Behold the first specimen of uncount-count nouns of the English language!"This data have made a lot of people step back and realize that a lot of what they had thought about cnidarians was all wrong."
Brazilian dude
Admittedly, the style is lapidary, but there's no word missing BD - perhaps a comma. Try it this way :There's some word missing here, isn't there? I really don't get it. ...do you believe the study of other species in order to shed light on our own simplistic not only when the behaviour is the object of study, but also when it is the body (morphology, genetics, etc)
Easier to understand ? Otherwise, one could always insert a «to be» or an «is» before «simplistic», but that would be giving the game away....do you believe the study of other species in order to shed light on our own simplistic, not only when the behaviour is the object of study, but also when it is the body (morphology, genetics, etc)
I can only offer anecdotical evidence, but anyway. My father was a merchant navy captain. The way they worked in those days, I didn't see him too many days per year. We partly made up for that by writing letters.Benefits of Active Fathering
As they grow, children who have highly involved fathers often do better in some areas of development than children who have less involved fathers. They tend to become better at solving problems and handling frustrations, more socially skilled, more understanding of other’s feelings, and better at dealing with a variety of people. Active fathering also contributes to a child’s sense of humor, attention span, and eagerness to explore and learn.
No, I think the studies of anatomy, neurons, muscle, etc. may well be interesting and revealing, but I think that again it may be an oversimplification to use these findings in a way that does not treat individual species, subspecies, and, even, individuals organisms with the uniqueness they deserve, and can lead to many false assumptions and dangerous conclusions.do you believe the study of other species in order to shed light on our own (to be) simplistic not only when the behaviour is the object of study, but also when it is the body (morphology, genetics, etc) ?
The problem I see with comparing the behavior of animals and humans, esp. as you have intimated, Henri, with an eye to finding our "true biological" nature and the "ideal" structure of human society is very misguided.Animal-based research cannot be extrapolated to humans because of species differences and is therefore misleading and counterproductive. Testing a drug or chemical on an animal provides no evidence that it is safe for humans: animals do not react in the same way to drugs and other substances as we do, due to differences in their absorption, distribution, metabolism, response to and elimination of drugs. Diseases which are induced artificially in the laboratory in order to evaluate drugs can never be compared to those arising spontaneously in humans.
I just don't see how! I realize that from your materialist vantage point there isn't really any difference between brain biology and behavior, but Human Beings are moral agents with freedom of choice; Chimps and other Apes do not have this responsiblity. At some level we make choices against our instincts, whether that be an excess of passion or a stoic restraint.But the insights gained.....can help us to create testable hypotheses concerning the consequences of the experiments on social order that we constantly perform on ourselves.
In her lab, Ayako Yamaguchi has found that female cardinals learn to sing about three times faster than males, but that males ultimately acquire a wider repertoire of songs.
Sponging dolphins learn from mum….a cardinal’s song is more than a pleasant assurance of spring: it’s a biological puzzle that may shed light on how birds and whales and humans learn to vocalize.
Young female chimps outlearn their brothersFemale bottlenose dolphins are taught by their mothers to use marine sponges to look for food, according to a study.
The role of a protein source was never mentioned in the article you posted, Henri!Protein source
Lonsdorf adds that there are just two main sources of animal protein for chimps - the termites or colobus monkeys.
And, Henri, I was not asking a rhetorical question! I would like to know what we are supposed to have learned about humans from this study!But young male chimps may hunt and throw sooner than females. Sound familiar? Yep, human girls frequently learn to write and draw first, but boys often run and toss balls earlier than girls. Guess you'd call that "going ape"!
[rant]quote]
No, I think the studies of anatomy, neurons, muscle, etc. may well be interesting and revealing, but I think that again it may be an oversimplification to use these findings in a way that does not treat individual species, subspecies, and, even, individuals organisms with the uniqueness they deserve, and can lead to many false assumptions and dangerous conclusions.
.
There we quite agree, Apo ! But these oversimplifications are rarely, in my experience, found in the scientific articles describing the research in question. Drawing parallels between attributes of one species and those of another is certainly legitimate (that is, I understand, precisely how we learn, by drawing parallels between what we know and what we don't know, incorporating the latter into the general structure of our epistomologies), but becomes problematic when the uncertainties involved are not discussed. Unfortunately, popular articles are generally written in such a way that the reader is encouraged to believe that the hard work is done and over when the parallels have been drawn. Rather, it is just beginning, for then comes the arduous process of attempting to test the validity of the relationship hypothesised to obtain between the observed phenomena. Popular articles rarely deal with this phase, presumably because the writers - or the editors - even if they understand it themselves, which many not always be the case, assume that the matter is too difficult for their readers. And perhaps they are right - not everything is always as obvious and simple as we should like it to be, and not all of us are interested in pursuing difficult matters to the bottom (or as close to it as we can come with our brains, which are big for our bodies but woefully inadequate to the task of understanding the immense universe of which we constitute a part).......
No, I think the studies of anatomy, neurons, muscle, etc. may well be interesting and revealing, but I think that again it may be an oversimplification to use these findings in a way that does not treat individual species, subspecies, and, even, individuals organisms with the uniqueness they deserve, and can lead to many false assumptions and dangerous conclusions. ...
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 49 guests