# The human animal?



## Makalakumu (Oct 7, 2007)

Are humans animals?  If so, why?  If not why?  If we are animals, how does this make us behave?  If we are not animals, how does this make us behave?


----------



## MBuzzy (Oct 7, 2007)

Sir, GREAT questions, although I think it is necessary to define the term "animal" in clear terms....

I would say that in terms of a biological point of view, we are animals.  Highly evolved animals, but still animals.  We are mammals, we can obviously trace our evolution from traditional animals (no one would argue that an ape is an animal), we have basic survival and breeding instincts...

I think that word animal has some different conotations though.  Some people view the term animal as somehow inferior or savage.  I would argue that humans are more savage than most wild creatures.  

So basically, in my opinion, no matter which definition you use, Humans are animals.  Some animals eat their young, but they do it to survive.  Humans do stuff like that, but have the moral compass to know that it is wrong - or at least have the capability to know that it is wrong.

"*1* *:* any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation
*2 a* *:* one of the lower animals as distinguished from human beings *b* *: [SIZE=-1]MAMMAL[/SIZE]*; _broadly_ *: [SIZE=-1]VERTEBRATE[/SIZE]*
*3* *:* a human being considered chiefly as physical or nonrational; _also_ *:* this nature"

Even Merriam Webster isn't quite sure....


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 7, 2007)

It's interesting that the dictionary ignores what biologists have been saying for 100 years.  Evolution doesn't produce highly evolved animals.  Every single animal that exists right now has evolved exactly the same amount of time as any other animal.  Further, every single animal has evolved a degree of specialization within the niche that they survive that is equal to every other animal.  Our social behavior is just another trait.

Now for something a bit more lighthearted...

Humans!


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 7, 2007)

Here is the wiki on humans.  Interesting.



> Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1][2] Compared to other living organisms on Earth, humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. DNA evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago,[3] and they now inhabit every continent, with a total population of over 6.6 billion as of 2007.[4]
> 
> Like most primates, humans are social by nature; however, humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of cooperating and competing groups, ranging in scale from small families and partnerships to species-wide political, scientific and economic unions. Social interactions between humans have also established an extremely wide variety of traditions, rituals, ethics, values, social norms, and laws which form the basis of human society. Humans also have a marked appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.
> 
> Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only known species to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 7, 2007)

Ive often wondered. 

We obviously share MANY biological similarities with all mamals. Our body sysyems are more similar than different. Nervous, muscular, digestive, etc. etc.

What I find interesting is that when you look at ALL other species. While they may all have different behavioral/social behaviors, they are more similar than dissimilar when looked at a whole. If laid out on a scale, they may vary but not all that much. Humans though, our development in communication, organization, technology etc. is so vasty dissimilar from the rest of the animal kingdom that we can debate if we are animals at all. Why is that? With all the other species out there with similar "raw material" to work with, why are there no other species even close in evolution to humans? And in the timeline of human evolution that scientists believe in, our present development was a fairly abrupt and recent thing.

Was it God? Alien tinkering with our DNA? I can see where all the fiction/belief of "Ancient Spacemen" originates from.

Interesting topic.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 7, 2007)

I think the answer to that question lies here.  Humans are using the entire planet as a niche.  There are many other planets out there.  In biologic terms we are a "weed species" because we are highly adaptable and ubiquitous.  I've often had the thought, if we humans kill ourselves off, would another weed species arise to take our place?  Or is the evolution of species that are capable of civilization and rational thought a rare thing?


----------



## Kacey (Oct 7, 2007)

I think MBuzzy has largely hit my answer with his, so I'll try not to repeat too much - but I am going to go back to the original questions, so I might repeat some.

*Are humans animals? If so, why? If not why? *

Yes, I believe so - members of the order mammalia.  This is neither good nor bad - it simply *is*.  Too many people reject the concept of human as animal because they see that as a step down from humanity - I disagree. 

*If we are animals, how does this make us behave? If we are not animals, how does this make us behave?*

This is a very interesting question.  That we are animals - organic beings with physical responses to stimuli - is the basis of our being, and is used by many as a basis for understanding how people act, react, and and interact, and is also used by many as a basis for changing how people act, react, and interact.  _However_, I think that as animals become more evolved, in the sense that more evolved, or complex, animals are more aware of their environment, and that awareness can modify reactions to the environment - the supposed difference between humans and other animals is that they _*act **on *_the environment rather than _*reacting to*_ the environment.  This fundamental difference is, I think, why psychology is so complex - because humans act on their environment in so many ways that current behavioral theory is not sufficient to account for all the variables.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 7, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I think the answer to that question lies here. Humans are using the entire planet as a niche. There are many other planets out there. In biologic terms we are a "weed species" because we are highly adaptable and ubiquitous. I've often had the thought, if we humans kill ourselves off, would another weed species arise to take our place? Or is the evolution of species that are capable of civilization and rational thought a rare thing?


 
You beat me to it. What sets us apart is our lack of specialization in survival terms. We can kill/harvest/eat just about anything. If its a bird/lizard/mamal we can hunt and eat it. There are many species that are so specialized on one prey animal or plant type that they couldnt survive without them and have evolved in tandem with them.

If there are other planets that we could breathe on, and we could get to them, I think we COULD populate them. We are like weeds in that respect.

And what was the factor that made us so different from everything else on the planet?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 7, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> And what was the factor that made us so different from everything else on the planet?


 
I don't believe we have yet determined the fact that we are so very different from everything else on the planet. 

We are adaptive, but so are other animals. Before us, it was the great lizards. After us, it is hypothesized that it will be the insect.

While 'man' has walked erect on this planet for somewhere between 2 and 4 million years, it is only the last 11,000 years or so, in which our societies have become recognizable to us. Approximately 11,000 years ago, agriculuture was born. 

Prior to agriculture, all  human societies were like those we observe on National Geographic Television in the Austrailian outback (aboriginies) or Dark Africa (pygmies).

With the rise of agriculture, our species was able to begin to develop specialization. Prior to cultivation of plants, we were hunter gathers. Too much time was spent travelling and capturing nourishment to pay attention to specializations and leisure.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 7, 2007)

Theres a difference between dominance in numerical superiority and "quality" (for lack of a better, unsubjective word).

We can change/alter the environment but are not "so different" from other animals? I dont believe that. Many humans have proven "worse" than animals in that they can intentionally cause pain and suffering to others for no other reason than wanting to. But the human capacity for things like building, communications, tech (which other animals do to to lesser degrees) is so "amplified" in comparison. Why have Apes, which share what , 98-99% of our DNA stalled out?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 7, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Theres a difference between dominance in numerical superiority and "quality" (for lack of a better, unsubjective word).
> 
> We can change/alter the environment but are not "so different" from other animals? I dont believe that. Many humans have proven "worse" than animals in that they can intentionally cause pain and suffering to others for no other reason than wanting to. But the human capacity for things like building, communications, tech (which other animals do to to lesser degrees) is so "amplified" in comparison. Why have Apes, which share what , 98-99% of our DNA stalled out?


 
I don't believe the homo sapiens can alter or change the environment. At least not on an individual, intentional level. We have the ability to adapt to the environment around us. We can build shelters or add layers of clothing, but we haven't been terribly successful at altering a drought into temperate climate.  (stop the irrigation in Las Vegas, and it will be almost unihabitable in a matter of weeks.)

Man has been able to alter the environment in unintentional ways. The burning of fossil fuels is certainly changing the atmosphere. The dumping of chemicals into rivers cause them to catch fire in the late 60's and early 70's. 

It would be nice if we were able to alter the environment with intention. Then we could stop Global Climate Change.



Humans have shown to be far more adept at building tools than other species on the planet. Use of those tools have allowed us to appear superior in 'quality', or to be 'worse', than other species.  Other species practice warfare (territorial conflicts), only they haven't figured out gunpowder yet. 

I believe that many of the differences between humans and other species is more a matter of degree, than intent.


----------



## meth18au (Oct 7, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Are humans animals?  If so, why?  If not why?  If we are animals, how does this make us behave?  If we are not animals, how does this make us behave?




In response to the original question:


I believe humans are animal.  It would be hard to debate otherwise.  Does our higher level of cognitive function entitle us to the title of "non-animal"?  How does this make us behave?  Like any other animal- we live to survive, and ensure the survival of our species.  In general, we desire to eat to ensure daily survival, and breed to ensure continuity of the species!

It's simple- we've just all made everything a hell of a lot more complex than other animals.  It is funny though- this increased complexity has occurred as a byproduct of our accomplishments in making life simple.  If you look at animal behaviour- it is all related back to an underlying desire to survive. 

Also- I really like that term 'weed species'.  It is so true of the human race.  We have radically consumed and consumed and consumed- until our population is at levels unprecedented in known history.  However- would other species of animals, given the means, have replicated the growth of the human species?  Is it solely human nature, or animal nature, to become a 'weed' which spreads and consumes?  It may be that all species are 'weed species'!!!  We just developed the means to spread faster than anyone else.  Let's hope nobody starts spraying herbicide...


----------



## MBuzzy (Oct 7, 2007)

UpNorth - I apologize if this creates unwanted conflict...

I was just curious - does a creationist point of view alter people's perception as to whether or not humans are animals?

I realize that this is a very controversial question, but a cornerstone of my thinking and it seems some others, is that we are members of the evolutionary chain.  Therefore, if we are the result of intelligent design, does that somehow set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom (aside from the obvious, self awareness, opposable thumbs, imagination, etc)?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 7, 2007)

The only thing that makes humans fundamentally different that I can see is we appear to be the only, or among the only, predatory species that intentionally preys upon itself.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 7, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> The only thing that makes humans fundamentally different that I can see is we appear to be the only, or among the only, predatory species that intentionally preys upon itself.


Chimps will do that. Mice, rats, and cats etc too if the population gets high enough relative to the environment's ability to satisfy survival needs.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 7, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> The only thing that makes humans fundamentally different that I can see is we appear to be the only, or among the only, predatory species that intentionally preys upon itself.


 
Infanticide has been documented in pretty much every animal kingdom and specifically among mammalian predator species such as bears, lions, and dolphins.

Lamont


----------



## CuongNhuka (Oct 7, 2007)

We have 2 choices when it comes to classification. We are either Humans, a kind of animal, or we are a figment of our own imagition. Which reminds me of a quote. "Today a young man cross training in shoot fighting realised that all matter is simply energy condensed to a slower vibration, that we are all one conciousness experienceing itself subjectivly, and that there is no death for life is only an illusion". Cann't remember who said that, but you get the idea.

Now then, this question also arises other questions. Though, unintentionly. For instence, we are animals, animals talk to each other (my cat and dog seem to have atleast some understanding of each other), why cann't we talk to the animals? I know, it sounds rather Dr. Dolittle, but you get my point. Communication of one of the only things that is almost an inter-species constant. And most animals seem to be able to 'talk' to each other. 
Does this mean that we could talk to animals also? Or that at some point in the past, we were able to? Does this also mean we have lost our inate conection to the earth, to Giai herself? Doesn't this mean that we have lost our concection to God?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Oct 7, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> The only thing that makes humans fundamentally different that I can see is we appear to be the only, or among the only, predatory species that intentionally preys upon itself.


 
I don't think that is a true statement. If we preyed upon members of our species, then that would emply cannibalism, which is a major no-no in most of the world. Would I say we're almost completely self destructive, yes.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 7, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> Now then, this question also arises other questions. Though, unintentionly. For instence, we are animals, animals talk to each other (my cat and dog seem to have atleast some understanding of each other), why cann't we talk to the animals? I know, it sounds rather Dr. Dolittle, but you get my point. Communication of one of the only things that is almost an inter-species constant. And most animals seem to be able to 'talk' to each other.
> Does this mean that we could talk to animals also? Or that at some point in the past, we were able to? Does this also mean we have lost our inate conection to the earth, to Giai herself? Doesn't this mean that we have lost our concection to God?


 
You must have broke out the good stuff for a Sunday.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 7, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> Would I say we're almost completely self destructive, yes.


 
That's closer to what I was trying to say, My mixup.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 7, 2007)

I think that it is something of a human conceit to think that we are not animals. To say this is to give us some sort of special place. A justification for using and abusing the rest of the planet.



upnorthkyosa said:


> It's interesting that the dictionary ignores what biologists have been saying for 100 years. Evolution doesn't produce highly evolved animals. Every single animal that exists right now has evolved exactly the same amount of time as any other animal. Further, every single animal has evolved a degree of specialization within the niche that they survive that is equal to every other animal. Our social behavior is just another trait.


 
The amount of time that various species have been evolving does vary, but not by a significant amount. What is really important is the number of generations within that time frame, and that will vary greatly from species to species. A human generation is considered about 30 years, but an elephant or a Galapagos tortoise will have a longer generation.

The most interesting thing about the human animal is our lack of environmental specialisation.




upnorthkyosa said:


> Humans are using the entire planet as a niche.... Or is the evolution of species that are capable of civilization and rational thought a rare thing?


 
I think this is actually a very accurate expression of the human situation.

I would like to think that the evolution of a species capable of civilisation and rational thought is not as rare as we might be led to believe. A planet may only be able to sustain one or two such species, but there are so many star systems and so many galaxies that the probabilities are pretty good that other species have developed to the same level.




Blotan Hunka said:


> If there are other planets that we could breathe on, and we could get to them, I think we COULD populate them. We are like weeds in that respect.


 
This is a very optimistic position with which I am in total agreement.




CuongNhuka said:


> Would I say we're almost completely self destructive, yes.


 
Our self-destructive nature is very strange. While I am by no means sure, I think it might be a trait that makes us unique in the animal world. Where does it come from? Is it a product of our developed mind? Is it some outgrowth of our social constructs?


----------



## Blindside (Oct 7, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> I don't think that is a true statement. If we preyed upon members of our species, then that would emply cannibalism, which is a major no-no in most of the world. Would I say we're almost completely self destructive, yes.


 
Several people have referenced this, and I don't think we are any more self-destructive than the next animal.  Could someone explain what this is referencing?

Thanks,

Lamont


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 7, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> And what was the factor that made us so different from everything else on the planet?


 
Language.  Without this development, our entire social structure would fall apart.  Civilization wouldn't be possible.  This makes me wonder, is language always a prerequisite for the development of civilization or can civilization develop in other ways?  The science fiction writer in me is starting to rub his hands together in anticipation...


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 7, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Why have Apes, which share what , 98-99% of our DNA stalled out?


 
The answer is that they didn't "stall out" at all.  An ape is supremely evolved to live in the niche that it lives.  If humans were to attempt to live like an ape, we'd have a rough go at it.  Just as rough as if an ape would attempt to live like a human.

We evolved in different ways because the conditions of the environment at some particular point forced us apart.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 7, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Language. Without this development, our entire social structure would fall apart. Civilization wouldn't be possible. This makes me wonder, is language always a prerequisite for the development of civilization or can civilization develop in other ways? The science fiction writer in me is starting to rub his hands together in anticipation...


 
Language is a component, but I don't believe it is the only, or even causal component. Other species have established communities. What specifically is the difference between those communities and 'civilization'? 

Written language is probably also an important component. Certainly it helps in the preservation of knowledge and communicating across distance.

We don't really know when language arose in our species. Certianly, our communities had begun to organize by the time we figured out how to put our language into symbols. But, we may have been using language for tens of thousands of years before we learned to write it down.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 7, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> UpNorth - I apologize if this creates unwanted conflict...
> 
> I was just curious - does a creationist point of view alter people's perception as to whether or not humans are animals?
> 
> I realize that this is a very controversial question, but a cornerstone of my thinking and it seems some others, is that we are members of the evolutionary chain. Therefore, if we are the result of intelligent design, does that somehow set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom (aside from the obvious, self awareness, opposable thumbs, imagination, etc)?


 
As far as I know, many people who suscribe to "creationism" do not view the human as an animal at all.  They see us as being specially created by a deity.  "Intelligent Design" doesn't really postulate anything different then what would normally be called creationism.  It's just differently packaged and a tad more circumspect.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 7, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Several people have referenced this, and I don't think we are any more self-destructive than the next animal. Could someone explain what this is referencing?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lamont


 
How many animals can you think of that damage their environment so as to make it uninhabitable?  I think that is self destructive.  How many other species desperately seek to maintain populations at such high levels that all the resources are exhausted?  There are probably others but I can't think of any at the moment.

Other species will breed and breed while there are resources to support the high population, but when those resources are reduced so is the population.  A strange downside of our altruism is that we stubbornly do exactly the opposite.  We prop up populations that are in marginal or non-viable environments.  In the natural course of things these populations would die out and the regions would regenerate, but we, as a species, are so obsessed with population growth that we don't let the environment regenerate.  I think that is self destructive.

In writing this post, I came to think of something else.  In the natural world there are checks on species populations, usually in the form of another species.  We have gotten to a point now where those check have been removed (except for climate) and we are breeding ourselves to death.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Language is a component, but I don't believe it is the only, or even causal component. Other species have established communities. What specifically is the difference between those communities and 'civilization'?
> 
> Written language is probably also an important component. Certainly it helps in the preservation of knowledge and communicating across distance.
> 
> We don't really know when language arose in our species. Certianly, our communities had begun to organize by the time we figured out how to put our language into symbols. But, we may have been using language for tens of thousands of years before we learned to write it down.


 
Apes are social animals.  They live in a world dominated by social preferences and rules.  The development of language allows for this social world to expand to a far greater extent then any other ape because of the depth of the communicative potential.  I've got a couple of sources that discuss the development of language in humans that I'm going to dig out.  Try this book for starters, Eve Spoke.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 7, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The answer is that they didn't "stall out" at all. An ape is supremely evolved to live in the niche that it lives. If humans were to attempt to live like an ape, we'd have a rough go at it. Just as rough as if an ape would attempt to live like a human.
> 
> We evolved in different ways because the conditions of the environment at some particular point forced us apart.


 
We have seen this further a long in our familt tree.  The Neanderthal was a homo species supremely adapted to the cold environs of the ice age.  With the change of climate he was not able to adapt as was his cousin homo sapiens and therefore died out.  Evolution does not always lead to the best creature.  It usually leads to the best creature for that particular environmental niche.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 7, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Apes are social animals. They live in a world dominated by social preferences and rules. The development of language allows for this social world to expand to a far greater extent then any other ape because of the depth of the communicative potential. I've got a couple of sources that discuss the development of language in humans that I'm going to dig out. Try this book for starters, Eve Spoke.


 
But, what if homo sapien started using language, let's say, 50,000 years ago. Our species didn't really come to any prominence until about 10,000 years ago. How do we reconcile the timeline?

If we are going to examine the difference language creates for homo sapien, we really are lacking an understanding of languages used by other species for a proper comparison. 

Whale song, bird song, and even kinestetic activity may all be types of language in the animal kingdom. But, we are hardly equipped to interpret it as such. Although study continues in this area.

But, I think Blotan Hunka's question is based on a false premise. It is working from the assumption that huma beings are very different from the other animals on the planet. I am not certain this is true. But, if we are going examine the truth of this statement, let's get some parameters around those differences?


----------



## Kacey (Oct 7, 2007)

I'll go back to my original premise - that they [humans] _*act **on *_the environment rather than _*reacting to*_ the environment - and expand on what I meant.  Humans adapt to their environment in ways that no other animal does - humans live in environments that require artificial aids that go beyond simple tools, such as otters using rocks to open oysters.  Humans wear clothing and create complex shelters as protection against weather, treat otherwise inedible food to make it edible, protect offspring who would not otherwise be biologically viable from death, find ways to store food in altered forms so that it lasts longer than it would naturally (e.g. cheese, dried meat, bread, etc.), and so on.  It is this alteration of the natural environment, allowing humans to live virtually anywhere on the planet, that separates humans from the rest of the animals, which live only where evolution has fitted them to survive.


----------



## MBuzzy (Oct 7, 2007)

I don't think that there is any debate that ALL animals communicate in some way....the difference is that humans have the ability to preserve knowledge and pass complex information along.  Humans can learn a thing, then write it down and pass it along.  I think that this behavior is the basis to our intellectual evolution.  Once humans began to pass along complex patterns, things that they had learned, the next generation no longer had to start over and learn these things for themselves.  They could build on what others had learned and advance that knowledge.

No other animal does that.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 7, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The answer is that they didn't "stall out" at all. An ape is supremely evolved to live in the niche that it lives. If humans were to attempt to live like an ape, we'd have a rough go at it. Just as rough as if an ape would attempt to live like a human.
> 
> We evolved in different ways because the conditions of the environment at some particular point forced us apart.


 
Eh? There are primitive peoples out there who have lived in similar environments and get by.

All this "humans suck" crap though. Who wants to volunteer to take their family into the ovens to make less of an impact on the world for the rest of us who make no apologies for living? 

What is it with people that makes us self loathing? But in actuality that loathing probably extends out to "others" rather than it does to the speaker.

BTW. I do agree upnorth. I think language was probably the hinge pin. Other species can communicate (I think many animals can communicate basic concepts like DANGER..FOOD HERE...BOOTY CALL etc. and perhaps basic "emotions" like what we call happiness, fear, etc.) but not to the depth of understanding of humans. BUT I think that beyond simple communication, it was the ability to write and transmit that language that really launched human development.


----------



## MBuzzy (Oct 7, 2007)

Kacey said:


> I'll go back to my original premise - that they [humans] _*act **on *_the environment rather than _*reacting to*_ the environment - and expand on what I meant. Humans adapt to their environment in ways that no other animal does - humans live in environments that require artificial aids that go beyond simple tools, such as otters using rocks to open oysters. Humans wear clothing and create complex shelters as protection against weather, treat otherwise inedible food to make it edible, protect offspring who would not otherwise be biologically viable from death, find ways to store food in altered forms so that it lasts longer than it would naturally (e.g. cheese, dried meat, bread, etc.), and so on. It is this alteration of the natural environment, allowing humans to live virtually anywhere on the planet, that separates humans from the rest of the animals, which live only where evolution has fitted them to survive.


 
Great point, agreed - if a human is in an unfamiliar situation or place, they will adapt and survive.  If most animals are put in unfamiliar surroundings, they generally cannot adapt to survive.  Our adaptability is another thing that DOES set us apart from most of the animal kingdom.  It may take thousands of years for a sea dwelling creature to be able to survive on land....humans can simply create technology to allow them to survive underwater - and building on my last point, each generation of humans will build on the knowledge learned by other and advance that technology.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 7, 2007)

> How many animals can you think of that damage their environment so as to make it uninhabitable? I think that is self destructive. How many other species desperately seek to maintain populations at such high levels that all the resources are exhausted? There are probably others but I can't think of any at the moment.


 
Voles, lemmings, most R selected species have boom bust cycles related to maxing out habitats.  Carrying capacity is usually the controlling factor in populations, not predators, the other control is other R selected critters like viruses or disease. 



> Other species will breed and breed while there are resources to support the high population, but when those resources are reduced so is the population. A strange downside of our altruism is that we stubbornly do exactly the opposite. We prop up populations that are in marginal or non-viable environments. In the natural course of things these populations would die out and the regions would regenerate, but we, as a species, are so obsessed with population growth that we don't let the environment regenerate. I think that is self destructive.


 
No, this just means we haven't maxed out our habitat yet.  This doesn't mean we are self-destructive, it means we are doing what we are supposed to be doing, reproducing and passing our genes on.  The great myth is that animals live in some sort of balance with "nature" and it just isn't true, every individual of every species is trying to max out their reproductive success, species survival isn't altruistic it is selfish.  We aren't self-destructive, we are simply the most successful critter this world has ever seen, and it appears that fairly shortly we will max out our carrying capacity.  So be it, but that isn't self-destructive behavior, that is the "goal" of every species.



Steel Tiger said:


> In writing this post, I came to think of something else. In the natural world there are checks on species populations, usually in the form of another species. We have gotten to a point now where those check have been removed (except for climate) and we are breeding ourselves to death.


 
Nope breeding ourselves to capacity, and you are correct, we may damage the overall carrying capacity of the planet, but that isn't "to death," humans aren't going anywhere anytime soon.  And we do have predators, ones that are slowly catching up to us, think of drug resistant TB, that old disease will make a resurgance in our lifetime.  

Lamont


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 8, 2007)

Blindside said:


> No, this just means we haven't maxed out our habitat yet. This doesn't mean we are self-destructive, it means we are doing what we are supposed to be doing, reproducing and passing our genes on. *The great myth is that animals live in some sort of balance with "nature" and it just isn't true, every individual of every species is trying to max out their reproductive success, species survival isn't altruistic it is selfish.* We aren't self-destructive, we are simply the most successful critter this world has ever seen, and it appears that fairly shortly we will max out our carrying capacity. So be it, but that isn't self-destructive behavior, that is the "goal" of every species.
> 
> Lamont


 
I really cannot disagree with what you say, but should probably try to clarify something I was trying to say myself with regard to resource depletion. A species will continue to breed until it reaches its carrying capacity and then it will continue to breed. But if the lack of resources mean that living members of the group are going to die the group usually doesn't try to save them. There are limited exceptions to this. It is selfish behaviour and it is a very strong survival trait.

Now look at humanity. We have developed a sense of altruism that runs counter to, and yet parallel with, our survival traits. Daily we are bombarded with images of human populations that are surviving in marginal regions only because someone else, from somewhere else, is giving them the means to live. In other species those populations would be left to die or they would move to another place. Now we have placed constraints on population movement so that migration on that scale is not really possible anymore, but we also refuse to surrender to what appears to be naturally obvious and suffer those populations to die. 

Does that make us self-destructive? It looks like it, but maybe it doesn't.  I mean, as a species we do not seek self-harm, that is something that occurs on an individual level. On the other hand, all too often we see people burning up resources seemingly without any thought for the future. We might be the only species on Earth that considers long term future and yet we still have this behaviour.

Personally, I think that humanity is a staggeringly successful member of the animal kingdom (I think that some insect species have got us beat though). We may not have reached our carrying capacity, but we seem to be doing our best to bring capacity and resource availability together as quickly as possible, from both ends.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 8, 2007)

Kacey said:


> I'll go back to my original premise - that they [humans] _*act **on *_the environment rather than _*reacting to*_ the environment - and expand on what I meant.  Humans adapt to their environment in ways that no other animal does - humans live in environments that require artificial aids that go beyond simple tools, such as otters using rocks to open oysters.  Humans wear clothing and create complex shelters as protection against weather, treat otherwise inedible food to make it edible, protect offspring who would not otherwise be biologically viable from death, find ways to store food in altered forms so that it lasts longer than it would naturally (e.g. cheese, dried meat, bread, etc.), and so on.  It is this alteration of the natural environment, allowing humans to live virtually anywhere on the planet, that separates humans from the rest of the animals, which live only where evolution has fitted them to survive.


