ChatterBank5 mins ago
Life On Earth, Science Vs Religion
I don't wish to denigrate any individuals beliefs, but I am curious how this story is received by those who follow religion and the origins of the earth taught through religion.
Do some Christians take the biblical accounts of creation literally, believing that they describe exactly how the universe and human beings were created.
http://
Do some Christians take the biblical accounts of creation literally, believing that they describe exactly how the universe and human beings were created.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jd_1984. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jomifl; //I went to all the trouble of compiling a (partial) list of animals that don't sleep and yet you insist on denying its' veracity.//
I'm sorry compiling your list caused you trouble, but as I pointed out those on it are barely animals and if they are of a very low order and anyway, insufficient is known about what actually constitutes sleep in some creatures. The fact is that sleep is primarily a function of the brain, so it's expected that without a brain that is developed enough to actually sleep, the animal won't sleep. You need a brain to sleep, so Cnidarians (jellyfish, hydra, coral) never sleep. Sponges never sleep. Plants, bacteria and fungi do not sleep also.
You don't give a very compelling argument to the contrary here, as your case rests it seems mostly on terminology. If either of us has a 'whacky agenda' I don't think it's me. To the list I gave of the things we humans do not understand about ourselves and our environment you picked on only this one, so may I conclude that you are in agreement on everything else?
I'm sorry compiling your list caused you trouble, but as I pointed out those on it are barely animals and if they are of a very low order and anyway, insufficient is known about what actually constitutes sleep in some creatures. The fact is that sleep is primarily a function of the brain, so it's expected that without a brain that is developed enough to actually sleep, the animal won't sleep. You need a brain to sleep, so Cnidarians (jellyfish, hydra, coral) never sleep. Sponges never sleep. Plants, bacteria and fungi do not sleep also.
You don't give a very compelling argument to the contrary here, as your case rests it seems mostly on terminology. If either of us has a 'whacky agenda' I don't think it's me. To the list I gave of the things we humans do not understand about ourselves and our environment you picked on only this one, so may I conclude that you are in agreement on everything else?
Only for a short while ZM..Khandro is still trying to come to terms with the fact that he doesn't actually know what animals are but he does concede that a brain is necessary for sleep, so some progress. I am still waiting for Khandro's sucker punch when he lets us know what this has to do with the origin of life. Lucky jd_1984 just has to sit back and try to make sense of it all. F1 starts soon thank ...whoever,
jomifl; To see how the subject arose please go to my post to Hypo 10:24 today (of which he has not yet responded)
and as to "but he does concede that a brain is necessary for sleep" you wriggle like one of your worms. This is precisely what I say and you know it, and bringing in a list of brainless creatures does not disprove it.
and as to "but he does concede that a brain is necessary for sleep" you wriggle like one of your worms. This is precisely what I say and you know it, and bringing in a list of brainless creatures does not disprove it.
@Khandro
If you refuse to accept the way biologists use the word 'animal' it is not just your problem, it is everybody's problem because the thread then degenerates into other people - in this case, jomifl - spending time patiently explaining, to you, what the world-accepted definition of that jargon term is while you sit there, refusing to acknowledge that you got it wrong.
It's as if you are putting on a performance and cannot afford to make a single public mis-step. Do you have a huge following, or something?
Meanwhile, I googled "crustaceans brain" and got several interesting results. Among them, this:-
http://
If you refuse to accept the way biologists use the word 'animal' it is not just your problem, it is everybody's problem because the thread then degenerates into other people - in this case, jomifl - spending time patiently explaining, to you, what the world-accepted definition of that jargon term is while you sit there, refusing to acknowledge that you got it wrong.
It's as if you are putting on a performance and cannot afford to make a single public mis-step. Do you have a huge following, or something?
Meanwhile, I googled "crustaceans brain" and got several interesting results. Among them, this:-
http://
-- answer removed --
Hypo; No one is talking about crustaceans, the word I said is Cnidarians - please pay attention.
And I have absolutely no issue with the way biologists use the word 'animal', I merely point out that some are without brains and so do not sleep, because sleep is a function of a brain, what is the problem?
And I have absolutely no issue with the way biologists use the word 'animal', I merely point out that some are without brains and so do not sleep, because sleep is a function of a brain, what is the problem?
/you wriggle like one of your worms/
Classic khandro, deliberately missing the point whilst at the same time slipping in a sly insult..
Bacteria, plants and fungi are not animals either...
so to recap,
Most animals on the planet do not sleep.
Only animals with complex brains sleep.
Some animals with complex brains dream
Khandro does not know what animals are.
We do not know what the point of this argument is.
Help.
Classic khandro, deliberately missing the point whilst at the same time slipping in a sly insult..
Bacteria, plants and fungi are not animals either...
so to recap,
Most animals on the planet do not sleep.
Only animals with complex brains sleep.
Some animals with complex brains dream
Khandro does not know what animals are.
We do not know what the point of this argument is.
Help.
