does anyone else feel that humans are an artificial and unnatural

>>36630516
That's more a symptom of our language than anything else. For example people say "I came into this world" when it is more accurate to say "I came out of this world"

>>36630516
Humanity has been propelled significantly by its symbiotic relationship with mitochondria; DNA of a completely different virus. If you've read into the effects of lobotomy you'd know this seems to cause some discrepancies when the two hemispheres of the brain activate. Further research is required.

>>36631846
>humans have been propelled differently by it's symbiotic relationship with mitochondria
You mean us and every single other multicellular organism?

>>36630516
You spelled "filthy abomination" really weird.

>>36632012
Do you tip your fedora after posting?

File: 1477792434238.jpg (50KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x600px

>>36632091
Die, human.

File: sm-lagrangian1.gif (31KB, 821x467px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 821x467px

>>36631976
Not every multicellular organism has been introduced to mitochondria. This isn't common knowledge though as the discovery was just recently made; I invite you to go take a look. And OP asked about humans specifically.

>>36631846
can you write this so a dumbfag like me can understand because it seems really interesting

I don't think that humans are unnatural and artificial. I think the rules that society forces us to play by are though. Robots, especially the neet kind, are just people who fail to adapt to these pressures. Without realizing it they are rejecting the terms of the social contract that allows you to be a part of society. They know society is shit. Many of them long to be normal. They feel tfw no gf, tfw no purpose or meaning. But would a job and personal success really give them that?

I always think about this song a lot and it's message: https://youtu.be/nJQa4KpyufU

Civilization is at odds with nature itself.

>>36632184
It is interesting; it's reality. You need to go and find the information for yourself. I could have no idea what it is I'm talking about, and you would perpetuate misinformation. Explore.

>>36630516
Homo Sapiens are unique as life on Terra, that due to our self-awareness, we have become colossally arrogant, so wrapped up in our self-importance that we forget our place. Homo Sapien is merely one sub-link in an unimaginably long and complex history of life. One day, the last of the homo sapiens will expire, and Terra will continue to spin, utterly uncaring of our brief existence.

Our utter insignificance in the universe as a whole is undeniable evidence of our natural evolution. We started from nothing, and one day, we will return back to nothing.

>>36631846
nigga dont try making people think that the plot of Parasite Eve wasn't full retard

>>36632323
Your considerations of significance are purely human too.

File: 1493429276176.jpg (173KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1280x720px

I can at least say that we are different than other animals on earth. Maybe we come from another place (how, no clue) or maybe its mandatory that after a while in any planet with live a dominating species appear and develops technology and language. Maybe its a strange occurrence, in the same way life was a strange occurrence in the movements of matter.

Sometimes i feel life is the only proof that something resembling a god exists. Like, at one point all that matter suddenly thought "i want to keep existing and i want to be more". That sounds like a sort of will from a being.

>>36632227
>>36630516
We lack a natural predator of our species. The neanderthals died I guess. Even if they hadn't that's twisted that they bred with their prey.

Because we are so successful we are now an extention level event, like a super big comet or super volcano.

File: 3453254.jpg (24KB, 495x495px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 495x495px

>>36630516
FUCK THAT IS AN AWFUL DRAWING
are you fucking blind you stupid nigger? can you not see how bad the proportions, linework and shading are?

>>36632599
We are our natural predator my dude

>>36632599
>We lack a natural predator of our species.
So do lions and other creatures at the top of the food chain.

>>36632637
the thumb on the right hand is on the wrong side

>>36632661
more than that you dumbfuck. its really really bad. Even I could do better than this. its honestly worse than entry level

>>36632723
relax you fucking dweeb

>>36632599
Beyond that modern humans forced almost all others who don't live our way to assimilate to our way of life. All the tribal people, the hunter gatherers. We forced them to assimilate. We mock the ones that are less successful. Think of all the edgy threads you've seen over the years about "LOL abbo hate thread" or "why is Africa so shitty and unsuccessful?" People assume it's because they are not white, or Asian, or any of the other racial group that found some success living this way. But they fail to realize that the agricultural revolution decimated their way of life and left them behind.

Our arrogance is eventually going to fuck us though. Them too. All the animals we eat, all the animals they eat, the plants we both eat. Because we just assume this is all here for us to take as our parents and grandparents did. We assume we can just keep making more and more humans and we'll be able to keep feeding them. That should we somehow destroy the fragile balance of everything corporate funded science will have the answers to everything. The earth is our whore and the corporations are her pimp. We keep paying and she keeps putting out as they beat her mercilessly. One day she's going to be nasty, used up, and dying. Hell the scientific community already believes that's what's happening. But let's not get into that dumb political discussion that comes out of even hinting at this.

The unabomber had the right idea. He was just hitting the wrong people for the wrong reasons. He shouldn't have hit computer stores. He should have went for the people mass marketing produce and meat. Nothing could stop this though. Nothing could stop this ten or even twenty years ago. Not even 40. The damage is already done. The box is open and it can't be shut. The collapse is inevitable.

>>36632771
>relax you fucking dweeb
kys double digit iq scum
you are ruining the planet

>>36632660
Yeah, but lions and shit can't permanently damage ecosystems the way we can.

File: 1457811951697.gif (812KB, 500x340px) Image search: [Google]

812KB, 500x340px

>>36630516
I study microbiology, so not really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU0M3uqGCuw

Take our immune system for example. Say you have a bacterial infection. Your T cells get a signal from an MHC-II molecule and, in an autocrine function, produce IL-2 to start clonal expansion. An entire cascade of events happen and you clear out every last one of the invading fuckers.

Now you have a bunch of T cells roaming around with nothing to do since all the bacteria is gone. Do they just sit there with their dicks out? No. They get a signal on their Fas receptor from a FasL (Fas ligand) to commit suicide via apoptosis.

Apoptosis is a special method of cell death which is immunologically silent. It's like if you hanged yourself and your room disappeared and your loved ones never knew that you existed. This function, however, is an ancient function. All vertebrates and invertebrates have cells that have this function. Even the fucking sponges have cells that use the same process. Even beyond the fact that we share similar immune systems to mice, pigs, dogs, and monkeys - the process of apoptosis implies that all eukaryotic cells come from a common ancestor. There was one or one group of primordial cells that integrated mitochondria in a magical moment and they were selected for above all else.

Either all eukaryotes are artificial or we all sprouted from the same Earth.

>>36633104
If you want to read more about apoptosis and its origins, check out this paper published in Nature (big dick science discoveries)

http://www.nature.com/cdd/journal/v9/n4/full/4400991a.html

>>36633104
>the process of apoptosis implies that all eukaryotic cells come from a common ancestor. There was one or one group of primordial cells that integrated mitochondria in a magical moment and they were selected for above all else.
>Either all eukaryotes are artificial or we all sprouted from the same Earth.
and this is why most scientists should avoid discussing art and meaning, theyre fucking garbage at it. youre a human calculator and little else

well memed son
>inb4 non stem faggot
guess again nigger, graduating with an engineering degree in a week

>>36633305
>Set out to show that humans aren't an artificial addition to the Earth
>Some bridge building undergraduate cuck tells me I'm not artistic enough

So we just happen to have the same immunological processes as all the other eukaryotes on Earth but it's more likely that we and we alone are some divine cancer placed on the planet? It may not be artistic, but at least I put forth an argument that has more than ad hominem in it.

>>36633382
>it's more likely that we and we alone are some divine cancer placed on the planet?
why are you assigning probability to supernatural events or principles of aesthetics
it doesnt make sense, whether you believe in it or not. its really fucking stupid.

>>36633417
Because when I presented it as an absolute you called me a human calculator.

>>36633440
>Because when I presented it as an absolute you called me a human calculator.
haha, thats not why I called you a human calculator.
>I presented it as an absolute
literally what. explain yourself

>>36632294
Biofag here. Spoiler: He has no idea what he's talking about.

>>36633518
I'm not the first one to say that the process of apoptosis implies a common ancestor for all eukaryotes. That's literally a part of the literature. You can find single celled eukaryotes going through apoptosis. Saying that this phenomenon is common to eukaryotes isn't trying to find art from science, it's a statement backed by evidence.

So, therefore, when the question was "does anyone else feel that humans are an artificial and unnatural addition to the world?" I answered "we share a natural process with all other eukaryotes, we're not comparatively artificial." That's a spill proof statement, I presented an absolute. I could have said "we're probably from the same Earth" and that would be probabilistic, but I didn't. Though you can never be certain in science, it's astronomically unlikely that "God did it (just like gravity, thermodynamics, etc.)." That's why bootstrap values and r values are still relevant today - to show the lack of the likelihood that data isn't created by statistical abnormality. Likewise, the chance of humans accidentally using apoptosis with the same molecular patterns as all other Eukaryotes is so astronomical that I felt that the chance that something else caused the phenomenon was not worth discussing. So I made a conclusion, "Either all eukaryotes are artificial or we all sprouted from the same Earth."

You took offense to it. I don't know why, you just said I'm garbage at discussing art and meaning for whatever reason. In essence, you implied that I'm wrong without disputing any of the evidence. That means that you felt that the conclusion was erroneous. When I asked about alternative solutions, you found fault with the question and asked for further explanation. So here we are.

>>36633842
>I'm not the first one to say that the process of apoptosis implies a common ancestor for all eukaryotes.
I wasnt arguing against that. im surprised however that it is considered to be strong evidence for that point.

>we're not comparatively artificial.
alright senpai, I'll walk you through this. What does that even mean? what do you consider "artificial". in what way does sharing a natural process designated the quality of being artificial.
>it's astronomically unlikely that "God did it (just like gravity, thermodynamics, etc.)."
who are you quoting?
are you assigning probability to an event not capable of being defined?

>That's why bootstrap values and r values are still relevant today - to show the lack of the likelihood that data isn't created by statistical abnormality
youre doing one of the most piss poorjobs i have ever seen of someone trying to explain their version of metaphysics
i mean youre just abysmal at it. how far did you really get in biochem? i cant imagine very far, considering how fucking poor this is.

I dont see what this sentence has anything to do with the previous ones. youre doing a poor job of connecting concepts in a coherent sequential manner.
>When I asked about alternative solutions, you found fault with the question and asked for further explanation. So here we are.
first of all, its not the question I had fault with, its your answer. its like you just say random shit. I really just dont get it. its like you take an argument and type in random bullshit in between what logical sentences you already have.

ever notice that other animals don't squint in the sunlight? what's that about?

it's like we came here from another, darker, planet, and we forgot.

>>36634072
>youre doing one of the most piss poorjobs i have ever seen of someone trying to explain their version of metaphysics

You asked me to explain what I meant when I said that I presented an argument as an absolute. You forgot that you were trying to troll me.

>>36634125
>You asked me to explain what I meant when I said that I presented an argument as an absolute.
quote me where I used the word or phrase meaning "absolute"

give up on biochem, go be a fucking janitor or something

>>36632346
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who saw through that post holy shit

>>36634160


See >>36633518
>I presented it as an absolute
literally what. explain yourself

>>36634213
ok so what is your absolute. you still havent explained
the absolute statement of your unsupported and undefined claim of whether or not cells are artificial?

>>36634293
No, that wasn't quite the argument. Though it sounds like you don't even understand the question.

Let me answer this without adding any new information.

>does anyone else feel that humans are an artificial and unnatural addition to the world

>Either all eukaryotes are artificial or we all sprouted from the same Earth.

>That's a spill proof statement, I presented an absolute. I could have said "we're probably from the same Earth" and that would be probabilistic, but I didn't.

>>36634371
>Though it sounds like you don't even understand the question.
what is the question then you fucking moron.
>Either all eukaryotes are artificial or we all sprouted from the same Earth.
this is a meaningless statement because your meaning and interpretation of artificial is undefined.

>>36634417
Can you explain what you mean by undefined, please?

>>36634434
i already explained. but since you have autism and cant read ill do it again

what do you mean by the term "artificial". artifical in terms of what?

>>36634461
>Either all eukaryotes are artificial or we all sprouted from the same Earth.

It sure looks like artificial, in this statement, is defined as the opposite of "sprouted from the Earth."

I'm glad that you accepted that I was right and you were wrong about absolute statements though!

>>36634515
>I'm glad that you accepted that I was right and you were wrong about absolute statements though!
i didnt. what are you presenting as an absolute? that all life on this planet originated on earth?
>It sure looks like artificial, in this statement, is defined as the opposite of "sprouted from the Earth."
lol what. so what then defines an artificial organism. one that comes from another planet? why would you consider that artificial, and why are you even addressing that in the first place.

>>36634592

See >>36633104
>>36633842
>>36634371

These are all places where I directly address the original question. The premise of this thread is that humans are separate than the rest of life on Earth. I am saying, as an absolute, that humans are intrinsically similar to all eukaryotes. So you cannot say humans are artificial or unnatural without saying the same of all eukaryotes.

Can you think of any definition of artificial that reasonably and succinctly separates humans from the rest of domain Eukaryota?

>>36634728
>So you cannot say humans are artificial or unnatural without saying the same of all eukaryotes.
no, you could. clearly they are different. and you could base your definition off of those differences. they share similarities but so does everything in existence.

>Can you think of any definition of artificial that reasonably and succinctly separates humans from the rest of domain Eukaryota?
you honestly cant think of a definition that separates humans from other animals?
are you stupid or something

>>36634796
>you honestly cant think of a definition that separates humans from other animals?

I'm drawing a blank for a definition of the word artificial that applies to Homo sapiens but not Pan troglodytes. Keep in mind the context of the conversation is about the biochemical make up of eukaryotes.

>>36631846
All eukaryotes possess mitochondria. Also mitochondria evolved from a common ancestor of purple bacteria, not a virus.

>>36632644
This desu ka

>>36632856
underrated post
agreed friend