This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Humans are animals

Jump to new
barnz2k said:
Spiders are cool
Click to expand...
Agree. I have a resident jumping spider that has made himself at home on my trading desk; he's kind of like my mascot now.

Those Huntsmen still scare the bejeezuz out of me though.
 
2020hindsight said:
welcome lol
Ageo
you say "man never changes", 100 years I think you said -
trouble is the teachings of Rome change much more regularly than that
Click to expand...

Correction: I said animals never change, but humans do (be it for good or worse).
 

i disagree with this. animals also progress, a prime example of this is monkeys learning to use simple tools and passing this behaviour on to their children.

saying animals will never increase their advancement through time is completely wrong because that denies evolution. 100 years is nothing in an evolutionary time scale, and its not like humans made massive leaps and bounds in physiology or culture between the years 60100 and 60000 B.C.

anyway are you talking about physiological or social evolution?

as for people saying you can't disprove "God" then that is true, you cannot disprove the existence of "God", but you sure as hell can disprove the teachings of Genesis or any other number of religious tales about the origins of the world.
 
Dis, what do you think about humans halting our own 'natural' evolution through science/medicine.

Is natural selection still occuring in humans??
 
Ageo said:
Correction: I said animals never change, but humans do (be it for good or worse).
Click to expand...
apologies -
we agree that humans change (incl their religious teachings - and their height and their habits etc .... all change)

Animals are learning all the time (just as the Vatican is). Plenty of examples of islands where evolution has been allowed to go its own way - Galapagos etc - and the resulting fauna is a microcosm of unique species, finches that use thorns as tools etc.

A Buffalo 100 yrs from now will still behave the same way as he did 100yrs ago.
Click to expand...
I would say that buffalo have changed to the extent that they used to shy at the sound of arrows whistling past their ears - they now shy at the sound of bullets As for do they still behave the same way as then? - my guess is the day will come when you'll see a buffalo standing on its back legs, and dancing on a human's grave.

Dogs change for sure - half the breeds around today are only a few hundred years old or less - but true, Man has played God on that occasion.
 
WaneL - Had a big huntsman in my room once, got him on a broom to carry him outside.. was too busy watching him and he started to run up the broom towards me hahaha - so ran outside with it.

Also Mice, our cats used to bring them in and want to play with them... Their a pain to catch.. turn the whole house upside down and move furniture and stuff to get to them or guide them outside. they fit in tiny spaces! Finaly threw a towel ontop of it and and picked him up.

Also a frog and I think a baby possum - put em on paper though cause if you touch em with our hands it aint good!

MONKY MAGIC
On the monkey talk yeah they learn etc. And there was a study recently putting touchscreen games in an enclosure to see if they would learn or just be repetitive, and if they are right they get food pellets.

As I said im an athiest, but I still like the quote
"If we evolved from monkies, why do we still have monkies?" haha

BABIES
I always wonder how babies communicate too - before they learn a language. They know to cry for food etc.. but h ow do you 'think' without words? Pictures?? They havent seen anything yet.. Just instinct?
 
kennas said:
Dis, what do you think about humans halting our own 'natural' evolution through science/medicine.

Is natural selection still occuring in humans??
Click to expand...

i don't think we are halting it, natural selection will always happen, it is a fundamental force of nature. stopping evolution in a species is like stopping gravity, you can't not be affected by the forces of nature. sure we can bend them or influence them, but we will always be subject to them.

a problem with this part of the discussion is that the term "natural" is very subjective. to my mind anything we do, including augementing our bodies with cybernetic equipment (anything from pacemakers to bionic ears to the inevitable brain augs and nanotech possibilities) can be considered natural because it is just part of our evolutionary process.

selective breeding of plants and animals to give us our labradors or food crops is widely considered to be "natural", so by extension why not modern gene-tech? even though genetic engineering is cutting the corners of reproductive biology, it is still "natural" in that we are merely guiding and manipulating the natural processes that are already in place. many of course would argue otherwise.

barnz2k said:
As I said im an athiest, but I still like the quote
"If we evolved from monkies, why do we still have monkies?" haha
Click to expand...

that is a good question. i think we still have monkeys because they haven't "needed" to change. evolution is a cause and effect type process, things evolve because their environment demands it. obviously there have been no pressures on monkeys to change how they are so there have been no major upgrades required. like sharks and crocodiles, mother nature got the blueprint for them right millions of years ago and so they can cruise along as they are with just little generational tweaks here and there.

something happened to humans a million years ago (many argue it was we started to eat meat) to set us on this path of explosive growth so once again we are just a lucky freak of nature. we have a short time span before the next major extinction event so we have to evolve quickly before we become just another roadkill in mother earths organic experiment (although some argue we are causing another mass extinction event ourselves).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
 
So if humans didnt exist then would animals still be able to do some of the things they do today?

Thats my question, because i personally believe they need help from humans (whether it be tricks or other forms of human distruption) in order to progress. On the other hand humans really dont need animals to progress (it will probably just slow it down).
 
Ageo
speaking of humans progressing
(which I would equate to evolving - but I suspect you'd call something else - maybe "thought-induced" or something), but
here's an extract from newspaper clipping - trends in waistlines
....
"waist not want not" as they used to say
 

Attachments

  • waist.jpg
    18.1 KB · Views: 96


I think you are way way off track.Humans are the ultimate consumer.
Where as animals only take what they need in order to survive.

Animal existance is balanced.Mans existance is not.Training animals to do (and to some it is cruel and pathetic) "tricks" is smart man not.Yet we humans are taught to laugh at the tricks & enslavement of animals.How pathetic.

So my observation is if humans did not exist then animals would exist as per the survival imprint common to each species.Progress is a human word with a human decription.
 
technically mate thats not true. Chimpanzee's have been observed in parts of Uganda (where food is plentiful) going on hunts and killing and eating other chimps. Fact is they are not hungry maybe they would kill to keep territory but why would they consume their enemy?.

There are plenty of other species that take more than they need. Consider a virus or bacteria that kills its host, wouldn't it be prudent to simply take what they need and keep themselves and the host alive?

As for Human evolution: Hard question Darwin would have us believe that you have to have isolation to evolve speciality features but with a global world how can we be truely isolated. Perhapes our isolation will become that of the entire world been isolated in space and we adapt to our influence on the planet. I here people say that people are bigger, taller etc and this is evolution. But I don't believe that is evolution. Its similar to south pacific islanders, throughtout their history the smaller/ weaker peoplewere killed and therefor after centuries the people as a whole are larger fitter and stronger. Nothing evolved they simply bred out some gene's.

My personal thought is that since we no longer need to physically evolve (unless we become immune to pollution) the next evolution willbe mental.
 
Killer whale plays tennis with a seal

nature is cruel. humans don't have the monopoly on murder, but we have certainly elevated it to an art form.

Ageo said:
So if humans didnt exist then would animals still be able to do some of the things they do today?
Click to expand...

such as? if you mean jump through hoops then probably not as there is no advantage to doing so apart from entertaining us.

if you mean expand into populations that number in the billions (such as sheep) then probably not either, only our technology enables us to overcome the limitations imposed by nature (food production, water delivery etc.)

but then these things are not really necessary for animals to do for survival reasons so its not really important.


all life from single cell organisms up to the blue whale evolve and progress. the sun rises, the earth turns, animals evolve, it is just a fact of living on this planet.

humans are also utterly dependent upon animals to progress. without domestication we would not have had access to the vast amounts of protein required to fuel 6 billion + brains. without beasts of burden we would not have had early industry. without living side by side with animals we would not have developed resistance to diseases. the planet is a self-contained biosphere, we are all subject to the same rules of nature and the complex interrelation of the species is an inescapable fact of our existence here on earth. we are one of many, just a bit smarter is all.
 
Wysiwyg said:
I think you are way way off track.Humans are the ultimate consumer.
Where as animals only take what they need in order to survive.

Animal existance is balanced.Mans existance is not.
Click to expand...

hehe obviously you havent been in the australian outback much eh?

Feral animals such as foxes, cats, pigs etc... have and will continue to be responsible for killing off native animals/creatures. Many of those feral animals kill for pleasure as i have stated in another post so to me that doesnt seem like survival.

And sorry for using the word progressing, it should have been "evolving"

Thanks 2020
 
1. yep - the (late) king of Tonga went to visit a Uni in Hawaii (as a younger man) - insisted (against all advice) in attempting to go down a spiral staircase - got stuck lol - took two minders pushing and two pulling to get out lol.

2. I would disagree, why wouldn't that be evolution? - assuming it's across the board, - the new generations would tend towards larger / stronger etc -and
.. the weaker jeans that fade

3. yep , the next evolution could well be mental - might also be dental I suppose
 

Again a lot of this is from human influence. A lot of damaging species were introduced from foreign countries, & feral cats are a product of humans over-breeding and letting them lose etc.
 
Kiwi, As you suggest I think the chimps are just defending their territory. If they consume their victim (as humans once did, and I think it's only recently stopped in the scheme of things), it may not be about hunting for 'extra' food they do not need....

In regard to the evolution comment, I think what you have described there is actually what Darwinian theory is: Natural Selection. We do not necessairly adapt to our environment, but those with the traits best for survival in their environment ultimately survive and thrive. You are right, the 'weakest' disappear. Isn't this part of the evolutionary process?
 
Ageo said:
Feral animals such as foxes, cats, pigs etc... have and will continue to be responsible for killing off native animals/creatures. Many of those feral animals kill for pleasure as i have stated in another post so to me that doesnt seem like survival.
Click to expand...
Ageo, do we know it's for pleasure, or are we just assuming that? I think this is an interesting issue. Perhaps there is a reason for the hunting and killing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
R
6 Ways to Make Smarter Investment Decisions
Replies
0
Views
2K
RickyY
R
R
21 Lessons in Investing
Replies
6
Views
3K
divs4ever
R
First, Kill Your Ideas
Replies
2
Views
1K
finicky
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...