Sentences with phrase «in animals or any human»

Created when sap is boiled down into maple syrup, Quebecol is a novel phenolic compound that has yet to be tested for bioactivity in animal or human studies.

But often the results obtained in vitro do not resemble what actually happens in the animal or human body.

«This is a dynamic mechanism that is hard to study in animal or human models.»

But it does not give anything like the same level of detailed information that can be achieved by painlessly inserting electrodes into brain tissue in animal or human studies.

This study used a model cell culture system that represents what happens in an animal or human.

Candidate gene - a gene that might be relevant to a specific canine disease due to the gene's role in a similar disease in another animal or human.

These statements made herein are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease in animals or any human.

However, there is very little hard, scientific proof that anti-oxidants improve hip dysplasia or arthritis in animals or humans.

They are associated with tumor formation and are not being used in animals or humans for therapy.

Not exact matches

The US Food and Drug Administration issued a «preliminary finding» that the genetically modified insects, produced by Oxitec at its labs in Oxford, England, and shipped as eggs to Florida, would have essentially «no significant impact» on human health, animal health, or the ecosystem.

We're in love with one other person... we are connected to them in deep ways that only humans (not humans and tools or animals) can be.

Two questions come immediately to mind: (I) whether real human kindness and sympathy are, or can be, encountered in the slaughterhouse, in the circus and the rodeo, in the forced captivity of wild animals in zoos, and in pain research in biomedical laboratories, and (2) whether our abuse and destruction of members of other sentient species for our benefit alone can be a truly moral goal for mankind.

Much of the effect can likely be explained by researchers unconsciously giving hints or suggestions to their human or animal subjects, perhaps in something as subtle as body language or tone of voice.

Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human - animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos.

Actually in the universe there is no right or wrong... this is a human invention... animals don't even subscribe to this concept.

@Chad «You seemingly have determined that all animals / humans are essentially the same as rocks...» @ Saraswati Yep, more or less, though I don't use the exact terminology you use in the rest of the sentence regarding determinism, but lets go with «close enough».

To be specific, a human being or higher - order animal organism is an ongoing subject of experience in and through its dominant subsociety of occasions; but the coordination therewith required to sustain the flow of consciousness can only be achieved through the collaboration and coordination of millions of sub-fields of activity, subordinate layers of social order, within the organism.

Our natural capacities and tendencies must actually be realized or expressed, and a culture - making animal like the human being realizes and expresses them in all kinds of different ways.

It is customary and even ethically mandatory that experimentation that carries with it a substantial degree of risk to human subjects first be tested in an animal laboratory or, at the very least, on a computer model.

If we view the soul as an effective social system for the procurement of intense experience, we can legitimately apply to it Whitehead's statement in «Immortality» that «the more effective social systems involve a large infusion of various soils of personalities as subordinate elements in their make - up — for example, an animal body, or a society of animals, such as human beings» (IMM 690).

Singer was more responsible than anyone else for making the term «speciesism» known, beginning in 1975 with his highly influential book Animal Liberation and continuing with his widely professed proposal that so - called human non-persons can be killed (infanticide or non-voluntary euthanasia) because of their «lower» moral status.

Cartesians — taking the theologically grounded refusal to believe in spirits or worry about the influence of final causes to some sort of plausible limit — believed that «animals» were insentient, and that only humans had goals or thoughts or feelings.

[13] This said, in animals lower than humans it is morally permissible to thwart the purposes of bodily organs, so that the Church fully permits the sterilisation of animals (if it doesn't cause unreasonable cruelty to them or damage to the material environment).

Sexuality in our age is almost completely dominated by the stimulus of bodily attraction, that is, the male - female mode of sexual power or that power of attraction which humans have in common with the animals.

Indeed, the animal rights movement's fury against the speciesist use of animals» a necessary element for human flourishing, particularly in medical research» has increased to the point that scientists are now under threat of death by the most radical liberationists for daring to experiment on rats or monkeys to find cures for cancer and other human afflictions.

But the description of man as a rational or intellectual animal, familiar in the Middle Ages, is dangerous unless full recognition is also given to the feeling - tones which are as much a part of human existence as is human rationality.

The fact that some animals can not reason or talk in language we understand should be as irrelevant to us as is the fact that some humans in relation to whom we have ethical obligations — severely retarded children, for example — can neither reason nor talk.

Many ignore flora and fauna altogether, focusing instead on the relations of humans to one another and to God, or they treat animals and plants primarily as tools to be managed in a stewardly way for the sake of human well - being.

For example, we should stop «hunting for sport or furs; farming minks, foxes and other animals for their fur; capturing wild animals (often after shooting their mothers) and imprisoning them in small cages for humans to stare at; tormenting animals to make them learn tricks for circuses, and tormenting them to make them entertain the folks at rodeos; slaughtering whales with explosive harpoons; and generally ignoring the interests of wild animals as we extend our empire of concrete and pollution over the surface of the globe» (ALNE 23).

As we know from mythology, it was the habit of Jupiter to wander the earth in the form of man, animal, or bird and thereby make contact with human beings.

