Is there any difference between a chimpanzee and a human?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter grannymh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What you classify as “love” is more rightly termed ‘affection.’ Love is an intellectual decision. That was exactly my point, that to say that animals “feel love” attempts to redefine love into a mere emotional expression. If you are prone to saying, “I love ice cream,” then I can see why you would believe that animals “feel love.” They feel love for us, the same way we “feel love” for ice cream. It is a conditioned affection.

To have love for someone requires intellectual consent, and discernment of the will. Animals can do neither.
I do love ice cream and I love my family. one is an expression of a great liking for something, he other is an emotion Yes, the love I have for my family is different fom my “love” of ice cream. I did not use my intellect or reasoning to come to love my famiy. My dogs may not have the reasoning or intellect of an adult human but they do love me. They express teir love for me whether I am in a bad mood, whether I have just scolded them.

I do agree that the love Christ taught has to be arrived at by a reasoned act of will. The love you show to strangers by helping them is not the love I have for my family or the love my dogs have for me.
 
I do love ice cream and I love my family. one is an expression of a great liking for something, he other is an emotion Yes, the love I have for my family is different fom my “love” of ice cream. I did not use my intellect or reasoning to come to love my famiy. My dogs may not have the reasoning or intellect of an adult human but they do love me. They express teir love for me whether I am in a bad mood, whether I have just scolded them.

I do agree that the love Christ taught has to be arrived at by a reasoned act of will. The love you show to strangers by helping them is not the love I have for my family or the love my dogs have for me.
So why doesn’t Chilly Chimp in the wild outdoors love you? Is love unique to dogs? If so, then where is the love, for you, in a pack of wild dogs?

Again, you refer to domesticated animals. I know you think they love you. I had a dog for 18 years that meant the world to me. He was very affectionate and very tuned to my mood. That does not mean that animals have the discernment of will capable of “love.” It is a conditioned, bred, behavior. Unless you are willing to say that Planet of the Apes *will *happen and that we are merely further along on the evolutionary spectrum?

Love is *not *a feeling. We experience good feelings when we say we love others and they love us, but that, in and of itself is *not *love. That is one of the reasons marriages break down so easily these days. It is the recent phenomenon of tying “feeling in love,” to actually making the daily decision to love. When those warm fuzzy feelings wear off many people decide that they are no longer “in love,” as they call it. They don’t make a daily decision to love because they just don’t “feel love” anymore.

Love is a choice. One must have free will in order to love. Chilly Chimp must come to you of his own volition, and stay without treats or traps. He has to be able to give intellectual consent, and discernment of the will to actually be able to love.
 
So why doesn’t Chilly Chimp in the wild outdoors love you? Is love unique to dogs? If so, then where is the love, for you, in a pack of wild dogs?

Again, you refer to domesticated animals. I know you think they love you. I had a dog for 18 years that meant the world to me. He was very affectionate and very tuned to my mood. That does not mean that animals have the discernment of will capable of “love.” It is a conditioned, bred, behavior. Unless you are willing to say that Planet of the Apes *will *happen and that we are merely further along on the evolutionary spectrum?

Love is *not *a feeling. We experience good feelings when we say we love others and they love us, but that, in and of itself is *not *love. That is one of the reasons marriages break down so easily these days. It is the recent phenomenon of tying “feeling in love,” to actually making the daily decision to love. When those warm fuzzy feelings wear off many people decide that they are no longer “in love,” as they call it. They don’t make a daily decision to love because they just don’t “feel love” anymore.

Love is a choice. One must have free will in order to love. Chilly Chimp must come to you of his own volition, and stay without treats or traps. He has to be able to give intellectual consent, and discernment of the will to actually be able to love.
I do not have any contact with or any relationship with any pack of wild dogs. So why would such wild dogs know me at all? Yes I am of course talking about animals I had and have who love me, had afection for me, the term does not matter, What has Planet of the Apes have to do with this issue? Are you saying that only humans can have feelings? The fact that animals have feelings des not diminish what we are. Only we can diminish what we are.

Human beings being in love or loving or being in ove with love is another issue. A person can start with falling in love, go on to really love another person and it is that love that keeps him/her going in the relationship with that other person through problems. I do not believe it is a intellectual decision when omeone falls in love.

