Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
How do humans differ from other species?
-
21-02-2010 11:16pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Im not religious or anything but Im seriously considering that there is a purpose for human beings on this planet...that maybe there is a god or maybe something has intended us on being here.
I would say this is one big aspect of us differing from other species, the idea of worship and superstition. Also imagination and creativity.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I think there are problems with the question. If you ask what defines us, you're asking what strictly differentiates us from other species. I'm not a big city biologist, but I'd suggest that we share some basic characteristics with varieties of species. We need food, water, air, we reproduce, we have a capacity to be social beings, and we communicate. We share these basic functions with many other species, (some of) these basic functions are what allows us to live. I think the strict distinction that we try to answer in that question, is probably a more interesting question, that is, why do we look for a strict distinction between us and other species.
So, I think it would be more interesting to ask how did we differentiate ourselves from other species, and why did we do that. I'm going to stick with the "West" here, and I'm going to generalize and possibly not be entirely accurate, but that's okay, because I'm not expecting a nobel prize for this post, just trying to play around with some ideas.
Some Pagan religions revered animals, they worshipped them, and they tried to harness their powers for human use. It isn't that they didn't make a distinction between human's and animals, they did, and it wasn't a harmonious, hippy friendly, relationship, but I think the key point (for the next part) is that they didn't turn the beast in to something wicked, something evil, something entirely seperate and beneath human beings.
Catholicism I think was different. Man becomes above all beasts, and humans start to actively differentiate themselves from the beast. Not only do they differentiate themselves from the beast, as an entirely different creature, but the beast becomes all that is evil within Man. All of our sinful impulses are beastly instincts. Particularly sex. Catholicism being obsessed with sex, and controlling sex, sex became a beastly, carnal, act that is linked to the wicked, cloven hoofed, part-man, part-animal Satan.
I think you could argue that Catholicism made a very clear and very definite distinction between Man and Beast that lasted with us at least until Darwin came along and re-esthablished that link under science.
So, why? Why did Catholicism link sin to the Beast? What was the point? What was the function? I think the Beast is what Man falls to. When Man sins He becomes the Beast, he becomes no longer Human, he looses the spark of the divine, and he falls to damnation and earthly instincts. We held up animals as the symbol of the earth, and all of it's sinful wretchedness, and the earth was not what Catholicism was seeking. Heaven was what Catholicism was seeking. Not this life, but the next. What does Man have? A soul. Does the Beast have a soul? No. Man goes to Heaven, rids himself of his mortal coil and embraces the divine, while the animal remains on the wretched earth.
We differentiated ourselves from animals because they symbolised earthly, physical life and all of its apparent horrors. Human beings were more then animals, we were more then just physical life. We had to be more then animals because all animals do is live and die, and that's it. There doesn't seem to be any point in their lives. They don't go to Heaven, they don't have a soul, and they don't erect cathedrals, paint, write philosophy, or compose music.
Hmm. I can't remember where I was going with this
I think what I'm trying to say is that we, through Catholicism, made a specific distinction between human beings and animals, for a specific reason, and that specific distinction has stayed with us, even past Darwin, and continues to manifest itself in the question, how are we distinct from animals, how are we a super-natural species, what separates us from animals. I think that question isn't the right question, because I think that question is built on the thinking of Catholicism, and assumes that there is a strict, definitive, difference. I think it's a question we need to go past, and we need to re-think what question we should be asking instead. What is the right question? I don't know :pac: 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
I think to believe that is to deny your incredible freedom. For all we can tell, we are the pinnacle of existence. Why grasp for a master?
there is a freedom that leads us to love and a freedom that leads us to evil, our creator gives us these guidelines to love in the Gospel. but the very fact that we cannot prove there isnt a God, is a leap of faith and gives us all the more reason to search for a master.
for something that is unintelligent such as a spoon, cannot create itself, it needs someone with intelligence behind it to create it. therefore things such as the universe, the earth, etc etc, that harbours no intelligence of its own, needs a creator with intelligence behind it to form it.
Pax Christi
Stephen
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 93,563 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 91801
It used to be said that we were the only animal that could run a mile , walk 20 swim a river and climb a tree.
Truth is that physically we are actually one of the best long distance hunters on the planet. Thousands can run a marathon, the bushmen of south africa, the austrialians , and some americans can all chase down large prey. And when you consider that kangaroos are perhaps the most efficient users of energy that is doubly impressive.