I think the extent that humans manipulate their environment is greater, but other animals do this as well. (Beavers, termites etc) Humans haven't been able to ignore the environment so far. They can't control the weather, tidal forces, continental drift, gravity and so on, which means the environment is still dictating a fair amount of reactive behavior from humanity. Tool use mitigates this somewhat, but they're still reacting to the environment.

Animals are more than capable of moving into new environments. How well their traits match up to the new environment is question. They may simply fit into the system, or they may create a niche within the new system, or they may posses traits so strongly suited to the new (but different) system that they singlehandedly destroy the system entirely. They may prove unsuitable and die out in the new area, but that's not the only possible outcome.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Oct 8, 2007)

Blindside said:


> You must have broke out the good stuff for a Sunday.


 
A thursday during Algebra 3-4. My teacher is an idiot... so I tend to write philosophy, socio-political or pseudo-theological... But it makes snese, right?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Oct 8, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> Our self-destructive nature is very strange. While I am by no means sure, I think it might be a trait that makes us unique in the animal world. Where does it come from? Is it a product of our developed mind? Is it some outgrowth of our social constructs?


 
That is a good question. whats the expression "the more things get better, the more they get -insert profanity here- up"?



Blindside said:


> Several people have referenced this, and I don't think we are any more self-destructive than the next animal. Could someone explain what this is referencing?


 
Not sure who said it, granted i just stole it, with out knowing it.
I think we are. the only time animals kill _themselves_ is as a product of some thing like herd mentality or the like. humans kill themselves, each other (for no reason), destroy there own bodys (through drugs, steroids, tobbaco, and excesses of alcohol), destroy there enviroment for no reaosn, and are in general a little more messed up.



Steel Tiger said:


> In writing this post, I came to think of something else. In the natural world there are checks on species populations, usually in the form of another species. We have gotten to a point now where those check have been removed (except for climate) and we are breeding ourselves to death.


 
See heres the thing, as we have gotten stronger, and stronger, and stronger, Nature has started to wipe us out. We develop something, and God (or Giai, or whoever) starts to smash the coast with a hurricane, or comes up with some new desease to wipe us out. You mentioned our idiotic breeding patterns, well, now we have AIDS... Almost looks like God doesn't like us.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Oct 8, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> I don't think that there is any debate that ALL animals communicate in some way....the difference is that humans have the ability to preserve knowledge and pass complex information along. Humans can learn a thing, then write it down and pass it along. I think that this behavior is the basis to our intellectual evolution. Once humans began to pass along complex patterns, things that they had learned, the next generation no longer had to start over and learn these things for themselves. They could build on what others had learned and advance that knowledge.
> 
> No other animal does that.


 
Every animal teaches. Wolves teach there puppys how to stalk, how to hunt, and how to kill. Bears teach there cubs much the same, deer do much the same, and so on. The only differnce is that we teach more info, that is arguably less useful.


----------



## MBuzzy (Oct 8, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> Every animal teaches. Wolves teach there puppys how to stalk, how to hunt, and how to kill. Bears teach there cubs much the same, deer do much the same, and so on. The only differnce is that we teach more info, that is arguably less useful.


 
True, all animals teach, primarily by mimicry.  It isn't the fact that they teach that sets us apart, it is the complexity and the ability to retain and pass along that knowledge.  

Each generation of lower animals must relearn all behaviors, whereas each generation of humans must learn basic behaviors, but then builds on the more complex things that humans in the past learned, recorded, and passed down.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 8, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Eh? There are primitive peoples out there who have lived in similar environments and get by.


 
This, IMHO opinion, vastly undercuts how various "primitive" tribes actually live.  As a person who has lived on an native american reservation for a time, I can tell you that even the basest parts of their lives were different from the average ape.  People who have studied the native tribes of New Guinia and other places report the same thing.  The social and tribal structure is far beyond anything chimps are doing and the technology, even in stone age cultures, is markedly different from most other simian tool usage.  Thus, I'll say again, if a human were to live like a chimp, they'd find themselves in big trouble oftly quick.  Why?  Because we are chimps.  We didn't evolve to fill that niche.  

All of this doesn't mean that we can kill all of the chimps and live in the forest though...


----------



## Blindside (Oct 8, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> Not sure who said it, granted i just stole it, with out knowing it.
> I think we are. the only time animals kill _themselves_ is as a product of some thing like herd mentality or the like. humans kill themselves, each other (for no reason), destroy there own bodys (through drugs, steroids, tobbaco, and excesses of alcohol), destroy there enviroment for no reaosn, and are in general a little more messed up..


 
Actually there have been apparent indications of suicide in a number of animals, most of these involve captive reared animals, because thats the only time we get the opportunity to observe it.  Alot of this has been remedied by what some zoo keepers call "enrichment" basically letting an animal live in surroundings something like what it was bred for.  There are some weird cases of octopusses climbing out of bare aquariums and dying, but if you add some floaty things in the water that they can shelter under, and they don't do that anymore.  

Bored captive birds often self-mutilate.

Lots of examples of animals who are apparently depressed who essentially stop eating or drinking, often seen after a loss of a strong bond a mate or in some cases an owner.

I've watched several pets now accellerate their deaths by not eating when they were getting "close," usually about two days before they start looking for that little cubby hole.



> See heres the thing, as we have gotten stronger, and stronger, and stronger, Nature has started to wipe us out. We develop something, and God (or Giai, or whoever) starts to smash the coast with a hurricane, or comes up with some new desease to wipe us out. You mentioned our idiotic breeding patterns, well, now we have AIDS... Almost looks like God doesn't like us


 
No, nature has always wiped us out, we just have CNN to document it a bit better now.  And if God/Gaia really wanted to control us, it wouldn't be AIDS, it'd be something like an airborne ebola or highly pathogenic influenza.  We had the smallpox for most of our species history, but we finally beat it in the seventies, well, until those weaponized versions get released anyhow.

Lamont


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> But, what if homo sapien started using language, let's say, 50,000 years ago. Our species didn't really come to any prominence until about 10,000 years ago. How do we reconcile the timeline?



You take an introductory course in developmental psychology. 

"Language" is really just an expression of symbolic or representational thinking, what is commonly referred to as pre-operational cognition. Some other species possess this capacity to a limited degree --- such as chimps and porpoises --- but even a three year old's capacity for symbolic thought is more complex than theirs. It was this pre-operational cognition that probably really set our species apart from the others some 50,000 years ago.

It doesn't stop there, though.

After pre-operational thinking, human children develop into what is called concrete-operational cognition. This is the capacity to think in terms of concrete _rules_ and _roles_ that purportedly apply across all situations and phenomena (i.e. object permanency). No other animal on earth possesses this ability, not even to a limited degree. And, this role-rule thinking is really the beginnings of classical "civilization" as we know it ---- the idea of firmly defined social "roles" or "classes", a rigid and absolutist delineation between "right" (good) and "wrong" (evil), the idea of a formalized set of rules or laws that should be conformed to, and so on.

Still doesn't stop there, though.

Formal-operational thinking succeeds concrete-operational cognition, and this is the beginning of what moderns might consider "adult" thinking. This is the notion of formal rationality, to think in third-person perspectives, hypothetico-deductive reasoning, and so on. Its difficult to say when exactly humanity collectively developed this capacity, but it is definitely the basis for much of modern democratic institutions.

Of course, I'd argue humanity is still beginning to collectively develop into various post-formal stages of thinking (generally characterized by contextualism, network-logic, and various sorts of relativism), but that's more futurist speculation than anything else at this point (although it does take place somewhat frequently on an individual level).

But, then again, I prefer a Piagetian scheme.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 9, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> You take an introductory course in developmental psychology.


 
heretic888, I can't even pretend to tell you that I am familiar with and understand all the ideas and concepts you present in this post. I am just a guitar player by trade, and a computer geek by hobby. 

But, what you are describing, as near as I can figure, is the result of a rapid and severe evolutionary jump in the size of the human brain. I have been led to understand that a hundred thousand years ago ... give or take a hundred thousand years (or two) ... humans had some sort of random mutation/natural selection for a larger forebrain; somewhere along the line, our species' collective brains, got bigger. 

Now, this, as I understand it, is the initial cause of homo sapiens rise to prominence. Without this evolutionary change, we would still be, more or less, a hairless ape.

But, if this did explain our dominance, why were we not dominant for so many tens of thousands of years after the mutation first became ubiquitous (is that the right word?). 

upnorthkyosa, says it is language, which developmentally is explained, I think as you outline it. But, isn't there a gap there too? A time between the rise of language, and the rise of homo sapiens dominance? 

I do believe our species dominance on the globe today (dominance, or is it infestation?) is contributed to by both our biological development of the brain, which drove the creation of spoken language, and then, a relatively short time ago, the written language. But, I still think it is agriculture that is the primary driver. 

Agriculture created settled communities, and specialized roles in our community. It allowed for leisure time which could be used for other pursuits; such as building more clever tools. And, as food supplies could be increased and stored, populations were able to grow. 


Of course, my preferred theory is really just the game 'Age of Empires'.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Now, this, as I understand it, is the initial cause of homo sapiens rise to prominence. Without this evolutionary change, we would still be, more or less, a hairless ape.
> 
> But, if this did explain our dominance, why were we not dominant for so many tens of thousands of years after the mutation first became ubiquitous (is that the right word?).


 
Geneticists working in human evolution discovered last year, that there appear to have been two significant phases of mutation associated with the development of the human brain. The first was about 50 - 60 thousand years ago and the second 10 - 12 thousand years ago.  They appear to correspond to important cultural developments for the human species and it is generally believed that some cognitive variation occurred that allowed for these developments.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 10, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> heretic888, I can't even pretend to tell you that I am familiar with and understand all the ideas and concepts you present in this post. I am just a guitar player by trade, and a computer geek by hobby.
> 
> But, what you are describing, as near as I can figure, is the result of a rapid and severe evolutionary jump in the size of the human brain. I have been led to understand that a hundred thousand years ago ... give or take a hundred thousand years (or two) ... humans had some sort of random mutation/natural selection for a larger forebrain; somewhere along the line, our species' collective brains, got bigger.
> 
> ...


 
michaeledward,

In all honesty, I was oversimplifying the subject. I was just trying to establish an analogue between individual human ontogeny and collective human phylogeny. And, while I reject the recapitulationist notion that ontogeny rigidly replicates phylogeny, I am much more open to the idea that ontogeny forms the basis for later phylogeny (in fact, this is basic principle behind the so-called "Baldwin Effect", or organic selection). 

While this is all largely a reconstructionist speculation we are dealing with here, I personally believe that evolution proceeds through a combination of natural selection, niche selection (including social selection in the case of intelligent populations), and organic selection. So, I wouldn't dump this all on complex brain maturation, but see it as a reciprocal autopoeitic development caused by the interaction of the complex neocortex and the social innovations of agriculture and sedentary lifestyle.

To your point, though, I don't feel that a new neurological structure is necessary to explain these developmental stages. It is not as if an adolescent has a forebrain while an elementary student does not. A more probable scenario, in my opinion, and one that would be more difficult to detect through analysis of ancestral fossil remains is that the cognitive "jumps" we note in both historical and individual development are possibly the product of thicker cortical bundling of already present structures and the strengthening of post-synaptic connections. 

Neither of these --- cortical bundling or synaptic plasticity --- would necessarily mean one's brain is getting "bigger".

Again, just some thoughts.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Oct 11, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> True, all animals teach, primarily by mimicry. It isn't the fact that they teach that sets us apart, it is the complexity and the ability to retain and pass along that knowledge.
> 
> Each generation of lower animals must relearn all behaviors, whereas each generation of humans must learn basic behaviors, but then builds on the more complex things that humans in the past learned, recorded, and passed down.


 
Can you do me a favor. I need you to explain that to my Algebra teacher. And my Geometry teacher. And my other Algebra teahcers. And my basic math teachers... and my Physics teacher, and my Chemistry teacher.... there method of teaching was to give a bunch of expamples. When I say 'I don't learn this way, it confuses me, is there any other way you could teach it to me' I basicly get the cold shoulder. 
Are there other ways that humans (atleast) teach, yes. But mimicry seems to be the one favored in some subjects.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Oct 11, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Bored captive birds often self-mutilate.


 
Can you blame them? I more meant in the wild. I don't think too many animals in the wild kill themselves. We have become so based on "Western Civilization" that we are almost made for it, our wild. If we were in a foreign surronding long enough, I image something similar would happen.


----------



## tsdclaflin (Oct 11, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> We are mammals, we can obviously trace our evolution from traditional animals (no one would argue that an ape is an animal), we have basic survival and breeding instincts...


 
For fun, I would like to take issue with "obviously".  I'm not upset or anything, but I don't believe that there is anything obvious about a theory that teaches that humans came from nothing as a result of a series of happenstances.

In a later post you ask if it is different from a creationist viewpoint.  It is and it isn't.  Biologically, humans are animals.  We are not plants, minerals or elements.  But we are obviously different than animals.  Someone already noted that we prey on each other.  Another post mentions 'moral' capacity.

Not everyone that believes in intelligent design also believes in a personal god, but I do.  I believe that God created humans in His own image.  Humans have characteristics that no other "animal" has.  Complex decision-making ability, morality (distinguish between right and wrong), advanced communication, self-awareness, emotions, etc.

Keep smiling....


----------



## MBuzzy (Oct 11, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> Can you do me a favor. I need you to explain that to my Algebra teacher. And my Geometry teacher. And my other Algebra teahcers. And my basic math teachers... and my Physics teacher, and my Chemistry teacher.... there method of teaching was to give a bunch of expamples. When I say 'I don't learn this way, it confuses me, is there any other way you could teach it to me' I basicly get the cold shoulder.
> Are there other ways that humans (atleast) teach, yes. But mimicry seems to be the one favored in some subjects.


 
I don't feel the need to explain it to anyone.  Particularly those teachers...You are completely correct, mimicry is a way of teaching and learning.  And I'm sure that each of one of those teachers learned that in their psychology and methodology of teaching courses.  Also, if you reread my statement, I said that ALL animals teach by mimicry - humans included.  I'm not debating that humans teach by mimicry.  I'm debating the level of complex communication and passing down of information that we are capable of.

But I don't believe that they are teaching by mimicry, nor did they learn by mimicry.  It is true that humans learn basic behaviors through mimicry, just like every other animal.  But, they also learned through reading material which was written down and passed along.  In fact, when they taught you, I would be willing to bet ANYTHING that they used a book.  That they SPOKE, using complex language patterns.  That they wrote things on the board.  That they assigned homework.  All of those things are examples of teaching more complex things through writing and recording.  In fact, all of those are DIFFERENT ways of teaching.  I would thoerize that it would be impossible to teach even basic algebra using mimicry alone - i.e. no writing (because you must first be able to read and understand to comprehend the writing), no speaking (you must know how to speak), etc.  At FIRST, you began learning speaking and writing through mimicry - baby hears sounds, repeats, but then, eventually, the baby's brain begins to see patterns, puts those patterns together, reorganizes them, learns meanings of words through context, even creates new combinations of words to express their point.  You first learn writing by copying strokes of a pencil, but soon you see how these symbols equal sounds, letters, words, then form complex patterns known as sentences.  If you learned these things through mimicry ONLY, you could only say or write things that someone else had first said to you in that exact combination.  What I'm saying is that there is MORE THERE in a human's brain.  We can form more complex relationships, take that extra step.  Given A and B, we can REASON C without it being given to us.  The cat must be given A, B, and C to learn the relationship.

No other animals can record information to pass it down or for mass distribution.  No other animals have the same levels of complex speech.  They may use vocals to communicate, even complex ideas, but to our knowledge, none have a level of communicate anywhere near to the level of our language's complexity.

When you learned Algebra, Physics, Geomety, Chemistry, Calculus, Multivariable Calculus, Differential Equations, and any other math course, did you have to start from scratch?  No, definately not.  If left to your own devices, you could probably begin to reason out some basic mathematical concepts, possibly even get into advanged algebra or geometry....but you didn't need to, because others have done it for you.  Then they wrote it down and passed it along.  Then others built upon it.  Then others built upon that, and built upon that, down through the centuries, by using complex speech, writing, books, computers, concrete examples, etc.  THIS is what sets us apart.  A cat CANNOT open a book and have access to the sum of the learning of all of its ancestors.  It can learn what its mother learned (in most cases, animals are separated from their parents at an early age, therefore only learn the most basic of survival behaviors - the rest is left to instinct and learning for themselves), and maybe reason out some new behaviors.  A cat will see me open a drawer 30 times and eventually begin to figure out that she is capable of doing this.  The cat does not listen to me saying "Ok, here's how you open a drawer" and is then able to do it.

In fact, if you have ever asked a teacher to explain something another way and you got the cold shoulder, I would submit that you had a bad teacher.  In my high school, Undergrad, and Master's studies, I frequently went to teachers with questions on clarification or asking to be shown another way and I have yet to run into an instructor who does not understand the material enough to explain in a different way.


----------



## MBuzzy (Oct 11, 2007)

tsdclaflin said:


> For fun, I would like to take issue with "obviously". I'm not upset or anything, but I don't believe that there is anything obvious about a theory that teaches that humans came from nothing as a result of a series of happenstances.
> 
> In a later post you ask if it is different from a creationist viewpoint. It is and it isn't. Biologically, humans are animals. We are not plants, minerals or elements. But we are obviously different than animals. Someone already noted that we prey on each other. Another post mentions 'moral' capacity.
> 
> ...


 
GREAT POINT!  Thank you for pointing that out, you're right, I mis-spoke.  To SOME, this is an obvious relationship.  Not to everyone.  I recognize that the majority of the WORLD does not believe in evolution.  To some who believe in evolution, it isn't even obvious.  I apologize to those who may have taken offense!  None was intended!

That is very interesting, I'm very glad someone responded.  So you do believe that humans are animals, but with that extra "spark" or extra something that sets them apart.

I agree with you completely - humans are biologically animals, but we do possess a skill set that is not common to other animals, self-awareness, a "moral compass", complex decision making ability, complex communication, etc....as we've be stating.  I find it very interesting that creationists share the same point of view on the human condition (in terms of our classification!).


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 12, 2007)

tsdclaflin said:


> For fun, I would like to take issue with "obviously". I'm not upset or anything, but I don't believe that there is anything obvious about a theory that teaches that humans came from nothing as a result of a series of happenstances.


 
Then you should take sign up for some introductory biology courses at your local community college. This is not in any way, shape, or form what evolutionary theory posits.

As a matter of fact, the sheer _fact_ of evolution (i.e. , common descent) is glaringly obvious to anyone familiar with the evidence. The theoretical explanation for this fact is still under debate (such as, for example, gradualism versus punctualism as a theoretical paradigm).



tsdclaflin said:


> Not everyone that believes in intelligent design also believes in a personal god....



I _seriously_ doubt the truth of this statement. Every proponent of intelligent design I have ever seen has also been a theist.




tsdclaflin said:


> Humans have characteristics that no other "animal" has. Complex decision-making ability, morality (distinguish between right and wrong), advanced communication, self-awareness, emotions, etc.



Not quite. 

The differences you listed are differences of _degree_, not of _kind_. And this is perfectly in keeping with the phylogenetic trend of cephalization we observe among virtually all paleomammalian species throughout the last two million years or so. Homo sapiens was just another step toward the collective cephalization that most mammal populations were moving toward.

Almost all mammals have decision-making capacity, "morality" (this is more evident among social animals like chimps and dolphins), communication (again, chimps can learn a limited amount of sign language), and some modicum of self-awareness (yet again, chimps can recognize that they seem themselves and not another chimp in a mirror). The only differences are in degree of complexity, not in presence versus absence.

Although, I have to admit these insistent demands for anthropocentrism do make me "keep smiling".


----------



## MBuzzy (Oct 12, 2007)

Heretic makes a great point much more eloquently than I was able to.  The things that we are discussing here are basically just terms of degrees.  Our complexity of thought and behaviors is replicated from the lower animal world, but to a much higher level.  

I simply believe that it is our ability to write things down and communicate them (using complex language patterns) that has ALLOWED our technology and knowledge to progress to the level that it has, i.e. we build on the work of others, rather than relearning everything for ourselves.


----------



## tellner (Oct 12, 2007)

Even among the biologists here I'm noticing serious mammalocentrism and primate-centrism.

Consider birds. 

We place great stock in our ability to communicate, especially through sound. Parrots can produce a huge number of vocalizations and communicate a lot of very subtle things with them. We pooh-pooh it with words like "parroting", but the late lamented Alex and his small flock demonstrated that they could wrap their little feathered heads around a lot of human speech and use it with every appearance of intention and understanding. 

Recent work on crows shows that their brains are highly developed, extremely wrinkled and a number of other significant things. The _New Scientist's_ website released videos of the first evidence that they make tools in the wild and teach other crows to do so. And that's without the stubby bony tentacles that we carry around on our forelegs. 

Speaking of tentacles, octopuses in captivity have shown amazing inventiveness, creative disguise, complex behavior and problem solving and so on to the point where British government guidelines dictate that they be given the same benefits of anesthesia during experimentation that are extended to mammals. In many ways their central nervous systems are better organized than ours. They are at best very distant relatives. We don't know how much squids communicate, but we do know that there seems to be a lot of it. If our brains were _properly _put together we'd be able to understand patterned color flashes.

Everyone talks about chimps because they're so much like us. Now, I know that anecdotes are not the same as evidence, but people who have worked extensively with wolves and primates report that wolves are extremely smart in their way. It isn't remarked on as much because what a wolf does is a little less familiar than what a chimp does. But I've met at least one person who did wolf rehabilitation and primate curator work in his day. In his informal opinion the wolves were at least as smart as the chimps. But it was directed towards different ends.

The history of biology is full of assumptions that something is unique in on branch of the tree. Someone looks a little further, and suddenly it's much more common than we thought. 

I think it stems from self-centeredness. We are convinced that we are the pinnacle, nature's crowning glory. So anything that is more like us must be "higher" (another tellingly primate-centric term). Anything else is dangling from a lower link on the Great Chain of Being. Pure egotism.


----------



## MBuzzy (Oct 12, 2007)

Just curiosity here....How much does an Octopus' or squid's intellect relate to its extremely complex body?  It must take a very well organized nervous system and brain to be able to control that many tentacles properly.  That MUST lead to more mental function...

Would humans be more intelligent if we had 6 more limbs to worry about?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 12, 2007)

Good post Tellner.  That's why I made the point at the outset to state that every animal is exactly as evolved as any other animal.  Evolution doesn't progress.  It just reacts.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 12, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> Just curiosity here....How much does an Octopus' or squid's intellect relate to its extremely complex body? It must take a very well organized nervous system and brain to be able to control that many tentacles properly. That MUST lead to more mental function...
> 
> Would humans be more intelligent if we had 6 more limbs to worry about?


 
Well insects/arachnids manage 6/8 limbs, I'm not sure that it follows that it should lead to higher mental function.  Millepeds would be geniuses.... 

Lamont


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 12, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Millepeds would be geniuses.


 
Maybe they are geniuses.  Perhaps a millipede being able to control hundreds of legs in concerted action is a sheer act of brilliance.  And then there are all of the other things the millipedes do.  

Perhaps the only thing that "limits" millipedes is the size of their niche and their social awareness.  Perhaps, as the niche expands and the social group increases in complexity, you'll find that even millipedes could evolve in more "familiar" ways.  

Language is to humans as cnidocyte is to cnidaria.


----------



## kaizasosei (Oct 14, 2007)

> I don't feel that a new neurological structure is necessary to explain these developmental stages. It is not as if an adolescent has a forebrain while an elementary student does not. A more probable scenario, in my opinion, and one that would be more difficult to detect through analysis of ancestral fossil remains is that the cognitive "jumps" we note in both historical and individual development are possibly the product of thicker cortical bundling of already present structures and the strengthening of post-synaptic connections.






> Chimps will do that. Mice, rats, and cats etc too if the population gets high enough relative to the environment's ability to satisfy survival needs.





what good is human intelligence if they don't have the sense or teamwork to use it.  not much i think and time will prove that.
  can you build a computer from scratch...when did mankind begin forming language skills- 

one idea is that mankind being one of the strongest groups slowly began to rise to power, often eliminating any sort of compitition.  as we rose to power, we started feeling more and more in control of our destinies and were able to refine the skills of communication and abstraction that would prove very 'powerful' useful is more subjective maybe same?..
our present evolved state is the result of  many different kinds of natural  experiences.    

although the difference in animal and human intellectual capabilities is very great on one hand, on the other hand, when we start to apply spiritual knowledge we can see that animals are just as much cosmic creations as are we(tho we do seem often to be very chaotic)

  so some more questions...do you know the exact hour of your death?  are you in complete controll of your destiny? are you completely aware of every single thing in the universe?  have the ideas of good or evil helped you to understand yourself? or have these ideas terrorized you into forsaking any hope to rise to still to greater heights?  
when we realize that every animal has it's niche as it was called, then it is obvious that different animals have different skills.  the owl can pinpoint the exact location of a mouse that is under the snow. this is because of very clever design.  was the snake wise to develop poison glands?  forget about natural selection and mutation- i am talking about creation.
intelligent design to say the least.


i heard once, that everything in this world is symbolic and real at the same time.  therefore, i imagine that anything is possible and that humans are not as unique as they think they are only a little more fortunate.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 14, 2007)

kaizasosei said:


> humans are not as unique as they think they



That was entirely my point. I didn't mean to discriminate against birds and millipedes. 

Basically, if an intelligent alien species were to observe evolutionary trends among paleomammals over the last 2 million years or so, they would have "seen" a species like humanity coming. We're not that special. Increasing cephalization and socialization have been a common trend among our little corner of the animal kingdom for quite some time.

I occasionally hear invocations of the "image of God" line in Genesis to explain why we're supposedly "special" or the just-as-silly Anthropic Principle (basically, nature was set up specifically to create human beings). I find this all to be Special Pleading and little more than anthropocentrism at its finest.


----------



## kaizasosei (Oct 14, 2007)

i never doubted that...

simply chasing my own demons.


----------