My dogs do not run to me when I come home for treats. They know no treats are forhcoming. I am sure they did not make an intellectual decision to love me but they do. I have seen crows stay with an injured crow feeding it and protecting it. It does not take great intellect to feel.
 
It does not take great intellect to feel.
Since you have defined love as a feeling, not as an act of the will, further conversation would go nowhere.

Love is not a feeling. Love is an act of the will., “Faith, Hope, and Love, and the greatest of these is Love.” Love is an action, not just an ability to feel.
 
Since you have defined love as a feeling, not as an act of the will, further conversation would go nowhere.

Love is not a feeling. Love is an act of the will., “Faith, Hope, and Love, and the greatest of these is Love.” Love is an action, not just an ability to feel.
I did post on the love Christ taught us, to love our neighbour. The care Mother Theresa gve to lepers for instance was an act of love which required will. You do not require will power or reason to love your family or someone you fall in love with.
 
There are three maybe four ways to approach the question of differences between a chimpanzee and a human.
  1. The easiest way to approach a question regarding any major difference between a human and an animal is to robustly deny the existence of real differences.
It is easy to agree with those who hold the materialistic philosophy that humans are simply matter like any other living organism. Claiming that the evolutionary theory is the only way to view human beings, non-theists, bolstered by the bravado of some biologists in the popular media, like to state that the person reading this post is in the same classification as other animals with only slight differences in degrees regarding respective skills. For example, cheetahs run faster. Ah, one asks. If cheetahs run faster, why aren’t they on the U.S. Olympic Team?
  1. The hardest way to separate humans from their cousin chimps is to recognize the existence of the supernatural in the manner taught by the Catholic Church.
Ah, one says. The realm of formal science is limited to the material and physical. True. But that does not automatically eliminate the supernatural realm from one’s own personal inquiry. Charles Darwin’s philosophical position, that all reality is material, cannot address the uniqueness of the person reading this post. Consequently, the spiritual, eternal soul was eliminated. On the other hand, Catholicism offers truth-filled answers to serious questions about eternal life.
For further information, please use this handy link.www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.
 
From the OP
Do not let chilly chimp distract one from posting the serious questions about phylogenetic classification, assumptions, clades,
hominids, …
Beautiful human nature is being hammered in the fine print of CAF posts as people attempt to demote Adam and Eve from their rightful place as sole parents of the human race. The fancy word symbolic is the mantra. It is easy to mimic the mantra and wave the flag of genetic research in compliance with those who, for one reason or another, fail to understand and accept the true, fully complete, human nature.

The unsuspecting reader can become confused between hominids, pre-humans and modern fully complete humans. For example: In the beginning of his research paper “Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins”, Francisco Ayala refers to human evolution. Since the general assumption of genetic research is that a person is a biological animal, the question “What does Ayala mean by human?” must be asked.

Careful reading reveals that Ayala is studying the origin (possibly hominids) of the anatomically modern human and not the current actual human being. In Ayala’s and other papers, one finds that a person is strictly a biological animal, made of matter dominated by DNA, etc. For the biological researcher, only anatomy is available for consideration. Genetic research is limited.

Is being considered only an anatomy specimen acceptable?
 
Beautiful human nature is being hammered in the fine print of CAF posts as people attempt to demote Adam and Eve from their rightful place as sole parents of the human race. The fancy word symbolic is the mantra. It is easy to mimic the mantra and wave the flag of genetic research in compliance with those who, for one reason or another, fail to understand and accept the true, fully complete, human nature.

The unsuspecting reader can become confused between hominids, pre-humans and modern fully complete humans. For example: In the beginning of his research paper “Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins”, Francisco Ayala refers to human evolution. Since the general assumption of genetic research is that a person is a biological animal, the question “What does Ayala mean by human?” must be asked.

Careful reading reveals that Ayala is studying the origin of the anatomically modern human and not the current actual human being. In Ayala’s and other papers, one finds that a person is strictly a biological animal, made of matter dominated by DNA, etc. For the biological researcher, only anatomy is available for consideration.

Is being considered only an anatomy specimen acceptable?
No - and the Popes have hammered this point.
 
Beautiful human nature is being hammered in the fine print of CAF posts as people attempt to demote Adam and Eve from their rightful place as sole parents of the human race. The fancy word symbolic is the mantra. It is easy to mimic the mantra and wave the flag of genetic research in compliance with those who, for one reason or another, fail to understand and accept the true, fully complete, human nature.
Excellent point, Granny. It is indeed “fine print” because the important and essential distinctions that you’ve been probing for have been covered-up in the discussions. True, fully complete, human nature is being mistaken (deliberately or not) for a certain kind of anatomy specimen.
 