We are underdeveloped, IIRC they reckon we are born premature, compared to apes our hair folicles , slope of face, density of bones that sort of thing, and most importantly our brain connections haven't been wired up. So we are more of a blank slate than other animals and so more adaptable.
The great thing we invented is language, so we can learn from the experiances of others (or rather a few of us do
) 0 -
-
-
Cannibal Ox wrote: »I'm not a big city biologist, but..
Hilarious
Here's a good book outlining the genetic similarities of all species & their evolutionary development
http://www.amazon.com/Endless-Forms-Most-Beautiful-Science/dp/0393060160 . It goes into some detail about the amazing ice-fish, the formation of limbs and genetic similarities to Drosophilia Melanogaster etc...
Whatever nonsense & blatantly socially biased judgements we fall privy to [such as a ladder-like categorization of species based on human values], & continue to fall privy to [such as a ladder-like categorization of species based on human values], the following quote by Stephen Jay Gould may help shed some light on the situation;there's only one direction for change -- toward more complexity. But very few creatures move in that direction. Occasionally a couple of species dribble off in the direction of complexity, but that doesn't define a trend or a thrust. The most outstanding feature of life's history is that through 3.5 billion years this has remained, really, a bacterial planet. Most creatures are what they've always been: They're bacteria and they rule the world. And we need to be nice to them.
--http://motherjones.com/politics/1997/01/stephen-jay-gould0 -
What separates us? Not a lot. Humans and pigs both get sunburn. We both suffer from swine flu and foot & mouth. Our current relationship is almost symbiotic. However, the whole "pigs in space" thing hasn't quite caught on yet.
Humans are intelligent, people are stupid. While that sounds glib, we still engage in many behaviours that were learned hundreds of millions of years ago, e.g. if the herd runs, all its members will run, even if they don't know why they are running, simply because it is a measure that has evolved as a protection. It removes food from the reach of predators and tramples other predators. Drive a train past some horses and the horses will run with the train as they perceive it to be a herd and if the herd is running, they should be running also. Note there is no requirement for the herd to be of the same species - if 10,000 buffalo are running, getting out of the way makes sense.Capt'n Midnight wrote: »The great thing we invented is language, so we can learn from the experiances of others (or rather a few of us do )
Many animals, humans included, hoard food whether in cupboards or on their bodies. Give a dog or a bear food and they will eat a lot more than they need for one day. Give human or a squirrel food and they will try to store what they don't need immediately.I was talking more along the lines of living in the here and now. An animal will hunt its food and eat what it needs to do it until the next hunt. I used to consider that a big difference but hibernating animals kind of blow a hole in the theory.
Isn't that a bit homo-centric?do scientists know of any animal/plant that evolved after 10,000 years ago? ie evolved into existence after homo-sapiens ?
Chickens and other domesticated animals are a lot different to what they were 10,000 years ago. Wildlife is always adapting to circumstance, e.g. the field mice that became beach mice on Bull Island that first demonstrated Darwin's ideas. 0 -
-
Isn't that a bit homo-centric? Chickens and other domesticated animals are a lot different to what they were 10,000 years ago. Wildlife is always adapting to circumstance, e.g. the field mice that became beach mice on Bull Island that first demonstrated Darwin's ideas.
Ya Victor, I see the dogs/chickens variation as homocentric, and the elephant tusks scenario, i.e. its got mans hands all over it but I got reading about the beach mice you mentioned. That really is evoluton in recent times, an adaptation to their environment, by their paler colouring.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Interestingly, we used to believe that our use of tools made us distinct from other animals. Then we discovered that apes use stones to bash open nut shells, apes use twigs covered in tree resin to stick into termite nests and create a sweet, insect lollipop for themselves
Then we discovered that some birds use twigs as tools and that birds also smash snail shells open on rocks...
So that doesn't work.
As has been said, the self-aware thing is not confined to humans either, nor is language.
It has recently been shown that pigeons can distinguish 'good' art from 'bad' art!! Not really an example of abstract thinking but showing that they can be trained to differentiate quality of art...if you think about it, through our own lives we are 'trained' this way too.
So what does distinguish us? I don't know to be honest.
Someone mentioned urbanisation bringing us closer together earlier. However, many animals operate in herds or colonies and so are closer together.
Socialised animals? I'm not sure what that meant but we all know that there are hierarchies in many animal species. Some senior members of a group get to feed first, get groomed by other members of the group and apes punish wrongdoers in their groups by ostracising them. All signs of a social hierarchy and social etiquette...
