Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Animals could have a desire seek revenge it seems!

2

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    This and many other examples of an animal over riding instinct. Chimps, elephants and other intelligent animals have been known to give up food if their mother dies. The infants even refuse food even if they're being cared for and end up dying. This is hardly an example of following survival instinct.
    http://www.abdn.ac.uk/bestiary/translat/18v.hti

    When Apius and Junius Pictinius were consuls, a dog that could not be driven away from its master, who had been condemned, accompanied him to prison; when, soon afterwards, he was executed, it followed him, howling. When the people of Rome, out of pity, caused it to be fed, it carried the food to its dead master's mouth. Finally, when its master's corpse was thrown into the Tiber, the dog swam to it and tried to keep it from sinking.

    I've seen the carrying food behaviour myself...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭Lightbulb Sun


    About time, gwan the lads!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Not really surprising. We're barely an ant's step away from the other animals as it is. We like to think of humans as unique and in possession of a whole heap of things which animals are incapable of, but in reality the differences are less than 0.01%.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Death and Taxes


    After reading this, I will never make fun of another animal at the zoo again.

    Except maybe the penguins. Cause what the fùck is a penguin goin to do about it?

    AP, ain't you ever seen Madagascar???


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    seamus wrote: »
    Not really surprising. We're barely an ant's step away from the other animals as it is. We like to think of humans as unique and in possession of a whole heap of things which animals are incapable of, but in reality the differences are less than 0.01%.
    I dunno S. I'd be on the side of steddyeddy and Doc Ruby that has animals understanding way more than some instinct driven machine. There's a border collie in Germany who understands 300 words and can understand symbolic representation better than a human 3 year old. I've seen examples of clear thinking even with my own pets. Hell I've a turtle who will follow me around a room but only me, so while no Einstein he's recognising me specifically(though some species of turtle can navigate mazes better than rats. They appear to be the brainiest of reptiles, even though the most primitive in many respects).

    Another example was a cockatiel I had growing up. He had a few phrases. When his cage was being cleaned we'd say "Cocky(inventive:)) is a dirty birdie" and when he was being fed we'd say "cocky want seed?" and he'd repeat this back. So far so good. Down the line if we left his cage go for too long without cleaning he'd actually say "Cocky wants dirty birdie". OK his grammar was dodge, but he seemed to understand "cocky wants" was a request that caused an action and that "dirty birdie" had something to do with cage cleaning so mixed the two to make a different request. That's pretty mad Ted.

    That said I'd not go too far the other direction and think there's little difference. We are an amazing species on the intelligence front and it's more than "animal with a few extras" or even "great ape with a few differences". There was an exponential leap in cognitive powers with us, an emergent behaviour that made us very different, even when you look at earlier versions of us to compare. The percentage between us and the rest of the animal kingdom is way more than 0.01%

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    My dog likes to get revenge. Last night I kept him up late with my shuffling about, this morning he wakes me up early and annoys me until I get up :( B@stard


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 623 ✭✭✭Chiorino


    Maybe the tiger was unhappy with the zoo being open on Christmas day??


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭monkeysnapper


    I remember when I was a wee boy my uncle telling me how himself and his friend were putting up a fence on the farm and he tied up the farm dog, the dog was barking so the friend gave the dog a kick . Anyway a couple of days later the friend came back to the farm and the dog instantly attacked the man and cut his legs to sh1yte.

    What made me laugh was as he was telling us story the dog was in kitchen and my uncle was stroking dog and all us kids playing with him outside after. You wouldn't see at today . He'd have been shot


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    Wibbs wrote: »

    That said I'd not go too far the other direction and think there's little difference. We are an amazing species on the intelligence front and it's more than "animal with a few extras" or even "great ape with a few differences". There was an exponential leap in cognitive powers with us, an emergent behaviour that made us very different, even when you look at earlier versions of us to compare. The percentage between us and the rest of the animal kingdom is way more than 0.01%

    I'm not so sure there... the way I see it, we are an ape with a little extra, and that little extra has allowed us, over time, to become very distinctive by an accumulation of knowledge and culture.
    Biologically, we are still very similar to our nearest cousins, but with the background of thousands of years of applying our cognitives powers, and by making use of everything those before us thought of and came up with, we are now very different in behaviour and capabilities.

    If you strip away our culture and our combined knowledge, all you'd be left with is an ape that's a little different really.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    After reading this, I will never make fun of another animal at the zoo again.

    Except maybe the penguins. Cause what the fùck is a penguin goin to do about it?




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,378 ✭✭✭daRobot


    pushkii wrote: »
    Fair is fair !
    Its a pity that more animals don't seek revenge for humans being cruel to them

    Our old Jack Russell did anyhow.

    My dads pal, drunk after some rugby game, literally kicked the dog off the couch in the living room (we called him up this obviously)

    Next morning, with him feeling guilty, he goes to pet the dog before he leaves. Chomp!

    A well deserved revenge attack by the dog. These animals are much smarter than we give them credit for.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭OneArt


    Hal1 wrote: »
    Cats evil backstards, nuff said.

    /thread

    That's why they're great.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Of course there are some animals who act on more than instinct (while I'm sure plenty of others don't).

    Chimps for example have been known to commit murder. Not even just killing a rival encroaching on their territory or competing for a female, but a group of chimps carrying out an unprovoked premeditated and organised assault on another member of the group and beating them to death.

    I watched a nature programme the other night where an elephant returned to the same spot where her sister died every day for weeks and just stood there. That's not instinct.

    And there have been various experiments where primates in particular have used logic and rational thought to solve various puzzles and problems.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,721 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    daRobot wrote: »
    Our old Jack Russell did anyhow.

    My dads pal, drunk after some rugby game, literally kicked the dog off the couch in the living room (we called him up this obviously)

    Next morning, with him feeling guilty, he goes to pet the dog before he leaves. Chomp!

    A well deserved revenge attack by the dog. These animals are much smarter than we give them credit for.

    I wouldn't say that's revenge more that the dog learned that your dad's pal is someone who will hurt him and so defended himself.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭Procasinator


    Shenshen wrote: »
    I'm not so sure there... the way I see it, we are an ape with a little extra, and that little extra has allowed us, over time, to become very distinctive by an accumulation of knowledge and culture.
    Biologically, we are still very similar to our nearest cousins, but with the background of thousands of years of applying our cognitives powers, and by making use of everything those before us thought of and came up with, we are now very different in behaviour and capabilities.

    If you strip away our culture and our combined knowledge, all you'd be left with is an ape that's a little different really.

    If you strip away out culture and combined knowledge, however, we are still anatomically and behaviourally very different (as you already mentioned). I think we would still be considered very different to chimps and bonobos.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭Froyo


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    It always strikes me as pseudo science when people try to attribute human characteristics to animals.

    Humans are capable of forming rational thought and overriding their instinctual behaviour. Animals react because they are incapable of thinking. They act purely on instinct.

    The use of the word 'pseudo' is very ironic in this post.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Froyo wrote: »

    The use of the word 'pseudo' is very ironic in this post.


    Well up until eddy posted information that changed my opinion and meant I had a more informed opinion, I had always thought it WAS pseudo science. Hardly that ironic now, is it?

    At least eddy didn't feel the need to be a pseudo intellectual about it.

    Oops, there's that word again.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,687 ✭✭✭Dun laoire


    Never get too close to a horny elephant. Sad story though


    The Sunday Times
    June 17, 2007

    Kelvin Parker's holiday at Victoria Falls turned into a nightmare because of
    a guide's lapse of judgment. He tells of the minute his world fell apart
    Ann McFerran
    Today, as he does every day, Kelvin Parker will walk for five or six hours.
    In March this year his beloved wife Veronica and daughter Charlotte were
    savaged to death by an elephant in a Zimbabwean game park. He, too, was
    chased but escaped. Such is his grief that trudging the streets has become
    the only way he can keep his mind from returning to that sunny morning in
    the African bush.

    "I still feel as though I'm being chased by the elephant," he says. "Walking
    is the only time when I don't feel bad and I don't weep. If I'm not walking
    or somehow keeping busy I am hit by this terrible weight of grief and
    loneliness."

    Kelvin, 53, is a likable, slightly chaotic man who weeps frequently as he
    describes how Veronica and Charlotte were wiped out in less than a minute on
    what should have been a glorious holiday. For the previous four years, the
    Parkers had been living in a remote part of South Africa, but with
    10-year-old Charlotte's secondary education looming, the British-born couple
    had decided to settle in France, where they'd once lived.

