to define what a "natural method" is? You claimed above that you wouldn't eat a pig. You don't have a clue what is natural and what is not.

[AlonzoMourning23]

So? It's natural to eat to survive. There are many ways to do that. Factory farms are excessively cruel and unnatural. There's a big difference between a tribe that survives from hunting and us who just walk into a store and buy a dead pig that spent it's life in a cage that they couldn't even turn around in.

Eating meat is only one way to survive. Not the required way.

[Nathan Brazil]

Not eating meat is unnatural. What the hell do you think you have eye-teeth for?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Factory farming is not natural, neither is the destruction of species and habitats caused by human exploitation.

And considering eating meat is not a survival requirement, and causes harm, particularly so with modern factory farming, there is no reason to engage in unnatural harvesting procedures. Hunting, while illegal and pointless around here anyway, puts abnormal pressures on the environment due to the massive devastation of natural resources by humans.

Eating things other than meat is not unnatural. It's natural to eat meat and natural to eat other material. But the ways of obtaining meet in modern times are vastly different than before.

[Nathan Brazil]

Eating meat is one our key evoluionary advantages. We evolved from ape-like things that ate bugs, toads, and eventually moved up to scavenging and then direct hunting.

Not eating meat is unnatural and weird.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Humans aren't alone as hunting primates, chimps will hunt as well:

And, it turns out, a chimpanzee community may eat several hundred kilograms of meat in a single year....

There are also some interesting subtleties to the chimpanzees' hunting behavior that need to be addressed. Although chimpanzees can and do hunt alone, they often form large hunting parties consisting of more than 10 adult males, plus females and juveniles. Chimpanzees also go on "hunting binges" in which they kill a large number of monkeys and other animals over a period of several days or weeks. Such binges have always been a little mysterious. What could incite a chimpanzee to suddenly forgo plant foraging and turn to hunting? Are there social or ecological factors associated with the impetus to hunt? What ecological effects does the chimpanzees' predatory behavior have on their prey?...

Although we are only beginning to understand some of the causes and consequences of the chimpanzees' actions, what we have discovered is more complicated and more interesting than anyone suspected. For chimpanzees, meat is not only another way to get nutrients like fat and protein, but a means to make political bonds and gain access to sexually receptive females.Â*Â*

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/24543?fulltext=true

Hunting does not make humans unique.

But, also, natural means of gathering meat are unavailable. Factory farming is not one of them, and the impact of our civilizations on nature put significant stress, species that could easily handle being hunted with a greater balance of hunter and prey, would quickly be wiped out since the predators rival, or outnumber, the prey. We have achieved such numbers due to science, medicine etc. And the method of hunting used by most, guns, is far from natural.

As for weird, vegetarians are common. Most restaurants have sections catering to them, and some restaurants cater exclusively to them.

[Nathan Brazil]

[quote=alonzomourning23]
Humans aren't alone as hunting primates, chimps will hunt as well:[/qoute]

Really? That's effin' amazing! Who'd have thought that other animals hunted and ate meat. Why, using other animals as resources must be almost natural.

Wow.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Eating meat is one our key evoluionary advantages. We evolved from ape-like things that ate bugs, toads, and eventually moved up to scavenging and then direct hunting.

Funny, I could have sworn you made that statement.

And, funny, but I could have sworn that there was a difference between factory farming and methods used 20,000 years ago.

[Nathan Brazil]

Eating meat is one our key evoluionary advantages. We evolved from ape-like things that ate bugs, toads, and eventually moved up to scavenging and then direct hunting.

Funny, I could have sworn you made that statement.

And, funny, but I could have sworn that there was a difference between factory farming and methods used 20,000 years ago.


HINT: which one of us introduced the concept of how things are different only in degree, not in kind?

OH! YOU were, when you were trying to claim that people were no different than other animals and therefore didn't have a moral claim to use them.