Our belief in God/Gods and the supernatural may be a differentiating factor. However, we do also know that elephants in Africa often divert from their migratory routes just to visit the graves of former members of their family. These animals even shed 'tears' at these grave sites. Is that a 'religious' or 'supernatural' thing? Or is it a sign of a socialised animal?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59144
I think its more mundane, if not equally interesting than that. I would say collective experience in dog owning cultures right down to the subtle level. In non dog owning culture(rare) the innate human thing with recognising another domesticated/socialised species comes into it. Even more strangely one which is clearly a predator. I've seen kids walk up and cuddle rothweilers, though rotties generally love kids so not such a great example. We anthropomorphise animals as a default position. Even the most "logical" among us when faced with puppies or kittens react positvely to that. Funny, now that I think on it other domesticated animals will do similar. Dogs will suckle the young of tigers and lion etc. Maybe thats a stretch though so ignoreHow would you explain people instinctivly being able to discern the difference in tones of dog barks? Like the islanders situation.
For me the first thought is either a collective consciousness or unconsciousness whichever applies or maybe genetic memory of some kind.
Or is there a more plausible explanation?
:D
Species is such a grey area too. We're still locked into oul linnaeus' reductive (and bloody brilliant it has to be said) way of categorising things. Neanderthal's and Sapiens were(and still are in many circles) considered a separate species. Distanced from each other by the guts of 150-200,000 years and yet as recent DNA evidence has shown we could get jiggy and have enough kids to find the genetic echo of that hanky panky today. It seems we may have had some hanky panky with even more distanced Erectus in Asia 60,000 years ago. They had left Africa nearly 2 million years before.This is next to impossible to know because species don't just "pop" into existence. Evolution occurs in such a way that if you were to take any one member of that species and compare him to his ancestors and progeny, he would appear almost identical to both (in terms of DNA). And the same goes for them, and their ancestors and progeny and so forth.
We only know that a new species has emerged when we take one member of the species and compare it to an ancestor from thousands of generations before him and determine that the differences are sufficient to consider it a new species and the two would be incapable of interbreeding (there's an actual definition for what a new species is).
Thus animals are evolving all the time. But it happens at an extremely slow rate in human terms. So an elephant from 10,000 years ago doesn't differ much from one today. An elephant 100,000 years ago, well it may not have been an elephant.
My point being that we can't really take any species known to exist in the last 10,000 years, then compare it to an ancestor from 10,000 years previous to that and say that they are necessarily two distinct species. Because evolution generally doesn't occur at that speed and for all intents and purposes they will appear to be members of the same species.
+1"The pinnacle of existence" is a nonsense word because it assumes that there is a pinnacle - a perfect species. There can be no such thing. Organisms evolve as their environment changes, the "best" species in biological terms is the one who can reproduce as much as possible using as few resources as possible within the current environment(s) that they're living. Humans are waaay off that prize.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59144
Maybe warfare, but Im not so sure. Usually the warfare lark kicks off over resources, but when the two of us bumped into each other the resources were pretty big for both. Plus we tended to hunt different things. Neanderthals went for big game almost exclusively. We did the odd time but had a much more varied diet. Just as likely to eat rats as eat mammoths. Our catholic tastes gave is the edge in many way. Evidence also seems to show pretty long term co existence between the two groups(in Spain and Israel). No evidence so far of violence anyway. Given we had some better weapons and they had way more strength(an average neanderthal would destroy the best cage fighter alive today), if we had gone that route you would think it would have shown up by now? Maybe it will of course, but IMHO it was a rare enough event. I'd reckon, looking at small scale tribes today in big areas, they mostly avoid each other. Maybe coming together for trade or mate acquisition. I'd say that was what happened back then. Trade would have been novel for the neanderthals. That's one of our inventions. Pre us showing up they never seemed to trade with their fellows. After we show up some sapiens stuff shows up in their stuff.
Interestingly culture and art may not be our invention, it may be theirs. Which really throws the cat among the pigeons about what it is to be "human". It has been assumed in the past and mostly still is that any neanderthal cultural items like body adornment and jewelry they copied from the newcomers. Problem with that is they have jewelry and such 20,000 years before we show up(There may even be examples of erectus art in the form of Venus figures). At a time when we didnt have that kinda thing. We did show some artistic bent in southern africa about 100,000 years back in the form of red ochre blocks incised with chevrons, but little else or at least there's a gap. Maybe this meeting of cultures triggered a great leap forward. Makes sense as it usually does leap forward when modern humans do it. Throw in a side order of their DNA and here we are.