    Throughout their somewhat unusual and peripatetic 18-year marriage - they'd
    also lived in Japan, Hong Kong and Portugal - the Parkers financed
    themselves by renovating houses. "We were hedonists, lotus-eaters,
    travellers," says Kelvin. "Making money and careers didn't matter to us.
    Life was what mattered."

    When they met they were both working for an advertising agency in Hong Kong
    and proved the perfect match: "I was good at the big things; Veronica was
    good on detail. She was charming and calm; I was emotional and explosive."
    Their daughter, whom they called Charlie, after Charlie Parker, was
    "exceptional - brilliant at school, an outstanding athlete", according to
    Kelvin. "I know everyone says this about their children, but with Charlie it
    was true."

    In recent years they had spent most of their waking lives together: "I might
    be plumbing; Veronica might be cooking or even holding the other end of a
    pipe for me. Even our work had a terrific intimacy."

    Every evening at 6.30, the Parkers sat down to talk about their day over
    drinks and snacks. "Veronica and I would have two glasses of dry white wine
    while Charlie had Appletiser. In the school holidays she'd have tea and
    bickies in bed with us, first thing. The three of us were completely
    entwined." Kelvin pauses to blink back tears: "At least I know that when
    they died we'd done everything we could to know and love each other."

    Before they left South Africa they decided to make a trip to Victoria Falls,
    which Veronica had always wanted to see. Kelvin found a four-day package
    deal that included two days of safari in the nearby Hwange national park.
    "Quite honestly we weren't terribly interested in the safari," Kelvin says.
    "We'd seen lots of animals. But the package made sense financially."

    The family loved Victoria Falls and were delighted with the safari lodge. On
    their first evening they watched wildebeest, giraffes and elephants at a
    nearby watering hole. Charlie enthused: "This is the prettiest place I've
    ever been."

    At dinner an English couple raved about the lodge's safari guide, Andy
    Privella. "He's fantastic," they said. "He took us right up to an elephant
    and we stroked it."

    Early next morning, on their first safari walk, the much-praised guide told
    the Parkers what they must do: "You walk when I say walk. You stop when I
    say stop. If something happens I will take care of you."

    "He explained he had a rifle, and I noticed he put one bullet in the
    chamber, leaving the rest in his belt," says Kelvin.

    They set off, in single file, following the guide, who pointed out
    footprints, animal droppings and food. They saw giraffes and zebra but no
    elephants. After returning to the lodge for breakfast the guide took them
    for a drive.

    "Maybe what we said on the drive helps to explain what happened," says
    Kelvin.

    "The guide had been a hunter. We said we didn't like hunting because it
    seemed to be about people's egos. On the other hand, we said, you have to
    cull elephants where there are too many, like in part of South Africa. We
    also talked about male elephants 'in musth', in a state of sexual arousal,
    and how you have to be very careful around them. The guide said he thought
    that might be exaggerated."

    They drove near some woodland where elephants usually gathered but there
    wasn't one in sight. The Parkers didn't care but the guide seemed bothered.
    "That sucks," he said. At 10.30am, when they stopped by a waterhole to enjoy
    a beer, an elephant lumbered into view, about 600 yards away.

    The guide suggested he take them to see it up close. The Parkers felt they
    couldn't refuse. "We felt the guide would be disappointed if he didn't
    deliver for us," says Kelvin. "Maybe this is the kind of people we are.
    Bloody stupid, when I think about it now. We did that walk for him!"

    The plan was to observe the elephant from an ant hill about l00 yards away.
    As they walked Kelvin saw the guide look at the elephant with his
    binoculars. "He must have seen large wet patches around its ears which meant
    the elephant was in musth and potentially aggressive." But the elephant,
    too, was ambling towards the ant hill so that soon they were only 30 yards
    apart. At the ant hill the guide urged Kelvin to take photographs. Just as
    the Parkers began to walk back from the ant hill, Kelvin turned to see their
    guide peering out - "and the elephant saw him", he says.

    Only that morning the Parkers had been told how elephants when they're angry
    put their heads back, flap their ears and their trunks shoot up. And that is
    exactly what this elephant did next.

    The guide shouted: "Stop!" The Parkers stopped, whereupon the guide waved
    his hands in the air and yelled loudly.

    "I'll never understand why he did that as long as I live," says Kelvin,
    "because of course it really pissed off the elephant." Then the guide raised
    his rifle and fired above the elephant's head - "So he'd used the only
    bullet he had."

    The elephant charged. "Because I'm at the back the elephant goes for me,"
    says Kelvin. "I run, thinking, 'I'm dead'; the elephant is so big and so
    close and so fast." In a desperate attempt to outwit the elephant Kelvin
    zigzagged. Confused, the elephant stopped, turned and ambled back to the
    forest.

    At this moment, Kelvin turned to see the guide by the ant hill blubbering:
    "I'm sorry; I'm sorry." And near him lay Charlie's white T-shirt. Kelvin ran
    over to find his daughter "completely, utterly dead. Poor little thing; her
    eyes were open but rolled back. I picked her up and her little head just
    fell back. Her life spirit had gone".

    Imagining his wife was hiding, he began to search for her. He found her, or
    rather her brain, with bits of the top of her skull lying not far from
    Charlie. "So I knew I couldn't find her in one piece," Kelvin says, tears
    streaming down his cheeks.

    Kelvin carried his wife and daughter to the ant hill, sent the guide to get
    help, and sat for 45 minutes cradling them in the blistering sun. He says he
    talked to them both, telling them, "I'd look after them and get them safely
    home. I certainly wasn't scared. In a way I wanted to be dead too. But I
    realised if I were alive then in some sense they were too".

    When he was rescued and taken back to the lodge he couldn't face seeing the
    guide but he felt no anger towards him. "He'll have to live with this for
    the rest of his life." And so will Kelvin: "The worst time is when I wake
    up. So I have to keep busy or walk."

    This time last year Kelvin was in Britain for Father's Day, so Charlie wrote
    him a card at her school in South Africa. Addressed to "a really cool dad",
    and written in green and turquoise with lots of red hearts, Charlie's card
    reads: "Dads are cool. Dads really rule! . . . I thank God for a dad like
    you!"

    Today Charlie's "cool" dad has found some solace in setting up a charity
    called CharChar, commemorating her and her mother, to fund the teaching of
    African children to read - reading was one of Charlie's greatest pleasures.

    "The charity seems to make more sense than anything else," says Kelvin.
    "When I look back I wouldn't change anything about our lives together -
    except for that final minute." And with that he goes off to walk some more,
    to try to obliterate the pain of his loss


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭marcsignal


    I know this couple from my local. The girl owns a cat, which the bf hates. Whenever he mistreats the cat, it goes straight to the bedroom, sneaks under the covers and shits on his side of the bed :D


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Shenshen wrote: »
    I'm not so sure there... the way I see it, we are an ape with a little extra, and that little extra has allowed us, over time, to become very distinctive by an accumulation of knowledge and culture.
    Biologically, we are still very similar to our nearest cousins, but with the background of thousands of years of applying our cognitives powers, and by making use of everything those before us thought of and came up with, we are now very different in behaviour and capabilities.

    If you strip away our culture and our combined knowledge, all you'd be left with is an ape that's a little different really.
    My point would be that our culture and combined knowledge is the huge extra and unseen anywhere else in the animal kingdom. Indeed it was barely seen in our own ancestors until we, modern humans came along. What was seen in them and very marked in us is that we externalised our own evolution. While natural selection still pressured us we were no longer complete slaves to it. How? Invention of tools to limit it's impact on our spread and progress. We started off as pretty weak vegetarians and scavengers. Then we became active predators. Predators with small teeth, low enough strength(Neandertals the exception), low stomach acid and no claws. Not a great blueprint for an apex predator. We came up with knives and spears to kill and butcher prey and we tamed fire to predigest the meat for our weak stomach acids. Then we migrated into new environments*. Sometimes very cold ones. Did we need to grow fur to adapt? Nope, we could use others fur by proxy. We could travel through or even live in arid environments and didn't have to adapt a hump to store food and water, we could carry it. That's all before the cultural stuff really kicked off. We're still at it. Hell there are folks reading this who would have been dead 100 years ago, but because we externalise our evolution we didn't have to directly adapt to the various illnesses and conditions that would have killed us, instead we invented external cures and treatments. Now we're even beginning to glimpse and influence the very building blocks of evolution itself. If we survive long enough it's likely that the next human species to evolve on this planet will be evolved by us, not nature. No other animal has come within sniffing distance of that level of culture as tool and externalised evolution.

    As you say we have "become very distinctive by an accumulation of knowledge and culture". I agree, but to remove that from any equation is akin to removing the wings from birds and saying they're just lizards with funny scales.






    *it's far easier for predators to do so. Plant food sources vary a lot between environments and many are poisonous, but so long as there are animals a predator can survive. Drop a Wildebeest into Donegal and chances are the local plant sources won't be the right ones, drop a lion into Donegal and it's grubs up.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 81 ✭✭RossPaws


    I suppose if rats can show empathy, why not tigers seek revenge?

    You'll find people who'll argue the results of the "empathy experiment" of course. There's really no way to properly prove things like that, unless we can get the animals to talk to us.

    But looking at animals closely enough, you can always draw your own conclusions.

    For example, I have pet rats which live in a big cage together. They all cuddle up in a large pile in one of the hammocks to sleep. They groom each other, wrestle together, share food, play, etc.

    There's five of them in the cage, and in October gone one of the older ones passed away. The rest of the rats - that's five adult males - would not touch their food for the rest of that day and the next. When I opened their cage door to let them run around that night, only one of them came out and he went back in after only a few minutes.

    There's no way to prove that they were in mourning for their friend, but it certainly seemed that way. I don't think I'm just randomly projecting my emotions on the animals, I think I've drawn a pretty rational conclusion there based on their behaviour that day compared to their behaviour on pretty much every other day I've cared for them over the last two years.

    So for me personally, it doesn't seem too shocking that animals should display emotions we usually only associate with humans. Some people of course can take that a bit too literally (such as the classic "my dog knows he did something wrong because he looks guilty") but that doesn't mean animals don't feel at all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,571 ✭✭✭Icyseanfitz


    who would go out of their way to piss off a tiger, no darwin awards for them anyway


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭marcsignal


    The stories in the OP don't really surprise me tbh. Some animals have more in common with us than you'd think.

    Scientists have only recently discovered, that Chimps share food with their mates, evenly :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    If you strip away out culture and combined knowledge, however, we are still anatomically and behaviourally very different (as you already mentioned). I think we would still be considered very different to chimps and bonobos.

    Well, yes. But then, so are gorillas. And orang-utans.
    Chimps and bonobos are two very closely related species, to say that we are more different from chimps than bonobos are isn't a great comparison.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭Procasinator


    Shenshen wrote: »
    Well, yes. But then, so are gorillas. And orang-utans.
    Chimps and bonobos are two very closely related species, to say that we are more different from chimps than bonobos are isn't a great comparison.

    I used chimps and bonobos as they are seen as our closest living relatives.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    Wibbs wrote: »
    My point would be that our culture and combined knowledge is the huge extra and unseen anywhere else in the animal kingdom. Indeed it was barely seen in our own ancestors until we, modern humans came along. What was seen in them and very marked in us is that we externalised our own evolution. While natural selection still pressured us we were no longer complete slaves to it. How? Invention of tools to limit it's impact on our spread and progress. We started off as pretty weak vegetarians and scavengers. Then we became active predators. Predators with small teeth, low enough strength(Neandertals the exception), low stomach acid and no claws. Not a great blueprint for an apex predator. We came up with knives and spears to kill and butcher prey and we tamed fire to predigest the meat for our weak stomach acids. Then we migrated into new environments*. Sometimes very cold ones. Did we need to grow fur to adapt? Nope, we could use others fur by proxy. We could travel through or even live in arid environments and didn't have to adapt a hump to store food and water, we could carry it. That's all before the cultural stuff really kicked off. We're still at it. Hell there are folks reading this who would have been dead 100 years ago, but because we externalise our evolution we didn't have to directly adapt to the various illnesses and conditions that would have killed us, instead we invented external cures and treatments. Now we're even beginning to glimpse and influence the very building blocks of evolution itself. If we survive long enough it's likely that the next human species to evolve on this planet will be evolved by us, not nature. No other animal has come within sniffing distance of that level of culture as tool and externalised evolution.

    As you say we have "become very distinctive by an accumulation of knowledge and culture". I agree, but to remove that from any equation is akin to removing the wings from birds and saying they're just lizards with funny scales.






    *it's far easier for predators to do so. Plant food sources vary a lot between environments and many are poisonous, but so long as there are animals a predator can survive. Drop a Wildebeest into Donegal and chances are the local plant sources won't be the right ones, drop a lion into Donegal and it's grubs up.

    I know what you're saying, you are definitely right there.
    However, if you look at us on a biological, or rather an genetic scale, we really don't differ from other apes all that much.
    Yes, we are different. And through that little difference (externalising our evolution, as you put it, I like that, it's a fantastic description and with your permission will use it going forward) we've reached a point where we to all intends and purposes are worlds removed from our closest cousins.

    Yet that difference is only skin deep.

    I would regard the discovery and usage of fire as the first cultural achievements, though, but I do realise that that's open to interpretation, depending on how you define "culture". We have indeed externalised our evolution (using tools to hunt, using fire to cook our food, use animal skins for warmth, etc.), but at the same time our "internal" evolution hasn't progressed in the same way, leaving us still very similar to other apes.

    And I think when it comes to cognitive processes, nearly all that separates us from chimps is the fact that we developed language and writing, therefore can record and hand down knowledge, and by extension learn from our ancestors in ways chimps cannot.
    Yes, most humans (most, not even all!) are more intelligent than chimps. But then, most chimps are more intelligent than gorillas, most gorillas are more intelligent than baboons, and so on and so forth.

    That little genetic difference allows us to be vastly different, but at a molecular level, it's still rather tiny.

    Btw, realising how closely birds are genetically related to dinosaurs has been quite a breakthrough in science, and allowed for a good deal of insights into both birds and dinosaurs, I believe.
    So being blinded by feathers and wings and not being able to see the fundamental similarities had been holding science back.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭Procasinator


    Shenshen wrote: »
    I know what you're saying, you are definitely right there.
    However, if you look at us on a biological, or rather an genetic scale, we really don't differ from other apes all that much.
    Yes, we are different. And through that little difference (externalising our evolution, as you put it, I like that, it's a fantastic description and with your permission will use it going forward) we've reached a point where we to all intends and purposes are worlds removed from our closest cousins.

    Yet that difference is only skin deep.

    I would regard the discovery and usage of fire as the first cultural achievements, though, but I do realise that that's open to interpretation, depending on how you define "culture". We have indeed externalised our evolution (using tools to hunt, using fire to cook our food, use animal skins for warmth, etc.), but at the same time our "internal" evolution hasn't progressed in the same way, leaving us still very similar to other apes.

    And I think when it comes to cognitive processes, nearly all that separates us from chimps is the fact that we developed language and writing, therefore can record and hand down knowledge, and by extension learn from our ancestors in ways chimps cannot.
    Yes, most humans (most, not even all!) are more intelligent than chimps. But then, most chimps are more intelligent than gorillas, most gorillas are more intelligent than baboons, and so on and so forth.

    That little genetic difference allows us to be vastly different, but at a molecular level, it's still rather tiny.

    Btw, realising how closely birds are genetically related to dinosaurs has been quite a breakthrough in science, and allowed for a good deal of insights into both birds and dinosaurs, I believe.
    So being blinded by feathers and wings and not being able to see the fundamental similarities had been holding science back.

    It is often said our DNA is 50% similar to bananas. This is due to common ancestors. But even the minute differences in DNA lead to vast differences, as in evident in just observing the variations among humans.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,708 ✭✭✭curlzy


    Jacob T wrote: »
    What's the story with all the grammatically incorrect thread titles lately?

    Y? Does bad grammer and spellin anoy U? :p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,184 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    It always strikes me as pseudo science when people try to attribute human characteristics to animals.

    Humans are capable of forming rational thought and overriding their instinctual behaviour. Animals react because they are incapable of thinking. They act purely on instinct.

    Totally wrong and untrue.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Wibbs wrote: »
    My point would be that our culture and combined knowledge is the huge extra and unseen anywhere else in the animal kingdom.
    Shenshen wrote: »
    Yes, we are different. And through that little difference (externalising our evolution, as you put it, I like that, it's a fantastic description and with your permission will use it going forward) we've reached a point where we to all intends and purposes are worlds removed from our closest cousins.
    Its good to see that understanding spreading, if I have to argue once more with someone bemoaning universal health care because it removes 'natural selection', I swear... :D Yes, evolution can be measured in libraries.
    Shenshen wrote: »
    Yes, most humans (most, not even all!) are more intelligent than chimps. But then, most chimps are more intelligent than gorillas, most gorillas are more intelligent than baboons, and so on and so forth.
    I've often felt that intelligence was more a matter of willpower than IQ.


Advertisement
Advertisement