Now you're trying to claim that humans ARE different, that methods matter, and that somehow your inside out argument is making sense to anyone at all.

Hang it up, you lost this one a long time ago, now you're tying yourself up in hillarious knots.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Nathan, some people's beliefs do not fit into a 30 second sound bite.

Humans are not different in kind. Every basic human ability exists to varying degrees in other animals. Us having increased intelligence, and therefore being able to create more advanced tools, is a difference of degree in terms of capability. A 7 year old cannot learn calculus, but the basic mathematical ability is still there.

[Nathan Brazil]

Yeah, I keep saying that humans aren't different, therefore it's okay to use animals as resources, because it's a perfectly natural, for humans, survival behavior.

You keep saying humans aren't different, and therefore it's unethical to survive using animals, even though animals don't have ethics, and therefore humans are different and thus shouldn't act in their own interests to survive. Like I said, you lost a long time ago, and now you're on a lazy susan.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Nathan, humans kill, rape and torture. Ethics are in the mind of the beholder. Protecting a friend under attack, especially at risk to yourself, would be considered ethical, so wouldn't nursing them when sick. Many animals do that. There is no concrete, absolute ethical laws. There are ones that should be given to everyone for the safety and stability of society, but they are not absolute by any supreme moral law, just a necessity in the world.

And it would not necessarily be unethical if you survived using natural methods, with natural pressures being placed on other animals. That was the whole point. But you can't realistically do that in the modern world.

[CockySOB]

Damn! Sorry, but I voted and then realized I had misread the question.



I thought it said "animal tasting"

[lily]

You know cocky..........I can't take you anywhere!:P

[bobbylien]

It is my observation that many meat products contain high amounts of saturated fats and other harmfull things. Nothing beats soy.. in most cases the soy counterparts to popular american foods like corndogs have more protein, fiber and vitamins without the added fats. I challenge you to try a soy corndog and a "meat" corndog and tell me you can really taste the difference. Going veg is a healthy choice these days. I know you can eat healthy meats, but with soy products.. its just so much easier.

[Nathan Brazil]

When soybeans grow ribs, I'll think about switching. And they'll have to grow a lot bigger, too, or the bacon slices will be just too small.

[kanyon40]

I just made an account on this forum today (july 28) so many of my posts are coming in at the end of conversations.

I just have one thing to say about the overall discussion that I finally stopped reading between Nathan and Alonzomourning, who, as I recall, had a Kidney translpant, which was an art first mastered on animals.

When the animal turns and says, "Ouch you son of a bitch, that needle hurt. I don't know why you gave me this ebola. And in response to your test, it failed, as my flesh is being eaten at a rapid pace despite the medication you just gave me!" then I will say we should stop testing on that particular species and move on to one lower on the "evolutionary" (which i don't actually believe in the THEORY of evolution) ladder.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Kanyon, so then you don't have a problem testing on infants? And, should I also assume that you would take issue with conducting tests on animals such as koko the gorilla, since she can use american sign language, right?

And I didn't have a kidney transplant. But, as I said, you can't reverse what's done. No benefit comes, neither to humans, dogs etc., when you deny available treatment that does not rely on additional use of animals to administer. It is a pointless protest that you will stand alone in and risk severe illness, or death, for yourself or any other organism in your care.

edit: Here's a gorilla describing the death of his mother from poachers. Most of gorilla sign language is similar in complexity to theÂ*Â*sentences of a 2 year old child, using one or two word sentences. Those who have been taught sign language from a very young age can communicate somewhat better (up to 3 words, occasional fourth thrown in but usually as part of a 2 word term), but this gorilla was taught as an adult when language acquisition capabilities decrease significantly: http://www.koko.org/world/michael_story_vid.html

And a little more on that gorilla: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_%28Gorilla%29


Koko, famed for her language and communication skills, managed to let her handlers at the Gorilla Foundation in California know that she was in pain.

