Are we animals, or something else?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Others (like myself) feel that we are merely well-groomed talking chimps, with no exclusive franchise on "souls" or varieties of intellect.

---

We are animals because we have established the knowledge base to be able to properly define our place among other living things. We are not however just “well groomed chimps”. Recent discoveries in anthropology may show that we are not great apes at all as has been to most logical assumption in the past. Though we almost certainly share a common ancestor the great apes, apes probably evolved long after the split with upright walking hominids that we are directly descended from. We are defiantly superior in a survival of the fittest sense to other animals that have become extinct, but equal to those that have survived.

---

Kirkules, I believe you are mischaracterizing the recently published work on our distant ancestor (and that of the other great apes), Ardepithecus. That animal, now the earliest know fully bipedal hominid, was the subject of nearly an entire issue of the journal Science last October, and it caused some revisions of our thinking about the history of human evolution. One of those revisions was not that we aren't great apes. We most certainly are, on many, many grounds; biochemical, anatomical, genetic, dietary, the particulars of how we use tools (e.g., all the great apes have good overhand throwing abilities) etc. etc. One big surprise were that "Ardi" didn't live in a savannah habitat, as we've thought for many decades, but in a tropical rainforest. The open nature of savannah grasslands was thought to promote upright walking. Apparently not, as Ardi walked upright, based on hipbone and foot structure. The other major suprise comes from the fact that Ardi is more than 6 million years old - about 2 million years older than the split between chimps and us. And Ardi is more like us than a chimp. We had always thought that the common ancestor would be chimplike, and that we evolved from that state into the animal that we now are. In other words, we not only didn't evolve from chimps or the other animals currently called "great apes" they evolved from us!

I'd also question your assertion that making other species go extinct makes us superior, but I guess that depends on how you define "superior". A survivor most definitely - we've certainly survived all of our closest relatives (neandertals, Homo erectus, Homo floresensis), and all of our other close relatives (chimps, gorillas and orangutans) are highly endangered in the wild, mostly as a result of human activity. Not a record I'd point to with pride and assert our superiority.

I'd go with Chris's "well groomed talking chimps".

perfessergee

Edited to add: I see now the article you were referring to. The ones I'm citing make up almost all of the 2 October 2009 issue of Science.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

A female human goes to a styling salon every Saturday. When she returns, you don't see any difference in the appearance or length of her hair, but she inexplicably expects you to notice this difference upon threat of punishment.

You are able to observe this behaviour, but not comprehend it.

Despite this, I don't argue that all males must be completely lacking in their ability to even recognize this obvious mysterious mentality. We would have to ask them all, and they all seem to be too interested in going to the pub and watching football to participate.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Rue, a quick correction: We have different numbers of chromosomes from chimps and gorillas, but about the same number of genes (or otherwise we wouldn't share 98+% of them). The genes are just arranged differently, like our fused chromosome #2. Or alternatively, if our type is ancestral (as may now be the case as I suggested above), chimps could have gotten the extra pair from having our #2 split into two. Genes get repackaged in a lot of funny ways over evolutionary time (including having viral DNA become a permanent part of our package). And it's likely that most of the differences between chimps and ourselves are minor changes in DNA sequence in genes that do the same thing for both species - though obviously there are some profound differences as well, since it's not hard to tell the 2 species apart!

perfessergee

Edited to correct spelling

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
In other words, we not only didn't evolve from chimps or the other animals currently called "great apes" they evolved from us!

---

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I am NOT AN ANIMAL !

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
Genes get repackaged in a lot of funny ways over evolutionary time (including having viral DNA become a permanent part of our package).

---

There's NO 'viral DNA' in MY package !

I use 'protection' !

...And keep your stinking hands off me , all you damn , dirty APES !

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
A female human goes to a styling salon every Saturday. When she returns, you don't see any difference in the appearance or length of her hair, but she inexplicably expects you to notice this difference upon threat of punishment.

You are able to observe this behaviour, but not comprehend it.

Despite this, I don't argue that all males must be completely lacking in their ability to even recognize this obvious mysterious mentality. We would have to ask them all, and they all seem to be too interested in going to the pub and watching football to participate.

---

*rolls out of his chair laughing*

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

That one's easy. Women want to be attractive to their mates; the only way to do that is (what they THINK is) looking different, doing what society makes them think needs doing to look attractive...new clothes are the same thing, new shoes, etc. And if not noticed, they want to bring it to their mate's attention. If the mate's not appreciative, SOME women feel hurt, which translates to anger. That stuff's been happening probably since the first of our ancestors stuck a flower in her hair. Easily interpreted.

Jim doesn't notice changes in me unless they're drastic, and even then might not mention anything...but I did cut my hair last year, which I'd been growing for years. He mentioned THAT, because he was sad I had done it. I pull my hair back into a clip, and once he remarked that since I did so, why have long hair?...so I thought he'd like my wearing it down if it was short. Imagine my surprise when he said "yeah, but when I ran my hands through it, it was so lovely".

Can't win for losing...it's back in a clip and growing again. Easier for ME that way, since he doesn't give a damn. He DOES like me to wear makeup (which I rarely do anymore)--I don't do anything but eyeliner, but given I've got severe myopia (which seems to make many people say "You've got lovely eyes", weirdly!), my eyes do look naked without eye liner. I just don't bother very often at my age.

He still says I'm "beautiful", and sexy, which mystifies ME. Can one of you males tell me why a guy--given older guys seem to seek out younger, sexier women--would still think his 61-year-old wife is sexy?? THAT one eludes me!


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME