# who is more intelligent and evolved humans or animals



## lukendaniel (Jan 10, 2007)

just a quick question to what people think 

but will just say a few bits 

humans 
crnt think of any 

animals 
not having to change there enviroment to live
not destroying any enviroment
only killing enough to feed them selfs 
having the ability to hunt kill and eat without any aid


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

An interesting subject, but hardly a quick question, and no allowance for multichoice.

Mm, l will have to ponder, for there are indeed more answers here than just what is requested.

R


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

humans are hands down in my opinion, its obvious just because of our brains, well some of us anyway :whistling2:, animals evolved incredibly to live in certain enviroments, we just made out own enviroments, we are by far superiorly evolved no questioning that.


----------



## Philcw (Feb 7, 2008)

Humans as we are more advanced lol


----------



## Blazin (Mar 25, 2007)

I dont see animals being able to create machines and building. just webs and nests lol.


----------



## peaches (Apr 3, 2007)

Not all animals kill just for food, there is plenty that will kill just for fun aswell.

And some of the homes, thinking ants nests, termite mounds are extremly complex structures. 

Ants, bees all have roles within their society aswell.

So, I'm going to say Ants are more evolved!! All hail the Ants:lol2:


----------



## cervantes (Apr 24, 2008)

Humans, although I voted for animals by mistake. 

Humans because we have incerased our life span over a short space of time, (evolutionary speaking), through conscious changes.


----------



## fiona (Jun 30, 2008)

A tough one!

Humans have the bigger brains, but do we have the common sense to use them correctly and to our and others potential?! For example over use of natural resources, eating to excess, indulging in unhealthy lifestyle, drugs, violence......

We have lost the ability to forage for our own food. We are not at all self sufficient, as our food is readily available in the supermarket. We are not good climbers and slower runners than many animals. We cannot just build a nest or dig a hole, we have to have the expense of having a built house.


----------



## fiona (Jun 30, 2008)

Yes we have long lives but do we have quality of life?!

In the natural world, sick and weak animals are prey for others. If we lived like animals on the plains of Africa, then probably quite a proportion of us (myself included) would have been long since been food for another being. Hence we have worse health and genetics IMAO. Survival of the fittest etc doesn't seem to be existing in the human race and we have incurable diseases/disabilities/suffering which would not exist in the animal world. Cos you would be eaten! So are we really superior or more intelligent!


----------



## repkid (Nov 30, 2007)

I voted aliens as I believe that there must be millions of other life forms in the universe as it supposidly never stops. And out of them millions of life forms I doubt we are the most superior!

Brad


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

Who is more intelligent?

Animals
Humans
Aliens

I would have to say that man is more intelligent, whilst there is an intelligence present in animals, and they do have a much wider capacity than humans do. I do not think that intelligence was perhaps the right choice of descriptive words here. But perhaps greed would accommodate it better. 

In some cases, many would argue that animals are more intelligent than humans are, and to a certain degree this could be interpreted to be true. If we alone look at animal ownership by human keepers then indeed the animals are going to win the day – for we take care of all their needs. We can install cat flaps, but a cat can still get us to open the door. A dog craps on the surface where a cat buries, but it is down to our ability to clear up, so in many respects we are the underdogs.

We apply emotion and in many animals’ cases they do not, it is our intelligence that allows this as well as other attributes. An animal’s intelligence and wit allows it to survive.

Is it really intelligent for man to strip the natural environment in which these animals’ live? No, this is not achieved by intelligence but greed and technological advancement. Mans greed destroys the environment.

But to say in your opening gambit that you ‘can not think of any human intelligence’ perhaps only shows that you are presenting to us that you are displaying no intelligence?

In many ways also, can l ask what research did you undertake before asking this poll question? Or was it purely driven by an emotion that you felt that the animals of the kingdoms were receiving a bad deal?

Also what is your perception of Alien intelligence?

Are you asking in the form of a human looking towards the stars or another form of alien intelligence?

For if aliens were to exist then it is already suggested that they are of the higher intelligence already and that they are of an advanced human gene. Be this the case, then there is one other avenue, is this altered state of alien intelligence human origin or animal?

Or perhaps a blend of the two?

But as we are dealing with the here and now we can discount alien intelligence and as such can only work on whether animals are more intelligent than humans. 

One only has to look around at mans achievements to ascertain that animal life is not where it is today without mans’ intelligence. Man as a race is slowly dawning that greed and complete destruction is not the way forward - and this too is a clear sign of intelligence.
 
Animals will adapt as indeed will man to the changes, and that is what animals do, they adapt in order to survive.

This is not denying the intelligence of the species, it is simply stating that human intelligence is greater, but animal adaptation is greater.

BTW – this: ‘having the ability to hunt kill and eat without any aid’ is not entirely true many animals hunt and forage in packs and groups. A lot of your opening gambit is not based on much fact and can be disputed.

But an interesting theory all the same.
Animals are Survivalists
Humans are Intelligent
Aliens are yet to be proven

R


----------



## Graham (Jan 27, 2007)

No question that humans are more intelligent than animals, unfortunately many humans are also stupid and don't use what intelligence they do have wisely.


----------



## lukendaniel (Jan 10, 2007)

this poll was only to see what people think and was not meant to be a serious thing hence why i put nothing under humans. but i have been thinking about it and looking into it.

as said there are many reasons for what you would class as intelligence ect but i think it is very interesting the way people think about the subject 

also alien intelligence i have no perception on this it was on the chance some one would 



luke


----------



## R0NST3R (Nov 28, 2007)

Aliens!!!! because they made us silly humans actualy beleive they exist ^_^


----------



## Dextersdad (Mar 28, 2008)

many animals I have met are more intelligent that a lot of people. 

Generally though, we rule as we invented the slinky.


----------



## R0NST3R (Nov 28, 2007)

Dextersdad said:


> many animals I have met are more intelligent that a lot of people.
> 
> Generally though, we rule as we invented the slinky.


And chavs.....Both fun to push down the stairs and watch ^_^


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

Ahhhhhhh, but is it our intelligence or our lack of that permits us to think there is another form of intelligence out there?

Primitive man, would not have imagined modern life possible because of no comparison, but could permit that there was a tomorrow for them at least providing that they were not killed during battle, the hunt or taken whilst they slept.

Primitive man lived on the wits in many cases of their animal companions and with survival skills and intelligence man and animal in many senses became one.

Theorists would suggest that we can not be alone in the galaxy - or can we? Is it as said our intelligence that allows us to believe in that possibility or our imagination, an intelligence process.