IMHO hominids from later erectus onwards were "Human"(tm) just to slightly different degrees. We could have relationships with each other, bith cultural and after a few ales on a saturday night. We may have punted the ball in the goal, but the earlier guys had possession of the ball and passed it neatly to us in the box*.
*Apologies for the footy reference. Dont follow it at all but the WC is on so being the sponge that I am... Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59144
Oh defo. Read a good book whose name escapes about a guy who spent a year actually living with canadian wolves in the wild. At first they were very wary, but after a while relaxed. What he noted was they started to bark at him. Adult wolves dont. Cubs do, but they grow out of it. He reckoned they figured he was a bit deaf compared to their own kind so compensated for the dopey human. Which is again interesting as they're working this stuff out and essentially domesticating/socialising him as much as he was doing the same to them.The dogs bark is thought to have arisen mainly as a way of communicating with humans, so it would have to work pretty much intuitively for both man and dog.
Oh yea and vice versa. The wolf/dog would get a very good hunting partner too. They can sniff out and track prey, but need a large investment and risk to take it down. We're pretty shíte at sniffing prey out by comparison, but we're hell on wheels at the kill end of things. Both of us are predators who alone are OK hunters with their own advantages, but together are hunting machines par excellence. The above guy also noted this too. The wild wolf pack started to look to him to spot things because of his height. We're among the tallest animals on the planet, by virtue of bipedalism. If you think on it, very very few animals have eyes higher than us. It was one helluva deal for us both. If I dropped the average dog into a wilderness on its own. It'll do OK but not so great. Ditto with a human. If I drop the pair of ye in together? Both together at least double the chances of survival, if not low level obesity for bothThe human/dog duo as a hunting team has synergies that would have outstripped the neanderthals abilities. Not so much with cats. The cat would likely think "I do like you, but lets face it you're on your own ya two legged freak". :pac: Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Around 1100 years ago a lot of Irish monk's stuff was showing up in the homes of Scandinavians. That does not mean there was a happy trade going on. We are a devious lot; we take stuff without paying if we can. Trade arises where both sides are more equal in physical or military force, so the chances of being killed or injured outweigh the cost of paying for the goods. From that point of view, H. sapiens might have decided it was better to trade with the more robust Neanderthals.Given we had some better weapons and they had way more strength(an average Neanderthal would destroy the best cage fighter alive today), if we had gone that route you would think it would have shown up by now? Maybe it will of course, but IMHO it was a rare enough event. I'd reckon, looking at small scale tribes today in big areas, they mostly avoid each other. Maybe coming together for trade or mate acquisition. I'd say that was what happened back then. Trade would have been novel for the Neanderthals. That's one of our inventions. Pre us showing up they never seemed to trade with their fellows. After we show up some sapiens stuff shows up in their stuff.
Its interesting to speculate on their interactions, but I suppose we will never really know. It seems the Neanderthals had less well developed vocal chords and may not have talked much, which might have limited the spread of new ideas and technologies among them. IMO they were probably intelligent but might have seemed a bit "autistic" to us. I can't help thinking of Sylvester Stallone now 0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59144
True enough.Around 1100 years ago a lot of Irish monk's stuff was showing up in the homes of Scandinavians. That does not mean there was a happy trade going on. We are a devious lot; we take stuff without paying if we can. Trade arises where both sides are more equal in physical or military force, so the chances of being killed or injured outweigh the cost of paying for the goods. From that point of view, H. sapiens might have decided it was better to trade with the more robust Neanderthals.
:pac: the problem is again we just dont know. Vocal chords dont fossilise too well so short of finding one preserved in the depths of a 60,000yr old bog we'll never know for sure. What we do know is they had a hyoid bone that looked modern, they also had the nerve channel that controls the tongue that looked modern. It then comes down to how the larynx was located in the throat. One side says it was like us another says it was higher up due to the angle of the neck.It seems the Neanderthals had less well developed vocal chords and may not have talked much, which might have limited the spread of new ideas and technologies among them. IMO they were probably intelligent but might have seemed a bit "autistic" to us. I can't help thinking of Sylvester Stallone now
Personally I reckon they could speak and speak about complex stuff. I further reckon we have had speech from early on. From erectus onwards with the complexity and range getting higher over time. Neanderthals had culture, made complex tools, used pigments and objects as body adornments, had big brains(bigger than ours on average), buried their dead. All of which for me anyway is evidence of complex speech. Throw in the modern looking bone structures involved in speech and it seems pretty certain.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement