A man's characteristics are his similarities and differences to other variants.\n\nThe similarities are the characteristics by which a man is indistinguishable from other variants. The invariant first bodies are the similarities between a man and any other variant.\n\nThe differerences are the characteristics by which a man is distinguishable from other variants. The order of the invariant first bodies is the difference between a man and any other variant.\n\nA man may vary. But, the characteristics of a man do not vary. One without the characteristics of a man is not a man.\n\n\nIs it possible to distinguish a man if the characteristics by which the man distinguishable is from others vary?
211926
A man's characteristics are similarities and differences he has with other men.\nSimilar characteristics that the man has are identifiable on other men. The common features are the similarities that are the same for all men.\nDifferent characteristics is how one man can be identified from another. The order of the not varying first bodies is what differentiates between a man and any another.\nA man may be different, but the characteristics of a man do not vary. If a man does not have certain characteristics of a man then he is not a man.\nIs it possible to distinguish a man if the characteristics that make him distinguishable vary from others?
7800
here, just like the pisces question by someone else, i researched this for you:\n\nPositive Characteristics: \n Curious  \n Adaptable  \n Intelligent  \n Clever  \n Quick-witted  \n Literary  \n Inventive  \n Congenial  \n Dexterous  \n\nNegative Characteristics: \n Changeable  \n Scattered  \n Restless  \n Irresponsible  \n Ungrateful  \n Lacking in follow-through  \n Lacking in concentration \n\nhope that helps :)
142105
My guess is:\n\nGender: Male\nPersonality: Kind, Loving, compassionate, ect.
265765
Why don't you Yahoo Search or Google this because I don't the average person knows what you're getting at. One thing I'm not going to do is to talk about different races, because everyone is the same inside only a little different\noutside. Do you compretend?
580331
Have to realize, the body is made of of two sides, joined in the middle. They are not identical. Most people have seen pics of mirror images of the face.. one is unable to recognize that person.. So, it is not uncommon for those differences to be quite obvious.
553678
Gods and Goddesses represent facets of personality and are archetypes of behavior of human beings. They were created to personify the best and worst of human society. It isn't a "person" per se that they represent but an idea or trait or virtue and thus, they can't really be classified like people. \n\nHaving said that, there are traits that were distinctly looked at as male and those as female. In different mythologies and religions, they were different. In some, the hunt was masculine and in others it was feminine. So, you really can't qualify it that way - they just "are."
404488
All substances have properties that we can use to identify them. For example we can idenify a person by their face, their voice, height, finger prints, DNA etc.. The more of these properties that we can identify, the better we know the person. In a similar way matter has properties - and there are many of them. There are two basic types of properties that we can associate with matter. These properties are called Physical properties and Chemical properties:\n\nPhysical properties: Properties that do not change the chemical nature of matter \nChemical properties: Properties that do change tha chemical nature of matter\n\nExamples of physical properties are: color, smell, freezing point, boiling point, melting point, infra-red spectrum, attraction (paramagnetic) or repulsion (diamagnetic) to magnets, opacity, viscosity and density. There are many more examples. Note that measuring each of these properties will not alter the basic nature of the substance.\n\nExamples of chemical properties are: heat of combustion, reactivity with water, PH, and electromotive force.\n\nThe more properties we can identify for a substance, the better we know the nature of that substance. These properties can then help us model the substance and thus understand how this substance will behave under various conditions.
70572
same number of ribs despite the christian creation story, sorry. \nDifferences in Pelvis (wider, different angle in females)\nalso differences in skull. Usually less rounded forehead, more pronounced eyebrow ridges and wider ridges under eye(cheekbones) in males. \nthe differences are gradual and so it can be difficult to distinguish male and female skeletons, depending how strongly the sexual dimorphism is expressed.
279917
It is very difficult to correlate genetic differences to physical differences, and physical differences to behavioral differences.  For example, women and smaller men may have smaller brains than larger men, but this means nothing as far as cognitive differences.  \n\nIt takes a very minor genetic difference (the coding affecting the skin pigment melanin) to cause differences in skin color, and even then the effects of environment are noticeable, and just one or two generations of interbreeding can dilute many of these variations.  With brain development and behavior these differences are *far* more complex, genetics almost irrelevant compared to environmental differences, and what genetic differences there are made even more irrelevant by the fact that we are all one species and can (and do) interbreed.\n\nSo it's a reasonable question from a scientific point of view, but scientists are hyper-aware than *any* misinformation, dead-end theories, faulty studies, etc. can be (and have been) badly misused by really bad people.
410683
Men are men! Some speak different languages, some different ideas and values. However, they are all men. The way they treat you is an individual thing, depends on the man. God bless****
441634
Writing styles and subject matter. \nThere are both similarities and differences in either area.
659220
All people are equal,\nyet not all are treated equal.\n\nAnd that is the difference.
409107
for the most part, no.  i couldn't say where they DO come from, but it's not human, that much is obvious.  i've seen the ones people claim, and there are definite differences in appearance between the manmade ones and the unexplained ones.  the unexplained tend to be more perfect and symmetrical than the manmade ones.
346210
First off, there are many definitions or concepts of what a species is. This classical article by Alan Templeton\nhttp://www.omniscellula.net/simposi/articles/speciation.pdf\nprovides a review of some of them.\n\nNow, as I see it, the statement that you cite is not referring to the typical definition that you mentioned (Ernst Mayr's "biological species concept", based on reproductive isolation). Rather, it is referring to the quantification of divergence of continuous characters between populations. These divergences are usually assessed either by morphological analyses, or by measurements of the differences in the structure of given molecules and macromolecules (proteins, histocompatibility complex, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, etc).\n\nBTW, here's another article on species definition that discusses a "genotypic cluster definition" of species:\nhttp://abacus.gene.ucl.ac.uk/jim/pap/mallet95tree.pdf\nthat may be a good approximation to a genetic/molecular definition of species.\n\nMolecular divergence can be measured, but the significance of these divergences is ultimately arbitrary, that is, the researchers  decide, based on their calibrations of divergence between other populations, if the discrepancy is large enough that it can be interpreted as different species, or if there is enough internal molecular variability within those populations that the differences among them are not significant (as has been demonstrated for most of the variation among and within human populations). \nSee this example:\nhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/4d9ku0ppcm6t0xjy/\nwhere the divergence between two populations was compared with other species pairs to decide if they should be considered as separate species.\n\nAs you probably know, sometimes (well, often) the results of morphological and molecular approaches do not agree with each other, because there are some major methodological differences, and the sources of data are quite different. However, combined approaches are (IMHO) what we the biologists should be working for. \nUltimately, I think these issues are consequences of our inbuilt need to put things into neat little boxes, that clashes with the infinite continuum of nature :-)
41540
appearance is very important combined with a great personality too. i ve never been with a guy who doesnt have a great body. I appreciate personality too but in a relationship looks matter equally. Physical features? i ll say his eyes, his lips, his shoulders, his stomach and his butt
356673
The percentage is between 99% and 95% depending on exactly what is being measured.\n\nAnd no, we shouldn't look more similar. Consider a human compared to a bacterium as being the 1% end of the scale. Based on that isn't a human 99% similar to a chimp?  If you listed all the features of human, a chimp and bacterium wouldn’t humans and chimps share 99% of those features? Humans and chimps are astoundingly similar when you consider the great diversity of life out there. The differences between the species are very superficial. Far less than the differences between a horse and donkey.\n\nThe reason you think there are large differences is simply species bias. You use your species as the standard by which you judge. You can’t do that. You need to use a third unrelated species as your standard. When you do that you will see that there really are less than 5% of traits different between humans and chimps.
473678
I don't really see any similarities at all. If there are any, they are very loose similarities.