humans

[CPL.Luke]

yourdad the presence of tech in these tribes is meaningless to the discussion, humans can make tools to survive. done. we weren't magicly put here unadapted to live in our natural enviroment

[Xyph]

But however feeble our bodies are, it'll be our big brains and thumbs that will, potentially, allow us to survive the destruction of the Earth. Out of interest, what would it take for you to class something as the pinnacle of evolution?

[ydoaPs]

there isn't one. evolution isn't moving toward anything.

 

Cheezus H Christ, read the OP where it specifically said "without our thumbs and big brains."

[LucidDreamer]

Out of interest, what would it take for you to class something as the pinnacle of evolution?

Although there is no real pinnacle of evolution, I suppose you could classify the pinnacle of evolution as the lack of evolution. What I mean by this is that animals that have relatively small changes in thier genomes, which we would determine by examining the fossil record and comparing them to other similar species, over a long period of time can be viewed as well-suited to their particular environment and niche. Animals that might meet these requirements are sharks and alligators /crocodiles, because we have found fossils of creatures tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years old with very similar morphology to the creatures we find today.

[ecoli]

there isn't one. evolution isn't moving toward anything.

 

Cheezus H Christ' date=' read the OP where it specifically said "without our thumbs and big brains."[/quote']

 

I did read it. But it makes no sense. Why should we ignore the gifts evolution has given us. Our thumbs and our brains allow us to make tools and technology, so it is in no way irrelevant to our "natural" ability to survive in the wild.

 

You cannot erase this ability, because, as I have stated numerous times, it lies within our genetic code, and it will not be erased, unless some survival trait even better comes along.

[bascule]

every once and a while you get those bigotted people that say we are the pinnicle of evolution. frankly, i don't see where that is coming from.

 

There is no "pinnacle" of evolution because humans are still evolving memetically at an exponentially increasing rate. I'd say the "pinnacle of evolution" view means that natural selection came up with a platform upon which continuing memetic evolution can take place, whereas the memetic evolution of all other species is at essentially a standstill.

 

Yes, the beneficial traits like, oh, sentience carried over some deleterious ones like relatively poor eyesight, poor sense of smell, etc. but the obvious conclusion we can draw is that the beneficial traits more than made up for the deleterious ones. Thanks to our memetic evolution, we can kick any other animals ass a few thousand times over, thanks to memes like... the gun. Thanks to memes like space telescopes we have better vision than any other creature on the planet by several orders of magnitude. So the deleterious traits are irrelevant because we can more than make up for them with memes.

[ecoli]

Exactly right. And don't try to say our ability to make binoculars is unconnected with evolution, either. Sure we have relatively weak eyes, but we also created technology such as laser vision corrective surgery, and binoculars. Using our highly-evovled intellects, we actually have better vision then some would give us credit for.

[ydoaPs]

we have to make such technology because we are genetically weak.

[ecoli]

No, we have the ability to create such technology becasue we are genetically strong.

[CPL.Luke]

yourdad your argument is fundamentally flawed because you are taking away our strongest features and then saying that we are weak because we couldn't get along without them, but I could do that with any animal

 

tiger- strength= dead tiger

 

cheetah-speed = dead cheetah

 

wolf-pack=dead wolf

 

etc.

[ydoaPs]

your argument is flawed because you are bassing it all on one feature when we are substandard on the rest.

[bascule]

we have to make such technology because we are genetically weak.

 

We have the ability to make such technology because we can evolve memetically. Other species are limited to what their genes provide. That's the difference, all other animals rely solely on genetic evolution, whereas our evolution is both genetic and memetic.

[bascule]

Let me add to this that memes/intelligence can easily trump "superior" genetics...

 

A bear has considerable strength and a powerful bite, but thanks to the meme of leverage (and opposable thumbs), we are able to comprehend that we can pick up a large branch and utilize it as a class three lever. We also have a meme which has informed us the control center of the bear is located in its cranium, so we can combine these two to daze the bear by clubbing it over the head. And thus we can turn the environment against the attacker.

 

Likewise, an alligator has considerable strength and an enormously powerful bite, but thanks to a meme which has informed us that the muscles which open the crocodile's jaw are considerably weak (especially in comparison to those which snap it shut) we know we can render the crocodile's powerful jaws useless by holding them shut.

 

And if either of those fail, we can call for help, and bottom line, we are the most effective pack hunters on the planet.

