<!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Mar 15 2005, 01:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Mar 15 2005, 01:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 14 2005, 10:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 14 2005, 10:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> you wouldn't enjoy nothing, you wouldn't be anything. I'm just saying you life seems so very very pointless I don't understand how you go on living <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Life may be pointless, but its better than the alternative. Given the option of a pointless existance, or no existance, I'll take the pointless existence.
I don't understand why this is so hard for you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> its not like you can expierence nothing. there'd be nothing to expierence. I'd take sitting at home doing nothing on a saterday then going out and doing something vain and pointless that doesn't even matter
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 15 2005, 01:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 15 2005, 01:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Mar 15 2005, 01:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Mar 15 2005, 01:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 14 2005, 10:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 14 2005, 10:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> you wouldn't enjoy nothing, you wouldn't be anything. I'm just saying you life seems so very very pointless I don't understand how you go on living <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Life may be pointless, but its better than the alternative. Given the option of a pointless existance, or no existance, I'll take the pointless existence.
I don't understand why this is so hard for you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> its not like you can expierence nothing. there'd be nothing to expierence. I'd take sitting at home doing nothing on a saterday then going out and doing something vain and pointless that doesn't even matter <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sitting at home doing nothing is absolutely nothing like non-existence. You made that you don't even understand.
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 14 2005, 10:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 14 2005, 10:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Mar 15 2005, 01:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Mar 15 2005, 01:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 14 2005, 10:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 14 2005, 10:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> you wouldn't enjoy nothing, you wouldn't be anything. I'm just saying you life seems so very very pointless I don't understand how you go on living <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Life may be pointless, but its better than the alternative. Given the option of a pointless existance, or no existance, I'll take the pointless existence.
I don't understand why this is so hard for you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> its not like you can expierence nothing. there'd be nothing to expierence. I'd take sitting at home doing nothing on a saterday then going out and doing something vain and pointless that doesn't even matter <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I AM EXPERIENCING SOMETHING! I'm experiencing life! At this moment, I am enjoying music. I am fretting over a crush. I am reading your inane (and quite possibly in<i>s</i>ane) ramblings.
I'm living for the moment. I'm trying to get what I can out of life, because its all I've got.
Have you ever played Tetris? By playing you accomplish nothing important. However, you are momentarily entertained. And you have to agree there is a difference between playing Tetris and doing nothing.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Mar 15 2005, 01:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Mar 15 2005, 01:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 14 2005, 10:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 14 2005, 10:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Mar 15 2005, 01:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Mar 15 2005, 01:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 14 2005, 10:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 14 2005, 10:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> you wouldn't enjoy nothing, you wouldn't be anything. I'm just saying you life seems so very very pointless I don't understand how you go on living <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Life may be pointless, but its better than the alternative. Given the option of a pointless existance, or no existance, I'll take the pointless existence.
I don't understand why this is so hard for you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> its not like you can expierence nothing. there'd be nothing to expierence. I'd take sitting at home doing nothing on a saterday then going out and doing something vain and pointless that doesn't even matter <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I AM EXPERIENCING SOMETHING! I'm experiencing life! At this moment, I am enjoying music. I am fretting over a crush. I am reading your inane (and quite possibly in<i>s</i>ane) ramblings.
I'm living for the moment. I'm trying to get what I can out of life, because its all I've got.
Have you ever played Tetris? By playing you accomplish nothing important. However, you are momentarily entertained. And you have to agree there is a difference between playing Tetris and doing nothing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm actually the president of the tetris club at school (no kidding I'm dead serious here) and we play tetris competitivly
<!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Mar 15 2005, 05:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Mar 15 2005, 05:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 14 2005, 09:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 14 2005, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Question if evolving Brain FTW is the best strad why are humans the only ones to do it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because we pretty much killed any competing Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. They were the only other species that could have matched the mental capacity of Homo Sapiens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, both Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man were of Homo sapiens.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Nemesis+Mar 14 2005, 10:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Nemesis @ Mar 14 2005, 10:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Mar 15 2005, 05:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Mar 15 2005, 05:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 14 2005, 09:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 14 2005, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Question if evolving Brain FTW is the best strad why are humans the only ones to do it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because we pretty much killed any competing Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. They were the only other species that could have matched the mental capacity of Homo Sapiens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, both Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man were of Homo sapiens. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Really? I may be wrong about Cro Magnon, but I'm pretty sure its agreed that Neanderthal man had branched off completely. Whatever, its not the point.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Nemesis+Mar 15 2005, 01:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Nemesis @ Mar 15 2005, 01:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Mar 15 2005, 05:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Mar 15 2005, 05:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 14 2005, 09:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 14 2005, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Question if evolving Brain FTW is the best strad why are humans the only ones to do it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because we pretty much killed any competing Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. They were the only other species that could have matched the mental capacity of Homo Sapiens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, both Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man were of Homo sapiens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah yeah smartypants. I'm sure he meant Homo sapien sapiens, but thanks for sharing <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-The Nemesis+Mar 15 2005, 01:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Nemesis @ Mar 15 2005, 01:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Mar 15 2005, 05:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Mar 15 2005, 05:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 14 2005, 09:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 14 2005, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Question if evolving Brain FTW is the best strad why are humans the only ones to do it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because we pretty much killed any competing Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. They were the only other species that could have matched the mental capacity of Homo Sapiens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, both Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man were of Homo sapiens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you sure that Neanderthals were homo sapiens? Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree: <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal</a> Mantrid's article has this: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While the debate remains unsettled, the preponderance of evidence, collected by examining mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA, currently indicates that there was no gene flow between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and therefore the two were separate species.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Mar 15 2005, 02:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Mar 15 2005, 02:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You know, Nemesis Zero is going to lynch us. Each and every one of us. Huh. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If AvengerX goes down with us, it'll be worth it. That stain has been on the discussion forum for too long.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 15 2005, 05:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 15 2005, 05:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-The Nemesis+Mar 15 2005, 01:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Nemesis @ Mar 15 2005, 01:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Mar 15 2005, 05:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Mar 15 2005, 05:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 14 2005, 09:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 14 2005, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Question if evolving Brain FTW is the best strad why are humans the only ones to do it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because we pretty much killed any competing Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. They were the only other species that could have matched the mental capacity of Homo Sapiens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, both Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man were of Homo sapiens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you sure that Neanderthals were homo sapiens? Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree: <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal</a> Mantrid's article has this: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While the debate remains unsettled, the preponderance of evidence, collected by examining mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA, currently indicates that there was no gene flow between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and therefore the two were separate species.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I just looked in Webster's, but on further research there appears to be some debate over whether they are the of the same species (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), or different (Homo neanderthalensis).
<!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Mar 15 2005, 12:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Mar 15 2005, 12:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 14 2005, 09:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 14 2005, 09:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> SO HOW CAN YOU SAY THATS BALANCED!!!! HUMANS ARE 100000000X better then any animal.. so how could you figure the odds that one species becomes super strong gods while the rest are just sub-par.
thats my point I'm trying to get at. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, humans are crap. We're one of the crappiest species. We have soft skin thats easily sunburned. We have very little hair to protect us. Our only natural weapons are our pitiful fingernails and teeth. We can plan, and we can communicate. But our bodies suck. We get sick easily. We're easily infected. We don't have a whole lot of pain tolerance. We inefficeintly walk on two legs. Our heads stick way up and are easily spotted by predators.
What makes us rise above other species isn't our bodies, its our technology. The human mind is amazing, but without basic tools, let alone advanced technology, humans don't stand a chance. We survived by our wits when we still lived in Africa. We made tools, and we made clothing, and we learned to leave Africa. Without tools or clothing, we'd still be there, struggling to stay alive. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Being that we're not natural born 'predators' (in the sense of: run down your food and bite its neck to kill it), it would make no sense for us to have strong claws and teeth. As with other primates, fingernails are meant to protect your fingers - to assist in our great defense: climbing (and later: tool using).
We don't necessarily get sick easier, that really depends on your family genetics (like how snow leopards in zoos, who come from a small gene-pool tend to get sick often). And varies from person to person; much like with other animals (although, unless they're a pet, sick animals die off rather quickly).
And we don't 'inefficiently' walk on two legs; it was an adaptive response of looking for food in African savannahs - if you can see over the tall grass you can see a predator (I'm not sure if you know this, but humans have this ability to bend their legs, effectively making them shorter <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) as well as gaining the ability to see food/shelter/water/usefulness in the distance. Our bodies are actually one of our greatest assest. Opposable thumbs mean a great ability to work tools, leading to better brains, which leads to better tools.
Technology isn't really our greatest asset either, it's our communal nature; the fact that anyone of our species can raise the young of anyone else (if the need be - yes, except for those anti-social types...). Which assists in the spread of technology throughout the system.
[humans aren't the only tool users, either]
From: <!--QuoteBegin-CRSQ Vol 40 No 3 pp 216-2303 March 2004+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CRSQ Vol 40 No 3 pp 216-2303 March 2004)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It commonly is believed that hair evolved to help retain body heat, because hair is an excellent heat insulator (Wong and Simmons, 2001). This conclusion, however, is pure speculation. As one researcher admits, researchers do not even agree on the question whether hair or warm-bloodedness (endothermy) evolved first. Wong and Simmons (2001, p. 1) also admit that the theory that hair evolved as a means of insulation is only:
one of the ideas about why we have hair. Of course, there is no way for us to tell whether hair evolved first and then endothermy evolved, or whether endothermy evolved and then somehow hair evolved. We really don't know anything about these things.
Most Darwinists believe that humans evolved in Africa along with other primates, all of which were almost totally covered with thick fur. As such, a common view is that now the "body hair of men and women is purely vestigial," a useless evolutionary leftover from when we were ape-like animals (Wells et. al., 1931, p. 415). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So I would assume that we have inefficient, thin hair on parts of our bodies, since the development of clothing eventually thinned it out, resulting in hair on our heads (since if you cover the head with stuff you'll have trouble using your 3 best senses) and not really anywhere else in great abundance (I'm still working on the 'pubic hair' issue...).
[edit: actually, one thing I've found that might explain this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Many animals can outrun human (Any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae) beings for short periods of time; such animals, however, are inefficient radiators of heat, and cannot run for long periods of time (notable exceptions include most cursorial animals, including savannah fauna). Thus, human hunters must be able to chase animals for long periods of time, and must therefore have an efficient mechanism for radiating body heat. Upright posture exposes less surface area of the body to direct solar radiation, and subcutaneous sweat glands developed, providing such a cooling mechanism. A more recent theory for human hair loss has to do with a possible period of bipedal wading in a salt marsh in the Danakil region of Ethiopia, which occurred in the hominid lineage, between 5 and 7 million years ago. As a wading animal, it was more efficient to develop short body hair and a layer of subcutaneous fat for streamlining and insulation in the aquatic environment; the eccrine sweat glands developed later after the hominids left the water. This is why most hairless mammals are aquatic (dolphins, dugongs, whales), had an aquatic period in their pasts (elephants, rhinoceroses, pigs) or have very short fine fur because of brief periods back out of the water (seals, sea lions). There is a hypothesis that claims humans are no exception to this rule of hairlessness through means of a marine transition; see Aquatic Ape Theory.
Typically, humans have more hair on the top of the head, because this region of the body was exposed to solar radiation at all times, even when wading, and also hair where extremities meet the torso (axillary (arm-pit) hair, and pubic hair. Hair growing in the pubic area, on the eye, the organ of sight and above them (eyebrows)). In most societies people shave, style or adorn their hair for aesthetic reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
.../edit]
Humans are still inefficient 1 vs 1 with many animals, however. We have almost no instinctual abilities (grasp and suck, basically); resulting in a tenuous learning period which can last very long (up to 3 years for basics of communication and motor skills). If AvengerX thinks an individual human is better than a bear: let a mother give birth to their child in the wild (one bear + one bear cub and one human + one child); the parent can teach the child whatever they want...and lets see who survives (pfft, cub wouldn't even need as much help; since the bear and cub could be hunting the human before the child would be able to walk).
I'd like to also ask AvengerX, since we're the most bestest, greatestest, most dominant(...est) species on the planet:
Why are we overcome by humble bacteria?
Also note, to whoever said humans adapt the enviroment to themselves so they're poor evolutionarily: many insects and mammals do the same thing; burrows and nests adapt the enviroment to a habitable temperature. Just like our homes do for us. If you want to go bigger: beaver dams influence entire ecosystems for the benefit of the beaver family's living quality and safety.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Nemesis+Mar 15 2005, 02:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Nemesis @ Mar 15 2005, 02:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 15 2005, 05:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 15 2005, 05:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-The Nemesis+Mar 15 2005, 01:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Nemesis @ Mar 15 2005, 01:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Mar 15 2005, 05:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Mar 15 2005, 05:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 14 2005, 09:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 14 2005, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Question if evolving Brain FTW is the best strad why are humans the only ones to do it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because we pretty much killed any competing Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. They were the only other species that could have matched the mental capacity of Homo Sapiens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, both Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man were of Homo sapiens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you sure that Neanderthals were homo sapiens? Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree: <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal</a> Mantrid's article has this: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While the debate remains unsettled, the preponderance of evidence, collected by examining mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA, currently indicates that there was no gene flow between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and therefore the two were separate species.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just looked in Webster's, but on further research there appears to be some debate over whether they are the of the same species (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), or different (Homo neanderthalensis). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In the Dawkins that I've read, he says that even two species that can interbreed, are still separate species if they don't interbreed.
He talks about this in this book, although also in others, probably: <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618005838/103-0873986-2731043' target='_blank'>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/061...0873986-2731043</a>
He gives the example of two frog(?; maybe it was grasshoppers) species that extend from Texas to California, for the first species, and Texas to Georgia, for the other. They can interbreed, but they don't, because they have calls at different pitches, so the males and females of each species never mate with each other. However, if you take the frogs(grasshoppers, maybe) from California and the frogs from Georgia, their calls operate at the same pitch. As you move closer to Texas, their calls diverge in pitch so that they don't procreate with each other.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And we don't 'inefficiently' walk on two legs; it was an adaptive response of looking for food in African savannahs - if you can see over the tall grass you can see a predator (I'm not sure if you know this, but humans have this ability to bend their legs, effectively making them shorter biggrin-fix.gif ) as well as gaining the ability to see food/shelter/water/usefulness in the distance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Also, we actually walk very efficiently. Over very long distances (100 miles) we travel faster than horses, cheetas, and many other animals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So I would assume that we have inefficient, thin hair on parts of our bodies, since the development of clothing eventually thinned it out, resulting in hair on our heads (since if you cover the head with stuff you'll have trouble using your 3 best senses) and not really anywhere else in great abundance (I'm still working on the 'pubic hair' issue...).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In the Dawkins book I cited above, he states that we lost our hair because we didn't need it in the hot climate of Africa. We kept the hair on our heads because it prevents sunburn and we kept our pubic and armpit hair because they help transmit pheromones. Note that some ethnic groups (europeans, persians) have more body hair than others (eastern asians). I don't know why other apes haven't lost their hair, however.
In my edited post: another reason for losing the hair was the formation of sweat glands and the ability to radiate heat efficiently (in order to traverse land relatively quickly, as you stated); Apes and Gorillas don't really need to sweat (or traverse large distances), which is probably one reason they still have hair.
...Another source cites body language and facial expressions as one reason hair has gone into decline (and a reason why some apes have no facial hair, but it covers the rest of their bodies).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, humans are crap. We're one of the crappiest species. We have soft skin thats easily sunburned. We have very little hair to protect us. Our only natural weapons are our pitiful fingernails and teeth. We can plan, and we can communicate. But our bodies suck. We get sick easily. We're easily infected. We don't have a whole lot of pain tolerance. We inefficeintly walk on two legs. Our heads stick way up and are easily spotted by predators.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, that is right. But only in regard to us. The weaknesses you describe do only fit to humans growing up in sophisticated civilisation.
The human body in its very concept is highly sophisiticated. The few hair and soft skin mean that we can sweat and thus controll out body temperature better than any other mammal. Humans are extremely agile and enduring on long ranges, perfectly suited for traveling long distances to find food and water in barren conditions. Moreover, humans are desinged to hunt their prey to exhaustion. A trained and hardened Human can hunt ANY animal to death. Given its small enough to be impressed and does not consider humans as prey itself. Thats pretty much everything exept elephants and large predators like lions, although many African tribes do hunt those too.
Ooops... That has already been answered.... Sorry, I was in a hurry and did not read the last pages.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
Humans rock, if you are judging them as a conflict orientated organism.
From an evolutionary perspective, we're also doing pretty well. At some point in the not too distant future, we will also become the only lifeform on this planet to be able to survive the destruction of our local ecosystem (thanks to interplanetary travel) which from an evolutionary perspective, puts us in a whole different ballpark to every other organism whose existence is tied to this particular rock.
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Mar 15 2005, 04:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Mar 15 2005, 04:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Humans rock, if you are judging them as a conflict orientated organism.
From an evolutionary perspective, we're also doing pretty well. At some point in the not too distant future, we will also become the only lifeform on this planet to be able to survive the destruction of our local ecosystem (thanks to interplanetary travel) which from an evolutionary perspective, puts us in a whole different ballpark to every other organism whose existence is tied to this particular rock. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What Grendel puts so eloquently with his unmatched sarcasm is, that Human is possibly an evolutionary failure that possibly will cause its own eradication eventually.
Take the last Ice age for instance. After the end of the last ice age, a majority of all large mammal and predators vansihed from earth within less than a few hundred years. Most notably there is the mamoth. Until recently, we were convinced that the climatic changes caused the extinction of most animals that were unable to evolve accoring to the new circumstances. That therory is most probably wrong. Mamoth have survived several climatic changes, if you wish several ice ages, without going extict. Warmer climate means more food, whether mamoths are accustomed to marshland or not, the will definately find more grass in warmer climate. There was no reason for them to die out. They would become less fury and adapt in other ways.
So, why did those large animals vanish from the face of the earth? The aswer is simple. They were killed by man. Somewhere in that time, the Bering Strait was completely covered with ice and allowed humans to travel to the new continent. Humans traveled into the new world in search for hunting grounds and found a paradiese. They had plenty of prey in all sizes, so no competition was nessesary. They communicated and spread their knowledge and . They had developed very efficient missle weapons like spears with sharp stone heads of exceptional high quality.
They killed the large animals withouth foresight and so rapidly,that within a few hundred years, their numbers had diminished by a degree where the predators were affected by the shortage. From then, the process was not reversable and they most probably did not understand what happened either. They were the ancestors of the native american people, who had learned the lesson and developed a kind of hunters code that ensured their survival.
Edit: Typo correction. Forgive me, im quite short on time lately.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By looking at things and patterns of the past, can we predict what kind of evolutionary changes are going to happen in the future? like if we know how climates and habitats affect how creatures evovled... can we guess whats gonna happen next? talking dolphins maybe?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only to a limited extent. What we can do is look at an environment and see what sort of pressures its putting on a species, and then extrapolate how it might adapt. Our ability to read the past is far far more powerful.
Dolphins can talk, in a way. They are highly intelligent, and communicate with each other in ways we don't quite understand.
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 15 2005, 12:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 15 2005, 12:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> how doesn't it pretain? who's more evolved... man kind or dolphins? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Neither. All modern species have been through just as much evolution as all other modern species.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> so your telling me... out of the millions of Species only one of them evolved a larger brain. just magically were the only ones to do so when every other tactic has multiple examples of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obviously, there has to be a "first" for everything. And it's likely that this first will be standing around going "so why didn't anyone else evolve a bigger brain?" But their confusion is misplaced. They were just the first, and the first would always be likely to wonder that.
Then again, there is no reason to think that everything is evolving "towards" a bigger brain. We hit upon ours through a lucky set of evolutionary pressures that are still under heavy debate. But brains are expensive and hugely wasteful of resources. Bacteria are far more succesful without even a nervous system. So there is no necessary pressure for everything to grow big brains, anymore than there is a pressure in humans to develop sonar like dolphins.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Nemesis+Mar 15 2005, 02:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Nemesis @ Mar 15 2005, 02:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I just looked in Webster's, but on further research there appears to be some debate over whether they are the of the same species (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), or different (Homo neanderthalensis).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I should note that this sort of confusion is _exactly_ what we'd expect to see if there was some sort of evolutionary process: because there are no hard and fast lines defining "kinds" no one can be ultimately sure how best to classify different species.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Mar 15 2005, 12:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Mar 15 2005, 12:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Mar 15 2005, 04:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Mar 15 2005, 04:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Humans rock, if you are judging them as a conflict orientated organism.
From an evolutionary perspective, we're also doing pretty well. At some point in the not too distant future, we will also become the only lifeform on this planet to be able to survive the destruction of our local ecosystem (thanks to interplanetary travel) which from an evolutionary perspective, puts us in a whole different ballpark to every other organism whose existence is tied to this particular rock. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What Grendel puts so eloquently with his unmatched sarcasm is, that Human is possibly an evolutionary failure that possibly will cause its own eradication eventually. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No I didn't. I was being quite literal.
Survival of the fittest is the statement that a creature that best fits an environment will survive. Not only are humans capable of surviving in a large number of the environmental conditions on planet Earth, but they are able to use tools to allow them to live under almost any condition.
Whilst we can't sustain ourselves in certain environments indefinitely, we have developed technology that allows humans to live anywhere from pressures of thousands of pounds per square inch to irradiated hard vacuum.
Up until the point where we actually wipe ourselves out, we will be the most evolutionarily capable organism on the planet. If we do wipe ourselves out, then obviously we will cease being "fit" for our environment. But until we manage to do that, we will be the "fittest".