Excellent point, Granny. It is indeed “fine print” because the important and essential distinctions that you’ve been probing for have been covered-up in the discussions. True, fully complete, human nature is being mistaken (deliberately or not) for a certain kind of anatomy specimen.
How have they been? Human beings are biologically animals. That does not mean we are not human beings with the free will and with the superior intellect given to us by God. We can only diminish ourselves by or own actions. We have been made special but I think we should stop saying how special we are and do things to show and earn the uniqueness God gave us.

Anatomy is anatomy, i is not about the emotions, feelings and the sou.
 
How have they been? Human beings are biologically animals. That does not mean we are not human beings with the free will and with the superior intellect given to us by God. We can only diminish ourselves by or own actions. We have been made special but I think we should stop saying how special we are and do things to show and earn the uniqueness God gave us.

Anatomy is anatomy, i is not about the emotions, feelings and the sou.
Please, how would you describe the human being to include the soul?
 
How have they been? Human beings are biologically animals.
In Catholic theology, the soul is the form of the body. Human beings cannot be reduced to biology alone. The difference between human and animal is one of ontology - order of being, and not of genetics or biological features. This is covered-up when a theory proposes to explain the origin of human beings – as if that can be explained without reference to the soul, the defining characteristic of humans.
That does not mean we are not human beings with the free will and with the superior intellect given to us by God.
We should remember that free will, consciousness, rationality, imagination and all the aspects of the soul have a profound impact on what it means to be human – even in the biological sense. The placebo effect is one of many examples of this.
We can only diminish ourselves by or own actions.
We can diminish ourselves by false teaching – as in Darwinian theory. Or in the Nestorian heresy which separated soul from body.
We have been made special but I think we should stop saying how special we are and do things to show and earn the uniqueness God gave us.
The danger here is to follow logically and claim that a certain person is not sacred in the eyes of God because “he’s not doing anything to show how special he is”. Even a very bad sinner is loved by God – loved eternally. Not for what he does, but for what he is. A human being is sacred not because we claim it to be so, but because God has made it so. Human beings are eternal – because their souls are created by God for eternity.
 
The thing is, the powers that distinguish human from animal souls aren’t operated through corporeal organs.
 
In Catholic theology, the soul is the form of the body. Human beings cannot be reduced to biology alone. The difference between human and animal is one of ontology - order of being, and not of genetics or biological features. This is covered-up when a theory proposes to explain the origin of human beings – as if that can be explained without reference to the soul, the defining characteristic of humans.

We should remember that free will, consciousness, rationality, imagination and all the aspects of the soul have a profound impact on what it means to be human – even in the biological sense. The placebo effect is one of many examples of this.

We can diminish ourselves by false teaching – as in Darwinian theory. Or in the Nestorian heresy which separated soul from body.

The danger here is to follow logically and claim that a certain person is not sacred in the eyes of God because “he’s not doing anything to show how special he is”. Even a very bad sinner is loved by God – loved eternally. Not for what he does, but for what he is. A human being is sacred not because we claim it to be so, but because God has made it so. Human beings are eternal – because their souls are created by God for eternity.
No one is reducing anyone to biology alone. Who is explaining what human beings are without takng into acount of our souls. I was making a verysimple point. Saying human eings come under the larger classification of animals as opposedto minerals or plants does not take away the spect of the soul and what God humans beings for. We are different from non human animals.

Yes God loves us, even sinners. So we just sit around saying we are special and do not do have to do anything?
 
It seems that what distinguishes human nature from all other earthly nature is innermost and not subject to observation. The paradox of this is that man is surrounded by the evidence of it’s existence. It seems, in the measure it is innermost and sublime, it is external and obvious.
 
Yes God loves us, even sinners. So we just sit around saying we are special and do not do have to do anything?
No, it’s not enough to just do nothing. But we have to say that humans are sacred – even those that are not attractive, or handicapped people in wheelchairs or unborn infants who don’t do anything. So, we have to respect ourselves and others because we’re sacred – created by God.

But on your point – it’s not enough to stop there. Our human nature, as special as it is – is not sufficient alone for salvation. We have to rise above nature – through grace. That’s what baptism does – lifts us above what human nature alone can provide.