After apparently feeling discomfort for a few weeks, she reached the point were she indicated at the number nine on a pain chart mapping the intensity of pain on a scale of one to 10.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3548246.stm

[kanyon40]

I was joking about the kidney trasnplant... since I assume you aren't REALLY alonzo mourning who did have one.

How is equating what I said about animals being able to protest being tested on even relevant to the question of testing on infants? If we waited 10 or 15 years, a squirrel would die of old age and STILL be incapable of protesting any testing on him. An infant, given the opportunity, will most likely grow up to be able to communicate, think, act, reason, etc., every bit as well as any other human being. And since humans are clearly at the top of the food chain, infants would count on that list as actually being humans.

When animals become capable of actually discussing these kinds of issues with us, then we can stop using them. When a gorilla invents the internet instead of Al Gore, then that gorilla doesn't need to be used for testing anymore. But that doesn't mean that we can't use a duck-billed paltypuss, which, from my experience, serves no purpose other than to be tested on.

[AlonzoMourning23]

When animals become capable of actually discussing these kinds of issues with us, then we can stop using them.

First of all, language is not the barrier for you, as you oppose testing on infants despite the fact that they cannot engage in a conversation.

But animals that use sign language (bonobo's and gorillas are the best at it) can tell you how they feel, both physically and emotionally, can describe events that happened long ago and even what they were thinking at the time. Yes, it's choppy and only a word or two is being used to express a full sentence, but the ability to communicate is there.

As in the video I posted before (http://www.koko.org/world/michael_story_vid.html), the gorilla describes the events that happened, and even the reaction he had, despite being only a 3 year old child at the time. Yes, it's not very fluid (they're not exactly speaking a language native to gorillas), but it's still communication that can be understood by humans who know american sign language.

But the ability to communicate is not simply due to intelligence. For example, chimpanzees are believed to be smarter than gorilla's, yet chimpanzees do poorly with sign language, and don't usually learn much beyond basic, concrete, words (maybe 20 or 25, compared to gorilla's which can use over 1,000 and understand much more than that, which is consistent with a 2.5 or 3 year old child). Unlike a gorilla, a chimp wouldn't be able to tell you things beyond the realm of the physical, and it would struggle with that. Though it could, for example, point out the emotions on a computer screen, they just don't do well with communicating using human language. But Bonobo's, which are a species of chimp (known for using sex, instead of violence, to resolve conflicts), do very well with sign language. Yet the intelligence is about the same as other types of chimps.

My whole thing is that humans come from animals just as much as rabbits come from animals. If, for example, a non human animal is as aware and intelligent as a human then they should be treated appropriately. That does not mean treating them like a human (as they are not, they have their own society and way of living that's not the same as humans), but opposing causing harm, particularly intentional, to them because their mental capacities are equal or superior to young and handicapped humans, which we would never think of harming.

Teaching animals human language lets us understand them, and, frankly, it's good PR. People connect much more to the likes of Koko than a random silverback gorilla in the forest. And, considering these are animals that cannot survive in the wild (primarily due to their parents being killed), doing this is not immoral since it does not cause harm and actually increases the quality of life for these animals (since they can communicate what they want) who cannot survive outside of captivity anyway. Disrupting their social situation, removing them from the wild, removing them from an contained community of animals etc. would be, but animals like koko did not have that opportunity and we need to move forward from where we are now.

I don't really understand why they have to tell us, and why those that can communicate with us, why you don't oppose testing on them. Being able to communicate with a human does not necessarily mean an animal is more intelligent than another that cannot (ie. gorrilla's and chimps).

You appear to have a religious reason for much of your beliefs, I have no desire to argue that the essential part of that is wrong, though I'm not quite sure why you think an animal's only point is scientific testing, since if that was god's plan we would have been testing on animals when he created the earth (also considering each animal occupies a certain niche in their environment and influences the conditions in which it and other animals exist, I don't understand why they're useless).

