NationStates Jolt Archive

Are humans animals? Or something special?

It's a debate that tends to revolve around religion, in some quarters - with a strict denial of humans as animals, because it might suggest that evolution could be true, that humans are part of the natural order of things, and that we're just not that different from our planetary peers.

I happened across this: (it's a .pdf)

http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/pdf_attachments/Warmglow_PNAS2008.pdf

"Giving is self-rewarding for monkeys"

"Helping and sharing among humans is often motivated by empathy
and accompanied by a sense of satisfaction. To determine
whether similar self-rewarding mechanisms may underpin assistance
among nonhuman primates, eight female brown capuchin
monkeys (Cebus apella) underwent testing in a simple choice
paradigm. Paired with a partner, subjects could select either a
‘‘selfish’’ option that rewarded only themselves, or a ‘‘prosocial’’
option that rewarded both of them. Subjects systematically favored
the prosocial option provided their partner was a) familiar,
b) visible, and c) receiving rewards of equal value. Prosocial
tendencies increased with social closeness, being lowest toward
strangers and highest toward kin. That the monkeys understood
the options was suggested by greater orientation to the partner
during prosocial than selfish choices. Prosocial preferences were
reduced by inequity, when the partner received a superior reward.
If the view between both monkeys was blocked, choices became
strikingly selfish. Thus, under certain conditions, delivering benefits
to others seems gratifying to nonhuman primates."


Evidence of altruism in our nearest neighbor.

Of course we're animals. We are a particularly unpleasant variety of hairless, bipedal chimpanzee with adaptations for living near and on water.

Agent Smith thinks we're a virus. ;)

Are humans animals? Or something special?
It depends. There are two separate species that both have two legs, two arms, a head, and other similarities, yet are of completely unrelated origin.


One has been created by God in His image, free, yet true to His testaments, foremost among them the sacred right to bear arms.

The other is just a bunch of evolved monkeys that are scared of anything with a barrel.

Well, we're not plants, fungi, amoeboids, or one of the more obscure groups of eukaryotes, so we must be animals.

We're animals, just like other animals. In ALL respects. If we appear different because of the huge impact we have on the planet, I think other species have shown similar capacity to impact and shape (even harm) their immediate environments by unchecked behavior or over-population, or even just by existing and being big enough to set the trend for what other species thrive or fail around them. Articles like the one linked in the OP suggest that our ability (despite our unwillingness) to alter our behavior to limit the damage we do also does not make us different from other animals.

We're animals, just like other animals. In ALL respects. If we appear different because of the huge impact we have on the planet, I think other species have shown similar capacity to impact and shape (even harm) their immediate environments by unchecked behavior or over-population, or even just by existing and being big enough to set the trend for what other species thrive or fail around them. Articles like the one linked in the OP suggest that our ability (despite our unwillingness) to alter our behavior to limit the damage we do also does not make us different from other animals.

See... this is why I never argue with Murv. She always says what I am thinking but in better terms than I can. I don't even need to post in this thread now.

See... this is why I never argue with Murv. She always says what I am thinking but in better terms than I can. I don't even need to post in this thread now.
If I was more organized and less of a procrastinator, you might get a chance once in a while. ;) I'm posting here instead of looking for the memory card for my camera, which I have misplaced. If I wasn't putting off looking for it to post on NSG while having breakfast, I probably would have found it and be in my studio working right now.

Hey! Do animals procrastinate??? Maybe we are different after all...

Hey! Do animals procrastinate??? Maybe we are different after all...

Yes they do, my cat does it all the time. "Oh look its that mouse again. I should probably chase it; but this basket full of freshly laundered clothes is sooo comfortable."

Humans invented the classifications of life (animal, plant, etc), so whether or not we're animals is up to us to decide based upon whatever criteria we choose to inflict upon the world.

Yes they do, my cat does it all the time. "Oh look its that mouse again. I should probably chase it; but this basket full of freshly laundered clothes is sooo comfortable."
Ah, true. *feels reassured about human nature*

It depends. There are two separate species that both have two legs, two arms, a head, and other similarities, yet are of completely unrelated origin.


One has been created by God in His image, free, yet true to His testaments, foremost among them the sacred right to bear arms.

The other is just a bunch of evolved monkeys that are scared of anything with a barrel.

It's not like you to be a pointless troll, Vault.

It depends. There are two separate species that both have two legs, two arms, a head, and other similarities, yet are of completely unrelated origin.


One has been created by God in His image, free, yet true to His testaments, foremost among them the sacred right to bear arms.

The other is just a bunch of evolved monkeys that are scared of anything with a barrel.

;)



But wait, what if we don't fit in either category? Are we some sort of freak nature/Gods wrath?

Yeah, but that doesn't mean a whole lot. Humans are unique in our level of intelligence and ability to manipulate and understand the world around us, and most importantly we are capable of exercising considerable control over our own biological and cultural evolution.

But wait, what if we don't fit in either category? Are we some sort of freak nature/Gods wrath?
Oh no! Then you are SPECIAL.

Your strength, perception, endurance, charisma, intelligence, agility and luck total at 40 if combined, you are free to do anything, but must mind your karma, and you have the right to arm bears.

Humans invented the classifications of life (animal, plant, etc), so whether or not we're animals is up to us to decide based upon whatever criteria we choose to inflict upon the world.

Eh....within the framework we have laid out that defines animals as such, we fall within the category of "animal."

Humans are most assuredly animals. It's silly to say otherwise. We are simply animals with a very advantageously evolved trait--"intelligence." However, to reinforce the point that we are animals, go to a crowded bar one night and stand off to the side. Just observe the social interactions and even movement and gait of people at the bar. You'll be stunned at how incredibly simian we are if you can take your viewpoint out of the social unit.

For all our technology, we truly are just a bunch of smart monkeys (ok, apes....and is that really how you spell the plural of monkey? Seriously looks completely wrong to me).

Humans are a blindingly stupid animal that have fooled themselves into believing they are smart and/or special.

Humans are a blindingly stupid animal that have fooled themselves into believing they are smart and/or special.

I think that any creature that can invent the taco has potential. *nods and munches on a taco*

I think that any creature that can invent the 'taco' has potential. *nods and munches on a taco*

The taco was the product of one of the few intelligent humans. When it comes to biology, for almost every rule, there is an exception.

Agent Smith thinks we're a virus. ;)

*ahem*
I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to another area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure.

The reply above was... well... inevitable...

Humans invented the classifications of life (animal, plant, etc), so whether or not we're animals is up to us to decide based upon whatever criteria we choose to inflict upon the world.

maybe, though that would seem depend on whether we are claiming that the classification scheme is describing something real in the world independent of us or is merely a social convention.

maybe, though that would seem depend on whether we are claiming that the classification scheme is describing something real in the world independent of us or is merely a social convention.Are meters something real in the world or just a social convention? I mean, seeing as there are meter-sticks, which are physical objects, which say "meters" on it and we use them to measure "meters" Presumably those would exist even if no human was alive. But of course one might say: those aren't exactly measuring meters. But in that case I wouldn't know what you meant by 'exactly' since there is no object that would exactly fit a meter, other than the definition of a meter. Much like saying that no object corresponds to a geometrical point since that represents a logical limit rather than a physical measurement-- but saying this is a problem for measurement, that we can't exactly get at the true meter, simply shows you do not understand the nature of what constitutes "measuring." We can go as exact as we like.

Is the length of a meter dependent on social convention? Not really. I mean: it is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Is that not a physical fact, independent of humanity's doings? And what's the difference between this and the distinctions we make between physical facts about creatures? Words, words. Supposedly the words are variable and not to be trusted, since we made them and there are a lot of different words. But the way we use them is a very hard fact indeed. Hard as a meter, straight as a line, hot as the sun.

Are humans animals? Yes and no. If we were to classify ourselves in the same way we classify other species, then yes we are animals. Homo sapiens walking talking building towers and going to movies and listening to music and philosophizing about what makes a man a man, all very natural, very animal behaviors. It's to be expected! A man's radio is a termite's mound.

However, this is too simplistic, since saying that we're "just animals" or even just "animals" implies a certain disdain, lack of intelligence, lack of moral ability, incapable of thinking things through, etc. We say of a murderer, He's an animal, and here we're thinking of things like wild dogs growling and biting and snarling and not caring about consequences. So in that sense, the large majority of people are most definitely not animals.

I think the problem we have with this question comes about when we smush these two ways of talking together, and are left with the idea that humans must be special somehow since we can't be animals. And then we go around looking for the special bit of ourselves, the soul-shaped object that goes in our soul-shaped hole and despair of ever finding it in this life...

Humans are not Animals :rolleyes: :p

Of course we are an animal, by definition. Are we special? Perhaps. I mean, we are certainly very distinct from every other kind of animal on the planet. Whilst chimps are lying around, picking their bums and eating their own shit, humans are recreating the conditions of the big bang in a giant complex built under ground, and creating other entities almost capable of thought and can run billions of calculations a second. We're animals, but we're very different to other animals.

Are meters something real in the world or just a social convention? I mean, seeing as there are meter-sticks, which are physical objects, which say "meters" on it and we use them to measure "meters" Presumably those would exist even if no human was alive. But of course one might say: those aren't exactly measuring meters. But in that case I wouldn't know what you meant by 'exactly' since there is no object that would exactly fit a meter, other than the definition of a meter.

length exists independently (presumably), but measurements of them do not. a meter stick, outside of a system of social convention, is just a stick about so long with some marks on it

Is the length of a meter dependent on social convention? Not really. I mean: it is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Is that not a physical fact, independent of humanity's doings?

and what is necessary about a meter being that? that is a post hoc definitional adjustment made to improve the precision of what we mean by "a length about so big". the meter could just as easily be defined as being exactly the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,457 of a second. the choice is arbitrary.

And what's the difference between this and the distinctions we make between physical facts about creatures?

some groupings of living beings, like some groupings of bits of matter are real. they are not the arbitrary results of the whims of humans.

Im going to need a comprehensive definition of the term 'animal' for me to make a decision here...

We are a Species, if thats what you mean...

Of course we are an animal, by definition. Are we special? Perhaps. I mean, we are certainly very distinct from every other kind of animal on the planet. Whilst chimps are lying around, picking their bums and eating their own shit, humans are recreating the conditions of the big bang in a giant complex built under ground, and creating other entities almost capable of thought and can run billions of calculations a second. We're animals, but we're very different to other animals.

Chimps arent the only ones who do that you know, :tongue:

Of course we are an animal, by definition. Are we special? Perhaps. I mean, we are certainly very distinct from every other kind of animal on the planet. Whilst chimps are lying around, picking their bums and eating their own shit, humans are recreating the conditions of the big bang in a giant complex built under ground, and creating other entities almost capable of thought and can run billions of calculations a second. We're animals, but we're very different to other animals.

We're animals. We're no different from other animals. We are driven by the same desires, the same fears, and the same evolutionary instincts. The ONLY difference is our intelligence, and even then, we got lucky. We're not so separated from higher-order chimps or dolphins.

Humans are arrogant, and proud of it. It's disgusting.

We're animals. We're no different from other animals. We are driven by the same desires, the same fears, and the same evolutionary instincts. The ONLY difference is our intelligence, and even then, we got lucky. We're not so separated from higher-order chimps or dolphins.

Humans are arrogant, and proud of it. It's disgusting.

But can Higher-order chimps or dolphins, do the same things Hydesland mentioned?

Chimps arent the only ones who do that you know, :tongue:

Whatever floats your boat.

But can Higher-order chimps or dolphins, do the same things Hydesland mentioned?

No, but the degree of separation of intelligence is nowhere near as vast as he's making out.

No, but the degree of separation of intelligence is nowhere near as vast as he's making out.

But if they are not intelligent enough to do these things, would that not make a vast degree of separation?

I mean, Im not saying we're not animals, but, I am saying we are a few degrees above the others...

and those same chimps and dolphins are lots of degrees above insects, birds, etc...its a hierarchy....

We're animals. We're no different from other animals. We are driven by the same desires, the same fears, and the same evolutionary instincts.

Yes, I said we were animals.


The ONLY difference is our intelligence, and even then, we got lucky. We're not so separated from higher-order chimps or dolphins.


Not so separated? Our intelligence, our ability to collectively organise, learn and create, are of substantially higher magnitudes than dolphins and chimps.


Humans are arrogant, and proud of it. It's disgusting.

Arrogance is a human concept. Such an idea wouldn't even exist without humans.

But can Higher-order chimps or dolphins, do the same things Hydesland mentioned?

We don't know. Which means it's nonsensical to state that we know they can't.

Under control conditions, bottlenose dolphins taught the concept of 'creation' were encouraged to 'create' activities. (This is within a context of play). What the research revealed was that these dolphins can respond to the command 'create' by innovating entirely new processes... which wasn't unexpected.

What was unexpected was the fact that dolphins that had 'created' new processes, could then perform them in tandem with other dolphins that hadn't been party to the innovation, synchronised, with no apparent method of communicating them.

As our ability to study effectiely increases, we are constantly having to recalibrate our assessments of the capabilities of 'animals'... and we are running into phenomena that we, in all our human special-ness, can't yet explain.

Not so separated? Our intelligence, our ability to collectively organise, learn and create, are of substantially higher magnitudes than dolphins and chimps.


Not true.


Arrogance is a human concept. Such an idea wouldn't even exist without humans.

Again, not true.

Your ignorance of the natural world is not a guarantee that it is inferior.

*snip*
the problem is however, a 2 year old can be taught the same thing, and usually do on their own...

its still not Dolphin = Human...

Not true.


When I see dolphins creating these underground complexes, recreating the big bang. When I seem them discussing with each other deep concepts, such as what we are discussing now. When I see them create other entities capable of billions of calculations a second. Then I shall believe you.


Again, not true.


Yes it is. What other animal has come up with such a concept?


Your ignorance of the natural world is not a guarantee that it is inferior.

I didn't say inferior. Many people see this intelligence as negative. That we're too careless with it, and disrespectful to the environment, whilst other animals live a sustainable life style that doesn't destroy. I never once mentioned the word inferior.

the problem is however, a 2 year old can be taught the same thing, and usually do on their own...

its still not Dolphin = Human...

Can be taught what? Innovative play?

Sure - which means innovative play is not peculiar to humans.

Dolphin doesn't have to equal human. It's rather amusing that you assume WE are the yardstick THEY should be measured by.

Can be taught what? Innovative play?

Sure - which means innovative play is not peculiar to humans.

Dolphin doesn't have to equal human. It's rather amusing that you assume WE are the yardstick THEY should be measured by.

of course it isnt, Dogs can play, sometimes in a very innovative way....

When it comes to intelligence, there is no better 'yardstick' after all, we are running the tests, are we not?

until Dolphins can run these tests, they are still lower down the hierarchy than we are...

When I see dolphins creating these underground complexes, recreating the big bang.


They don't have opposable thumbs.


When I seem them discussing with each other deep concepts, such as what we are discussing now.


You have no idea what they discuss.


When I see them create other entities capable of billions of calculations a second. Then I shall believe you.


They have no opposable thumbs.

You live in a world of your own limitations. You make a whole load of claims based on the fact that you don't KNOW any different, and expect it should be taken as fact.

Sure, we've yet to find evidence of silicon technology built by dolphin hands... but that's a peculiarly anthropocentric way of judging anything, since even the slowest among us are usually aware that dolphins don't HAVE hands. And it's bullshit anyway, unless you are going to argue that MOST humans aren't human either (since most of humanity doesn't make the artidfacts we use).

So, you're left with the fact that you are ignorant of their abilities, to make a judgement.

Your argument about animals is a god of gaps argument.

of course it isnt, Dogs can play, sometimes in a very innovative way....

When it comes to intelligence, there is no better 'yardstick' after all, we are running the tests, are we not?

until Dolphins can run these tests, they are still lower down the hierarchy than we are...

Prove that dolphins haven't been testing us?

Prove that dolphins haven't been testing us?

:rolleyes:, this isnt the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...

the lack of the basic fundamentals of science should say something there...

Your argument about animals is a god of gaps argument.

No, your argument is entirely god of the gaps. It rests on the monumentally unlikely scenario that dolphins are actually having complex discussions on imaginary numbers and singularities and whether such concepts are consistent with general rules of induction and physics. It rests on the fact that we cannot categorically prove that they aren't, like the fact that we can't categorically prove there isn't a floating giant spaghetti monster that is invisible.

:rolleyes:, this isnt the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...

the lack of the basic fundamentals of science should say something there...

Prove that dolphins 'lack the basic fundamentals of science'.

Humans are not animals, but gods. At least I am one.

Prove that dolphins 'lack the basic fundamentals of science'.
I would say, prove that they do...

beyond that, this:



No, your argument is entirely god of the gaps. It rests on the monumentally unlikely scenario that dolphins are actually having complex discussions on imaginary numbers and singularities and whether such concepts are consistent with general rules of induction and physics. It rests on the fact that we cannot categorically prove that they aren't, like the fact that we can't categorically prove there isn't a floating giant spaghetti monster that is invisible.

No, your argument is entirely god of the gaps. It rests on the monumentally unlikely scenario that dolphins are actually having complex discussions on imaginary numbers and singularities and whether such concepts are consistent with general rules of induction and physics. It rests on the fact that we cannot categorically prove that they aren't, like the fact that we can't categorically prove there isn't a floating giant spaghetti monster that is invisible.

"Monumentally unlikely".

That's what you claim. Based on the fact that YOU have NO idea what level of communication they have, you honestly think you can make statistical extrapolations?

I would say, prove that they do...


Why/ I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim (that humans are 'special' and different to everything else). The onus is on you to prove they CAN'T do what we can... or more.

Why/ I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim (that humans are 'special' and different to everything else). The onus is on you to prove they CAN'T do what we can... or more.

And you are making the extraordinary claim that they can, whats the difference?

I can explicitly prove that they do not have Particle Accelerators, Airplanes, Cars, etc...

Can you prove that they have the intelligence capable of making said things, thumbs or no...

"Monumentally unlikely".

That's what you claim. Based on the fact that YOU have NO idea what level of communication they have, you honestly think you can make statistical extrapolations?

I think scientists have a good idea actually. You have no idea regarding every possible entity capable of existing in the universe, so you cannot make a statistical extrapolation regarding the likelihood of his holy noodly existence.

length exists independently (presumably), but measurements of them do not. a meter stick, outside of a system of social convention, is just a stick about so long with some marks on itYet it happens to be a stick which is a meter in length. Funny how definitions don't need people around. I'd be surprised if someone said a tree wasn't a tree 2000 years ago because English didn't exist then, but that seems to be the way you're leaning.

and what is necessary about a meter being that? that is a post hoc definitional adjustment made to improve the precision of what we mean by "a length about so big". the meter could just as easily be defined as being exactly the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,457 of a second. the choice is arbitrary.It's only trivially arbitrary. The length denoted by a meter is a hard fact. The length does not change unless and until we say it does. And who said anything about our systems of measurement being necessary? Necessity is for philosophers, mathematicians, and insane asylums (those in the order of most insane to least). I'm just describing a fact.

some groupings of living beings, like some groupings of bits of matter are real. they are not the arbitrary results of the whims of humans.And how do you distinguish between the real groupings and the fake groupings? Presumably by giving a definition. "A tree is..." But any definition you could possibly give is similarly arbitrary, at least in the sense you've argued for above, in saying that a meter's a meter because we say it's so. All I'm interested in is pointing out that the distinctions between humans and animals are not arbitrary in the sense that the way we treat them is always going to be different regardless of the words we use to denote that difference. The use we have for the words "man" and "animal" is not in the least bit arbitrary.

The post of yours I originally responded to supposed that there was some way for a classification scheme to describe something "real in the world independent of us" and something that is "merely a social convention." My point is that all of the supposed "social convention" ideas like this are just as much "real in the world" as the next one, so making a distinction like that is nonsense.

The distinctions you make depend on what you're trying to do with them, but that doesn't mean they can just be made up on the spot; i.e., it has to be distinguishable before you can coherently assert a distinction. What's the difference between a candle and the same candle? I don't know, ask Russel. What's the distinction between a man and an animal? For one thing, I am much more handsome than a chimp and I know how to do things with words.

And you are making the extraordinary claim that they can, whats the difference?

I can explicitly prove that they do not have Particle Accelerators, Airplanes, Cars, etc...

Can you prove that they have the intelligence capable of making said things, thumbs or no...

You can prove that animals without thumbs don't build the same hardware that animals with thumbs do? That's got to be worth a Nobel.

Unless the people judging are of the opinion that you can't measure intelligence purely by the hardware constructed, of course. Given that at least one of the most prominent minds of our generation (in our own species) isn't even capable of speaking for himself, it's possible that they'd indulge such a revolutionary view.

You can prove that animals without thumbs don't build the same hardware that animals with thumbs do? That's got to be worth a Nobel.

Unless the people judging are of the opinion that you can't measure intelligence purely by the hardware constructed, of course. Given that at least one of the most prominent minds of our generation (in our own species) isn't even capable of speaking for himself, it's possible that they'd indulge such a revolutionary view.

I never said that they needed to build the hardware, I asked if you could prove that they had the intelligence capable of understanding the concepts involved...

I think scientists have a good idea actually.

"I'm ignorant, but I'm sure someone else has an answer" isn't a good defense.

By the way - a quick google search turned up a specific article about the phenomenon I was discussing:

"Dolphins often synchronize their movements in the wild, such as leaping and diving side by side, but scientists don't know what signal they use to stay so tightly coordinated. Herman thought he might be able to tease out the technique with his pupils. In the film, Akeakamai and Phoenix are asked to create a trick and do it together. The two dolphins swim away from the side of the pool, circle together underwater for about ten seconds, then leap out of the water, spinning clockwise on their long axis and squirting water from their mouths, every maneuver done at the same instant. "None of this was trained," Herman says, "and it looks to us absolutely mysterious. We don't know how they do it-or did it."

Hey, who would have thought it? You were wrong.

I never said that they needed to build the hardware, I asked if you could prove that they had the intelligence capable of understanding the concepts involved...

In response to a statement that only huamns possibly could, still unsupported.

Shifting the burden isn't going to work.

"I'm ignorant, but I'm sure someone else has an answer" isn't a good defense.

By the way - a quick google search turned up a specific article about the phenomenon I was discussing:



Hey, who would have thought it? You were wrong.

The question is, What does Dolphins managing to coordinate with each other have to do with intelligence at all?

again, Dogs can do that, Wolves do it at a constant basis, Lions do this as well...

certainly Dolphins are more intelligent than them...

In response to a statement that only huamns possibly could, still unsupported.

Shifting the burden isn't going to work.

Im not shifting the burden, Ive proven they do not have the same level of technology that we have, you accepted it, although dismissing it out of hand for lack of thumbs...

the question now is, can you prove whether dolphins are as intelligent as humans?

"I'm ignorant, but I'm sure someone else has an answer" isn't a good defense.


It's not a defence, it was an incidental comment, irrelevant to my main one. I've read some detailed theories on what they communicated too each other, that didn't seem too implausible.


By the way - a quick google search turned up a specific article about the phenomenon I was discussing:

Hey, who would have thought it? You were wrong.

Ok, so assuming that we don't know exactly how these dolphins synchronise their movements. It's still a huge, gigantic, massive extrapolation to then state that they discuss the same things we do, and are capable of discovering and creating the same things we are (the poor things just don't have thumbs). This synchronisation could be entirely through evolved instinctive sensing, it may not require any conscious thought at all.

Also funnily enough, Herman himself does not believe dolphins have their own language.

In response to a statement that only huamns possibly could, still unsupported.

Considering no other species has ever demonstrated that capacity, and in our own evolution it shows a clear trend of our abilities being directly linked to the development of our brains, the simpler explanation of the two is that other animals don't have that capability. It makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint; what good is having human-level cognitive abilities to make tools and manipulate the environment if you can't use them?

The human brain is massively energy intensive, so it doesn't make sense for other organisms to have a similar level of intelligence if that intelligence can't be put to widespread uses.

However, this is too simplistic, since saying that we're "just animals" or even just "animals" implies a certain disdain, lack of intelligence, lack of moral ability, incapable of thinking things through, etc.
Only if one views all nonhuman animals with a certain disdain, see them having a lack of intelligence, lack of moral ability, incapability of thinking things through, etc.