We have to pray and live by faith – and serve God. So in that regard, it’s not enough just to say that we’re sacred and eternal beings, because that alone does not bring us to salvation.
 
It seems that what distinguishes human nature from all other earthly nature is innermost and not subject to observation. The paradox of this is that man is surrounded by the evidence of it’s existence. It seems, in the measure it is innermost and sublime, it is external and obvious.
It’s not subject to direct, empirical, scientific observation. But there are other means of observation that we have available to us. But also, we can observe the effects of the soul – in our free-will decision-making and our rational powers, use of language, appreciation of beauty, etc.
 
No, it’s not enough to just do nothing. But we have to say that humans are sacred – even those that are not attractive, or handicapped people in wheelchairs or unborn infants who don’t do anything. So, we have to respect ourselves and others because we’re sacred – created by God.

But on your point – it’s not enough to stop there. Our human nature, as special as it is – is not sufficient alone for salvation. We have to rise above nature – through grace. That’s what baptism does – lifts us above what human nature alone can provide.

We have to pray and live by faith – and serve God. So in that regard, it’s not enough just to say that we’re sacred and eternal beings, because that alone does not bring us to salvation.
Agreed.
 
In the rush to demote humans from our rightful place in God’s creation and consequently banish the Creator, there are a few people who look to science with blind eyes.

But, if one is seriously seeking information, then one should examine the research itself. Sections on materials and methods become reality checks. For those interested in the ingredients of research, here is an example.

Basic Math in Monkeys and College Students

Jessica F. Cantlon, Elizabeth M. Brannon
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America

**Citation: **Cantlon JF, Brannon EM (2007) Basic Math in Monkeys and College Students. PLoS Biol 5(12): e328. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050328
Author Summary
Adult humans possess mathematical abilities that are unmatched by any other member of the animal kingdom. Yet, there is increasing evidence that the ability to enumerate sets of objects nonverbally is a capacity that humans share with other animal species. That is, like humans, nonhuman animals possess the ability to estimate and compare numerical values nonverbally.

We asked whether humans and nonhuman animals also share a capacity for nonverbal arithmetic. We tested monkeys and college students on a nonverbal arithmetic task in which they had to add the numerical values of two sets of dots together and choose a stimulus from two options that reflected the arithmetic sum of the two sets.

Our results indicate that monkeys perform approximate mental addition in a manner that is remarkably similar to the performance of the college students. These findings support the argument that humans and nonhuman primates share a cognitive system for nonverbal arithmetic, which likely reflects an evolutionary link in their cognitive abilities.
Check out the interesting “Materials and Methods” section below.
Training monkeys.
Prior to training on the addition task, monkeys were trained on a numerical matching task in which a sample array of 1–9 dots was presented and they were rewarded for selecting the array that numerically matched the sample set from two choices (see 9]). Monkeys reached a 70% criterion on this numerical matching task before training on the addition task.

For the initial training on the addition task, monkeys were presented with a limited range of addition problems: 1 + 1 = 2, 4, or 8; 2 + 2 = 2, 4, or 8; 4 + 4 = 2, 4, or 8. Monkeys completed ~9,000 trials on this phase of training; however, as reported in the results section, their performance was above chance within the first 500 trials. Next, we expanded the range of addition problems by testing all possible addends of the sums 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. For example, when 8 was the sum, the addends could be 1 + 7, 2 + 6, 3 + 5, 4 + 4, 5 + 3, 6 + 2, or 7 + 1. Each sum was equally likely to occur as the correct and incorrect choices. Monkeys completed approximately 5,000 trials on this phase of training before we tested them with novel addition problems. Throughout training and testing, we included trials in which the monkeys were not required to add. On these trials, a single set of dots was presented on monkeys were required to select the choice stimulus that corresponded to its numerical value. These single-set trials were analyzed separately from the addition trials as a measure of monkey’s numerical performance in the absence of arithmetic computation.
Task instructions for adult humans.
Adult humans were instructed to press the start stimulus to initiate each trial and then to attend to the number of dots in each set, add them together without verbally counting, and rapidly select the box that contained their sum from two choices. The task was demonstrated by the experimenter for 3–5 trials, the subject practiced the task for 3–5 trials, and then testing began.
Please
let me know what you think.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top