Is it just the results of years of hollywood productions that make us think of halflings, little green men and the such like for us to create an alien life possibility.

l read last year that satelites will be analysing the skies for extraterrestrial life and intelligence, so if it is there - then the truth will be revealed.

But alien life is not just the form in which we believe, for it can be found beneath the waves, in fact also are the mysterious cat sightings, not referred to as alien cats - their survival intelligence alone allows them to remain elusive from a definitive study verifying their where abouts.

Intelligence [intel] suggests alone that we can not be the only life form present - is this made of intellect or hope?

If as a race we can believe in the likes of a 'God' , why should we choose not to believe in the likes of Alien life and Intelligence. For there is just as little evidence to suggest that 'God' exists as indeed do aliens.

Jesus existed, that is a fact, whether the miracles supposedly performed are factual, l can not say with any real belief personally, l suggest not. Was/is it intelligence that allows religion to be believed in or hope?

Intelligence is indeed a mighty concept, and will always be thrown around in discussions as has been from the dawn of time to our present existance.

If - IF Alien life was to exist, did it start life on a planet similiar to earth, many milleniums ago, was it human, or was it animal? Was it possibly animal kind that ruled the planets, and hybridised with human contact to produce the greater intelligence ?

Planet of the apes, is a treat of fiction, but apes do possess an incredible intelligence, does it run alongside mans, but they do not have the capacity to express it through speech?


Perhaps in time, truth would display something differently.

But it certainly makes one think - or at least, lol, it should.


----------



## The Nightbringer (Apr 7, 2008)

lukendaniel said:


> just a quick question to what people think
> 
> but will just say a few bits
> 
> ...


Humans are, by a considerable margin, the most intelligent beings on this planet. Our ability to communicate complexly, develop objects to aid us and problem solve sets us apart. Some animals such as the common chimpanzee show some problem solving skills (indeed, some chimps beat some humans in the mathematics test, LOL). Due to our intelligence, in most cases, we have allowed the rational side of our brains to dominate our base instinct, whereas in animals, most live purely on instict (snakes are an example). However, when our comfortable lives are completely torn apart, we often revert back to our base nature, proving that the boundary between civilisation and barbarianism is very, very fine.

Animals, as I have said, live almost entirely on instinct alone. The instinct to find a mate, eat, hide etc. 

The things that you have listed have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence, and they can be easily argued. Elephants can and do destroy their environments in which to live. A herbivore that big has to eat a lot of plant matter, and trust me, I've seen them at it, they do massive amounts of damage over a wide area. Animals don't only kill to feed themselves, many do it for 'sport', to hone their hunting skills, or simply for fun. The ability to hunt and kill without aid doesn't constitute intelligence, it just proves that animals have evolved to perform the jobs they need to do in order to survive. Hunting and killing for the most part in animals is solely related to instinct. Oh and humans can kill and eat without aid, it's just we haven't had to for thousands of years, so that part of us was gradually worn down as our intelligence grew.


----------



## sharpstrain (May 24, 2008)

according to the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy


_*"Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much – the wheel, New York, wars and so on – whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man – for precisely the same reasons."*_


----------



## sharpstrain (May 24, 2008)

Then follow this link to find out what aliens think of man

YouTube - Smash Mash Potatoes Advert


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

This is an invalid question. "More evolved" conjures up all kinds of misleading ideas. Not to mention, you have lumped animals together which is odd because we are animals ourselves and all other animals are very different from one another.

Some people think that the faster, smarter, stronger or bigger we are then the more "evolved" we are. This means nothing. There is nothing stopping a creature from evolving a brain and then losing it again (over a vast amount of time obviously). It could be argued that bacteria is "more" evolved than us. It's a misleading question with no real answer. Remember there is no goal for evolution or natural selection. Random mutations just happen and these random events are worked upon by the non-random process of natural selection. Sometimes, this leads to drastic changes. Sometimes, it leads to nearly no change at all. You could argue that "more evolved" means the species which has went through the most change in a given amount of time but it really means nothing. If a creature goes through no change for 20 million years it is equally well evolved, which is exactly why it hasn't changed! Natural selection can favour change OR stability. One could argue that an organism is "more evolved" if it is better suited to it's environment which would put 99% of organisms above us. We're obviously great all-rounders but cannot compare to the billions of species that have been before us and all around us.

It depends what you mean by the question. I think for someone to ask such a question, they do not really have a sound understanding of the processes that lead to evolution and what it implies for the organisms.

I didn't vote.


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

SiUK said:


> humans are hands down in my opinion, its obvious just because of our brains, well some of us anyway :whistling2:, animals evolved incredibly to live in certain enviroments, we just made out own enviroments, we are by far superiorly evolved no questioning that.


I wouldn't say "no questioning that". I would say every modern biologist would question this comment and say it is completely incorrect. If a species has no need to develop a brain like ours, does that make it less evolved? Is a fly more evolved than E.coli just because a fly has a brain?

Not to mention that brain-to-body size is a competition we are winning at the moment but the pygmy chimp and dolphin are snapping at our heels. In upcoming years, if their gain a larger brain-to-body size than we have, will you then say they are more evolved? You say "obvious" and "no questioning that" but I don't think you could find a single biologist who has lived within the last hundred years who would agree or even think you are partly correct.


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

Blazin said:


> I dont see animals being able to create machines and building. just webs and nests lol.


Ah, what is going on! We make houses while birds make nests so we are more evolved? Well they can fly and we can't so does that make them more evolved?

I can't believe the level of misunderstanding here (not Blazin personally, I mean in general). I mean, unless you went to a faith school, how could people have attended a school in the UK and come out with completely warped understandings of evolution?

I'm totally baffled! I can't even suggest that it's much younger members with less understanding because the education is getting _better_ in terms of Biology in recent years!


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

TSKA Rory Matier said:


> IF Alien life was to exist, did it start life on a planet similiar to earth, many milleniums ago, was it human, or was it animal? Was it possibly animal kind that ruled the planets, and hybridised with human contact to produce the greater intelligence ?


:eek4:

What are you talking about?

Was it human or animal? Humans ARE animals! Human is a specific group of animals. So your question is like saying, "if there are aliens, do you think they are wombats or goldfish?" and most people would say, "ummm neither".

I can't even think of a response to the last sentence. Could you make it a bit clearer? Are you considering the possibility that non-human animals ruled several planets then found human species (presumably on a planet somewhere) then interbred with them (completely destroying the classification of "human" as a distinct species in the process) and then somehow creating a race of more intelligent animals? And if so, who are they?

I've got a friend who basically says things like this all the time but he is always high as a pie.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

'I can't believe the level of misunderstanding here (not Blazin personally, I mean in general). I mean, unless you went to a faith school, how could people have attended a school in the UK and come out with completely warped understandings of evolution?'

Harrison calm down, you will blow a gasket!

Looking at your profile, and l can see why you are becoming frustrated, this is a topic that is truly worthy of a good discussion, but this is a forum and not a true debate forum.

We live in a world of misunderstanding and misconception.

R


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

Well then my over frustrated colleague, l must be as high as a pie, and you must be deadpan with imagination.

R


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

cervantes said:


> Humans, although I voted for animals by mistake.
> 
> Humans because we have incerased our life span over a short space of time, (evolutionary speaking), through conscious changes.


That would be the complete opposite of evolution. If we improve conditions for ourselves (whether it be the introduction of sewers or cures for diseases) it doesn't actually cause us to evolve. The main driving force behind evolution besides genetic drift among others, Natural Selection, favours traits which allow animals to live long enough to reproduce. That is the way natural selection works. As long as an organism lives long enough to pass on the successful genes to successful offspring, then the organism's own genes have been good enough for the job. There is obviously an evolutionary advantage to living longer if it means you can keep reproducing (some tortoises can keep at it for most of their life!) but us mammals tend to start withering away quite early in life. We may prefer to live longer, which is why we strive so hard to improve life-expectancy, but living longer but being too decrepit to reproduce has no evolutionary advantage.


----------



## snickers (Aug 15, 2007)

> who is more intelligent
> and evolved
> humans or animals
> *who is better animals or humans*

Very interesting question. What is intelligence? how do you judge more evolved, and what is better? And which animals? Man is an animal, but presumably you seperate us from animals.

According to the theory of evolution as I understand it, the best animal would be the one that 'fits' best into it's environment, and/or perhaps one that survives. It doesn't have to have huge numbers but longevity as a species is important.

humans have been around for a few million years, can live in a variety of environments and are undeniably successful. On the other hand they have had a huge detrimental impact on their environment, arguably causing the worst mass extinction in the history of the earth, and it's quite likely that the same fate is coming to man as well.

There are plenty of animals that 'fit' their environment better, and lots that have been around a lot longer.

I think I'll go for Aliens. There must be at least one race of aliens in the vast reaches of the universe that is better than an ant!


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

TSKA Rory Matier said:


> Well then my over frustrated colleague, l must be as high as a pie, and you must be deadpan with imagination.
> 
> R


I'm sorry mate but it really didn't make any sense. That's why I asked if you could make it clearer. For example, the part about non-human species producing hybrids with human species. I think you were saying this happened on another planet or something but ignoring that I still don't really get it. It may be my fault! I'm not saying you are as high as a pie, but my friend really does say similar things.

Based on what you were _suggesting_ (yes, I know you don't really assume it's true), can you define what a "species" is?

As for it not being a debate, I know that. I'm just totally shocked looking at the ratio of people who responded and the people who don't understand the basics. Not because it says anything bad or good about them, but I don't get what's happening considering that the education of the theory of evolution is becoming much better in recent years. It just strikes me as amazing that a lot of people still don't understand something that isn't only important because it explains who we are and our place in the universe, but has such a practical use in society in terms of medical breakthroughs and conservation (especially of our beloved herps!).

I can accept slight mistakes or misunderstandings, but we're talking about completely backwards understandings here. It's not about you guys personally, I'm just shocked that people coming from school could... I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't get what is happening in the education system.


----------



## Nerys (Apr 18, 2005)

as far as the voting goes... humans ARE animals.. we just like to think we are better than the other animals.. and so choose to class ourselves as being a seperate entity from them..

intelligence is also a human term, a human perspective..

whilst a human might think its smart to be able to understand biochemistry or nuclear physics.. an animal doesn't really give a toss as long as its fed, hydrated, has shelter and has a shag.. 

intelligence is a human concept, designed to make us feel superior to the animals we share the world with.. it says as much that there are no polls amongst the animals to say are we smarter than the humans..

loving the discussion tho .. 

N


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

snickers said:


> > who is more intelligent
> > and evolved
> > humans or animals
> > *who is better animals or humans*
> ...


It was agreed for many years that longevity as a species was important and that genes somehow worked hard or were selected for preserving the specific species. The other things you mentioned which I do agree with (fitting well into the environment etc) were excellent points. But over the last century, it has become clear and accepted that evolution has a lot less to do with preservation of species than we thought. It appears than natural selection favours the genes themselves rather than the animals that carry them. This is where the concept of "the Selfish Gene" comes into play (Prof Dawkins) which suggests that organisms are almost like vehicles for genes.

Being the major force behind evolutionary change or stability, natural selection is what must be considered here. And natural selection favours traits (or mutations depending what level you want to discuss this at) which improve the chances of that specific trait being passed on. The selfish gene. Whether a species lasts a long time or changes dramatically over a short time and is thus a species that didn't last long, doesn't matter at all as far as natural selection goes.

It almost went without saying for a long time that natural selection worked to improve the longevity of species but practical experiments and observations and accepting news ways of thinking have changed that impression.


----------



## sharpstrain (May 24, 2008)

im cleverer than my cat - but not by much:lol2:


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

Nerys said:


> as far as the voting goes... humans ARE animals.. we just like to think we are better than the other animals.. and so choose to class ourselves as being a seperate entity from them..
> 
> intelligence is also a human term, a human perspective..
> 
> ...


Completely agree. We are definitely applying human features to other species here and thinking they just aren't as good as us. But I love the way you put it, they don't give a toss :lol2: A Hydra or Earthworm or E.coli can't play the violin... so what? What would be the point in it playing the ****ing violin? :2thumb:


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

sharpstrain said:


> im cleverer than my cat - but not by much:lol2:


Is your cat like the one on Red Dwarf? :2thumb:


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

My alien theory was based on an open ended question of what if, and using the hollywood trick of supplying an example such as Planet of the Apes.

And whilst l am not affronted by the high as a pie concept [although at times, l oft ask myself the very question].

'I can accept slight mistakes or misunderstandings, but we're talking about completely backwards understandings here. It's not about you guys personally, I'm just shocked that people coming from school could... I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't get what is happening in the education system'. 

The educational system Harrison has been under constant fire for a very long time.