We say of a murderer, He's an animal, and here we're thinking of things like wild dogs growling and biting and snarling and not caring about consequences.
And that'd be a poor way of characterising packs of wild dogs, not to mention characterising murderers, and a rather antiquated view of the natural world and human nature.

Yet it happens to be a stick which is a meter in length. Funny how definitions don't need people around. I'd be surprised if someone said a tree wasn't a tree 2000 years ago because English didn't exist then, but that seems to be the way you're leaning.

yeah, you've gotten yourself confused as to what distinction is being drawn.

It's only trivially arbitrary. The length denoted by a meter is a hard fact. The length does not change unless and until we say it does.

here is the crux of the matter. we could declare that a meter is now equal to the average distance between the center of the earth and the center of the moon, and it would be so. we could not so declare hydrogen and uranium to be the same element and have it be true.

here is the crux of the matter. we could declare that a meter is now equal to the average distance between the center of the earth and the center of the moon, and it would be so. we could not so declare hydrogen and uranium to be the same element and have it be true.

We could if we renamed one of them, names are only concepts, lol...We could easily have the words Hydrogen and Uranium refer to the same element, :p

we could not so declare hydrogen and uranium to be the same element and have it be true.

This is an interesting digression. Are you saying this, given that we don't change what the words hydrogen and uranium refer to?

This is an interesting digression. Are you saying this, given that we don't change what the words hydrogen and uranium refer to?

yeah, we'd clearly have to hold other bits constant. i mean, we could also try getting around it if we changed the meaning of 'an element' to something like "a type of atom with its own unique atomic number except in the case of hydrogen and uranium atoms, which, while having different atomic numbers, are still just one element".

but even with moves such as that, hydrogen-the-stuff-with-one-proton and uranium-the-stuff-with-ninety-two are different sorts of stuff no matter what we say about them. there are some places that are natural breaking points. in the wild, as it were, regardless of the language used in conjunction with them.

Only if one views all nonhuman animals with a certain disdain, see them having a lack of intelligence, lack of moral ability, incapability of thinking things through, etc.I don't care if you in particular have fuzzy feelings for animals. I merely am pointing out connotations in our language. Whether or not these correspond to anything to do with animals is completely beside the point and is also something I'm not interested in.

And that'd be a poor way of characterising packs of wild dogs, not to mention characterising murderers, and a rather antiquated view of the natural world and human nature.Response to this is the same as the above. If you wish to feel enlightened about how you characterize wild dogs, then do so. However, ensure that you understand the purpose of my statements before you attempt to criticize them.

here is the crux of the matter. we could declare that a meter is now equal to the average distance between the center of the earth and the center of the moon, and it would be so. we could not so declare hydrogen and uranium to be the same element and have it be true.And yet we would still be unable to use them as if they were the same element. If we defined a meter as you say we could, then it would not be the same as the meter-now, our use of the word would be different. This is my point. Calling them the same doesn't make them the same. Having the same name is a trivial thing. I've tried to point this out to you before. It's the same deal with the distinctions between man and animal. Saying that a man is an animal can have quite different meanings depending on the context, which I've previously posted. It's important to keep those meanings separate, because if we do then the question "Is a man an animal?" becomes trivial to solve.

The question is, What does Dolphins managing to coordinate with each other have to do with intelligence at all?

again, Dogs can do that, Wolves do it at a constant basis, Lions do this as well...

certainly Dolphins are more intelligent than them...

So - you don't know how they are coordinating, and - therefore - you think it reasonable to assume that they are less intelligent.

Logic not your strong suit?

So - you don't know how they are coordinating, and - therefore - you think it reasonable to assume that they are less intelligent.

Logic not your strong suit?

Im just saying there are other animals that do coordinate, and that coordination =/= intelligence....


One could ask whether logic escapes yourself, friend...

Im not shifting the burden, Ive proven they do not have the same level of technology that we have, you accepted it, although dismissing it out of hand for lack of thumbs...

the question now is, can you prove whether dolphins are as intelligent as humans?

You are shifting the burden, You showed that dolphins don't have the same level of material technology we do, and, after we all recovered from the shock of such a revelation, we gave a resounding chorus of 'so fucking what'? Since materials technology is not a realistic guage of intelligence.

You are shifting the burden, You showed that dolphins don't have the same level of material technology we do, and, after we all recovered from the shock of such a revelation, we gave a resounding chorus of 'so fucking what'? Since materials technology is not a realistic guage of intelligence.

Im not seeing anyone else on this...maybe you consider yourself more than one person?

Fine, what would you give as a 'realistic gauge of intelligence'....oh, wait, I mean 'realistic guage of intelligence'...

Ok, so assuming that we don't know exactly how these dolphins synchronise their movements. It's still a huge, gigantic, massive extrapolation to then state that they discuss the same things we do, and are capable of discovering and creating the same things we are (the poor things just don't have thumbs). This synchronisation could be entirely through evolved instinctive sensing, it may not require any conscious thought at all.

Did you read what I highlighted? (The whole article might be interesting if you read it. I did.) The don't know how the one dolphin transferred the brand NEW information to the second dolphin.

Experts don't know the extent of communication, but there clearly IS transfer of information - so for you to be saying you can know what they are NOT discussing is frankly ludicrous.

How could synchronisation of NEW behaviour be instinctive? Are you arguing then, that bottlenose dolphins can somehow sense in anticipation?

I don't care if you in particular have fuzzy feelings for animals... If you wish to feel enlightened about how you characterize wild dogs, then do so.
It's not about having fuzzy feelings or feeling enlightened, it's about accurate descriptions of the natural world.

Viewing all nonhuman animals as unintelligent, as having no comprehension of the consequences of their actions is an inaccurate take of the natural world, particularly the cognitive abilities of (mostly) mammals. Similarly, viewing the actions of murderers as analogous with the actions of packs of wild dogs is an inaccurate take of the natural world, particularly the behaviour of murderers and wild dog packs.

I'm not saying that you, and others, shouldn't talk about nonhuman animals in such a manner because I wub fluffy kittens, I'm saying that you, and others, shouldn't talk in such a manner because to do so is to describe a false reality.

Fine, what would you give as a 'realistic gauge of intelligence'....oh, wait,


Well, clearly not material technology since - by that gauge, the vast majority of humanity aren't 'intelligent'. (Since most of us do not innovate... indeed, a wealth of us only ever use artifacts OTHER people constructed).


I mean 'realistic guage of intelligence'...

Don't be a troll. Do I pick up your lack of apostrophe? No? So don't get precious about two letters typed in the wrong order, out of the millions of words I've typed.

And yet we would still be unable to use them as if they were the same element. If we defined a meter as you say we could, then it would not be the same as the meter-now, our use of the word would be different. This is my point. Calling them the same doesn't make them the same. Having the same name is a trivial thing. I've tried to point this out to you before. It's the same deal with the distinctions between man and animal. Saying that a man is an animal can have quite different meanings depending on the context, which I've previously posted. It's important to keep those meanings separate, because if we do then the question "Is a man an animal?" becomes trivial to solve.

i have to say, i don't see how your point interfaces with mine. in fact, i am unsure how it is supposed to go with your earlier points, for that matter.

Well, clearly not material technology since - by that gauge, the vast majority of humanity aren't 'intelligent'. (Since most of us do not innovate... indeed, a wealth of us only ever use artifacts OTHER people constructed).

Thats not answering the question, If I am going to show whether Humans are smarter than Dolphins, then I need an accepted 'gauge of intelligence' between both parties involved...

also, I dont see why that is even a factor when it comes to the species as a whole, if but one dolphin could create one of these artifacts, I would gladly say the species is intelligent...

Don't be a troll. Do I pick up your lack of apostrophe? No? So don't get precious about two letters typed in the wrong order, out of the millions of words I've typed.

Its a legitimate PvP strategy, :p

If we appear different because of the huge impact we have on the planet, I think other species have shown similar capacity to impact and shape (even harm) their immediate environments by unchecked behavior or over-population, or even just by existing and being big enough to set the trend for what other species thrive or fail around them.
Indeed, this is one of the funny things I find about these sorts of discussions: we know about how other species change the environment around them, but never seem to think of that at the same time.

One tree is just a tree. Thousands (or more) all in the same place are a forest, and they determine what else can live near them, alter the climate, and a bunch of other things. The same for coral reefs and grasslands. We all know this, but it's somehow different than building cities and farms.

so for you to be saying you can know what they are NOT discussing is frankly ludicrous.


I didn't say that.


How could synchronisation of NEW behaviour be instinctive? Are you arguing then, that bottlenose dolphins can somehow sense in anticipation?

One dolphin gives off certain phenomena prior to certain manoeuvres, the other dolphin then senses that phenomena and instinctively correlates that to the manoeuvre. But I really don't see the relevance of this. I never said that dolphins weren't capable of remarkable things.

When I said humans were distinct animals, I didn't mean in the sense of some linear measure of theoretical potential intelligence. I meant in the sense of our impact on the world. Where as other animals live within the limits of the ecosystem, and have a specific role allowing them a sustainable life style - humans can and do completely change the environment they and other animals live in. They create new environments, new structures, new processes and systems. They also destroy environments, structures, processes and systems. Humans shape the world we live in, we are capable of completely destroying it if we want to.

I didn't say that.



One dolphin gives off certain phenomena prior to certain manoeuvres, the other dolphin then senses that phenomena and instinctively correlates that to the manoeuvre. But I really don't see the relevance of this. I never said that dolphins weren't capable of remarkable things.


The relevance is that we don't know how they are communicating NEW processes (which makes the idea of a catalogue of pheremone signals cute, but somewhat nonsensical.... if you're talking about a pheremone array that can signal innovative and NEW behaviours... you're talking about a pheremone language.

The relevance is that we don't know how they are communicating NEW processes

And I am still not seeing the relevance.

Yet another thread crying out in vain for an unadded poll :(

Thats not answering the question, If I am going to show whether Humans are smarter than Dolphins, then I need an accepted 'gauge of intelligence' between both parties involved...



Right. Present something else, then.


also, I dont see why that is even a factor when it comes to the species as a whole, if but one dolphin could create one of these artifacts, I would gladly say the species is intelligent...


If humans had no hands (to level the playing field) would you say the species was unintelligent?

I'm somewhat intrigued by the idea that mass hand amputations would turn us into drones.

And I am still not seeing the relevance.

No, you're not.

And that is why your argument is claptrap.

No, you're not.

And that is why your argument is claptrap.

My argument does not exclude the possibility of a basic language between dolphins, one that again, Hermann himself doesn't even thinks exists.

Right. Present something else, then.



If humans had no hands (to level the playing field) would you say the species was unintelligent?

I'm somewhat intrigued by the idea that mass hand amputations would turn us into drones.

If humans had no hands, and still retained the knowledge present, we would still be able to fix this, prosthetics have come a long way, however I dont see how this is relevant to dolphins being as intelligent as humans in the slightest...

And, this is the only something, the question remains, are dolphins as intelligent as humans...If I cant even get an accepted gauge out of you, then whats the point of even continuing?

And, this is the only something, the question remains, are dolphins as intelligent as humans...If I cant even get an accepted gauge out of you, then whats the point of even continuing?

A common measurement is comparisons of the complexity, size, and weight of the brain of different animals. Humans always come out way on top in that scale, it is generally regarded that humans have a far more evolved brain than their closest living cousins, the great apes.

Also, scientific research seems to support the "superior language capabilities" of the human brain. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080323210220.htm

A common measurement is comparisons of the complexity, size, and weight of the brain of different animals. Humans always come out way on top in that scale, it is generally regarded that humans have a far more evolved brain than their closest living cousins, the great apes.
The thing is though, I need one that he will accept, he obviously wont accept the brain size/weight/complexity scales, because all other animals will lose...


Also, scientific research seems to support the "superior language capabilities" of the human brain. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080323210220.htm

Hmm, Interesting, Im wondering what the size arcuate fasciculus, and rhesus macaques is relative to dolphins and humans, rather than chimpanzees...

studying that might actually shed some light on the coordination problem we seem to have with them...

The thing is though, I need one that he will accept, he obviously wont accept the brain size/weight/complexity scales, because all other animals will lose...


Cortical folding, dolphins win at that.