@Khandro
I look forward to the word Cnidarians sneaking into quiz shows, in future. Not in common currency, at the moment. Luckily, you translated it for us.
Wiki:
"Cnidarians' activities are coordinated by a decentralized nerve net and simple receptors. Several free-swimming Cubozoa and Scyphozoa possess balance-sensing statocysts, and some have simple eyes."
In the 90s, neural nets were mych vaunted as the inspiration for a future where parallel-processor computing was the norm. That never properly came about because we understand the workings of biological neural nets too poorly to be able to work out how to program their digital analogues.
A neural net computer is able to say "yes", "no" *and* "maybe". More than just trinary - black, white and shades of grey.
Anyway, they put it on the back burner and went back to linear code execution and time-slicing CPUs, which give the illusion of parallel processing. Because it was so much easier to write software.
I look forward to the word Cnidarians sneaking into quiz shows, in future. Not in common currency, at the moment. Luckily, you translated it for us.
Wiki:
"Cnidarians' activities are coordinated by a decentralized nerve net and simple receptors. Several free-swimming Cubozoa and Scyphozoa possess balance-sensing statocysts, and some have simple eyes."
In the 90s, neural nets were mych vaunted as the inspiration for a future where parallel-processor computing was the norm. That never properly came about because we understand the workings of biological neural nets too poorly to be able to work out how to program their digital analogues.
A neural net computer is able to say "yes", "no" *and* "maybe". More than just trinary - black, white and shades of grey.
Anyway, they put it on the back burner and went back to linear code execution and time-slicing CPUs, which give the illusion of parallel processing. Because it was so much easier to write software.
jomifl; //Some animals with complex brains dream// Sorry, ALL animals with brains, complex or not, dream, though we're not certain at the moment about the Giant Anteater, but he might have a different system of doing so. My whole point throughout.
And //We do not know what the point of this argument is.
Help.//
Strange, when it was you who started it.
And //We do not know what the point of this argument is.
Help.//
Strange, when it was you who started it.
-- answer removed --
Just 2 points Khandro'
1. you stated that all animals sleep, I said that was untrue since most animals didn't sleep and you subsequently tried to move the goalposts, change the referee and hide in the changing rooms.
2. You have just stated that all animals with complex brains dream. Ignoring the fact that we don't have a definition of 'complex brains' you are unable to substantiate that statement as only very few animals have been tested for the brain electrical activity associated with dreaming. There are many animals with 'complex brains that have never been in captivity and more that haven't been discovered.
1. you stated that all animals sleep, I said that was untrue since most animals didn't sleep and you subsequently tried to move the goalposts, change the referee and hide in the changing rooms.
2. You have just stated that all animals with complex brains dream. Ignoring the fact that we don't have a definition of 'complex brains' you are unable to substantiate that statement as only very few animals have been tested for the brain electrical activity associated with dreaming. There are many animals with 'complex brains that have never been in captivity and more that haven't been discovered.
jomifl; It is clear that you simply want to be tiresomely argumentative, I think it fair to say that when asked, most people's idea of the world's sleeping dreaming fauna would not be of tapeworms and coral.
You also not only started the 'argument' on my statement on dreaming-sleep, you also have now introduced the expression 'complex brains' and want me to 'substantiate' it! Pack it in, you are beginning to sound daft.
You state "There are many animals with 'complex brains that have never been in captivity and more that haven't been discovered." I suggest that most known animals have been in captivity (that's how they are known) and studied by biologists and zoologists. As to the characteristics of those which "haven't been discovered" - do me a favour!
You also not only started the 'argument' on my statement on dreaming-sleep, you also have now introduced the expression 'complex brains' and want me to 'substantiate' it! Pack it in, you are beginning to sound daft.
You state "There are many animals with 'complex brains that have never been in captivity and more that haven't been discovered." I suggest that most known animals have been in captivity (that's how they are known) and studied by biologists and zoologists. As to the characteristics of those which "haven't been discovered" - do me a favour!
-- answer removed --
@Khandro
You have an easy out: just say that you are parodying the way in which scientist types bang on about religion without having read the holy books fully, or properly or even that, having read selected passages, that they have still failed to grasp their correct meaning. Or that they wilfully misinterstand sections which instruct adherents to do X to persons of type Y.
If we stopped treading on one another's turf, I'm sure we could rub along just fine. Yeah, I know Darwin trod on the Church's territory first
but he was only concerned with helping humanity to, you know, grow.
The church wants us all to "be as children". Seen and not heard, probably.
You have an easy out: just say that you are parodying the way in which scientist types bang on about religion without having read the holy books fully, or properly or even that, having read selected passages, that they have still failed to grasp their correct meaning. Or that they wilfully misinterstand sections which instruct adherents to do X to persons of type Y.
If we stopped treading on one another's turf, I'm sure we could rub along just fine. Yeah, I know Darwin trod on the Church's territory first
but he was only concerned with helping humanity to, you know, grow.
The church wants us all to "be as children". Seen and not heard, probably.
