|
|
[
by at1with0 » Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:38 pm
Wing-Zero wrote:at1with0 wrote:So you don't see a difference between sex and cannibalism and murder?
I believe what he's going for is that, while animals don't acknowledge that sort understanding and consequence of actions, humans do.
by Wing-Zero » Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:44 pm
at1with0 wrote:Wing-Zero wrote:at1with0 wrote:So you don't see a difference between sex and cannibalism and murder?
I believe what he's going for is that, while animals don't acknowledge that sort understanding and consequence of actions, humans do.
I got that. What negative consequences are we talking about here that compare to cannibalism and murder?
by bionic » Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:20 pm
by at1with0 » Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:55 pm
by bionic » Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:47 pm
by Guest » Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:04 am
greeney2 wrote:tichan, this is an old subject but since you dredged it out, tha animal observation theory is about as stupid of an argument, as anyone could defend homosexuality with. But if you insist, thinking the human mind computes on a level equal to a fruit fly, worm, or frog is ignorant. 1500 species represents a fraction of a .00 1% percent of all species, and of the 1500 there are millions upon millions, of different animal species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species.
Secondly, the sexual habits of a worm, knat, or reptile in no way represents those of a intellegent life forms in any way, shape, or form, and claiming that of the worm has some sort of "same sex attraction" is ludicras .
Equally stupid would be the logic that if the animal kingdom kills one another, and many will eat their young,(maybe 1500 of them) humans should be considered normal for canniblism. That murder is a natural and normal act of nature, so its normal for humans, and murder should be legal. Just observe any tropical fish tank, if you fit inside someone else mouth, you become dinner, and humans do not ear their babies.
Animals are not capable of intellectual thinking, they are not capable of even knowing what constitutes right or wrong, moral or immoral, capable of mating with non-related species. They couldn't care less if they pooped on your front lawn or you priceless Perian Rug. The genetic program of the animal kingdom separates the species and rendered reproduction of most unlike species impossible. There has never been observed a same sex attaction of unlike species. Never been a snake fall in love with a rat, a bird with a worm, or a lion with a antalope. Many species of the animal and bird kingdom do mate only with a single mate for life. Fish return to the very stream they were born in to spawn and die.
The theory of these animal observations, is some basis for a emotional same sex human behavior, is a far far stretch and not even sensible.
by greeney2 » Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:27 am
by Guest » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:44 pm
by Guest » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:55 pm
by greeney2 » Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:59 pm
Numbers of species
Undiscovered and discovered species[verification needed][citation needed]Bearing in mind the aforementioned problems with categorising species, the following numbers are only a soft guide. In 2007, they broke down as follows:[15]
Total number of species (estimated): 7–100 millions (identified and unidentified), including:
5–10 million bacteria;[16]
74,000–120,000 fungi;[17]
Of the identified eukaryote species we have:[15]
1.6 million, including:
297,326 plants, including:
15,000 mosses,
13,025 Ferns and horsetails,
980 gymnosperms,
258,650 angiosperms,
199,350 dicotyledons,
59,300 monocotyledons,
9,671 Red and green algae,
28,849 fungi & other non-animals, including:
10,000 lichens,
16,000 mushrooms,
2,849 brown algae,
1,250,000 animals, including:
1,203,375 invertebrates:
950,000 insects,
81,000 mollusks,
40,000 crustaceans,
2,175 corals,
130,200 others;
59,811 vertebrates:
29,300 fish,
6,199 amphibians,
8,240 reptiles,
9,956 birds,
5,416 mammals
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