----------



## Nerys (Apr 18, 2005)

Harrison said:


> Completely agree. We are definitely applying human features to other species here and thinking they just aren't as good as us. But I love the way you put it, they don't give a toss :lol2: A Hydra or Earthworm or E.coli can't play the violin... so what? What would be the point in it playing the ****ing violin? :2thumb:



*grins*

my skunk can drive the van tho! and i have proof!!










lol

N


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

People sometimes seem to fail in understanding the difference between intelligence and instinct. They see intelligence in ourselves as something that hasn't evolved but "just is". I don't blame them because understanding the intelligence and origin of this intelligence in your own species is mind-boggling. It's a very strange thing to consider because we are using that very intelligence to think about it. It's like trying to think about infinity.

Our intelligence that we have, and how it has evolved, is very much like our eyes or our hearts or our hair. The brain is a physical thing which has evolved in much the same way as your elbow has. It's tempting for us to think of intelligence as being something very non-physical and that stops us from understanding it in an evolutionary sense and even causes us to separate it from other bodily functions in terms of evolutionary history.

An example would be found in: (Animal Behaviour, DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.07.026).

Alternatively, here is an easier read:

Squirrels 'fake it' to fool would-be thieves - life - 19 January 2008 - New Scientist

The point is that it has now been observed that squirrels deliberately fake some burials of food to trick any potential animals watching. If they know we can see them, they often throw nothing into a hole, pretending to hide food and then cover it up and run away. This sounds very clever. We could look at that and say it is more intelligent than what a fly can do the same way we would compare our ability to play Monopoly with the cognitive skills of an apple. So it should be easy for most people to say that the squirrel is more intelligent and therefore more evolved. So is evolving to fake burials or to play Monopoly any different from growing better gills or better wings or better defense mechanisms? Nope. A squirrel isn't any more evolved than giraffe. If you suggest that this fake burying makes them more evolved, you may as well suggest that the giraffe's long neck makes them more evolved.

It's just physical change as usual which can affect the brain as well as limbs etc. The brain is just an organ. Natural selection favours the ability to fake burials because it fools potential thieves and the squirrels have a better chance of surviving long enough to reproduce and pass on the trait. This is the same as an animal evolving to have more fur or a longer neck... no difference! Looking at it in that simpler way, it's still difficult to imagine but our brain has only evolved in the same way that other organs have. It's hard to put what I'm thinking into words, but doing things that you yourself consider "clever" doesn't mean an animal is more evolved than another. Thinking about the squirrels should help put us into a bit more perspective.

Actually, if we are talking about putting ourselves into perspective, maybe we all could do with a dose of the Pale Blue Dot?

YouTube - We Are Here: The Pale Blue Dot

YouTube - Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

Nerys said:


> *grins*
> 
> my skunk can drive the van tho! and i have proof!!
> 
> ...


Awesome! :lol2:


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

TSKA Rory Matier said:


> My alien theory was based on an open ended question of what if, and using the hollywood trick of supplying an example such as Planet of the Apes.
> 
> And whilst l am not affronted by the high as a pie concept [although at times, l oft ask myself the very question].
> 
> ...


Oh I do agree with you about the education system as a whole. But some things do get taught better and some obviously worse... But generally in our country Biology has been improving a lot. I do obviously understand that there are major problems with the education system as a whole.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

The Pale Blue Dot displays more movie clips than mentioned here, so despite the earth being a very small stage - l think l would rather watch Planet of the Apes.

Cripes its like a giant movie quiz!

Found myself listening, but not thinking of the galaxy - but how many of the clips l could identify - Crap!

Its sad to think that with an important issue like this, that they have reduced it to nothing more than a film history.

R


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

TSKA Rory Matier said:


> The Pale Blue Dot displays more movie clips than mentioned here, so despite the earth being a very small stage - l think l would rather watch Planet of the Apes.
> 
> Cripes its like a giant movie quiz!
> 
> ...


The guy who made that specific video added his fave films that meant a lot to him onto Carl's famous words. Incase some people didn't like that, I included another version in a link just below the first one. Alternatively you could look up the book.

Also, the clip didn't mention or ask us to think much about the galaxy at all but our own Planet's place in the entire universe. It puts us into perspective in regards to existence and it also mentions how much self-delusion we have when considering just how important we are.

There are other clips which focus more on the famous words and arguably one of the most famous photographs ever taken rather than movies.


----------



## Nerys (Apr 18, 2005)

ah but you did not realise that rory is a movie addict, and a X files addict in addition.. he could watch clips like that all day and no doubt i will lose him to that sites movie bank for a while now lol

N


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

How long have you been a Biologist Harrison, and also how long have you been a Magician?

I am curious, is all.


----------



## Nerys (Apr 18, 2005)

harrison - have you ever read any of lyall watsons stuff?

N


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

TSKA Rory Matier said:


> How long have you been a Biologist Harrison, and also how long have you been a Magician?
> 
> I am curious, is all.


Magician for a looooong time (paid for studies). Biologist not so long. Now the magic is pretty strictly "part time" which is fine because it still makes me money in the background with sales etc. You wanting a performance or something?  Actually, I am going to be down your neck of the woods on Saturday.

Hey, PM anytime you want. Save us cluttering up threads like this : victory:


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

Nerys said:


> harrison - have you ever read any of lyall watsons stuff?
> 
> N


I've read bits and pieces of his here and there and know of many of his books and ideas but I'm sad to say I don't actually own a single one! Have you read much of Watson's work? He had an odd mix of subjects ranging from evolution of organs to evolutionary psychology. I've read words of his own in other people's books rather than his own work.


----------



## Nerys (Apr 18, 2005)

i read his "supernature" about this time last year, lots to think about in there..

we have just seen tho, that he recently died.. like 6 days or so ago recent.. shame..

(where ya going to be??? saturday there is a big show in essex...)

N


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

Nerys said:


> i read his "supernature" about this time last year, lots to think about in there..
> 
> we have just seen tho, that he recently died.. like 6 days or so ago recent.. shame..
> 
> ...


Really? I didn't even know! I'm near Lincoln, picking up a new dog.

Also, I didn't know he was dead either or that it had happened recently until you mentioned. Just looked it up. Is a shame.


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

Humans obviously... we are the only creature to inhabit every one of the continents on Earth (correct me if i'm wrong) plus if we chose to we could kill every single animal in the world and they wouldn't stand a chance whereas animals couldn't do that to us...i'm not saying we use our superiority very well though because we clearly don't...


----------



## Nerys (Apr 18, 2005)

ah but the fact that we live everywhere we want and can kill anything we want.. does not make for intelligence in my eyes...

N


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

I cant believe more people have said animals :lol2::lol2:


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

Nerys said:


> ah but the fact that we live everywhere we want and can kill anything we want.. does not make for intelligence in my eyes...
> 
> N


I thought the question was who is better evolved which is clearly humans... the nearest to us being monkeys and gorillas and apes...


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

No Brad, 

The question was - who is more intelligent.

LOL

Let us not walk down the evolution path again eh?


----------



## neep_neep (Oct 18, 2007)

To be honest, I can't really vote as the question is too vague.

Re: Which is more evolved: more evolved for what?

More evolved for flying? For surviving without water for months at a time? Humans = epic fail.

More evolved over time? Well, i'd have to go for animals and say that 'animals' as a whole entity, sponges to mammals, are far more highly evolved than humans - after all, we only manifest as a single body form, very recently in evolutionary history, whereas animals have evolved into many many phyla over a far greater period of time. We are simply a product of their evolution, which is not the same as humans being 'more evolved'. 

Look at the insects alone - absolutely incredible evolutionary history. Human evolution (thus far) resulted in one single body plan. 

More evolved in function? Well, we can't regenerate - that's a pretty nicely evolved function there. Wings, again, amazingly evolved.


As for intelligence - well yes, I guess humans, based on our general definition. However, intelligence doesn't equal the 'most evolved'. Not in my opinion anyway!

One could argue that humans are so poorly evolved for dealing with the raw elements of nature that we have to surround ourselves with products of our intelligence in order to survive?

Again, it all boils down to your perception of what evolution truly means.


Edit: Have now read the whole thread - i've probably just repeated the majority of what Harrison has said! But I am thinking along the same lines as his posts.


----------



## pauly7582 (Jun 26, 2006)

I cant believe someone has asked this question.

how can anyone contest that humans are more intelligent? shouldnt the very fact that you are sitting at a computer, typing a complex language, on a web site for other humans to read and form opinions on, answer your question.

all this, whilst our animals (about whom we are talking yet they are not aware of this) sit on their vivariums probably motionless.

I'm astounded! lol.

We're original points a joke?
animals can hunt without aid? could I not go out and kill a food item with my bare hands? hang on, i dont have to as we are intelligent enough to have develped a safe society where food is available for everyone regardless of physical ability.

Hang on, I'll just ask my dog what he thinks about all this....oh hang on....


----------



## pauly7582 (Jun 26, 2006)

Regarding the evolved question....

many people falling into the trap of thinking of physical attributes as the key determinant of evolved state. 

WE have evolved so that we have the mental ability to develop the aids needed to perform any task an animal can. strip us of our inventions and we dont fair well against animals...but our inventions are the evidence of our evolution.
it is almost incomprehensable to truly understand how advanced we are compared to animals. and for how long it has been this way.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

I stand corrected Brad, it was about intelligence and evolving.

I only really addressed everything on the intelligence theme.

And Pauly, my dog says:

Woof, woof, grr, woof, grr, woof, wooooof, grrrr, wheenine!

Basically translated to:

'FFS - is this all you two leggeds can ask?'


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

bradhollands999 said:


> Humans obviously... we are the only creature to inhabit every one of the continents on Earth (correct me if i'm wrong) plus if we chose to we could kill every single animal in the world and they wouldn't stand a chance whereas animals couldn't do that to us...i'm not saying we use our superiority very well though because we clearly don't...


There are other organisms that live in every single continent and every single country and even have close relatives at the very bottom of the oceans. If that is how you judge being "most evolved" then we fall very short. Again, it has nothing to do with intelligence or being "more" evolution.


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

bradhollands999 said:


> I thought the question was who is better evolved which is clearly humans... the nearest to us being monkeys and gorillas and apes...


??? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but can you back it up? Is there any evidence that supports the idea that we are more evolved than the great apes and that they are more evolved than any species of Conifer or Fish?


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

pauly7582 said:


> it is almost incomprehensable to truly understand how advanced we are compared to animals. and for how long it has been this way.


Actually, we do how related we are to our closest relatives and more distant relatives and we also know how long things have been this way.

Has anyone considered how poorly evolved we are? I know someone has mentioned flying and things like that which isn't too important because we don't need to do it (which is exactly why being very brainy doesn't make us more evolved than an ant). But look at the things we do need that are simply crap. Our eyesight has a blindspot. Our eyes aren't that good in general compared to an Octopus or a bird of prey. We used to be able to produce our own vitamin C but the gene has been deactivated. Because of the fairly recent change in our posture, we are still dealing with very bad back pain and pain during child birth. And so much of our evolution has left as with pointless qualities. The appendix is now worse than useless (turns out it does have uses though). We still have gill sacs during early development, a coat of ape-like hair and a tail... completely useless. We have to consume stupid amounts of food to keep active. The evolution of the dolphin has allowed them to eat and breathe through different holes. We eat, speak, drink and breathe through the same hole and this fantastic feature leads to many people in hospital every year choking to death after getting food items stuck.

Someone was comparing us at our computers to their reps sitting in a viv. Which is more evolved? Can't say because it's an invalid question but if you had to answer then there is no clear winner without investigating the genomes. All that matters in an evolutionary sense is the struggle for survival and being able to live long enough to produce offspring that will also live long enough to continue to line. That's it.


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

So you think humans are unique? - being-human - 21 May 2008 - New Scientist


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

Harrison said:


> ??? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but can you back it up? Is there any evidence that supports the idea that we are more evolved than the great apes and that they are more evolved than any species of Conifer or Fish?


 
im really quite astounded by the majority opinion that people honestly think animals are better evolved or more intelligant than humans, not particularly picking you out mate, just your the last person to comment.

Its crazy talk:lol2:, just the fact of what the human race has done in this short space of time we have been on earth, we are far more evolved far more clever, although apes, gorrillas ect show massive levels of intelligence it doesnt even compare to humans.


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

SiUK said:


> im really quite astounded by the majority opinion that people honestly think animals are better evolved or more intelligant than humans, not particularly picking you out mate, just your the last person to comment.
> 
> Its crazy talk:lol2:, just the fact of what the human race has done in this short space of time we have been on earth, we are far more evolved far more clever, although apes, gorrillas ect show massive levels of intelligence it doesnt even compare to humans.


That has nothing at all to do with being "more evolved". I think what you are saying is crazy talk not in the sense that you are crazy though! Just that there seems to be an unbelievable misunderstanding of evolution going on here.

How can we be more evolved? If we are, what do you base this on? And don't say we build houses and computers because that has nothing to do with being "more evolved" than another species. It just happens to be what we have evolved to do at this moment in time. If you are going to suggest something which all biologists would disagree with, what exactly are you basing those conclusions on?


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

but its true our brains have evolved to such a high level that we can do all these things to incredibly high levels, no animal comes close to being able to do what humans have done, they live in whatever surroundings they have they hunt and get food from their surroundings thats what we were like thousands of years ago.


----------



## neep_neep (Oct 18, 2007)

Again, agreed with Harrison, there seem to be some really massive misconceptions about what evolution, and being 'more evolved' actually is.

Being 'more evolved' is NOT the same as being 'more intelligent'.

This is where people seem to be getting confused...

Intelligence is just a single evolutionary trait that people here are using as a measure as being 'more evolved' - why do you choose that one trait? Because conveniently, it's the one that we possess. There are hundreds of different traits that allow for survival - which ultimately is the point of evolution. Not the ability to do maths or build cars, but the ability to survive and propagate. Our intelligence allows us to do this - but equally, other animals have developed OTHER traits in order to allow them to survive and propagate the species. Intelligence works for us, other traits work for other species. The outcome, ultimately, is the same. What does it matter that we build houses and computers in our lifetimes? The ONLY outcome that matters in evolution is the production and survival of reproducing offspring. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter how we got there.

If I had tried to argue any of this 'humans are more evolved because they are more intelligent' rubbish in any of my evolution exams, I would have probably failed! Probably because I don't think I COULD argue it! :lol2:

I am quite happy to accept the view that humans are more intelligent - but why are people only using intelligence as a measure of evolution? It is only a single evolutionary trait, amongst many other successful strategies.


----------



## essexchondro (Apr 9, 2007)

> That has nothing at all to do with being "more evolved". I think what you are saying is crazy talk not in the sense that you are crazy though! Just that there seems to be an unbelievable misunderstanding of evolution going on here.
> 
> How can we be more evolved? If we are, what do you base this on? And don't say we build houses and computers because that has nothing to do with being "more evolved" than another species. It just happens to be what we have evolved to do at this moment in time. If you are going to suggest something which all biologists would disagree with, what exactly are you basing those conclusions on?


 
I think I agree. To say that humans are more evolved than any other species is a bit of a misunderstanding of evolution in my opinion. Evolution is about how species adapt over time to better function *in their environment* through the processes of natural selection. Therefore surely all evolutionary development is entirely subjective to a particular species and its selection pressures and there aren't really any independent criteria by which to compare species with each other? 

The unique thing about humans is that a quirk of our evolution has been self-consciousness and an ability to remove ourselves from instinctual behaviour and examine the world around us in a way which is beyond other species (as far as we know). This biological evolution gave humans the capacity for culture...and its cultural evolution that led to things like computers etc. 

I suppose it would be fair to say that humans reached that critical point where they removed themselves from the evolutionary process (once we could change our environment then natural selection surely becomes redundant?) but that isn't quite the same thing as saying we're more evolved. If anything, we now rely less upon biological evolutionary development because its much quicker to change our environment than it is to wait for the environment to change us. So, if we stopped biologically evolving when cultural evolution took over, maybe we are less (biologically) evolved than other species that are still being shaped by their environment?

Food for thought

Stuart


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

but surely we have got where we are today because of the way our brains have evolved, surely intelligence and evolution are linked, we used to live in caves, we adapted to those surroundings I can see why thats intelligence over evoloution, but without evolution would we ever of progressed from living in caves, we wernt always as intelligent as we are now.


----------



## Oliver Dodds (Apr 26, 2008)

Humans are one of the most adaptable species on the planet. Part of our evolution is the ability to THINK and create things to make us more efficient eg. a stone axe.
When the world is coming to an end, humans will most likely be the last species to die out, _fact _(excluding bacteria, mould etc). If you want evidence do some research on bbc discovery website or something.
We can aclimatise to most any situation and survive.


----------



## Oliver Dodds (Apr 26, 2008)

essexchondro said:


> Evolution is about how species adapt over time to better function *in their environment* through the processes of natural selection.


Mutation is what triggers evolution. The natural selection part comes afterwards. For example, the hawk moth at the beginning of the industrial age was white speckled to blend with the trees. The trees turned darker and darker over time from the soot etc in the air. A mutation in the genes began to produce black moths. These black moths were better camoflaged and were not eaten by the birds while the white speckled ones stood out against the trees. This is mutation followed by natural selection. At the end of the industrial age, the air became cleaner and the trees once again began to whiten. A mutation of the speckled colour came about again and all the black moths were depleted by natural selection due to lack of camoflage.
This is a true scenario, research it if you like, we have just been in our genetics and evolution study.

As for the original question, humans are more intellegent by far from the evidence already present, but this is by no means a certainty. On the other hand, we are well evolved to do what we do; use our brains to make our lives more easy. So i suppose you can say on the brains side of things we are more evolved then animals, but in the sea, in the air, also on land, I wouldnt go so far as to say we are more evolved then anything else.
I dont know if what i just typed will come accross as i mean it too, but im not going to bother proof reading it, so work it our yourselves :lol2:


----------



## Mark75 (Jan 21, 2007)

When an animal does the 3 minute Sudoko in the Sun then I might consider animals being more evolved than humans


----------



## Oliver Dodds (Apr 26, 2008)

Mark75 said:


> When an animal does the 3 minute Sudoko in the Sun then I might consider animals being more evolved than humans


Hahahah


----------



## TAXI (Apr 5, 2008)

Humans....Who keeps who as pets:no1:


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

SiUK said:


> but its true our brains have evolved to such a high level that we can do all these things to incredibly high levels, no animal comes close to being able to do what humans have done, they live in whatever surroundings they have they hunt and get food from their surroundings thats what we were like thousands of years ago.


Actually most animals can do better at certain things. Better memory, better this, better that... It's our ability to be good all-round that sets us apart. And even agreeing with you that our brains are utterly fantastic, it doesn't make us "more evolved" because as I have said, there really isn't such a thing. The brain is just an organ like the heart. So calling us the most evolved because one organ is really good (even though it isn't even required to be alive), if we take an organism with a much better heart does that make them more evolved than us?

Everyone is acting like evolution has some sort of path with things getting better. There are no goals and things can also get worse or stay exactly the same. If evolution isn't going anywhere specific, how can one organism be more evolved than another? More intelligent I get. More evolved doesn't make any sense if you understand anything about the basics of evolution.


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

Oliver Dodds said:


> Humans are one of the most adaptable species on the planet. Part of our evolution is the ability to THINK and create things to make us more efficient eg. a stone axe.
> When the world is coming to an end, humans will most likely be the last species to die out, _fact _(excluding bacteria, mould etc). If you want evidence do some research on bbc discovery website or something.
> We can aclimatise to most any situation and survive.


Bottom of the ocean? In a perfect vacuum? There are millions if not billions of organisms that can survive in more situations than we can. But I do agree we are great all-rounders. Medium-sized all rounders are extremely rare and in that sense we very interesting indeed.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

Dophins are just waiting for evolution to given them there legs back.Then whatch this space.I mean you try making fire under water one thing that made us.And it said that eating seafood made are brians bigger so how big are dolphin brians.So when dophines come on to land with there telephathic abilities.

RUN FOR YOUR LIFES....:war:.


----------



## essexchondro (Apr 9, 2007)

> Mutation is what triggers evolution. The natural selection part comes afterwards. For example, the hawk moth at the beginning of the industrial age was white speckled to blend with the trees. The trees turned darker and darker over time from the soot etc in the air. A mutation in the genes began to produce black moths. These black moths were better camoflaged and were not eaten by the birds while the white speckled ones stood out against the trees. This is mutation followed by natural selection. At the end of the industrial age, the air became cleaner and the trees once again began to whiten. A mutation of the speckled colour came about again and all the black moths were depleted by natural selection due to lack of camoflage.
> This is a true scenario, research it if you like, we have just been in our genetics and evolution study.
> 
> As for the original question, humans are more intellegent by far from the evidence already present, but this is by no means a certainty. On the other hand, we are well evolved to do what we do; use our brains to make our lives more easy. So i suppose you can say on the brains side of things we are more evolved then animals, but in the sea, in the air, also on land, I wouldnt go so far as to say we are more evolved then anything else.
> I dont know if what i just typed will come accross as i mean it too, but im not going to bother proof reading it, so work it our yourselves :lol2:


Mutation is *one* "trigger" for evolution, and its certainly one that can lead to massive change in a relatively short period of time, but not all evolution is based upon (random and sudden) mutation. Natural selection pressures are always operating on all members of the species; they aren't sitting dormant waiting for a mutation to occur before they have an effect.


----------



## Pliskens_Chains (Jun 8, 2008)

i voted animals... mammels in particular. mammels can learn to understand verbal commands so in a sense they can understand some of our oral sounds...can we say we understand what they are saying when they make their multitude of noises?


----------



## Oliver Dodds (Apr 26, 2008)

Harrison said:


> Bottom of the ocean? In a perfect vacuum? There are millions if not billions of organisms that can survive in more situations than we can. But I do agree we are great all-rounders. Medium-sized all rounders are extremely rare and in that sense we very interesting indeed.


I should have said adapt, not aclimatise 
We can survive in space in space craft. We could also survive at the bottom of the ocean if we ever decided to build something down there like the space stations we have. I dont think its going to happen, but its a possibility.


----------



## essexchondro (Apr 9, 2007)

> but surely we have got where we are today because of the way our brains have evolved, surely intelligence and evolution are linked, we used to live in caves, we adapted to those surroundings I can see why thats intelligence over evoloution, but without evolution would we ever of progressed from living in caves, we wernt always as intelligent as we are now.


If you could take a human newborn baby born 20,000 years ago and raise it in 2008 it would grow up and be indistinguishable from a child actually born it 2008. **** sapiens are more intelligent than other **** species that came before us but you and I aren't really any more *biologically intelligent* than our **** sapien ancestors who lived in caves. The human brain evolved to the state it is currently at many thousands of years ago.

All the things around us that we've made (society, government, technology etc etc) are products of *culture*, not simply biological evolution. Culture itself, of course, is a quirk of our biological evolution.


----------



## Oliver Dodds (Apr 26, 2008)

essexchondro said:


> If you could take a human newborn baby born 20,000 years ago and raise it in 2008 it would grow up and be indistinguishable from a child actually born it 2008. **** sapiens are more intelligent than other **** species that came before us but you and I aren't really any more *biologically intelligent* than our **** sapien ancestors who lived in caves. The human brain evolved to the state it is currently at many thousands of years ago.
> 
> All the things around us that we've made (society, government, technology etc etc) are products of *culture*, not simply biological evolution. Culture itself, of course, is a quirk of our biological evolution.


Very well written, I agree on this entirely.
Damn i like this thread, its a damn good read


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

essexchondro said:


> Mutation is *one* "trigger" for evolution, and its certainly one that can lead to massive change in a relatively short period of time, but not all evolution is based upon (random and sudden) mutation. Natural selection pressures are always operating on all members of the species; they aren't sitting dormant waiting for a mutation to occur before they have an effect.


Mutation is not a trigger for evolution at all. Mutation is THE ultimate source of variation within individuals. That variation (provided by mutations) can then be worked on by the process of natural selection which isn't really triggered but you could say caused by the struggle for existence coupled with an always changing environment. Mutation itself doesn't trigger evolution though, even though evolution as we know it couldn't have happened without mutation. Odd huh?


----------



## essexchondro (Apr 9, 2007)

> Mutation is not a trigger for evolution at all. Mutation is THE ultimate source of variation within individuals. That variation (provided by mutations) can then be worked on by the process of natural selection which isn't really triggered but you could say caused by the struggle for existence coupled with an always changing environment. Mutation itself doesn't trigger evolution though, even though evolution as we know it couldn't have happened without mutation. Odd huh?


I was using the terminology of a previous poster, not my own. So are you suggesting that mutation is the only source of variation that can be worked on by natural selection? I can see that mutation is one way in which species can evolve (due to selection pressures acting on a mutation) but I can't see why this is the only way. What about gradual changes? 

For example, lets say that we start out with a population of giraffes that are of varying sizes but all within the current normal size spectrum. 

In this hypothetical situation the larger giraffes in the population are at an advantage as they can reach leaves lower down but also at the very tops of the trees which are out of reach to the smaller giraffes. 

The smaller giraffes have a greater struggle for food and so die of starvation in higher number as compared to the larger ones. 

The larger giraffes survive in larger numbers and go on to breed thereby giving birth to more giraffes that tend also to be larger ones.

