Sentences with phrase «animals and humans do»

There are many reasons why animals and humans don't have the same inflammation issues.

A new study published in Annals of Botany shows that plants react to anesthetics similarly to the way animals and humans do, suggesting plants are ideal objects for testing anesthetics actions in future.

Injectable vaccines often require trapping the animal — a costly endeavor that's stressful and dangerous for both wild animals and the humans doing the vaccinating.

Capturing renewable energy by plants, animals and humans does not permanently deplete the resource.

Not exact matches

If some plants and animals don't age, why should humans have to?

«It's the humans convincing themselves that it's a really cool thing to do with their pooch,» said award - winning trainer Bill Berloni of Theatrical Animals, who works with TV, movie and Broadway producers.

What it does: This microbe is extremely versatile and can live in a wide range of environments, including soil, water, animals, plants, sewage, and hospitals in addition to humans.

«We also wanted it to be something kids could imagine as anything — we didn't want it to be something they were already familiar with like a four - legged animal or two - legged human — so it has three legs... and one eye.»

Now for the inevitable caveat: there's still a lot of work to be done before this type of technique could be applied to larger animals like pigs, sheep, and (potentially), one day, humans.

I don't know of any legitimate theologians or Scriptural interpretations vouching for humans and animals and tools to get married.

That did not happen: there is no geological record of a world - wide flood, there is not enough diversity to regenerate the population we currently, there is not enough water to cover the earth to the height of Everest, the logistics of retrieving and returning animals to the then - unknown Americas, Australia, etc. were staggeringly difficult, managing the animals on the Ark was impossible — a few humans keeping predators from their prey, cleaning the waste, etc., pretty much all life on earth would have been killed, etc. etc..

The law says we can kill and eat animals as long as it's done in a safe and humane way, it also says a fertilized egg isn't a human until it reaches 24 weeks.

Also, i guess a living zombie, a snake, a rib woman, a magical tree does sound strange... i find it much easier to believe in a cosmic event that produced life out of nothing one day and that we slowly evolved from animals into human beings.

Animals are not made in God's image and do not live according to any moral code — only humans.

That said: «But god did not foresee — that man would want a companion» = > «It is not good for the man to be alone» are the words used — so God did know and provided «that the snake would talk to the humans» = > «the serpent was more crafty than any other animal» - deception required capacity to deceive «that the humans would choose knowledge (and why else was that tree there)» = > It was not knowledge but knowledge of good and evil.

ian... not sure which part you wanted me to reply on, but I will take issue with yr point about homosexuality being a threat to human existence.I'm no expert on the subject, but I think we cd safely assume that the phenomena has been with us since our ancestors came out of the trees... we're now over six billion and growing at an alarming rate.Not sure where you might find the data on this supposed threat to going forth and multiplying.BTW, I have read that homosexual behaviour is observable in the animal kingdom, but I wd need to do some work to reference a credible study.

Of course the sequencing is not quite right, because the poem was written / inspired (take your pick) before science did its work.But the intuitive observer could see a clear evolution form plants to animals to human life, with continuities and differentiations.

how do you know that animals have no souls... and that only humans have them.

You do not have to be a religious zealot or a scientific Luddite to oppose the patenting of animal and human organisms and genes.

A Question Of Human Dignity I applaud James Legge for directing attention towards questions to do with the relationship between animals and man (Faith, January / February 2004).

In humans, organs have purposes, as they do in animals, though in us the spiritual soul controls and directs so as to give «unity» to what is «related».

In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas does not mean to say that natural law is shared by all animals including human beings» the natural law, as the «participation of the eternal law in the rational creature,» pertains only to human beings (I - II, 91.2)» but that natural law includes natural inclinations shared by other animals, «such as sexual intercourse, education of offspring, and so forth.»

I do also recognize a hierarchy of living beings in that I regard human life as more valuable than animal life and would not oppose essential medical experiments on animals, although I am not persuaded that all experiments are essential.

I do believe that human beings are created above animals but that only heightens our responsibility to treat them with care and kindness.

But one way or another all advocates of animal rights, process thinkers included, lament the fact that so many domesticated animals can and do suffer unnecessarily at the hands of humans.

And if all the dinosaurs died in the flood, and animals / humans pre-flood didn't eat mean... why does T - Rex have such HUGE teeAnd if all the dinosaurs died in the flood, and animals / humans pre-flood didn't eat mean... why does T - Rex have such HUGE teeand animals / humans pre-flood didn't eat mean... why does T - Rex have such HUGE teeth?

Rolston's point is that individual mountains, plants, and animals do indeed have value apart from their usefulness to humans, but not in isolation from their environments.

I did find that they were suppose to be animals that understood human language and hunters would chat to them.

And don't claim aything about this «humans as the higher standard, rule over the animal kingdom» B.S. People kill much more indescriminently than any animal ever did.

If someone believes in the creation story to the extent that they reject scientific inquiry, they're not well - equipped to conduct the research and do the work needed in the future to benefit and improve the condition of and ensure the survival of the earth and its human and animal populations.

Also, just to add, with the example for ants and elephants... animals do not have the same concept of morality as humans do.

I'll even offer observations - humans have manipulated existing organisms dna, created new virus and bacteria, clone animals, and attempt to create new animals - yet simple minded folks still reject the idea that another more intelligent creature might have done the same thing and created life on earth in the same fashion while at the same time acknowledging that there is a strong likelihood of other life existing in this universe - talk about being dumbed down and arrogant.

These previous points once again are believed by many religions, but there are also many religions that don't make this clear distinction as with some forms of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and others which believe in the transmigration of the soul through reincarnation from humans to animals and vice versa.

At most, you can find Genesis 9:1 - 6 as allowing eating of meat and not explicitly stating that it is OK to eat human flesh (as long as you don't consider humans as «moving» creatures), but as far as looking at the law in detail goes; search the Law in detail and you will find many explicitly laid out things that you «shall not eat» listing many different types of animals and circumstances but you will not find humans listed among them.

First, you sound a little unsure about how a computer works, and secondly nuclear energy has nothing to do with evolution, unless you are looking into creating mutant humans and animals.

It's not just life / human nature / NATURE??? There are a lot of beautiful things in this world, but there is the uglier side as well... and to blaim it all on God — good or bad... well you might as well be living in the old testament... I am surprised there aren't still animal sacrifices to the angry, wrathful god that so many believe in... Oh, another question to the thumpers who believe that «God can be cruel» (And I really don't think Stephen King would say any of his work supports that)... So is God actually «perfect&raquand to blaim it all on God — good or bad... well you might as well be living in the old testament... I am surprised there aren't still animal sacrifices to the angry, wrathful god that so many believe in... Oh, another question to the thumpers who believe that «God can be cruel» (And I really don't think Stephen King would say any of his work supports that)... So is God actually «perfect&raquAnd I really don't think Stephen King would say any of his work supports that)... So is God actually «perfect»?

Along the same lines, Sapontzis argues that animals» intentional and sincere, kind and courageous actions are moral actions, for they accord with accepted moral norms, and we do not require demonstrations of moral principle in everyday human moral practice (AAMB 51 - 2).

His good creation was not intended to function this way, but since He gave humans, angels, and even animals (to a degree) the freedom to make genuine choices, we sometimes use this freedom in ways that are contrary to the will and desire of God, and when we do this, the forces of nature suffer the consequences, and chaos rages over the face of earth, wreaking havoc, destroying lives, and bringing destruction in its wake.

So cosmic history does not experience fall till human beings appear, since matter, vegetable and animal do not have the spiritual freedom to fall.

How did atoms crashing together create all the different animals and humans?

At best Braine shows thathuman beings have an existence that transcends the body because they have language, but he does not show how or why only human beings and not other higher animals possess transcendence when they are all alike psycho - physical beings, because animals are not to be explained mechanistically either.

There are many things in the animal kingdom, including humans, Douglas, where things don't appear to make biological sense, and yet they just «are».

Morals do not come from belief and in fact we can find a great many immoral issues with belief - the bible is a proponent of such immoral issues - rape; human sacrifice; animal sacrifice; child abuse; mass murder; idolatry (the 1st 4 commandments are exactly that); bigotry (the non-stop judging of gays based solely on what the bible says); oppression of women; incest.

Aristotle, noting that the human embryo in its earliestform did not have a human form, head, body and limbs, imagined that it had an animal soul which was replaced by a spiritual soul as soon as the human form definitely became apparent.

The problem is that organized religion is as much political animal as any other human convention involving more than 2 people, and spiritual, thinking individuals are intelligent enough to know that churches / mosques / community reprogramming centers actually have very little to do with what one actually believes...

But if what I have said regarding asymmetrical relations and human identity is correct, the primary moral question becomes: When does an individual human life become as valuable as the life of an animal?

The term moderate evolution might therefore be applied to a theory which simply inquires into the biological reality of man in accordance with the formal object of the biological sciences as defined by their methods and which affirms a real genetic connection between that human biological reality and the animal kingdom, but which also in accordance with the fundamental methodological principles of those sciences, can not and does not attempt to assert that it has made a statement adequate to the whole reality of man and to the origin of this whole reality.

We needed a perfect savior, a human sacrifice, like us, because all the blood of animals that was spilled under the Old Covenant through Moses did nothing even though God told them to do it and implied that it actually would do something.

He wants people to live according to Seven Basic Human Laws: To believe in One G - d, not to blaspheme Him, not to steal and kidnap, not to murder, not to do adultery, etc., not to eat the limb of a living animal (animal cruelty) and to set up effective courts of justice.

I've been better able lately, for whatever reason, to put myself in the shoes of someone who does believe this is it, that humans are evolved animals who will die and that's it.