You cannot evaluate a races fitness for an environment on any basis other than the present. That's the point of evolution. What might be useful now is not necessarily going to be useful in a fortnight. Organisms in chemically rich environments at the bottom of the Ocean can laugh off a massive thermonuclear exchange. But if something massive impacts into Jupiter and initiates fusion, the only organisms that would survive would be anything that got off planet.
Our ability to migrate kicks the arse off any other species on the planet.
Well, humankind has, as the ice age example shows, already almost managed to eradicate itself by killing off its own source of survival and most certainly did so several times in its history. While I agree with you that we can survive any major calamity and the destruction of our own eco system, it will definately change our society and very few will actually survive such an occurance. Those who are not among the few selected will not go down silently, however. Like in any time of short ressources, war will break out over those few left and with the destructive capability we posses nowadays...
But lets drop this, we are rambling off topic again.
You seem to be making separate points as far as I can see. Grendal's talking about mankind's use of tools, while you're talking about mankind's lack of ecological savvy. We have the ability to do great things, but also the ability to lose it all, like you've both said. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but we can't say whether we're a "failure" or not until the moment it all hits the fan.
Grendal has some great points i must say. But im not sure you would classify that as evolution anymore, tools and knowledge have little to do with physical traits. like Grendal said "were in a hole new ballpark" pretty much sums it up. humanity has advanced to a new undicernible level, im not even sure its got a label yet. We've actually pretty much defeated instinct(oh you can make arguments for anything, but in the end, it IS true) and basically any primal need(for better or for worse? maybe Apos can add onto that). We have kinda defeated the purpose of evolution/natural-selection cause even the unfit for the enviroment survive(people with variety of mutations that really SHOULDN'T work). but Grendal is right, even if our culture/people does goes to sh**, we have the basic technology to make a migration to somewhere else(mars? or just somewhere else on the planet).
ah, yeah i got more to add, but i just all of a sudden am getting a REALLY REALLY sharp pain in my leg.
I don't think we're evolving anymore, in the sense of natural selection, because there is almost no evolutionary pressure on us. Almost every single person in the world will survive to breed. What we're left with is sexual selection (you only want to mate with attractive people, so people who look attractive are more likely to pass on their genes) and social selection (Jews in Nazi Germany faced huge evolutionary pressure, since they were unlikely to survive long enough to breed; homosexuals aren't as likely to stay closeted for their whole life, so there is a slight negative selection on homosexuality, assuming that it is based on genetics).
Think about it. You want the most intelligent to breed. However, in these days of condoms, birth control pills, morning after pills, intrauterine devices , et cetera, you have to be incredibly stupid to accidently get pregnant. The intelligent promiscous people aren't getting pregnant. The stupid ones are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't think we're evolving anymore, in the sense of natural selection, because there is almost no evolutionary pressure on us. Almost every single person in the world will survive to breed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Natural selection is a lot craftier than that though. It isn't strictly who lives to breed, but also who is most prolific. And it's not true that almost every person gets to breed. First of all, there is a tremendous amount of spontaneous abortion, plenty of childhood death,a dn plenty of childless people. And sexual selection is actually a MORe powerful and pressured selection mechanism in many ways.
And evolution doesn't care about intelligence as we understand it: just effectiveness in survival and reproduction.
Comments
Life may be pointless, but its better than the alternative. Given the option of a pointless existance, or no existance, I'll take the pointless existence.
I don't understand why this is so hard for you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
its not like you can expierence nothing. there'd be nothing to expierence. I'd take sitting at home doing nothing on a saterday then going out and doing something vain and pointless that doesn't even matter
Life may be pointless, but its better than the alternative. Given the option of a pointless existance, or no existance, I'll take the pointless existence.
I don't understand why this is so hard for you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
its not like you can expierence nothing. there'd be nothing to expierence. I'd take sitting at home doing nothing on a saterday then going out and doing something vain and pointless that doesn't even matter <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sitting at home doing nothing is absolutely nothing like non-existence. You made that you don't even understand.
Life may be pointless, but its better than the alternative. Given the option of a pointless existance, or no existance, I'll take the pointless existence.
I don't understand why this is so hard for you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
its not like you can expierence nothing. there'd be nothing to expierence. I'd take sitting at home doing nothing on a saterday then going out and doing something vain and pointless that doesn't even matter <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I AM EXPERIENCING SOMETHING! I'm experiencing life! At this moment, I am enjoying music. I am fretting over a crush. I am reading your inane (and quite possibly in<i>s</i>ane) ramblings.
I'm living for the moment. I'm trying to get what I can out of life, because its all I've got.
Have you ever played Tetris? By playing you accomplish nothing important. However, you are momentarily entertained. And you have to agree there is a difference between playing Tetris and doing nothing.
Life may be pointless, but its better than the alternative. Given the option of a pointless existance, or no existance, I'll take the pointless existence.
I don't understand why this is so hard for you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
its not like you can expierence nothing. there'd be nothing to expierence. I'd take sitting at home doing nothing on a saterday then going out and doing something vain and pointless that doesn't even matter <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I AM EXPERIENCING SOMETHING! I'm experiencing life! At this moment, I am enjoying music. I am fretting over a crush. I am reading your inane (and quite possibly in<i>s</i>ane) ramblings.
I'm living for the moment. I'm trying to get what I can out of life, because its all I've got.
Have you ever played Tetris? By playing you accomplish nothing important. However, you are momentarily entertained. And you have to agree there is a difference between playing Tetris and doing nothing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm actually the president of the tetris club at school (no kidding I'm dead serious here) and we play tetris competitivly
if evolving Brain FTW is the best strad why are humans the only ones to do it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because we pretty much killed any competing Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. They were the only other species that could have matched the mental capacity of Homo Sapiens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, both Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man were of Homo sapiens.
if evolving Brain FTW is the best strad why are humans the only ones to do it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because we pretty much killed any competing Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. They were the only other species that could have matched the mental capacity of Homo Sapiens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, both Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man were of Homo sapiens. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? I may be wrong about Cro Magnon, but I'm pretty sure its agreed that Neanderthal man had branched off completely. Whatever, its not the point.
if evolving Brain FTW is the best strad why are humans the only ones to do it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because we pretty much killed any competing Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. They were the only other species that could have matched the mental capacity of Homo Sapiens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, both Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man were of Homo sapiens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah yeah smartypants. I'm sure he meant Homo sapien sapiens, but thanks for sharing <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
if evolving Brain FTW is the best strad why are humans the only ones to do it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because we pretty much killed any competing Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. They were the only other species that could have matched the mental capacity of Homo Sapiens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, both Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man were of Homo sapiens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you sure that Neanderthals were homo sapiens?
Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree:
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal</a>
Mantrid's article has this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While the debate remains unsettled, the preponderance of evidence, collected by examining mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA, currently indicates that there was no gene flow between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and therefore the two were separate species.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Homo_sapiens' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Homo_sapiens</a>
If AvengerX goes down with us, it'll be worth it. That stain has been on the discussion forum for too long.
if evolving Brain FTW is the best strad why are humans the only ones to do it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because we pretty much killed any competing Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. They were the only other species that could have matched the mental capacity of Homo Sapiens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, both Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man were of Homo sapiens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you sure that Neanderthals were homo sapiens?
Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree:
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal</a>
Mantrid's article has this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While the debate remains unsettled, the preponderance of evidence, collected by examining mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA, currently indicates that there was no gene flow between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and therefore the two were separate species.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just looked in Webster's, but on further research there appears to be some debate over whether they are the of the same species (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), or different (Homo neanderthalensis).
thats my point I'm trying to get at. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, humans are crap. We're one of the crappiest species. We have soft skin thats easily sunburned. We have very little hair to protect us. Our only natural weapons are our pitiful fingernails and teeth. We can plan, and we can communicate. But our bodies suck. We get sick easily. We're easily infected. We don't have a whole lot of pain tolerance. We inefficeintly walk on two legs. Our heads stick way up and are easily spotted by predators.
What makes us rise above other species isn't our bodies, its our technology. The human mind is amazing, but without basic tools, let alone advanced technology, humans don't stand a chance. We survived by our wits when we still lived in Africa. We made tools, and we made clothing, and we learned to leave Africa. Without tools or clothing, we'd still be there, struggling to stay alive. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Being that we're not natural born 'predators' (in the sense of: run down your food and bite its neck to kill it), it would make no sense for us to have strong claws and teeth. As with other primates, fingernails are meant to protect your fingers - to assist in our great defense: climbing (and later: tool using).
We don't necessarily get sick easier, that really depends on your family genetics (like how snow leopards in zoos, who come from a small gene-pool tend to get sick often). And varies from person to person; much like with other animals (although, unless they're a pet, sick animals die off rather quickly).
And we don't 'inefficiently' walk on two legs; it was an adaptive response of looking for food in African savannahs - if you can see over the tall grass you can see a predator (I'm not sure if you know this, but humans have this ability to bend their legs, effectively making them shorter <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) as well as gaining the ability to see food/shelter/water/usefulness in the distance. Our bodies are actually one of our greatest assest. Opposable thumbs mean a great ability to work tools, leading to better brains, which leads to better tools.
Technology isn't really our greatest asset either, it's our communal nature; the fact that anyone of our species can raise the young of anyone else (if the need be - yes, except for those anti-social types...). Which assists in the spread of technology throughout the system.
[humans aren't the only tool users, either]
From:
<!--QuoteBegin-CRSQ Vol 40 No 3 pp 216-2303 March 2004+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CRSQ Vol 40 No 3 pp 216-2303 March 2004)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It commonly is believed that hair evolved to help retain body heat, because hair is an excellent heat insulator (Wong and Simmons, 2001). This conclusion, however, is pure speculation. As one researcher admits, researchers do not even agree on the question whether hair or warm-bloodedness (endothermy) evolved first. Wong and Simmons (2001, p. 1) also admit that the theory that hair evolved as a means of insulation is only:
one of the ideas about why we have hair. Of course, there is no way for us to tell whether hair evolved first and then endothermy evolved, or whether endothermy evolved and then somehow hair evolved. We really don't know anything about these things.
Most Darwinists believe that humans evolved in Africa along with other primates, all of which were almost totally covered with thick fur. As such, a common view is that now the "body hair of men and women is purely vestigial," a useless evolutionary leftover from when we were ape-like animals (Wells et. al., 1931, p. 415). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So I would assume that we have inefficient, thin hair on parts of our bodies, since the development of clothing eventually thinned it out, resulting in hair on our heads (since if you cover the head with stuff you'll have trouble using your 3 best senses) and not really anywhere else in great abundance (I'm still working on the 'pubic hair' issue...).