Over time the avarage size of a giraffe increases.

Of course, this is a simplification to the point of over-simplification and it only focuses on one selection pressure when in reality many pressures are at play, but to my mind this demonstrates that species can evolve without the need for a mutation to crop up in a species.


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

Yeah I see how you were using their terminology. Also, no I don't think mutation is the only source of variation. I did say in my post that it is "THE ultimate source of variation". Not necessarily the only source.


----------



## essexchondro (Apr 9, 2007)

It depends on your definition of "ultimate" really. Why is the relatively rapid, but also relatively rare, process of mutational evolution seen as superior to the much more ubiquitous processes of gradual evolution?


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

essexchondro said:


> It depends on your definition of "ultimate" really. Why is the relatively rapid, but also relatively rare, process of mutational evolution seen as superior to the much more ubiquitous processes of gradual evolution?


I'm not sure what you mean by rare. Every one of us probably has a new mutation in our genome. I say "probably" because there is always a chance that you have none or have 20 but I'm talking about averages here. The DNA repair enzymes are incredibly efficient but mistakes still get through.

Mutation is not rapid or gradual evolution. It is the source of slight variation between individuals and this gives natural selection and genetic drift etc something to work with. All evolution is gradual, but natural selection works upon variation and mutation is the ultimate source of variation. Another way to look at it. Natural selection will only happen if the following is true:

1. There is a struggle for existence

2. Animals die

3. Animals reproduce

4. Sometimes animals die before they get a chance to reproduce

5. There is variation between individuals

Natural selection requires variation. The ultimate source of variation is mutation. Can you describe many instances of variation that are not caused by mutation? You may suggest something like sexual variation in which "different" individuals are create because they are inheriting genes from different parents thus creating variation in an organism rather than just a clone of one of the parents. But this variation only exists and the parents are only different from one another ultimately because of mutation.

Although strictly speaking, natural selection works at a phenotypic level rather than the level of the genotype, when selection pressures are placed upon organisms, certain traits make an organism "fitter" than another. Those differences between individuals that allow natural selection to act upon are brought about ultimately by mutation.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Well, "more intelligent" and "more evolved" are two TOTALLY different things.

You have to ask "for what measurement" in BOTH cases.

Pigeons are smarter than humans ... in certain circumstances.
Dogs are smarter than humans ... in certain circumstances.
Dolphins are smarter than humans ... and I'm not sure we should limit that to "certain" circumstances.

Pigeons have better object-recognition skills than humans. You can teach a pigeon to respond to the subtle differences between Impressionist paintings and Pointillist paintings even when they can only see a small part of the painting and can't read the label at the museum. That's because the object recognition is something that must be very important to have if you're a pigeon. It's more important for a pigeon to be able to do it in order to be a pigeon than it is for a human to be able to do it in order to be a human - which makes them better at it than humans are.

Dogs are masters of language. They learn to speak the "dialect" of their family - and dogs from different countries speak different dialects. More crucially, though... they can read humans and human body language far better than humans can read other humans. It's important to be able to do that if you're a dog, since so much of your communication is non-verbal; they need the ability more than people do (even though some 70-80% of human communication is still nonverbal), so they're better at it than we are. Most humans can't read dog body language nearly so well as their dog is reading them.

And dolphins... to be honest, I wouldn't guarantee they're not as smart as we are in some of the same ways we are. I'm sure they have a better sense of three-dimensional space than we do, and are better at interpreting sound by way of what they are. They also have a well-developed social structure, culture and they have some of the "Big-brain Breakdowns" that humans do, too. The smarter you are, the more connections there are, the more ways they can go wrong. You get dolphin rapists and murderers too - dolphins that kill porpoises and baby dolphins because they apparently enjoy it. 

You give a screwdriver to a gorilla, he'll scream like it's going to kill him, then try to eat it.
You give a screwdriver to a chimpanzee, he'll play with it, then try to hit someone else with it.
You give a screwdriver to a bonobo, they'll probably play with it in ways that only our most inventive and oversexed cousins can imagine.
You give a screwdriver to an orangutan, he'll distract you, hide it... and when you're not looking he'll take his cage apart with it.

Our closest relatives react to things differently, and the ways they react tell us something about what they're like. I think orangutans have a great deal of potential to become tool users... that is, if they didn't have to compete with us for space and resources.

I don't believe humans are the pinnacle of intelligence or evolution. We are certainly an unique animal... but so is EVERY OTHER ANIMAL in the world. Each is what it is because that was the best thing to be for where it fits.

You get down to it, I believe there are a few "perfect" animals out there. Animals that are undisputedly the absolute best at being what they are and that nothing else can ever match.

Sharks are one of those. There have been fish that are recognisable as sharks since before the dinosaurs. The design is perfect - so good that other than 'tweaks' to the overall idea, nature hasn't needed to change it.

Naked chimpanzees can't say that.


----------



## Andy b 1 (May 14, 2007)

humans blats


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

Why isn't there an "Other" option?


----------



## Demonique (May 5, 2007)

lukendaniel said:


> just a quick question to what people think
> 
> but will just say a few bits
> 
> ...


And addition to the animals section:


Survivial of the fittest kills the stupid ones off, they don't have a load of animal do-gooders saying "we must protect the little kiddy widdys from doing stupid things that might hurt themselves" so if an animal does something that its instinct tells it is dangerous for it to be doing and it is killed for it, it's stupid genes aren't passed on


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

Ssthisto said:


> Well, "more intelligent" and "more evolved" are two TOTALLY different things.
> 
> You have to ask "for what measurement" in BOTH cases.
> 
> ...


Same with crocodiles... they go back to the dinosaur age as well...


----------



## Harrison (Feb 29, 2008)

bradhollands999 said:


> Same with crocodiles... they go back to the dinosaur age as well...


Marine environments are more stable. Generally, natural selection promotes stability in marine environments although there have been periods in the Earth's history when change has occurred very fast due to certain changes in climate or related to the "arms-race" (e.g. development of defenses against the first "teeth").

The reason sharks have changed very little isn't because they are perfect... but they are not far off it assuming that their environment and resources will remain the way they are for a while.


----------



## ip3kid (May 21, 2008)

i say aliens cuz they can fly ufo's, how do they fly them btw i tried a ufo ride on holiday with 2 joysticks its impossible:lol2:


----------



## gaz (Oct 5, 2005)

if the oil runs out you'll have chance to find out
regards gaz


----------