But, the main difference here is my argument is not religious, and does not incorporate religion. The more we learn about the intelligence of animals the less reason there is to believe of a distinction between humans and other animals. That's not an argument against someone holding a religious viewpoint, only against those with secular ones.

[kanyon40]

My answer isn't religious. I, in fact, don't see a single reference to God in my post. But you are totally ignoring what I am saying. There is a difference between squirrels and humans. First, I never said that the purpose of animals is to be tested on. So I don't know where that point came from. Second, you seem to think that I am saying something I am not. It isn't the ability to communicate that is the issue. It is the fact that humans are capable of putting together well reasoned arguments (or foolish ones as in your case) as to why they shouldn't be used in testing. Infants can't at the infant stage, but they WILL be able to if given the chance to grow up. As I said before, a squirrel isn't restricted by his age in his capacity to express himself in rational, well reasoned and thought out ways. He is restricted by his God given capabilities. (there, now I mentioned God.) You may notice that, though you insist on pointing out gorillas as though I am arguing the point, I am not actually saying to use gorillas for animal testing. But I certainly believe that a human life is far, far, far more valuable than the life of a gerbil. If you don't agree, there is nothing I will ever be able to do to change that. And you seem to reference evolutionary process as a proven fact that I am just to shallow to believe (which is where I assume you get that I am attributing my beliefs about animals to God). Many credible scientists across many fields dispute evolution to this day. So while you may be right that evolution happened, I may still be right that it didn't. That is why it is still called the theory of evolution.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I assumed your opinion was partly based on religion, since it's very rare to meet someone who doesn't believe in evolution and who does not have a religious view of the natural world.

Credible scientists disputing evolution, it depends on the definition of credible. Mainstream scientists, biologists in secular institutions, no. Yes, there are some that dispute evolution, but they seem to have a conflict of interest with their religious beliefs. That's not to say that being religious means you don't believe in evolution or aren't credible (for example, one of the most prominent paleontologists is a conservative christian who believes in evolution). Evolution through natural selection isn't a fact (though evolution, as simply change over time is, as we can observe this in both laboratory settings and in the wild), but very few things in science are 100% proven fact. Essentially, you won't pick up any credible scientific journal and have articles written and studies done by non evolutionists. That doesn't mean anyones right or wrong, but the comment on their being any credible scientists who dispute evolution, I think it's a hard case to make.


First, I never said that the purpose of animals is to be tested on. So I don't know where that point came from.

You said this:

But that doesn't mean that we can't use a duck-billed paltypuss, which, from my experience, serves no purpose other than to be tested on.

But what about the mentally handicapped? Someone who will never reach an intelligence above a 5 year old? The mental capacities of animals, such as gorilla's and chimps, can equal and surpass that. In some tests they perform equivalent to 9 year old humans.

I'm not really singling out gorillas here, it's just that, due to the similarity to us, their intelligence is the most recognizable to the average person. For example, dolphins have names, refer to each other in the third person, and there is evidence that they may even have language (one piece of evidence is that different groups in different regions make different sounds), but you could never sit down and get them to actually communicate directly to you. My whole point is that humans are animals as all the rest, which is why I have focused primarily on showing our similarity with certain animals.

It is the fact that humans are capable of putting together well reasoned arguments (or foolish ones as in your case)

The amount of reasons humans have is simply a degree. Humans are more intelligent than other animals, that's all. But it's a point that is only reached after a certain point in development, and we do not consider the pain of a mentally handicapped adult man, with the mental capacity of a 6 year old, as something lesser than the pain of a healthy adult. The difference in reasoning ability between a gorilla and a human is the difference between a child doing multiplication tables and an adult doing calculus, the same essential ability is there, one is just doing it on a higher level.

If the opinion I have is "foolish", then you should be able to point out things that are, by their very nature, human characteristics distinct from other animals. Not something that is simply an animal characteristic to a greater or lesser degree.

