facts of evolution

[krisskross]

Are Walrusses and Sabre-toothed tigers closely related because they both have large canine teeth?

[krisskross]

No. It's an experience. You can't measure taste. You can measure the function of the tongue and the reaction to certain stimuli in relation to the tongue, but you can't measure taste.

[worm]

that is all taste is

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[worm]

Are Walrusses and Sabre-toothed tigers closely related because they both have large canine teeth?

[eFestivals]

As suspected. This depends entirely upon what we regard as taste. This would be better suited to a comparison to different forms of sight i.e. colour spectrum in humans versus animals.

Ohy FFS, you really are determined to remain a moron forever aren't you? You cannot be taught anything cos you think you know it all.

[eFestivals]

No he's not. He's discussing.

that's right, no one except me is telling you you're wrong.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

that is all taste is

[krisskross]

No it isn't.

Taste is an experience of that stimuli whereas the reaction is the behaviour. You are doing what Wittgenstein states as 'the recognition of behaviour as being'.

[worm]

Ohy FFS, you really are determined to remain a moron forever aren't you? You cannot be taught anything cos you think you know it all.

[Katster]

Has this thread evolved into a decent discussion yet?

[worm]

Yes but taste is measurable to an extent.

Admittedly first of all you have to determine the taste sensitivity for an individual, but from then it is posssilbe. However, if you understand the taste receptors present in another animal, one is able to predefine how the adding of a certain compound is going to taste to that animal.

But our abiility to taste certain subsatances is genetic anyway, and would be subject to evolution, so I would still argue that using taste as an indicator is valid

[krisskross]

Has this thread evolved into a decent discussion yet?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

It's a valid point. Nothing more, nothing less.

It depends upon what we are calling the taste sensor. In this instance the tongue. And what it shows is that the tongue has a different make up between human and ape. That doesn't really say anything. Just that the adaption of the eating process differed between human and ape. Similar to cats. They dropped a gene that is known to stimulate what we know as sweetness in the human experience of tasting.

They both share a mouth and similar digestive system. It's what defines animals. Same with the ability to receive light through the cortex. It all depends upon what particular and exact object in the organism we are wanting to talk about.

[worm]

If you want to discuss science you need to use agreed on scientific definitions rather than wishy-washy philosophical arguments that can mean anything you want to read into them.

[worm]

Why stop at higher mammals? Fish have taste, and it was recently shown that the T2R gene (bitterness) is more diverse in fish than mammals.

[Katster]

has hell frozen over?

[eFestivals]

It's a valid point. Nothing more, nothing less.

It depends upon what we are calling the taste sensor. In this instance the tongue. And what it shows is that the tongue has a different make up between human and ape. That doesn't really say anything. Just that the adaption of the eating process differed between human and ape. Similar to cats. They dropped a gene that is known to stimulate what we know as sweetness in the human experience of tasting.

They both share a mouth and similar digestive system. It's what defines animals. Same with the ability to receive light through the cortex. It all depends upon what particular and exact object in the organism we are wanting to talk about.

Where the f**k does it say that chimps "dropped a gene"??? It doesn't. You're simply making it all up out of thin air. (now there's a surprise ).

As I said, you really don't think there's anything that anyone can teach you, because you believe that you already know it all. Yet you don't know shit.

Edited January 30, 2009 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Has this thread evolved into a decent discussion yet?

nope, it's been trolled by a moron that reckons he knows more than the developmental biologists who have made this subject their life's work.

Something like this has never happened before.

[krisskross]

No it isn't.

Taste is an experience of that stimuli whereas the reaction is the behaviour. You are doing what Wittgenstein states as 'the recognition of behaviour as being'.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

It's not wishy washy at all. It's an accute observation. Wittgenstein did more for science than any other person in the twentieth century, bud. He is well known for being utterly opposed to wishy washyness.

I'm not disputing this. But these things measure the stimuli and response to taste. They don't measure taste itself. That was all.

Chemosensor is clearly a fundamental chemical in the construction of taste. It sounds vague though. What does it relate to? Just a chemical used to elicit taste in the brain?

[worm]

So what does a biomimetic sensor measure.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[worm]

Where the f**k does it say that chimps "dropped a gene"?

[eFestivals]

You can't really deny it Dave.

so Dave isn't allowed to deny anything, but you're allowed to deny all that science has discovered.

Glad you've cleared up how it's meant to work.

[eFestivals]

Learn to read!

says the man who won't read anything in case it says something different to his fantasties.

[worm]

so Dave isn't allowed to deny anything