[edit: actually, one thing I've found that might explain this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Many animals can outrun human (Any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae) beings for short periods of time; such animals, however, are inefficient radiators of heat, and cannot run for long periods of time (notable exceptions include most cursorial animals, including savannah fauna). Thus, human hunters must be able to chase animals for long periods of time, and must therefore have an efficient mechanism for radiating body heat. Upright posture exposes less surface area of the body to direct solar radiation, and subcutaneous sweat glands developed, providing such a cooling mechanism. A more recent theory for human hair loss has to do with a possible period of bipedal wading in a salt marsh in the Danakil region of Ethiopia, which occurred in the hominid lineage, between 5 and 7 million years ago. As a wading animal, it was more efficient to develop short body hair and a layer of subcutaneous fat for streamlining and insulation in the aquatic environment; the eccrine sweat glands developed later after the hominids left the water. This is why most hairless mammals are aquatic (dolphins, dugongs, whales), had an aquatic period in their pasts (elephants, rhinoceroses, pigs) or have very short fine fur because of brief periods back out of the water (seals, sea lions). There is a hypothesis that claims humans are no exception to this rule of hairlessness through means of a marine transition; see Aquatic Ape Theory.
Typically, humans have more hair on the top of the head, because this region of the body was exposed to solar radiation at all times, even when wading, and also hair where extremities meet the torso (axillary (arm-pit) hair, and pubic hair.
Hair growing in the pubic area, on the eye, the organ of sight and above them (eyebrows)). In most societies people shave, style or adorn their hair for aesthetic reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
.../edit]
Humans are still inefficient 1 vs 1 with many animals, however. We have almost no instinctual abilities (grasp and suck, basically); resulting in a tenuous learning period which can last very long (up to 3 years for basics of communication and motor skills). If AvengerX thinks an individual human is better than a bear: let a mother give birth to their child in the wild (one bear + one bear cub and one human + one child); the parent can teach the child whatever they want...and lets see who survives (pfft, cub wouldn't even need as much help; since the bear and cub could be hunting the human before the child would be able to walk).
I'd like to also ask AvengerX, since we're the most bestest, greatestest, most dominant(...est) species on the planet:
Why are we overcome by humble bacteria?
Also note, to whoever said humans adapt the enviroment to themselves so they're poor evolutionarily: many insects and mammals do the same thing; burrows and nests adapt the enviroment to a habitable temperature. Just like our homes do for us. If you want to go bigger: beaver dams influence entire ecosystems for the benefit of the beaver family's living quality and safety.
if evolving Brain FTW is the best strad why are humans the only ones to do it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because we pretty much killed any competing Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. They were the only other species that could have matched the mental capacity of Homo Sapiens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, both Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man were of Homo sapiens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you sure that Neanderthals were homo sapiens?
Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree:
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal</a>
Mantrid's article has this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While the debate remains unsettled, the preponderance of evidence, collected by examining mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA, currently indicates that there was no gene flow between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and therefore the two were separate species.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just looked in Webster's, but on further research there appears to be some debate over whether they are the of the same species (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), or different (Homo neanderthalensis). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the Dawkins that I've read, he says that even two species that can interbreed, are still separate species if they don't interbreed.
He talks about this in this book, although also in others, probably:
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618005838/103-0873986-2731043' target='_blank'>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/061...0873986-2731043</a>
He gives the example of two frog(?; maybe it was grasshoppers) species that extend from Texas to California, for the first species, and Texas to Georgia, for the other. They can interbreed, but they don't, because they have calls at different pitches, so the males and females of each species never mate with each other. However, if you take the frogs(grasshoppers, maybe) from California and the frogs from Georgia, their calls operate at the same pitch. As you move closer to Texas, their calls diverge in pitch so that they don't procreate with each other.
Also, we actually walk very efficiently. Over very long distances (100 miles) we travel faster than horses, cheetas, and many other animals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So I would assume that we have inefficient, thin hair on parts of our bodies, since the development of clothing eventually thinned it out, resulting in hair on our heads (since if you cover the head with stuff you'll have trouble using your 3 best senses) and not really anywhere else in great abundance (I'm still working on the 'pubic hair' issue...).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the Dawkins book I cited above, he states that we lost our hair because we didn't need it in the hot climate of Africa. We kept the hair on our heads because it prevents sunburn and we kept our pubic and armpit hair because they help transmit pheromones. Note that some ethnic groups (europeans, persians) have more body hair than others (eastern asians). I don't know why other apes haven't lost their hair, however.
...Another source cites body language and facial expressions as one reason hair has gone into decline (and a reason why some apes have no facial hair, but it covers the rest of their bodies).
Actually, that is right. But only in regard to us. The weaknesses you describe do only fit to humans growing up in sophisticated civilisation.
The human body in its very concept is highly sophisiticated. The few hair and soft skin mean that we can sweat and thus controll out body temperature better than any other mammal.
Humans are extremely agile and enduring on long ranges, perfectly suited for traveling long distances to find food and water in barren conditions.
Moreover, humans are desinged to hunt their prey to exhaustion. A trained and hardened Human can hunt ANY animal to death. Given its small enough to be impressed and does not consider humans as prey itself. Thats pretty much everything exept elephants and large predators like lions, although many African tribes do hunt those too.
Ooops... That has already been answered.... Sorry, I was in a hurry and did not read the last pages.
From an evolutionary perspective, we're also doing pretty well. At some point in the not too distant future, we will also become the only lifeform on this planet to be able to survive the destruction of our local ecosystem (thanks to interplanetary travel) which from an evolutionary perspective, puts us in a whole different ballpark to every other organism whose existence is tied to this particular rock.