[kanyon40]

I think it is sad that you take this so seriously that you can't spot a joke or sarcasm when you see it. The point of the duck billed platypuss was a joke, and I can say that even my 11 year old knew that.

By the way, I don't deny that I believe in God or have an opinion that stems from faith. But when you suggested it earlier, there was no basis for it on any of my posts. Also, I believe that when the bible gives man dominion over all the earth, including its creatures, that we should take that as a huge responsibility. So I am not advocating the destruction of various animal species on some whim. But I also have a higher regard for human life than animal life (as does God according to the bible, though I have no intention of making this a religious discussion. I am just addressing your comments on the issue.). So in that regard, I think animal testing needs to be done cautiously. For example, I am not for shoving lipstick up a rabbits butt just to see what happens. But that is different from trying to save humanity from serious ills such as cancer or AIDS.

As for your assertion about credible scientists... credibility isn't an objective issue in itself, since there is an agenda that will determine what is or isn't credible. There are many cases of evolutionists trying to prove macro evolution, and when their theories fail, instead of changing the hypothesis, they continue to hold to macro evolution and refuse to admit defeat. And as for credible scientists who don't hold to macro evolution, read "The Case for a Creator" and tell me if you think the credentials of the scientists on record in that book are credible enough.

I realize that our discussion never focussed on macro vs. micro evolution. But that seems to really be the issue. There is no doubt that within a species, adaptations occur over a lifetime. Just because the rabbits get faster over time, and the faster ones pass on their dominant traits while the slower ones die, and therefore don't pass on their dominant traits, none of that means that the rabbits will eventually become humans.

For further reading on the issue, check out the book "The Soul of Science" which is written by a scientist (though whether she would meet your standard of credibility I don't know). Among other things within the book is the fact that the first reaction for a single celled organism to create the proteins necessary to evolve into a multi-celled organism is itself considered statistically impossible (not improbable, but impossible) based on what mathematicians consider statistical impossibility vs. the chances of that reaction occuring. This says nothing of the issue of whether DNA (with all the information encoded within it) could be considered random chance. The analogy used is that suggesting that the human DNA code could be the result of random chance mutations is the equivalent of suggesting that the faces carved into Mount Rushmore are natural landmasses or that you could find a disk in the desert that contained the complete works of William Shakespeare and that it was nothing more than the result of nature and weather conditions.

This discussion has gotten way off topic at this point, but the issue needed addressed.

To get back to the basic point, I think you are so blinded by your beliefs that you are having trouble seeing some things. First, my original post was pretty much complete sarcasm and you have taken it so seriously that you apparently picture me torturing animals in my basement. Second, your argument of degrees is stupid. To go back to Nathan's example of the hoover dam versus a beaver dam... there isn't any comparison whatsoever. A beaver knows that he can throw sticks in a stream. He doesn't really know why. He doesn't draw up blueprints before he does it. He has no vision. It is totally utilitarian. The hoover dam was an ingenious conception that could never have been pictured by creatures less than humans. Even if they could picture it, they could have never pulled it off. And if by some random act of nature they did (which would never happen), they wouldn't have the least understanding as to why they did it. Furthermore, there would be no real appreciation for the art that it is, or the great accomplishment of engineering that it is, because they are incapable of understanding or thinking in such terms.

Can a beaver use his dam to also convert water into electricity? Once the beaver builds his dam, does he go home, talk about his hard day at work, read the paper, watch the news, get a beer, have a snack, then go to bed thinking about the great job he did at work? No. He crawls back to his little mudhut, craps in his house (without a toilet), probably chirps and skitters a bit, would think something like "Wish I could talk to my mate but I can't talk" but since he doesn't actually think in concrete terms, he instead thinks "crick skitter crick chirp", then he licks his paws because he is incapable of much else, then he goes back out and throws sticks in the water for some reason he doesn't understand again.