Evolution or complex animals can not be observed in the single lifetime of a human.

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»?

In the animals we domesticated through genetic transformation, «Wild, human - threatening, and human - fearfulness instincts are eliminated and replaced by tameness, an acceptance or desire to be near humans, and often, other specific human - serving personalities.»

Human personality and culture are inherently about the denial of death, about helping the human animal achieve day - to - day equanimity in the face of our existential burden and helping us manage our instinct for self - preservation in the face of a cognitive awareness that we are bound for death, that we can not run away or escape our Human personality and culture are inherently about the denial of death, about helping the human animal achieve day - to - day equanimity in the face of our existential burden and helping us manage our instinct for self - preservation in the face of a cognitive awareness that we are bound for death, that we can not run away or escape our human animal achieve day - to - day equanimity in the face of our existential burden and helping us manage our instinct for self - preservation in the face of a cognitive awareness that we are bound for death, that we can not run away or escape our fate.

For the talk about the natural changes of human life over the years, together with what externally happened there, is not in essence any different from talking of plant or of animal life.

In fact, some would say that there is no human value or goodness unless this value pattern is exemplified in our activities; that the capacity to realize this structure of relations in our lives (to a greater extent than can the other animals) is what largely constitutes our humanitIn fact, some would say that there is no human value or goodness unless this value pattern is exemplified in our activities; that the capacity to realize this structure of relations in our lives (to a greater extent than can the other animals) is what largely constitutes our humanitin our activities; that the capacity to realize this structure of relations in our lives (to a greater extent than can the other animals) is what largely constitutes our humanitin our lives (to a greater extent than can the other animals) is what largely constitutes our humanity.

by the way, in either the book of Jasher or Jubilees, it says that animals spoke the same dialect and could communicate with humans.

Considering his use elsewhere of the phrase, «thinking animal,» one can only suppose that here, too, it refers to man, or a human being, in contrast to other kinds of animals who feel but can not think, or, at any rate, can not think that they think (1970a, 94; 1971, 208).

My first awkward Sunday School moment happened in first or second grade when I raised my hand and asked why, in Noah's flood, God would drown all of those innocent animals when it was the humans who were being disobedient.

He ultimately argues that there was an original act of violence which ultimately led to the possibility of the destruction of all people in the community, and so to avoid the ever - increasing cycles of violence, the community selected a ritual victim (a human or an animal) that would both carry the guilt of the community as well as the violent tendencies into death, thus satisfying the demands for revenge and the blood lust that comes with it.

(2) Can we reduce, or hope to reduce, the consciousness of self and the creativeness of the human mind to animal experience, and thus, if questions (1) and (2) are answered in the affirmative, to physics and chemistry?

As the devotees give themselves to their god, using some token for their oblation such as a human life, an animal, grain, a dance or other ceremonial, so the god responds to their action by relating himself afresh to them in a helpful and enriching fashion.

The superficiality of that statement — even its banality — would seem to be obvious, but our purpose here is simply to note that this was the solitary reference to man the «religious animal,» man the worshiper, in the course of six or seven hundred pages of thorough analysis of the human creature in society.

Or instead, make the choice to continue to fight like «animals» instead of grow all together as humans in harmony.

see what you have to understand about living in a real world — a world where god is just a story and not real — its a world based on scientific and physical laws that are proven to exist and their effects are measurable... us as humans, mere animals, hold no real power or control aside thru ingenuity which allows us to change our environment to suit us... stay with me here... at this point in human history we ceased to change to suit our environment and started changing it to suit us — thats destruction of the earth to suit one species — that should go over well...

Example in point: Opposition to embryonic stem cell / human cloning research: It isn't anti science to oppose treating nascent human life like a corn crop or manufacturing embryos, anymore than it is anti science than the Animal Welfare Act the proscribes what can and can't be done in scientific research with some mammals.

Or they must believe that human re-production can be achieve in similar manner as in a few lower animal and plant species.

madtown, The evolutionary process that effect His will is not interventionary in its process, it follows the law of nature, God is not Human, we are only part of Him, our wisdom is infinitesimaly small, The reason is beyond us, just like History, it is only after thousands or millions of years that we understood why it happened, for example, Why the dynasours got extinct, millions of years ago, to pave the way for smaller animals and ultimately humans, Thats why to apply the present human logic on history is illogically simpliHuman, we are only part of Him, our wisdom is infinitesimaly small, The reason is beyond us, just like History, it is only after thousands or millions of years that we understood why it happened, for example, Why the dynasours got extinct, millions of years ago, to pave the way for smaller animals and ultimately humans, Thats why to apply the present human logic on history is illogically simplihuman logic on history is illogically simplistic.

Consider, then, the sky and earth and the whole world as containing animals in the way in which worms are sometimes contained in the human intestines — worms or men, if you please, who ignore sense and feeling in other things because they consider it irrelevant with respect to their so called knowledge of entities.

Bloom in THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND describes sophisticated American students as being unmoved by love and death, moved only by music that imitates the mechanical rutting of animals, and having souls which are flat or unanimated by distinctively human eros.