From an evolutionary perspective, we're also doing pretty well. At some point in the not too distant future, we will also become the only lifeform on this planet to be able to survive the destruction of our local ecosystem (thanks to interplanetary travel) which from an evolutionary perspective, puts us in a whole different ballpark to every other organism whose existence is tied to this particular rock. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What Grendel puts so eloquently with his unmatched sarcasm is, that Human is possibly an evolutionary failure that possibly will cause its own eradication eventually.
Take the last Ice age for instance. After the end of the last ice age, a majority of all large mammal and predators vansihed from earth within less than a few hundred years.
Most notably there is the mamoth. Until recently, we were convinced that the climatic changes caused the extinction of most animals that were unable to evolve accoring to the new circumstances. That therory is most probably wrong. Mamoth have survived several climatic changes, if you wish several ice ages, without going extict. Warmer climate means more food, whether mamoths are accustomed to marshland or not, the will definately find more grass in warmer climate. There was no reason for them to die out. They would become less fury and adapt in other ways.
So, why did those large animals vanish from the face of the earth? The aswer is simple. They were killed by man. Somewhere in that time, the Bering Strait was completely covered with ice and allowed humans to travel to the new continent. Humans traveled into the new world in search for hunting grounds and found a paradiese. They had plenty of prey in all sizes, so no competition was nessesary. They communicated and spread their knowledge and . They had developed very efficient missle weapons like spears with sharp stone heads of exceptional high quality.
They killed the large animals withouth foresight and so rapidly,that within a few hundred years, their numbers had diminished by a degree where the predators were affected by the shortage. From then, the process was not reversable and they most probably did not understand what happened either. They were the ancestors of the native american people, who had learned the lesson and developed a kind of hunters code that ensured their survival.
Edit: Typo correction. Forgive me, im quite short on time lately.
Only to a limited extent. What we can do is look at an environment and see what sort of pressures its putting on a species, and then extrapolate how it might adapt. Our ability to read the past is far far more powerful.
Dolphins can talk, in a way. They are highly intelligent, and communicate with each other in ways we don't quite understand.
Neither. All modern species have been through just as much evolution as all other modern species.
so your telling me... out of the millions of Species only one of them evolved a larger brain. just magically were the only ones to do so when every other tactic has multiple examples of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obviously, there has to be a "first" for everything. And it's likely that this first will be standing around going "so why didn't anyone else evolve a bigger brain?" But their confusion is misplaced. They were just the first, and the first would always be likely to wonder that.
Then again, there is no reason to think that everything is evolving "towards" a bigger brain. We hit upon ours through a lucky set of evolutionary pressures that are still under heavy debate. But brains are expensive and hugely wasteful of resources. Bacteria are far more succesful without even a nervous system. So there is no necessary pressure for everything to grow big brains, anymore than there is a pressure in humans to develop sonar like dolphins.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I should note that this sort of confusion is _exactly_ what we'd expect to see if there was some sort of evolutionary process: because there are no hard and fast lines defining "kinds" no one can be ultimately sure how best to classify different species.
From an evolutionary perspective, we're also doing pretty well. At some point in the not too distant future, we will also become the only lifeform on this planet to be able to survive the destruction of our local ecosystem (thanks to interplanetary travel) which from an evolutionary perspective, puts us in a whole different ballpark to every other organism whose existence is tied to this particular rock. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What Grendel puts so eloquently with his unmatched sarcasm is, that Human is possibly an evolutionary failure that possibly will cause its own eradication eventually. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I didn't. I was being quite literal.
Survival of the fittest is the statement that a creature that best fits an environment will survive. Not only are humans capable of surviving in a large number of the environmental conditions on planet Earth, but they are able to use tools to allow them to live under almost any condition.
Whilst we can't sustain ourselves in certain environments indefinitely, we have developed technology that allows humans to live anywhere from pressures of thousands of pounds per square inch to irradiated hard vacuum.
Up until the point where we actually wipe ourselves out, we will be the most evolutionarily capable organism on the planet. If we do wipe ourselves out, then obviously we will cease being "fit" for our environment. But until we manage to do that, we will be the "fittest".
You cannot evaluate a races fitness for an environment on any basis other than the present. That's the point of evolution. What might be useful now is not necessarily going to be useful in a fortnight. Organisms in chemically rich environments at the bottom of the Ocean can laugh off a massive thermonuclear exchange. But if something massive impacts into Jupiter and initiates fusion, the only organisms that would survive would be anything that got off planet.
Our ability to migrate kicks the arse off any other species on the planet.
While I agree with you that we can survive any major calamity and the destruction of our own eco system, it will definately change our society and very few will actually survive such an occurance. Those who are not among the few selected will not go down silently, however. Like in any time of short ressources, war will break out over those few left and with the destructive capability we posses nowadays...
But lets drop this, we are rambling off topic again.
ah, yeah i got more to add, but i just all of a sudden am getting a REALLY REALLY sharp pain in my leg.
Think about it. You want the most intelligent to breed. However, in these days of condoms, birth control pills, morning after pills, intrauterine devices , et cetera, you have to be incredibly stupid to accidently get pregnant. The intelligent promiscous people aren't getting pregnant. The stupid ones are.
Natural selection is a lot craftier than that though. It isn't strictly who lives to breed, but also who is most prolific. And it's not true that almost every person gets to breed. First of all, there is a tremendous amount of spontaneous abortion, plenty of childhood death,a dn plenty of childless people. And sexual selection is actually a MORe powerful and pressured selection mechanism in many ways.
And evolution doesn't care about intelligence as we understand it: just effectiveness in survival and reproduction.