Humans aren't just higher degrees of animals. Yes, we are animals. But we are superior. If you give a beaver enough time, he won't invent a beaver rocket ship and get to the moon. He won't discover geometry and write theorems that he and his beaver buddies will sit around and ponder of some wine and bree. He won't ever do anything but build stupid little dams in stupid little streams. Does that mean that he deserves to have drugs tested on him? Not by default it doesn't. But does it mean that if the choice is between helping to save millions upon millions of humans from aids, or protecting a stupid dam building beaver at the expense of all those lives, that the right thing to do is sacrifice the beaver? Absolutely. Anyone who disagrees with that needs to figure out why they hate humanity so much. I can tell you that if that beaver ever got smart enough to develop medicine to cure little beaver diseases, he wouldn't hesitate to test it out on a chipmunk before sacrificing his little beaver pals.

[AlonzoMourning23]

As for your assertion about credible scientists... credibility isn't an objective issue in itself,

Credible would include a mixture of things, including good education, but more important is the work that has been done. What scientific journals have they been published in, how well their research techniques hold up etc. Simply having a degree from a decent school doesn't make one credible.

since there is an agenda that will determine what is or isn't credible. There are many cases of evolutionists trying to prove macro evolution, and when their theories fail, instead of changing the hypothesis, they continue to hold to macro evolution and refuse to admit defeat.

Evolution over long periods of time cannot be tested. We can, for example, take one group of fly and split it, then selectively breed each group until they can no longer interbreed between each other, essentially creating a new species of fly. But other than things like that, and evolution of virus's, bacteria etc., you can't definitively prove something that occurs over tens/hundreds of thousands of years, often millions of years. But the study of archeology, genetics etc. all support evolution. For example, in humans, Africa has much greater genetic diversity than anywhere else in the world, due to the length of times humans have been there.

And as for credible scientists who don't hold to macro evolution, read "The Case for a Creator" and tell me if you think the credentials of the scientists on record in that book are credible enough.

The book is written by Lee Strobel:

Strobel earned a journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School. A journalist for fourteen years, he was awarded Illinois' highest honors from United Press International for both investigative reporting (shared with a team he led at the Chicago Tribune) and for public service journalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Strobel

The author isn't a scientist. I've read and heard many creationist and intelligent design position, and looked into them. They don't have credible, mainstream, backers who have been published in credible scientific journals. If you want to pick out some things and show them fine, but I'm not reading another book without a valid reason when I've read plenty of arguments on the subject already.

The idea, as religion, is fine. I have no issue there. But it's not science. Science is the study of the natural world, it takes no position on a creator.

Among other things within the book is the fact that the first reaction for a single celled organism to create the proteins necessary to evolve into a multi-celled organism is itself considered statistically impossible (not improbable, but impossible) based on what mathematicians consider statistical impossibility vs. the chances of that reaction occuring.

There's a distinction between what life has evolved to today and what it was. There are multiple competing theories on the origins on multicullular organisms. But, the origin of life is not part of evolution. Evolution deals with how the organisms of today, and of the past, evolved. It's basically X happened, then all these things evolved. Yes, there are scientific theories on how and what happened to spark everything (and to spark multicellular evolution), but, while yes it would be evolution, is not really essential to the question of evolution. All we know is there were unicellular organism before multicellular ones. What caused the change could be natural, divine, whatever.

There's also the reality that many parts of organisms evolved for different purposes than they currently are used for today. For example, feathers are used for flight, but the first animal with feathers did not fly.

First, my original post was pretty much complete sarcasm and you have taken it so seriously that you apparently picture me torturing animals in my basement.

?

A beaver knows that he can throw sticks in a stream. He doesn't really know why.

Beavers cut down trees and pick up what they can find. It's instinct, but the idea it's just random is a little absurd.

Can a beaver use his dam to also convert water into electricity?