 

And if those memes didn't apply to you before, they do now. Congratulations, you've been infected with virulent information.

[ydoaPs]

Let me add to this that memes/intelligence can easily trump "superior" genetics...

 

A bear has considerable strength and a powerful bite' date=' but thanks to the meme of leverage (and opposable thumbs), we are able to comprehend that we can pick up a large branch and utilize it as a class three lever. We also have a meme which has informed us the control center of the bear is located in its cranium, so we can combine these two to daze the bear by clubbing it over the head. And thus we can turn the environment against the attacker.

 

Likewise, an alligator has considerable strength and an enormously powerful bite, but thanks to a meme which has informed us that the muscles which open the crocodile's jaw are considerably weak (especially in comparison to those which snap it shut) we know we can render the crocodile's powerful jaws useless by holding them shut.

 

And if either of those fail, we can call for help, and bottom line, we are the most effective pack hunters on the planet.

 

And if those memes didn't apply to you before, they do now. Congratulations, you've been infected with virulent information.[/quote']

yet people still get pwned my bears and alligators

[CPL.Luke]

how many people die in bear attacks per year?

 

how many alligators and bears are kept in zoos wehre they must be contained every day?

[ydoaPs]

how many people die in bear attacks per year?

the vast majority of people that are in a confrontation with a bear.

how many alligators and bears are kept in zoos wehre they must be contained every day?

how many people are kept in jail? what's your point?

[CPL.Luke]

my point is that on average humans beat bears and such.

[LucidDreamer]

we have to make such technology because we are genetically weak.

I'm guessing you mean physically weak, which we are. But we are somewhat physically versatile though, which is strength and particularly useful to an intelligent tool user.

[zyncod]

Rrrrghh. The word "meme" means absolutely nothing. It's a fashionable term for something that has existed throughout the history of human language. Everybody knows what a meme is even if they don't know what a "meme" is. In fact, "meme" is a meme. Just say "information" - it's what you mean anyway.

[ecoli]

how many people are kept in jail? what's your point?

 

His point, which seems rather obvious to me, is that much more bears are in captivity by humans then humans are killed by bears. Animal rights aside, this obviously shows human dominance over bears.

 

As was mentioned before, you are taking away our strongest genetic trait, and saying we are inferior. So what if we only have "one" trait (as if intelligence was controlled by a single gene) that is dominance. It's obviously more desirable then being strong like a bear. See any bears driving a car lately?

[Commie_Pinko]

This is absurd Sophistry. yourdadonapogos' logic here is woefully inadequate. He's essentially setting up not only a false dillema, but an unrealistic, artificial scenario.

 

 

Observe:

 

A. He is arbitrarily taking away a major evolutionary trait of humans, and then concluding we must say they suck, as a species, because we are then ill-equipped to deal with nature. Humans get nothing and suck, and other animals get to keep all thier traits and are good. Bullshit Sophistry Mark I.

 

Related to the first stupid argument that stinks of Sophistry is if we put bears and wild predators up against naked, defenseless citizens, they would die. No shit sherklock. Humans are pack animals that use weapon-tech (even basic, non mechanical) and tactics, not their bare hands. This moronic argument of yours is like saying Crocodiles suck because they cannot kill a marine at 15 yards, while he's weilding a Gustav Recoilless Rifle.

 

According to your imbecilic logic, the Croc is a poor species because it doesn't have built in rocket launchers to take down the human at long range. Obviously Crocodiles are weak and pathetic! They are no match for a hairless primate with a firestick! How sad.

 

All we have to do is substitute the primary genetic trait allowing for ueberness in bears/crocs, or other creatures, and they are equally as worthless. Let's take away the strength of the bear and make it like a cute little kitten and then wonder why it dies!

 

B. Bullshit argument number 2 is he's misunderstanding natural selection. Survival of the Fittest is a nonsense slogan. It's incorrect. The species to survive is not necessarily the most fit, rather the one that's fit enough for the enviornmental pressures. Humans are not the most fit species in the universe; they are fit enough, however, for what has currently been thrown their way. Could this change? Yes. All the other retarded animals could also die, just the same.

 

1. Humans aren't the "most advanced creature" nor are they the "pinnacle." No. However, this is irrelevant, because if a species survives, it is good enough for its environment. Humans have been able to survive and dominate a large portion of the globe using the products of evolution--intelligence. Human strength has never come from our physical body, rather our intellect. Does being physically weak make us a poor species? No. Many animals are physically weak when it comes to many other animals types, but they don't have the intelligence to make up for it. Man is physically weak, intellectually strong, and has the benefit of numbers, education, and orper Does it mean we are good survivors? Humans have survived for thousands of years because we are fit enough, not because we are the fittest.

 

 

2. Even if you think Humans are "weak," and physically inferior, not even that can hold water, since Humans have various useful traits. There are important characteristics of our hearing, sight, as well as mode of locomotion. All help create a unified whole sufficient enough to live on earth. Human psiology isn't substandard at all. We are good enough. We don't need to be perfect, and there is no standard. No creature is "more evolved" than other. They are all equally evolved for their surroundings.

 

 

 

More Sophistry hides under another false assumption undertaken by urdadonapogos---the notion that technology is something mystical and complex and that, given some ueber event, would all disappear, thus ensuring human extinction. Utter Sophistry. Breaking a damn branch off a tree and using it as an eating utensile is technology, using really jagged rocks to bang other rocks, and using sharp sticks to fend off creatures, are all examples of technology, and all of which The Bonobo Chimpanzee can do. If the Chimp can do it, it's most assured Humans, who have higher intelligence can do it (the Chimp has the intelligent of little more than a small child from around 3-5). Absurd conclusion on your part.

 

It's also nonsense that people cannot make fire w/out matches. Bullshit--provide evidence of this nonsense claim. People don't want to make fire w/out lighters and matches because humans have become more lazy than they were before. All animals are lazy; they do the least quantity of work they need to in order to complete the task. Civilization has come up with easy ways to create fire, therefore, it's a waste of damn time to notch a hole into a stick, start friction with another stick in said hole, and then add brush w/slight blowing. It's not that people can't do it; it's that people don't have to.

 

If people don't know how, it's irrelevant, since humans are animals that learn through socialization. Those who don't learn will die. You aren't born knowing how to make fire any more than the Bonobo are born knowing the cultural morays of their society (and the bonobo do have culture). People teach you. Survivors, of which some will most definitly know how to make fire (many people do today) can pass the skill on. You are taking the most extreme situtation, which rarely makes for good arguments.

 

 

2. Humans are not solitary creatures, nor are they produced from nature able to combat a bear, kill a gator, or russle us up some dinosaurs. Saying humans are deficient because we cannot do this is patently moronic. We don't need to, because, as was mentioned by man-a-poster, Humans have the ability to create, replicate, and think up technology to aid us in this.

[Commie_Pinko]

I wanted to separate this from the main post, because I have become irritated by the lack of actual thought put into several of his posts, including positions that verge on the praise of Social Darwinism.

 

Provide evidence that the "stupid" are outbreeding the "superior intellects" and that this is a major problem for society. This is nonsense, since the people who breed the most typically are the poor, but poor does not = stupid. There is a high correlation between lower classes and reproduction, but I have seen little evidence of stupidity and vastly higher reproduction. Society isn't being hurt because the "poor" or "inferior" are breeding. That's arbitrary. There is no concept of perfection, and you don't know squat about what could potentially be "valuable" as a gene. Everyone who survives in today's society ought to survive, because Natural Selection is not, and never has been, a measuring stick of morality in any academic field. There is no "master race" or "master genetic makeup." The only bad genes are those which preclude the happy, funtional lives.

 

It's also a false cause fallacy to assume people are naturally stupid, and thus the solution is to stop breeding. That only works with people with subpar intelligence (IE. Mentally Retarded). Intelligence is an extremely hard factor to monitor and measure, and there are very few reliable tests, because we artifically measure certain aspects of intelligence (IE. IQ tests). Intelligence of most individuals in society, apart from the obviously retarded, is a product of culture and enviornment. There is less genetic responsibility for stupidity among average people than the enviornment.

[ecoli]

Good job, Commie. You summed up my arguments perfectly, much more clearly then I could have done.

[The Peon]

*jumps back into the discussion flailing a spear and torch around wildly while hooting, springing the ambush he preplanned at camp with his tribesman, and slays a massive kodiac bear with the aid of his partners and some nifty spearmanship*

 

One of Humanitys greatest strengths in my opinion: We dislike death more then any other creature. Our will to survive.

[ecoli]

That's the side effect of having enough free time to contemplate life.