For what it is worth, the detour was caused by one too many statements - for rhetorical purposes, presumably - along the lines of "We don't know..." viz:
//Hypo; ///I pride myself on never preaching atheism and prefer others to reach it by their own thought processes.///
Good for you! You sound sometimes as though you were not too far remote from the sensible position of Agnosticism.
Though we now know more than we once did about ourselves and surroundings, we still do not fully understand time or space (macro and micro) nor where we come from or where we are going. We don't know why every living creature needs to sleep (and dream). We don't know if we are alone in the universe or how the universe started (and why) and quite a lot more.//
I didn't follow up the above so
1) I think I should be the one to say whether I am agnostic or not.
2) What is 'sensible' about agnosticism? Maybe start a fresh thread on that, if it
has not been done to death on AB, in the past.
3) Yes, there is much we don't know. I sincerely hope that there are
still plenty of things for curious minds to be researching into, long after I'm gone.
4) //Where we are going//
Nowhere beyond the bounds of this solar system, if we don't stop killing each other, get our act together and get on with it!
5) //Why we sleep//
Bodily repair, to a great extent. Growing, if you're under 21. Cannot hunt or gather if it is too dark to see what you're doing. Shut down metabolically expensive unnecessary functions.
6) //Why we dream//
Computery types might like to describe it as "garbage collection", or "defragging". Sifting what is going to be committed to long-term memory and what to throw away. People with poor quality sleep develop mild memory loss.
7) //The universe: Why?//
The eternal question. I insist on asking why does there have to be *any* reason for it? Why can't it just *be*?
I like things that are irrational because it leaves room for thought and imagination and speculation. (Intoxicant-fuelled, if one so chooses).
I am tempted to suggest that we forget about the why and just get on with our lives but I know that it is a basic human desire to know the answer to "what's it all for??" I'd risk being thought unromantic for pooh-poohing such wistful thoughts.
//Hypo; ///I pride myself on never preaching atheism and prefer others to reach it by their own thought processes.///
Good for you! You sound sometimes as though you were not too far remote from the sensible position of Agnosticism.
Though we now know more than we once did about ourselves and surroundings, we still do not fully understand time or space (macro and micro) nor where we come from or where we are going. We don't know why every living creature needs to sleep (and dream). We don't know if we are alone in the universe or how the universe started (and why) and quite a lot more.//
I didn't follow up the above so
1) I think I should be the one to say whether I am agnostic or not.
2) What is 'sensible' about agnosticism? Maybe start a fresh thread on that, if it
has not been done to death on AB, in the past.
3) Yes, there is much we don't know. I sincerely hope that there are
still plenty of things for curious minds to be researching into, long after I'm gone.
4) //Where we are going//
Nowhere beyond the bounds of this solar system, if we don't stop killing each other, get our act together and get on with it!
5) //Why we sleep//
Bodily repair, to a great extent. Growing, if you're under 21. Cannot hunt or gather if it is too dark to see what you're doing. Shut down metabolically expensive unnecessary functions.
6) //Why we dream//
Computery types might like to describe it as "garbage collection", or "defragging". Sifting what is going to be committed to long-term memory and what to throw away. People with poor quality sleep develop mild memory loss.
7) //The universe: Why?//
The eternal question. I insist on asking why does there have to be *any* reason for it? Why can't it just *be*?
I like things that are irrational because it leaves room for thought and imagination and speculation. (Intoxicant-fuelled, if one so chooses).
I am tempted to suggest that we forget about the why and just get on with our lives but I know that it is a basic human desire to know the answer to "what's it all for??" I'd risk being thought unromantic for pooh-poohing such wistful thoughts.
Divebuddy; It's a long time ago since I read about anteaters and REM sleep - which is the subject not sleep itself and you would know that if you had read the thread - and I was wrong to say "Giant" I have just checked and it is "Spiny". https:/
This article says that contrary to previous belief it has been recently discovered that they DO undergo REM sleep (proving that they dream) but only in certain ambient conditions.
Regarding Kestrels - I haven't a clue what you are talking about, and I haven't as far as I know ever mentioned them here or anywhere else.
This article says that contrary to previous belief it has been recently discovered that they DO undergo REM sleep (proving that they dream) but only in certain ambient conditions.
Regarding Kestrels - I haven't a clue what you are talking about, and I haven't as far as I know ever mentioned them here or anywhere else.
/jomifl; It is clear that you simply want to be tiresomely argumentative,/
Possibly I am to you, but you did say this;
/as I pointed out those on it are barely animals and if they are of a very low order and anyway, insufficient is known about what actually constitutes sleep in some creatures./
Which is a controversial statement on several levels and contradicts your pedantic argument that all animals sleep as you then state that 'insufficient is known'.
Possibly I am to you, but you did say this;
/as I pointed out those on it are barely animals and if they are of a very low order and anyway, insufficient is known about what actually constitutes sleep in some creatures./
Which is a controversial statement on several levels and contradicts your pedantic argument that all animals sleep as you then state that 'insufficient is known'.