Could human 2000 years ago? Could some isolated tribe do that today? Humans have culture (passing down of information from one generation to the next) and intelligence, both of which are shared with other animals. But as intelligence increases so does the complexity of culture.

He crawls back to his little mudhut, craps in his house (without a toilet),

Cleanliness is not a human trait, as many animals keep their den clean, going outside.

probably chirps and skitters a bit, would think something like "Wish I could talk to my mate but I can't talk" but since he doesn't actually think in concrete terms, he instead thinks "crick skitter crick chirp",

"Talking" is a form of communication. That's how we define human speech, but it is not the only way to communicate (dolphins are evidence of a relatively complex communication system that is alien to us). Chirps, barks etc. all communicate different things. Some animals have much more complex communications than others, but such sounds are communication. Such sounds are not merely meaningless noises.

And can you prove it can't think in concrete terms? You've heard the sounds pigs make, yet they have long term memory, and, recently, have been shown to be able to pick out symbolic representations of what they want from a computer screen. Evidence other animals, as a rule, cannot think concretely is virtually nonexistent. The point is figuring out how far down in intelligence you have to go before they lose that ability. But, the studies I've read on birds and mammals, suggest that you're not going to reach that point with those 2.

then he licks his paws because he is incapable of much else, then he goes back out and throws sticks in the water for some reason he doesn't understand again.


I don't like using a personal example, but I think it's relevant. I had a pet rat that used to line her little house with soft padding. Rats also love hammocks, and one of those was also in the cage. For months she never damaged it, but one day she figured out that the hammock was filled with soft fabric that she could use to line her house. She ripped it open and pulled out all the fabric and dragged it down to her house. After that, every time a new hammock was put into the cage (even if none had been there for a week or so), she would immediately go up to the hammock and begin ripping it open (she didn't have to stumble on it, she automatically started when she realized the hammock was there.). She then would pull out the fabric and run right down the ramp to start the floor in her house with it.

She didn't have to wait to for a rip to occur to remember it, she knew what was in it. And she figured that out after only once, after that first time that was always the first thing she did when she saw a new one.

That requires strong memory and that, regardless of whether the shape or color changes, it's still a hammock and it contains what she wants.

Humans aren't just higher degrees of animals. Yes, we are animals. But we are superior. If you give a beaver enough time, he won't invent a beaver rocket ship and get to the moon. He won't discover geometry and write theorems that he and his beaver buddies will sit around and ponder of some wine and bree. He won't ever do anything but build stupid little dams in stupid little streams.

If humans never surpassed the intelligence of an 8 year old, would humans be able to? All these things require a level of intelligence, and the physical characteristics (ie. many researchers think dolphins may be one of the only animals with a highly complex language, and many think they're smarter than any non-human animal. But, even if one was twice as intelligent as a human, it could never write or build a house) that we don't know any animal to have. If humans are unique, why does a human child compare with the likes of a gorilla? Different species do some things better than others, we are more intelligent. But if you just put a block on human intelligence at a certain human age then what remains? You'd just have another species of primate living in the wild. The level of intelligence is all that's changing that.

[kanyon40]

OK, first of all, Lee Strobel wrote "The Case for the Creator" which was actually a series of interviews with scientists with well qualified credentials, including extensive publications, degrees, and also great respect within their community. The interviews are presented in book form with each chapter presenting the interviewee's arguments in dsicussion form as they took place with him. So while Strobel is the author, the information and dialogue comes directly from very esteemed scientists. If they disagreed with his representation of their arguments (and consider that the chapters are named for the scientists he is interviewing) then they wouldn't have endorsed the book and you would hear an outcry from them that it is crap. So I will again suggest the book "The Case for a Creator" and next time before you speak about it, try being informed about what is in it.

Secondly, again you take lots of sarcasm and jokes and make it into a point by point breakdown that actually does nothing to change the accuracy of my argument. In fact, the fact that we can have this argument in the first place shows we are superior to those beavers who can't.

Thirdly, in response to my question about whether beavers can use their dam to make electricity, you say "No but neither could humans 2000 years ago." Great point... but humans can today. Beavers couldn't do anything more than build dams from sticks they found 2000 years ago, and that is all they do today. In 2000 years, guess what, that is all they will be able to do. It isn't relevant that certain tribes of humans can't do that today, because it has still been proven that the human capability is that we can. I can't convert water to electricity either. But humans can. Humans can study philosophy. Humans can actually have philosophy. Humans create for reasons beyond instinct. Humans are better and smarter than other animals. Period. And back to my original argument, if a beaver somehow (which it won't) becomes capable of all the things that humans are capable of, then we can use badgers instead. You have done nothing to disprove my point or to show that I am in any way wrong. You just think that by taking little points and making piddly little contested arguments that don't hold water, that somehow that is convincing that humans aren't a higher for of life than beavers (or other animals).

[AlonzoMourning23]

OK, first of all, Lee Strobel wrote "The Case for the Creator" which was actually a series of interviews with scientists with well qualified credentials, including extensive publications, degrees, and also great respect within their community.Â*Â*The interviews are presented in book form with each chapter presenting the interviewee's arguments in dsicussion form as they took place with him.Â*Â*So while Strobel is the author, the information and dialogue comes directly from very esteemed scientists.Â*Â*If they disagreed with his representation of their arguments (and consider that the chapters are named for the scientists he is interviewing) then they wouldn't have endorsed the book and you would hear an outcry from them that it is crap.Â*Â*So I will again suggest the book "The Case for a Creator" and next time before you speak about it, try being informed about what is in it.

I've read plenty of things on creationism. It's not my job to read every book some poster wants me to, and not my job to support your point. Give me examples, give me something to agree or disagree with. Don't just cite a book and then expect me to prove your point for you.

Secondly, again you take lots of sarcasm and jokes and make it into a point by point breakdown that actually does nothing to change the accuracy of my argument.Â*Â*In fact, the fact that we can have this argument in the first place shows we are superior to those beavers who can't.

Here's an idea, don't use such things to support your argument.

It isn't relevant that certain tribes of humans can't do that today, because it has still been proven that the human capability is that we can.Â*Â*I can't convert water to electricity either.Â*Â*But humans can.

That's due to the interplay of intelligence and culture. Societies, like chimps, have been proven to have culture, the passing down of invormation through generations. For example, different societies use different techniques to eat and hunt, techniques which aren't seen by others of the same species. Human society extends from that, we are more intelligent, which allows more complex culture. And, if it weren't for our population, we'd still be hunters and gatherers. The transition to long term settlements only resulted when the population became to great to sustain the previous style of living.

Humans can study philosophy.Â*Â*Humans can actually have philosophy.Â*Â*

[quote]Humans create for reasons beyond instinct.

So can many animals. Apes and elephants, for example, often greatly enjoy painting and this is a common activity in zoo's and sanctuaries. Some gorilla's and chimps go beyond simply painting, and paint to paint actual things (not just painting to throw paint on a paper). If you want to see an organism acting on solely instinct (or, pretty close to it) then you want to look at bees, ants, snakes a little less and so on. And humans, like all animals, are also influenced by instinct.

Humans are better and smarter than other animals.Â*Â*Period.

But an adult is smarter than a child. There's nothing essentially different there. The adult can do much more, think much more critically, but the same basic capacity is being used.


Â*Â*You just think that by taking little points and making piddly little contested arguments that don't hold water, that somehow that is convincing that humans aren't a higher for of life than beavers (or other animals).


Pretend you believe in evolution, are homosapiens completely separate from another recent animal, neanderthals? Both are believed to have religion to some extent, could talk, and are believed to be of relatively equal intelligence, though it was organized a little differently (Neanderthals apparently copied a lot of technology from homosapiens). Are homosapiens distinct from thei