It's not about having fuzzy feelings or feeling enlightened, it's about accurate descriptions of the natural world.

Viewing all nonhuman animals as unintelligent, as having no comprehension of the consequences of their actions is an inaccurate take of the natural world, particularly the cognitive abilities of (mostly) mammals. Similarly, viewing the actions of murderers as analogous with the actions of packs of wild dogs is an inaccurate take of the natural world, particularly the behavior of murderers and wild dog packs.

I'm not saying that you, and others, shouldn't talk about nonhuman animals in such a manner because I wub fluffy kittens, I'm saying that you, and others, shouldn't talk in such a manner because to do so is to describe a false reality.Except I wasn't talking about wild dogs in a descriptive sense. I suppose you also believe that "A watched pot never boils" is an attempt to describe the physical behavior of a watched pot. Well, it's not. You'll remember that I explicitly said that "I merely am pointing out connotations in our language. Whether or not these correspond to anything to do with animals is completely beside the point and is also something I'm not interested in." (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14740794&postcount=67)

i have to say, i don't see how your point interfaces with mine. in fact, i am unsure how it is supposed to go with your earlier points, for that matter.You made a distinction between how words are arbitrary and the reality of what they describe, as if words could have some other function. I pointed out that any description of the world will involve "arbitrary" measurements, e.g. meters, and that saying such measurements are somehow inadequate or illegitimate or "not real" ("some groupings of living beings, like some groupings of bits of matter are real" - Free Soviets) because of this trivial arbitrariness is a silly thing.

This, presumably, sheds light on the original topic, which was the question of how to decide whether or not humans are animals. In this case, you make a distinction between so-called arbitrary ways of classification and the "real classifications" but doing this simply makes no sense; how else are you supposed to differentiate between them?

This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14739994&postcount=22) was your original post which I disagreed with, by the way. I don't see how it's possible to describe something in the real world without necessarily there being an "arbitrary" framework of classification, so it would be impossible to separate the two. The result of accepting this would be to agree with Fiddlebottoms, which is not such a bad thing in my view.

You made a distinction between how words are arbitrary and the reality of what they describe, as if words could have some other function.

i don't recall doing so. in fact, i seem to remember speaking of different classificatory systems, and whether they map onto actual divisions in the world.

I pointed out that any description of the world will involve "arbitrary" measurements, e.g. meters, and that saying such measurements are somehow inadequate or illegitimate or "not real" ("some groupings of living beings, like some groupings of bits of matter are real" - Free Soviets) because of this trivial arbitrariness is a silly thing.

you pointed out no such thing, nor does your conclusion follow from it.

basically, to deny my position is to claim something like the idea that the universe is naturally indivisible or that any classification we do is as good as any other or something like that.

Of course we are an animal, by definition. Are we special? Perhaps. I mean, we are certainly very distinct from every other kind of animal on the planet. Whilst chimps are lying around, picking their bums and eating their own shit,

Humans don't do that?

humans are recreating the conditions of the big bang in a giant complex built under ground, and creating other entities almost capable of thought and can run billions of calculations a second. We're animals, but we're very different to other animals.

An advanced animal is still an animal.

But can Higher-order chimps or dolphins, do the same things Hydesland mentioned?

Do they have a need to do any of that?

It's easy to make yourself superior when you define the guidelines.

i don't recall doing so. in fact, i seem to remember speaking of different classificatory systems, and whether they map onto actual divisions in the world. And my point was that system that tries to classify the world must make distinctions between this thing and that; i.e. the "real" divisions. Any system we'd call classificatory would map those distinctions. If it didn't, it would hardly be classifying much, would it?

you pointed out no such thing, nor does your conclusion follow from it.Well, perhaps you didn't read that part.here is the crux of the matter. we could declare that a meter is now equal to the average distance between the center of the earth and the center of the moon, and it would be so. we could not so declare hydrogen and uranium to be the same element and have it be true.And yet we would still be unable to use them as if they were the same element. If we defined a meter as you say we could, then it would not be the same as the meter-now, our use of the word would be different. This is my point. Calling them the same doesn't make them the same. Having the same name is a trivial thing.And it is trivial. Suppose you had a "classification scheme" of the world which classified things randomly, or with no care to the natural divisions, as you say. But I contradict myself. The only thing arbitrary here is the particular language we use to construct the scheme with, and the arbitrariness of that is completely inescapable. That's what makes trying to distinguish "real" distinctions from "social conventions" silly; you can't make a real distinction without using a social convention.

basically, to deny my position is to claim something like the idea that the universe is naturally indivisible or that any classification we do is as good as any other or something like that.To deny your position is to claim that the universe has no particular preference to any classification beyond how we wish to do it. Our purposes in classifying the world determine whether one way of classification is better than another.

An advanced animal is still an animal.

Of course we are an animal.

...

Do they have a need to do any of that?

It's easy to make yourself superior when you define the guidelines.

I asked him to provide a guideline, he failed to do so...

The human brain is massively energy intensive, so it doesn't make sense for other organisms to have a similar level of intelligence if that intelligence can't be put to widespread uses.

Hmmm. Consider the ant and the size of it's brain.

Who builds better tunnels?

Hmmm. Consider the ant and the size of it's brain.

Who builds better tunnels?

I think we do, lets see an ant match this :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunnel

We are not animals.

We are worse than animals. We are worse than monsters, than demons. We are greater, mightier, and far more terrible than any of those things.

We are human. Hear us roar.

My argument does not exclude the possibility of a basic language between dolphins, one that again, Hermann himself doesn't even thinks exists.

Hermann may think that; but there are many that still think there may be one and there are research projects looking into it.

We are not animals.

We are worse than animals. We are worse than monsters, than demons. We are greater, mightier, and far more terrible than any of those things.

We are human. Hear us roar.

I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds?

I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds?

Well, we're currently working on just the one, but.....Maybe someday *looks wistfully at Mars*

I asked him to provide a guideline, he failed to do so...

Ok. I am a microbe. I can split into two. Can you?

I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds?

Exactly. We're up there with Cthulhu.

That's what makes trying to distinguish "real" distinctions from "social conventions" silly; you can't make a real distinction without using a social convention.

that just mistakes the medium through which we communicate classifications for the classifications themselves

To give my answer to the OP's question, we are both animals, and special in the sense of being:

a) a unique species, and

b) the most technolgically advanced species we have yet made contact with (confirmed contact anyways, but I'll save that argument for the UFO threads;)).

Ok. I am a microbe. I can split into two. Can you?

If you give me an Axe, :p

But, I hardly see how that pertains to intelligence, :confused:

I think we do, lets see an ant match this :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunnel

Oh I know of the chunnel.

Yet how many mining tunnels collapse?

Ants do far more digging then we do and they don't have the problems we do....

Ok. I am a microbe. I can split into two. Can you?

I cannot speak for skallvia, but I'm not trying to say that humans are objectively superior. That's a value judgement, decided subjectively by whatever standards people choose. I am just saying that we are particularly distinct from other animals.

Oh I know of the chunnel.

Yet how many mining tunnels collapse?

Ants do far more digging then we do and they don't have the problems we do....
True, but have they done it on the scale of the chunnel? and underneath a body of water like the English Channel?

I think not...

Edit: I also would not say we are objectively superior, simply more intelligent...whether you base superiority on intelligence is your own venture...

If you give me an Axe, :p

But, I hardly see how that pertains to intelligence, :confused:

Ahh I am getting to that.

We like to brag about our intelligence. You can see examples in this thread and yet the brainless microbe can create diseases that we can't cure.

My old primatolgy professor used a lecture on that situation to try and teach us that sure we are smart but don't become arrogant about it as it will make you miss the simplest details or worst dismiss them.

Ahh I am getting to that.

We like to brag about our intelligence. You can see examples in this thread and yet the brainless microbe can create diseases that we can't cure.

My old primatolgy professor used a lecture on that situation to try and teach us that sure we are smart but don't become arrogant about it as it will make you miss the simplest details or worst dismiss them.

Ill concede that, but we also shouldnt discount our Intelligence for what it is either, ;)

Ahh I am getting to that.

We like to brag about our intelligence. You can see examples in this thread and yet the brainless microbe can create diseases that we can't cure.

My old primatolgy professor used a lecture on that situation to try and teach us that sure we are smart but don't become arrogant about it as it will make you miss the simplest details or worst dismiss them.

correction, they do not create the disease, their very existence causes the disease. There is a difference

that just mistakes the medium through which we communicate classifications for the classifications themselvesWell then, show me the classification itself. What is a classification itself anyway? I can point to a classification and say, there's a classification for you. Humans are homo sapiens. Classification is simply an activity that humans do. I don't speak of the "action itself" when I lift my arm, as if it were separate from the lifting of my arm. Why should I speak of "classification itself" when that's exactly like lifting my arm?

correction, they do not create the disease, their very existence causes the disease. There is a difference

I admit I greatly simplified.

Well then, show me the classification itself. What is a classification itself anyway? I can point to a classification and say, there's a classification for you. Humans are homo sapiens. Classification is simply an activity that humans do. I don't speak of the "action itself" when I lift my arm, as if it were separate from the lifting of my arm. Why should I speak of "classification itself" when that's exactly like lifting my arm?

i can say both 'i am lifting my arm' and 'estoy levantando mi brazo' and refer to the same thing - me picking up my arm (at least if i've got the spanish right. i'm just learning it, so if i fucked it up, fix as necessary). similarly, when i talk about real groupings, i'm talking about propositions that refer to the natural cleavages and joints in the universe, rather than ones that carve the world up arbitrarily or without proper regard to those wild break points.

i can say both 'i am lifting my arm' and 'estoy levantando mi brazo' and refer to the same thing - me picking up my arm (at least if i've got the spanish right. i'm just learning it, so if i fucked it up, fix as necessary). similarly, when i talk about real groupings, i'm talking about propositions that refer to the natural cleavages and joints in the universe, rather than ones that carve the world up arbitrarily or without proper regard to those wild break points.Can you give an example of a classification system that does ignore these natural break points?

Can you give an example of a classification system that does ignore these natural break points?

the birds of leviticus spring immediately to mind. the 4 elements idea of matter. the group of all things that are over a meter long. etc.

Agent Smith thinks we're a virus. ;)

Technically we are, or we could be viewed as a large meaty carrier of all sorts of virus.

“Viral elements are a large part of the genetic material of almost all organisms,” said Dr. Sharp, who won a Nobel Prize for elucidating details of our genetic code. Base for nucleic base, he said, “we humans are well over 50 percent viral.”

Scientists initially dismissed the viral elements in our chromosomes as so much tagalong “junk DNA.” But more recently some researchers have proposed that higher organisms have in fact co-opted viral genes and reworked them into the source code for major biological innovations, according to Luis P. Villarreal, director of the Center for Virus Research at the University of California, Irvine.

Some genes involved in the growth of the mammalian placenta, for example, have a distinctly viral character, as do genes underlying the recombinant powers of our adaptive immune system — precisely the part that helps us fight off viruses.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/science/08angi.html?_r=1&em&ex=1199941200&en=3bd96f63379d275d&ei=5087%0A)

I still think that our every cell has an active provirus in its DNA code, and one day we will all just erupt into a pile of viruses :p

the birds of leviticus spring immediately to mind. the 4 elements idea of matter. the group of all things that are over a meter long. etc.

Also, most measurements. There is nothing special about a week, or a second, or a centimetre.

We have to be animals. We still have drives, instincts and inteligence like all other organism. So how can we be a different thing when we share all the same qualities? Just like any other mammal we have lungs, teeth, a brain. Even our inteligence is the same. We both have inteligence, but we have more(for better or worse). It is arrogant to think that we as humans are a totally diffrent organisms because of only our "superior" brain. No other creatures ever felt the need to make statues to honor their "god". No other species ever had need to make wars of a massive scale killing millions. Other animals do not have racism or biases. Are we trully that inteligent? Are we really that diffrent? In reality we really have little of our own that is unique to humans. We were not the first to make buildings( birds and beavers for example) We are not the only one to make music(birds mating songs). Even in war, something we define as unique to humans, we took our strategies from the animal world. We stole the idea of swaming with overwhelming numbers from insects and the concept of disguise and covert operations from octupuses and bugs. So we must be a animal right?

Also, most measurements. There is nothing special about a week, or a second, or a centimetre.

the year, on the other hand, is an interesting one. there is something real there, though most culture's years don't quite work out, because the planet's revolution is awesome.

Hmmm. Consider the ant and the size of it's brain.

Who builds better tunnels?

Brain size doesn't equal intelligence by itself; it's how it's organized that matters most of all. For example, Neanderthals had a significantly bigger brain but were incapable of competing with humans.

Ants can build tunnels well, but they can't do a thing if it rains and floods them other than try to escape. However, they reproduce quickly and can rapidly establish new colonies, offsetting potential losses from flooding and other dangers. Their eusocial capabilities outweigh the limitations of their individual intelligence. While we might not be able to build tunnels as well or as instinctively, we can build pumps and supports and design new innovations and tools to ensure our mines remain free from flooding regardless of the water table. Unlike ants, we can understand the how and why of flooding or other dangers and compensate accordingly.

Now, it's theoretically possible that ants could evolve the intelligence to offset these dangers to their tunnels like we do, but if the costs of evolving that additional intelligence outweigh the survival benefits, it's not going to happen.

Also, most measurements. There is nothing special about a week, or a second, or a centimetre.
Measures are different from categories. A measure describes something that exists, and that thing would (possibly) exist whether it was measured or not. Categories (animal kingdom, my family) are groupings of things based upon characteristics which are arbitrarily chosen. That a category includes X and doesn't include Y is entirely the choice of the man who invents the category.
So humans are animals if humans choose to structure the animal kingdom in such a way that they fall within it. Alternately, one could create a structure wherein Animals were one thing and Primates were considered as a separate group (for one example), or one could say that humans aren't animals because they possess the capacity for using complex language, symbols and imagine hypothetical situations.

Measures are different from categories. A measure describes something that exists, and that thing would (possibly) exist whether it was measured or not. Categories (animal kingdom, my family) are groupings of things based upon characteristics which are arbitrarily chosen. That a category includes X and doesn't include Y is entirely the choice of the man who invents the category.

I have argued this in the past, however, I agree with FS broadly. It isn't necessarily always arbitrary, there do seem to be natural distinctions that one may rationally need to identify in order to productively communicate.

Brain size doesn't equal intelligence by itself; it's how it's organized that matters most of all. For example, Neanderthals had a significantly bigger brain but were incapable of competing with humans.

Ants can build tunnels well, but they can't do a thing if it rains and floods them other than try to escape. However, they reproduce quickly and can rapidly establish new colonies, offsetting potential losses from flooding and other dangers. Their eusocial capabilities outweigh the limitations of their individual intelligence. While we might not be able to build tunnels as well or as instinctively, we can build pumps and supports and design new innovations and tools to ensure our mines remain free from flooding regardless of the water table. Unlike ants, we can understand the how and why of flooding or other dangers and compensate accordingly.

Now, it's theoretically possible that ants could evolve the intelligence to offset these dangers to their tunnels like we do, but if the costs of evolving that additional intelligence outweigh the survival benefits, it's not going to happen.

One could, technically, view an ant colony as a single organism and that might radically alter how we view them. I know ants are coming under pretty serious study lately, an ant colony as a whole is not too dissimilar to the brain.

Different ant species show nearly all the same characteristics as humans, war, slavery, symbiotic alliances.

Where we knock ourselves on the head, we take out a good number of brain cells, much like a portion of an ant colony being taken out by, using your example, a flood.

There seems increasing evidence that we don't search our brain for information, the brain instead offers solutions based on all the information coming in from the sense and our own experience - our muscles are moving, or preparing to move, before we make a conscious decision.

There's as much interest in how we organise as there is in what we are.

Except I wasn't talking about wild dogs in a descriptive sense. I suppose you also believe that "A watched pot never boils" is an attempt to describe the physical behavior of a watched pot. Well, it's not.
You may not use phrases such as, "He was behaving like a wild animal", in a descriptive sense, but others do. Phrases such as the above, comparing violent or unruly human behaviour with stereotypes of certain nonhuman animals, are very different to sayings such as, "A watched pot never boils" -- no-one believes a watching a pot actually prevents it from boiling, but many actually think a murderer's behaviour is analogous in some way to the behaviour of some nonhuman animals -- and I feel they promote two unhealthy ideas.

Firstly, as I've already indicated, they perpetuate inaccurate conceptions of animal behaviour. For example, the idea of a vicious pack of wolves, an often-used expression, is not highly metaphorical, widely unconnected with perceived real behaviour, in the minds of many who use such an expression. Predators, especially the large mammalian carnivores, are often portrayed as cruel or scheming, madly violent, chaotic, a 'killing machine'; an unrealistic, not to mention anthropomorphic, picture.

Secondly, they push an idea of the 'primitive beast' supposedly deep inside us. Again, using words like 'bestial' or phrases such as 'animal desires' to describe shocking human behaviour or attitudes is more than just "connotations in our language". It allows folks to mark of some behaviour as inhuman, as bestial, and to not deal with it properly.

It's an important point to be made, and though you may not be interested in it, or think it's "completely beside the point", this thread is the perfect place to state it.

Supplementing my above post...

What makes ants far more than a scientific curiosity is that this extraordinary collective behaviour from what are, at heart, chemical-sensing automatons, hints at lessons for similar systems in humans too. Neurons are individually relatively dumb but, with billions of them working together in our brains reacting to levels of neurotransmitter chemicals, something creative and remarkable emerges. "Maybe our own brains are using these thresholds," says Franks. "When you model ants and when you model the brain, there are some great similarities. When our brains are deciding, from visual input, whether to move our eyes to the right or the left, populations of neurons and thresholds are obviously involved."

His colleague at Bristol, computer scientist James Marshall, recently used computer models to show that groups of neurons in the primate brain seem to make decisions in roughly the same way as an ant colony. The results, published recently in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface, drew the first formal parallels between decision-making brain circuits in the primate brain and colonies of social insects.

Long read... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/09/ants-nature-research)

Here is my problem with the question/answers:

Are humans, animals? Well obviously yes. We are also, objects, items, creatures, bipeds, information systems, sacks of flesh, homes for various parasites, piles of sinews etc. Eventually, we also become dust and decomposed matter etc.

But is that really the question?

When you talk about the intelligence of dolphins, you could just as easily replace dolphin with "killer whale", or "sea otter", or any of the other numerous trained animals at sea world or the ones used by various navies around the world. There is no qualitative or quantitative difference between those level of creatures.

Similarly, you can talk about a colony of ants, red ants, carpenter ants, flesh eating ants, or termites, or beetles, or any other colony based species of insect.

Yet when it comes to humans, there is no other creature for us to look at and say "they live like we live." The best we can do is say, "the most interesting one of them, is about equal to a baby of ours"

The closest we can get to another being that is similar to ourselves are robots or computer programs. But I don't know of any thread asking "Are we just synthetically created systems?"

It is actually humanity's humbleness, not arrogance that makes us say "of-course we are animals" because we defined what an animal is, and decided to include ourselves within it. We could have just as easily, and probably more accurately divided up the world into minerals, plants, animals, and sentients.

man's dominion over nature is a lie.

man's dominion over nature is a lie.

Global Climate Change says otherwise, ;)

Global Climate Change says otherwise, ;)
hmmm. interesting thought. although climate i tend to put more in the catigory with minerals rather then living organisms. and by nature, well we do have the capacity to ignorantly destroy, but i don't see that as qualifying as dominance. i.e. control, i.e. the ability to do something useful and bennificial with something, rather then merely destroy it.

yes the capacity to destroy is the one 'dominance' we do have over it in that limited sense, that is true. its also a very stupid thing for us to do, considering how completely we're actually dependent on it.

and being dependent on it kind of takes away from the dominance over bit too.

Yet another thread crying out in vain for an unadded poll :(

No way, as both myrth and pie are not animal, so that would only leave H N Fiddlebottoms VIII's identity as a viable poll option!

Are humans animals? Or something special?

It's a debate...
Let me just stop you right there.

There is no debate over the fact that humans are animals. The fact that some extremely ignorant and/or profoundly crazy people claim that humans are not animals does not constitute "debate." Just like how there's no debate over whether or not the Earth is flat.

What features humans do or do not share with other animal life is an ever-expanding field of study. How these differences between species should be translated into the human system of law is a nice area of debate. Those are valid topics.

But "ARE HOOMANS AMINALS?!" is not.

Global Climate Change says otherwise, ;)

Umm not really, coz when that wipes us from the Earth well nature will still be here.

Compared with a rock or a tree I guess we are closer to an animal. I think humans similar qualities to some animals. The thing is we perceive the world the way we want to. We tend to see human qualities in just about everything from dogs, monkeys, horses. We give animals a voice, we talk for them and too them. We try to see the world as they might see it.

I think we used to be more animal like and have since become something different. I think we are moving closer and closer to cybernetic for lack of a better word. We have almost rejected everything natural.


Animals do not get breast augmentation.

Animals do not inject toxins into their bodies to remove wrinles

Animals do not drink alcohol or do drugs to the point where they can no longer function.

Animals live in harmony with their environment, we change our environment to suit ourselves.

Animals prey on the weak and helpless, we support, nourish, protect and encourage the weak


In short we used to be but have since moved out of the jungle. We even rarely go back. Oh let's face there are too many bugs and no air conditioning. If they highway doesn't go there neither do we.

We have multi-vitamins, Viagra, reading glasses, and contacts. We curl/straighten/colour our hair. We have spray on tans, whirlpools, spas.

We have almost rejected everything natural.


Animals do not get breast augmentation.

Animals do not inject toxins into their bodies to remove wrinles

Animals do not drink alcohol or do drugs to the point where they can no longer function.

Animals live in harmony with their environment, we change our environment to suit ourselves.

Animals prey on the weak and helpless, we support, nourish, protect and encourage the weak

Wow, you managed to be wrong about absolutely everything in this post.

Animals routinely "augment" themselves to increase their perceived attractiveness. Behaviors like applying mud to one's skin or plucking to create a more desirable brow are found in numerous non-human species.

Animals routinely consume dangerous or toxic materials to the point where they cannot function, and indeed most of our understanding of human chemical addition is drawn from ANIMAL studies where we find that our addictive behaviors are based on the same pathways that are found in other species.

Animals do not "live in harmony" with their environments any more than humans do; if selective pressures, competition, or predators are removed from any given environment, animals over-populate and over-consume just like humans do. The "balance" within an environment is, rather, an equilibrium between all the various competing pressures from all the species and environmental factors involved.

Animals change their environments to suit themselves all the damn time, just look at ants, beavers, meerkats, and a host of other species.

And animals very often care for the weak or injured. It's so common that there are entire websites devoted to showing pictures of various animals "adopting" orphans of their own species, of other species, or other revoltingly cute goings on. Many species have been observed caring for sick members of their group.

We bring water to the desert and grow green grass for our lawns. We live in skyscrapers where a symbol of how wealthy you are depends on how far you are above the ground. Get it how far from nature? When you are down and out where are you? That right the gutter or skid row. Without a home you do not exist. No mail, no job, no money, no phone = non-entity

Think about how many numbers identify you. Bits in a computer somewhere. We are a biological construct.

the birds of leviticus spring immediately to mind. the 4 elements idea of matter. the group of all things that are over a meter long. etc.I am not sure that the Leviticus thing is even a classification system at all, as it seems to be more of a "Do this or I'll burn you" kind of thing. Aristotle's four elements are not the product of a scientific explanation in our sense, but more of a rational explanation given certain properties of materials (moistness, warmth, etc). I don't think it can be mapped to our ideas of the elements at all. All things over a meter long can still be measured in meters, as it's possible to use multiples or portions of meters (kilometer, millimeter, etc). Basically, I just want an example of a system that we use now that is scientific and still does not cover the natural order of things. I realize this is probably impossible by definition but that was my point anyway.

Wow, you managed to be wrong about absolutely everything in this post.

Animals routinely "augment" themselves to increase their perceived attractiveness. Behaviors like applying mud to one's skin or plucking to create a more desirable brow are found in numerous non-human species.

Animals routinely consume dangerous or toxic materials to the point where they cannot function, and indeed most of our understanding of human chemical addition is drawn from ANIMAL studies where we find that our addictive behaviors are based on the same pathways that are found in other species.

Animals do not "live in harmony" with their environments any more than humans do; if selective pressures, competition, or predators are removed from any given environment, animals over-populate and over-consume just like humans do. The "balance" within an environment is, rather, an equilibrium between all the various competing pressures from all the species and environmental factors involved.

Animals change their environments to suit themselves all the damn time, just look at ants, beavers, meerkats, and a host of other species.

And animals very often care for the weak or injured. It's so common that there are entire websites devoted to showing pictures of various animals "adopting" orphans of their own species, of other species, or other revoltingly cute goings on. Many species have been observed caring for sick members of their group.

When was the last time you saw a rat addicted to cocaine unless we made him or her that way. Humbug, we have long since left the jungle. No other animal has been to space that we know of unless of course we sent them there. In fact dogs and monkeys went first why? because they are expendable.

When was last time you saw a beaver paving over a wetland? How about draining a swamp. When was the last time you saw a meerkat dumping toxic waste in a nearby stream? How about fishing so much that certain species no longer exist? A great big vacuum cleaner that sucks up everything even close?


Which could you live longer without? Your dog or your computer?

When was the last time you saw a rat addicted to cocaine unless we made him or her that way. Humbug, we have long since left the jungle. No other animal has been to space that we know of unless of course we sent them there. In fact dogs and monkeys went first why? because they are expendable.

When was last time you saw a beaver paving over a wetland? How about draining a swamp. When was the last time you saw a meerkat dumping toxic waste in a nearby stream? How about fishing so much that certain species no longer exist? A great big vacuum cleaner that sucks up everything even close?


Which could you live longer without? Your dog or your computer?

When was the last time you saw a wildebeest climb a tree

When was the last time you saw a rat addicted to cocaine unless we made him or her that way. Humbug, we have long since left the jungle. No other animal has been to space that we know of unless of course we sent them there. In fact dogs and monkeys went first why? because they are expendable.

When was last time you saw a beaver paving over a wetland? How about draining a swamp. When was the last time you saw a meerkat dumping toxic waste in a nearby stream? How about fishing so much that certain species no longer exist? A great big vacuum cleaner that sucks up everything even close?


Which could you live longer without? Your dog or your computer?

Just a quick question:

How does any of that mean we're not animals?

Just a quick question:

How does any of that mean we're not animals?

What are our choices? Compared to a rock or a tree then I guess we are closer to animals.

I say we become something more than animal. Hybrid perhaps?


Are we more than the sum of our parts? I would say yes.

We both have flesh in common, I suppose.

What are our choices? Compared to a rock or a tree then I guess we are closer to animals.

Well, look, for example, here (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/alllife/eukaryotasy.html), and tell me to which kingdom or taxon we should belong, if not Animalia...

Oh, and I don't believe rocks classify as "life"...

A common measurement is comparisons of the complexity, size, and weight of the brain of different animals. Humans always come out way on top in that scale, it is generally regarded that humans have a far more evolved brain than their closest living cousins, the great apes.

No it isn't.

The fact that you even used a phrase like 'far more evolved brain' suggests you are batting way out of your league.

When was the last time you saw a rat addicted to cocaine unless we made him or her that way.

Um, like two years ago?

If rats have access to cocaine, they become addicted to it all by themselves. That's kinda the idea behind addiction, you know?


Humbug, we have long since left the jungle. No other animal has been to space that we know of unless of course we sent them there. In fact dogs and monkeys went first why? because they are expendable.

When was last time you saw a beaver paving over a wetland? How about draining a swamp. When was the last time you saw a meerkat dumping toxic waste in a nearby stream? How about fishing so much that certain species no longer exist? A great big vacuum cleaner that sucks up everything even close?

I don't think you're entirely clear on the point you're trying to make.

What are our choices? Compared to a rock or a tree then I guess we are closer to animals.

I say we become something more than animal. Hybrid perhaps?


Are we more than the sum of our parts? I would say yes.

We both have flesh in common, I suppose.
I think we need to go back to basics, first.

Can you define the word "animal" please?

Yet when it comes to humans, there is no other creature for us to look at and say "they live like we live." The best we can do is say, "the most interesting one of them, is about equal to a baby of ours"


You ever encountered 'feral children'?

A lot of what we consider human - from the ability to use language, to our understanding of concepts, even to the way we look - is apparently VERY heavily influenced by nurture.

Why is that important? Because you're drawing a false parallel - if you say that a chimp has the ability to converse on the same level of a two-year-old... well, that's more than can be said of a two-year-old, if that two-year-old isn't in the right environment.

*ahem*

Actually the cure for human beings is viruses. Viruses are natures immune system.

We have almost rejected everything natural.


Yep. Humans no longer eat, drink, fuck or shit. They don't hurt each other, kill each other. They conquered anger, fear and contentment, are no longer imbued with emotions, reflexes or senses. They long ago cast off the mortal corporeal connections.

What's that? They haven't. Well that's just terrible! That means they haven't rejected our nature, at all!

We bring water to the desert and grow green grass for our lawns. We live in skyscrapers where a symbol of how wealthy you are depends on how far you are above the ground.

Ants farm, and termites build skyscrapers.

You ever encountered 'feral children'?

A lot of what we consider human - from the ability to use language, to our understanding of concepts, even to the way we look - is apparently VERY heavily influenced by nurture.

Why is that important? Because you're drawing a false parallel - if you say that a chimp has the ability to converse on the same level of a two-year-old... well, that's more than can be said of a two-year-old, if that two-year-old isn't in the right environment.
What now? A chimp can only converse on the same level as a two year old if that chimp is in a dedicated "teach monkies how to communicate" environment.

Dumb people are still people.

Smart animals are still animals.

We are smart animals, but still...yes...animals!

Well, look, for example, here, and tell me to which kingdom or taxon we should belong, if not Animalia...

Oh, and I don't believe rocks classify as "life"...
The problem here is that "sentience" (to use a RPG term) isn't part of the taxonomical classifications. So by the system that we humans have set up, there isn't a place for us to be set aside. I think the real debate is not if we are currently classified as animals, but rather if we -should- be classified as animals.

Is the difference between having a cell wall, and not having a cell wall a greater difference than having sentience or not having sentience?

By the word sentience, I mean that if dwarves and elves etc. existed, would you say that we should be categorized more like elves, or more like apes? If an alien race came from another solar system with spaceships, would we find more commonality with those aliens, or with dolphins?

If we were given an ultimatum to either destroy the entire species of bottle nose dolphins, or to destroy the entire species of some alien race that has come to earth on spaceships, which would be "more wrong"?

If humans are just animals, then you would have to say that destroying the dolphins is more wrong. However, if there is something unique about sentience, then destroying the alien race would be more wrong, and thus I would argue that humans should not be classified the same as animals. Once we discover the mechanism behind sentience, I'm sure that will happen.

The problem here is that "sentience" (to use a RPG term) isn't part of the taxonomical classifications....Once we discover the mechanism behind sentience, I'm sure that will happen.

What makes you think some animals are not sentient?

What makes you think some animals are not sentient?
I have yet to hear of, or witness an animal that is sentient/sapient. (and after looking up the strict definition of the word, I believe the proper word might be sapient?)


Oddly enough, the best that is written up regarding defining the term in the way I mean it is, "personhood"

I have yet to hear of, or witness an animal that is sentient/sapient. (and after looking up the strict definition of the word, I believe the proper word might be sapient?)


Did you read the nat-geo link I posted a page or so earlier?

I can't say that I did, but I'm pretty certain that if any animal had shown more "personhood" qualities than that famous parrot with a large vocabulary it would be more popular.

I find these statements that ants can build farms, or termites skyscrapers a bit odd.

To me they are analogous to the following type of argument:

Engineers and Artists are the same sort of profession, because they both traditionally used a pencil as one of their tools. It's the sort of argument that just blatantly tries to ignore all the relevant differences between using a pencil to draw a picture, or using a pencil to solve a math problem.

"He didn't understand Alfredo. Imagine the chance to make love with this beautiful animal pumping away beside him, to watch her get fat with a child that was the combination of him and her...he breathed erratically at the thought, suddenly aware of his own body, of his balls between his legs-"

(from Pacific Edge, by Kim Stanley Robinson)

I love the way Robinson constantly describes humans as animals...not lowly, not base, just beautiful, physical creatures. It's one of the things I admire most about us, our physicality, the amazing things we can do with our bodies, train ourselves to accomplish, all with just bones, sinew, muscle and skin...

Well, yeah we pretty much are animals.

But you can't say people are special, if you were to somehow be in the very unlikely situation where you have to choose the life of a human or any other animal, you would probably pick the human. If you don't you have some serious issues...

I can't say that I did, but I'm pretty certain that if any animal had shown more "personhood" qualities than that famous parrot with a large vocabulary it would be more popular.

I find these statements that ants can build farms, or termites skyscrapers a bit odd.

To me they are analogous to the following type of argument:

Engineers and Artists are the same sort of profession, because they both traditionally used a pencil as one of their tools. It's the sort of argument that just blatantly tries to ignore all the relevant differences between using a pencil to draw a picture, or using a pencil to solve a math problem.

The parrot in the article was not the most impressive story.

Ants farm aphids. They maintain herds, which they milk.

Ants also do agriculture.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/01/030120100451.htm

The parrot in the article was not the most impressive story.

Ants farm aphids. They maintain herds, which they milk.

Like I said, I didn't see the link, but this is the parrot I was talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N'kisi

And some plants trick animals, some might even eat them.
Plants move towards the sun, and minerals will form structures.

Just because an animal is able to do something which is unique to that species doesn't make it sapient or even thoughtful.

Perhaps you can point me to the works of poetry that animals have decided to create which expresses the unique feelings of hibernation?

Like I said, I didn't see the link, but this is the parrot I was talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N'kisi

And some plants trick animals, some might even eat them.
Plants move towards the sun, and minerals will form structures.

Just because an animal is able to do something which is unique to that species doesn't make it sapient or even thoughtful.

Perhaps you can point me to the works of poetry that animals have decided to create which expresses the unique feelings of hibernation?

Why on earth would they compose such poems for humans? Do we write poems in bear?

Here y'all go...

Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Subtle refinements in brain architecture, rather than large-scale alterations, make us smarter than other animals

By Ursula Dicke and Gerard Roth

Key Concepts

* The human brain lacks conspicuous characteristics—such as relative or absolute size—that might account for humans' superior intellect.
* Researchers have found some clues to humanity's aptitude on a smaller scale, such as more neurons in our brain's outermost layer.
* Human intelligence may be best likened to an upgrade of the cognitive capacities of nonhuman primates rather than an exceptionally advanced form of cognition.

As far as we know, no dog can compose music, no dolphin can speak in rhymes, and no parrot can solve equations with two unknowns. Only humans can perform such intellectual feats, presumably because we are smarter than all other animal species—at least by our own definition of intelligence.

Of course, intelligence must emerge from the workings of the three-pound mass of wetware packed inside our skulls. Thus, researchers have tried to identify unique features of the human brain that could account for our superior intellectual abilities. But, anatomically, the human brain is very similar to that of other primates because humans and chimpanzees share an ancestor that walked the earth less than seven million years ago.

Accordingly, the human brain contains no highly conspicuous characteristics that might account for the species' cleverness. For instance, scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca's area, which governs speech in people. The lack of an obvious structural correlate to human intellect jibes with the idea that our intelligence may not be wholly unique: studies are revealing that chimps, among various other species, possess a diversity of humanlike social and cognitive skills.

Nevertheless, researchers have found some microscopic clues to humanity's aptitude. We have more neurons in our brain's cerebral cortex (its outermost layer) than other mammals do. The insulation around nerves in the human brain is also thicker than that of other species, enabling the nerves to conduct signals more rapidly. Such biological subtleties, along with behavioral ones, suggest that human intelligence is best likened to an upgrade of the cognitive capacities of nonhuman primates rather than an exceptionally advanced form of cognition.

Smart Species
Because animals cannot read or speak, their aptitude is difficult to discern, much less measure. Thus, comparative psychologists have invented behavior-based tests to assess birds' and mammals' abilities to learn and remember, to comprehend numbers and to solve practical problems. Animals of various stripes—but especially nonhuman primates—often earn high marks on such action-oriented IQ tests. During World War I, German psychologist Wolfgang K�hler, for example, showed that chimpanzees, when confronted with fruit hanging from a high ceiling, devised an ingenious way to get it: they stacked boxes to stand on to reach the fruit. They also constructed long sticks to reach food outside their enclosure. Researchers now know that great apes have a sophisticated understanding of tool use and construction.

Psychologists have used such behavioral tests to illuminate similar cognitive feats in other mammals as well as in birds. Pigeons can discriminate between male and female faces and among paintings by different artists; they can also group pictures into categories such as trees, selecting those belonging to a category by pecking with their beaks, an action that often brings a food reward. Crows have intellectual capacities that are overturning conventional wisdom about the brain.

Behavioral ecologists, on the other hand, prefer to judge animals on their street smarts—that is, their ability to solve problems relevant to survival in their natural habitats—rather than on their test-taking talents. In this view, intelligence is a cluster of capabilities that evolved in response to particular environments. Some scientists have further proposed that mental or behavioral flexibility, the ability to come up with novel solutions to problems, is another good measure of animal intellect. Among birds, green herons occasionally throw an object in the water to lure curious fish—a trick that, ornithologists have observed, has been reinvented by groups of these animals living in distant locales. Even fish display remarkable practical intelligence, such as the use of tools, in the wild. Cichlid fish, for instance, use leaves as "baby carriages" for their egg masses.

Animals also can display humanlike social intelligence. Monkeys engage in deception, for example; dolphins have been known to care for another injured pod member (displaying empathy), and a whale or porpoise may recognize itself in the mirror. Even some fish exhibit subtle kinds of social skills. Behavioral ecologist Redouan Bshary of the University of Neuch�tel in Switzerland and his colleagues described one such case in a 2006 paper. Bony fish such as the so-called cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus) cooperate and remove parasites from the skin of other fish or feed on their mucus. Bshary's team found that bystander fish spent more time next to cleaners the bystanders had observed being cooperative than to other fish. Humans, the authors note, tend to notice altruistic behavior and are more willing to help do-gooders whom they have observed doing favors for others. Similarly, cleaner wrasses observe and evaluate the behavior of other finned ocean denizens and are more willing to help fish that they have seen assisting third parties.

From such studies, scientists have constructed evolutionary hierarchies of intelligence. Primates and cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are considered the smartest mammals. Among primates, humans and apes are considered cleverer than monkeys, and monkeys more so than prosimians. Of the apes, chimpanzees and bonobos rank above gibbons, orangutans and gorillas. Dolphins and sperm whales are supposedly smarter than nonpredatory baleen whales such as blue whales. Among birds, scientists consider parrots, owls and corvids (crows and ravens) the brightest. Such a pecking order argues against the idea that intelligence evolved along a single path, culminating in human acumen. Instead intellect seems to have emerged independently in birds and mammals and also in cetaceans and primates.

Heavy Thoughts?
What about the brain might underlie these parallel paths to astuteness? One candidate is absolute brain size. Although many studies have linked brain mass with variations in human intelligence [see "High-�Aptitude Minds," by Christian Hoppe and Jelena Stojanovic], size does not always correlate with smarts in different species. For example, clever small animals such as parrots, ravens, rats and relatively diminutive apes have brains of modest proportions, whereas some large animals such as horses and cows with large brains are comparatively dim-witted. Brain bulk cannot account for human intelligence either: At eight to nine kilograms, sperm and killer whale brains far outweigh the 1.4 kilograms of neural tissue inside our heads. As heavy as five kilograms, elephant brains are also much chunkier than ours.

Relative brain size—the ratio of brain to body mass—does not provide a satisfying explanation for interspecies differences in smarts either. Humans do compare favorably with many medium and large species: our brain makes up approximately 2 percent of our body weight, whereas the blue whale's brain, for instance, is less than one 100th of a percent of its weight. But some tiny, not terribly bright animals such as shrews and squirrels win out in this measure. In general, small animals boast relatively large brains, and large animals harbor relatively small ones. Although absolute brain mass increases with body weight, brain mass as a proportion of body mass tends to decrease with rising body weight.

Another cerebral yardstick that scientists have tried to tie to intelligence is the degree of encephalization, measured by the encephalization quotient (EQ). The EQ expresses the extent to which a species' relative brain weight deviates from the average in its animal class, say, mammal, bird or amphibian. Here the human brain tops the list: it is seven to eight times larger than would be expected for a mammal of its weight. But EQ does not parallel intellect perfectly either: gibbons and some capuchin monkeys have higher EQs than the more intelligent chimpanzees do, and even a few pro�sim�ians—the earliest evolved primates alive today—have higher EQs than gorillas do.

Or perhaps the size of the brain's outermost layer, the cerebral cortex—the seat of many of our cognitive capacities—is the key. But it turns out that the dimensions of the cerebral cortex depend on those of the entire brain and that the size of the cortex constitutes no better arbiter of a superior mind. The same is true for the prefrontal cortex, the hub of reason and action planning. Although some brain researchers have claimed in the past that the human prefrontal cortex is exceptionally large, recent studies have shown that it is not. The size of this structure in hu�mans is comparable to its size in other �primates and may even be relatively small as compared with its counterpart in elephants and cetaceans.

The lack of a large-scale measure of the human brain that could explain our performance may reflect the idea that human intellect may not be totally inimitable. Apes, after all, understand cause and effect, make and use tools, produce and comprehend language, and lie to and imitate others. These primates may even possess a theory of mind—the ability to understand another animal's mental state and use it to guide their own behavior. Whales, dolphins and even some birds boast some of these mental talents as well. Thus, adult humans may simply be more intuitive and facile with tools and language than other species are, as opposed to possessing unique cognitive skills.

Networking
Fittingly, researchers have found the best correlates for intelligence by looking at a much smaller scale. Brains consist of nerve cells, or neurons, and supporting cells called glia. The more neurons, the more extensive and more productive the neuronal networks can be—and those networks determine varied brain functions, including perception, memory, planning and thinking. Large brains do not automatically have more neurons; in fact, neuronal density generally decreases with increasing brain size because of the additional glial cells and blood vessels needed to support a big brain.

Humans have 11.5 billion cortical neurons—more than any other mammal, because of the human brain's high neuronal density. Humans have only about half a billion more cortical neurons than whales and elephants do, however—not enough to account for the significant cognitive differences between humans and these species. In addition, however, a brain's information-processing capacity depends on how fast its nerves conduct electrical impulses. The most rapidly conducting nerves are swathed in sheaths of insulation called myelin. The thicker a nerve's myelin sheath, the faster the neural impulses travel along that nerve. The myelinated nerves in the brains of whales and elephants are demonstrably thinner than they are in primates, suggesting that information travels faster in the human brain than it does in the brains of nonprimates.

What is more, neuronal messages must travel longer distances in the relatively large brains of elephants and whales than they do in the more compact human brain. The resulting boost in information-processing speed may at least partly explain the disparity in aptitude between humans and other big-brained creatures.

Among humans' cerebral advantages, language may be the most obvious. Various animals can convey complex messages to other members of their species; they can communicate about objects that are not in sight and relay information about individuals and events. Chimpanzees, gorillas, dolphins and parrots can even understand and use human speech, gestures or symbols in constructions of up to about three words. But even after years of training, none of these creatures develops verbal skills more advanced than those of a three-year-old child.

In humans, grammar and vocabulary all but explode at age three. This timing corresponds with the development of Broca's speech area in the left frontal lobe, which may be unique to humans. That is, scientists are unsure whether a direct precursor to this speech region exists in the nonhuman primate brain. The absence of an intricately wired language region in the brains of other species may explain why, of all animals, humans alone have a language that contains complex grammar. Researchers date the development of human grammar and syntax to between 80,000 and 100,000 years ago, which makes it a relatively recent evolutionary advance. It was also one that probably greatly enhanced human intellect.

Editor's Note: This story was originally printed with the title "Intelligence Evolved"

Source (http://richarddawkins.net/article,3051,Animal-Intelligence-and-the-Evolution-of-the-Human-Mind,Scientific-American)

Are humans animals? Or something special?

It's a debate that tends to revolve around religion, in some quarters - with a strict denial of humans as animals, because it might suggest that evolution could be true,

Evolution is true...we evolved from animals, and as far as I know we are still classed as such, we're not plants, protista, bacteria, mollusks, fungi, or arche-bacteria.

Humans are animals no doubt.

Basically, I just want an example of a system that we use now that is scientific and still does not cover the natural order of things. I realize this is probably impossible by definition but that was my point anyway.

given our history of theory wrongness, i'd probably go with induction on this and just point to one at random then.

Why on earth would they compose such poems for humans? Do we write poems in bear?
I would expect them to create them for themselves. You know, to share with other animals of the same species.


showed that chimpanzees, when confronted with fruit hanging from a high ceiling, devised an ingenious way to get it: they stacked boxes to stand on to reach the fruit.


Ingenious! I can't believe a creature is able to figure out that if you have some sort of structure to climb you can reach a higher location! AMAZING! If only our best scientists could figure out such amazing things, we might even be able to reach the moon! ... If only we had enough boxes to stack..

Like I said, I didn't see the link, but this is the parrot I was talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N'kisi

And some plants trick animals, some might even eat them.
Plants move towards the sun, and minerals will form structures.

Just because an animal is able to do something which is unique to that species doesn't make it sapient or even thoughtful.

Perhaps you can point me to the works of poetry that animals have decided to create which expresses the unique feelings of hibernation?

I can point to the vast majority of humans that DON'T write poetry about hibernation, or the uniquely human experience.

Are you saying that most of humanity isn't human?

I can point to the vast majority of humans that DON'T write poetry about hibernation, or the uniquely human experience.

Are you saying that most of humanity isn't human?

...but they can, you can go to deepest Papua New Guinea and reasonably rapidly bring any human up to speed, you can't with a chimpanzee.

Previously, I'd pointed to conscious abstract art as a uniquely human trait but then I see this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q - not the trained elephant paintings or chimp splashes, FYI.

The thing is, we tend to separate or classify by nature, and this leads to a kind of 'it is, it isn't' worldview, whereas we're really defined by our own system across a range of different attributes that we share here and there with all other animals, we simply seem to average out much better.

Odd post given your name.

...but they can, you can go to deepest Papua New Guinea and reasonably rapidly bring any human up to speed, you can't with a chimpanzee.

How do you know?

How do you know?

...because it's been done.

...because it's been done.

Chimps not writing poetry has been done? Shall I alert the press?

Chimps not writing poetry has been done? Shall I alert the press?

Ok...ay.

I would expect them to create them for themselves. You know, to share with other animals of the same species.


And how would we know whether or not they are doing anything of the sort? When my dog says "roo roo roo" and the dog on the other side of the woods replies "woof woof woof," how on earth can anyone assert that they are or are not composing poetry together in dog? All we have to go on are our human presumptions, which simply don't give us any information either way. If you asked my dog whether humans wrote poetry for other humans, do you think she would know the answer?

And how would we know whether or not they are doing anything of the sort? When my dog says "roo roo roo" and the dog on the other side of the woods replies "woof woof woof," how on earth can anyone assert that they are or are not composing poetry together in dog? All we have to go on are our human presumptions, which simply don't give us any information either way. If you asked my dog whether humans wrote poetry for other humans, do you think she would know the answer?

I find these sorts of comments very weak, much like saying 'well how do you know pink unicorns don't exist?'

All evidence indicates that dogs don't communicate anywhere near to the level humans do, most likely no animal does, and while we can't 'know', we can be 99% sure that dogs are not talking poetry and, more, they're not 'composing' consciously.

I don't see why people seem to want to think that humans are not far advanced in intelligence, given how it's measured, than animals, we simply are, the difference is in understanding the nature of intelligence and placing it in some context.

I find these sorts of comments very weak, much like saying 'well how do you know pink unicorns don't exist?'

All evidence indicates that dogs don't communicate anywhere near to the level humans do, most likely no animal does, and while we can't 'know', we can be 99% sure that dogs are not talking poetry and, more, they're not 'composing' consciously.

I think you rather missed my point. It's overwhelmingly likely that dogs aren't composing poetry as we think of it. I just think it's silly to argue that other animals are "inferior" because they don't communicate in human ways, since we're no better at writing poetry in dog terms than dogs are at writing it in ours. Are humans more intelligent, for a human definition of intelligence, than other animals? Duh. We defined the terms. If "intelligence" instead were defined as "how good are you at detecting and recognizing scents," dogs would be way smarter than we are.

I think you rather missed my point. It's overwhelmingly likely that dogs aren't composing poetry as we think of it. I just think it's silly to argue that other animals are "inferior" because they don't communicate in human ways, since we're no better at writing poetry in dog terms than dogs are at writing it in ours. Are humans more intelligent, for a human definition of intelligence, than other animals? Duh. We defined the terms. If "intelligence" instead were defined as "how good are you at detecting and recognizing scents," dogs would be way smarter than we are.

I would say that the processing speed of the brain is a good indicator, and we've more nuerons, better connections, more neo-cortex layers (than dogs) along with the ability to consciously talk, most notably in the abstract.

If "intelligence" instead were defined as "how good are you at detecting and recognizing scents," dogs would be way smarter than we are.

Except we've invented tools that are way better than dogs

I would say that the processing speed of the brain is a good indicator, and we've more nuerons, better connections, more neo-cortex layers (than dogs) along with the ability to consciously talk, most notably in the abstract.



Except we've invented tools that are way better than dogs

At doing what humans want to do.

I always liked that quote from So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish - "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 mcuck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons." It's silly, but it does rather make my point. The thing is, we, being humans, look at the world from a human perspective. We can't help it. What we can do is recognize that non-humans quite obviously and intrinsically do not. As I said, for a human definition of intelligence, humans are much smarter than dogs. Duh. No one in their right mind disputes that. The problem comes when people start asserting some objective "superiority" or overall "specialness" rather than sticking to facts. The differences in human and canine brain structure are factual. The idea that the human brain is objectively "better" is not, because when we talk about something being "better," it begs the question of "better for WHAT?" Better at composing dirty limericks? Sure. Better at determining what individual animal this lump of poop came from? Hardly.

The idea that the human brain is objectively "better" is not, because when we talk about something being "better," it begs the question of "better for WHAT?"

'Better' for a far greater range of abilities than dogs due to a better brain, it's a 'fact' that human brains are more advanced than dogs, just because dogs have an outsized section of the brain devoted to one specific ability doesn't mean it's equal.

It's rather like saying a modern car is no better than a Model T Ford, it is, it's not the difference between a tractor and a MINI, it's the difference between a more advanced car compared to a less advanced car.

Dolphins, different but possibly equal, one might use the tractor/MINI analogy here because the brains are reasonably similar, we have more in some aspects of the neo-cortex, they have more in others.

Not that the neo-cortex is the sole indicator but it seems reasonably indicative when taking into account other factors.

I think you rather missed my point. It's overwhelmingly likely that dogs aren't composing poetry as we think of it. I just think it's silly to argue that other animals are "inferior" because they don't communicate in human ways, since we're no better at writing poetry in dog terms than dogs are at writing it in ours. Are humans more intelligent, for a human definition of intelligence, than other animals? Duh. We defined the terms. If "intelligence" instead were defined as "how good are you at detecting and recognizing scents," dogs would be way smarter than we are.
Are you trying to imply that plants and minerals are "inferior" to animals?

How arrogant of you! It's just a different type of existance that plants and minerals have, it's not "inferior" or better, just different!

All I am arguing, is that it would be more realisitic to have a 4th category which at the current time only humans (as far as we know) fit into, than it is to try to say that what animals do and what humans do is qualitatively the same.

When somebody discovers the poetry of dogs, or the complex philosphical reasoning of parrots, then they can add parots and dogs into that category as well.

Dogs and humans evolved to survive well enough in their respective original environments. Originally, anyways. Humanity's technological advancement has stalled many natural selective pressures, and most domestic dogs are breed according to artificial parameters set by the former species. Saying one is more advanced than the other is a little misleading, in my opinion.

All I am arguing, is that it would be more realisitic to have a 4th category which at the current time only humans (as far as we know) fit into, than it is to try to say that what animals do and what humans do is qualitatively the same.

Nope. Humans share many biological characteristics with primates, and have all the sexual, cellular, and bodily markers that indicate that they are animals. Simply because our brains are capable of more complex cognitive functions does not warrant the creation of an entirely new kingdom just for us. Bugs and dolphins are dramatically different, but are still both animals.

At doing what humans want to do.

I always liked that quote from So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish - "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 mcuck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons." It's silly, but it does rather make my point. The thing is, we, being humans, look at the world from a human perspective. We can't help it. What we can do is recognize that non-humans quite obviously and intrinsically do not. As I said, for a human definition of intelligence, humans are much smarter than dogs. Duh. No one in their right mind disputes that. The problem comes when people start asserting some objective "superiority" or overall "specialness" rather than sticking to facts. The differences in human and canine brain structure are factual. The idea that the human brain is objectively "better" is not, because when we talk about something being "better," it begs the question of "better for WHAT?" Better at composing dirty limericks? Sure. Better at determining what individual animal this lump of poop came from? Hardly.
You would agree then, that a rock is of the same level of importance as a dog?

You would agree then, that a rock is of the same level of importance as a dog?

"Importance" is a very subjective characteristic.

Nope. Humans share many biological characteristics with primates, and have all the sexual, cellular, and bodily markers that indicate that they are animals. Simply because our brains are capable of more complex cognitive functions does not warrant the creation of an entirely new kingdom just for us. Bugs and dolphins are dramatically different, but are still both animals.
Fungus share many of the sexual,cellular, and bodily markers of plants, yet simply because thier cell walls have more complex protective functions than that of other plants, it warrented the creation of an entirely new kingdom just for them.

"Importance" is a very subjective characteristic.

Indeed, and I think this is causing some misinterpretations.

Dogs and humans evolved to survive well enough in their respective original environments. Originally, anyways. Humanity's technological advancement has stalled many natural selective pressures, and most domestic dogs are breed according to artificial parameters set by the former species. Saying one is more advanced than the other is a little misleading, in my opinion.

Hmm, I'd dispute that, domestic dogs, in the main, have a far better life than those in the wild, which tends to be a reasonably miserable existence. Humans evolved far better to not only survive but utterly change their environment, thus I sleep on a comfy mattress in a house with running water and electricity rather than on the floor.

There's some fun theories, unrelated to this, over who chose who in terms of domestication of dogs, and I suppose cats as well.

Dogs had more to gain from being domesticated than humans did in domesticating dogs.

"Importance" is a very subjective characteristic.
Really?

You shock me! Who would have thunk that in the context of what is "better" someone would bring up other subjective comparisons!?

So subjectively, you would argue that a prototypical rock and a prototypical dog have the same importance?

Fungus share many of the sexual,cellular, and bodily markers of plants, yet simply because thier cell walls have more complex protective functions than that of other plants, it warrented the creation of an entirely new kingdom just for them.

Differences in cellular structure are a pretty big damn deal when we're talking about organisms on an individual level. Humans, on the other hand, are simply mostly hairless primates with the capacity for more complex thought processes and mental functions.

While self-awareness is an arguable characteristic one could use to group humanity into a separate classification, it's not exactly easy to prove in regards to other organisms, and is in my opinion an indicator of a more complex mind rather than any reason for reclassification.


Hmm, I'd dispute that, domestic dogs, in the main, have a far better life than those in the wild, which tends to be a reasonably miserable existence.

Well, to us it may be, but to them it'd simply be another day. Nature for the most part is unconscious and uncaring to what we think is horrific.

Humans evolved far better to not only survive but utterly change their environment, thus I sleep on a comfy mattress in a house with running water and electricity rather than on the floor.

True, but we've genetically stagnated at least partially as a species due to our technological advancement. Individuals with potentially detrimental genetic characteristics (bad eyesight, blood disorders, etc) survive breed freely because of our advances in medical technologies and services, as well as our less understood capacities for altruism and compassion.

All I am arguing, is that it would be more realisitic to have a 4th category which at the current time only humans (as far as we know) fit into, than it is to try to say that what animals do and what humans do is qualitatively the same.

It really wouldn't.

Given we share between 94% and 97% of DNA with chimps, and given how we classify things, there's really no good reason to create a distinct grouping at such a broad level.

We're already Homo Sapiens compared to Simians.

I mean, what's the point, it doesn't help with biology, which is probably the field most interested in classification.

Differences in cellular structure are a pretty big damn deal when we're talking about organisms on an individual level. Humans, on the other hand, are simply mostly hairless primates with the capacity for more complex thought processes and mental functions.

While self-awareness is an arguable characteristic one could use to group humanity into a separate classification, it's not exactly easy to prove in regards to other organisms, and is in my opinion an indicator of a more complex mind rather than any reason for reclassification.




Well, to us it may be, but to them it'd simply be another day. Nature for the most part is unconscious and uncaring to what we think is horrific.



True, but we've genetically stagnated at least partially as a species due to our technological advancement. Individuals with potentially detrimental genetic characteristics (bad eyesight, blood disorders, etc) survive breed freely because of our advances in medical technologies and services, as well as our less understood capacities for altruism and compassion.
And fungus are simply plants with a possible chitin component to thier anatomy.

The criteria used to define Kingdoms has changed drastiaclly over the years, as we have learned more about what seperates various objects from eachother. Currently, we don't know what makes us smarter than animals, we just have a few theories that are changing, and therefore we don't have a good system for re-creating our categories. All I was saying earlier, is that I am sure that when we -do- figure out why we are qualitiatively so different from animals that a new category will be obvious to everyone.

Curently we are classified as animals, because we don't have a good mechanical understanding of what makes us different. But to pretend that the differeneces don't exist is just foolish.

You would agree then, that a rock is of the same level of importance as a dog?

Importance for what?

True, but we've genetically stagnated at least partially as a species due to our technological advancement. Individuals with potentially detrimental genetic characteristics (bad eyesight, blood disorders, etc) survive breed freely because of our advances in medical technologies and services, as well as our less understood capacities for altruism and compassion.

One might argue that the brain is the only important organ left in humans, we can reasonably replace everything else, our actual bodies are becoming less and less important.

I'd say we're not stagnating, purely due to better nutrition, we're able to maximise our potential. It really depends on the time frame, we might be degrading due to the poisons and electronic noise we surround ourselves with, hard to see the dark side is.

It's a time frame judgement that one.

...we just have a few theories that are changing...

This accurately describes virtually all scientific knowledge.

Differences exist between all organisms, it's just a question of how different they are. There's not much reasonable evidence to say that humans are so different from other primates that we deserve our own kingdom, given that we evolved from past primates and that we share immense similarities with currently extant ones.

This accurately describes virtually all scientific knowledge.

Differences exist between all organisms, it's just a question of how different they are. There's not much reasonable evidence to say that humans are so different from other primates that we deserve our own kingdom, given that we evolved from past primates and that we share immense similarities with currently extant ones.
I'm not sure why you choose to focus on primates. We share an immense amount of similarities with mice, and bananas, and even puddles of water.

However, there are very large qualitiative differences between puddles of water, bananas, mice, primates, and humans.

I'm not sure why you choose to focus on primates.

It's called "taxonomy." It might help you with this discussion.

I'm not sure why you choose to focus on primates.

...because they're the closest related?

You could stop being obtuse and start laying out exactly why humans deserve their own classification at such a broad level, what purpose does it serve?

I mean, even if we decide to call ourselves 'Sentients', accurate or not as that may be, what's the point?

Ooh, just nabbing the 200th post.

Mine, MINE, my precious!

I'm not being obtuse...

I'm making a point which is apparently flying above your heads. Using an arbitrary system to say that we are most like things which we are very different from doesn't really help anybody. What have we gained by focusing on primates? Nothing but surprises when we learn how similar we are to parrots and dolphins and ants and elephants and viruses and mold etc.


...because they're the closest related?


This just begs the question... If one were to use language skills to categorize animals, we might be closer related to a parrot. If one were to use "relationship with the environmetn" we might be more closely related to a virus. In terms of some organs, we are more closely related to pigs.


mean, even if we decide to call ourselves 'Sentients', accurate or not as that may be, what's the point?


What is the point in calling ourselves "primates"? What does it accomplish? Better medical devices? No, we still test mostly on mice and use pigs for transplants. Are we able to better understand our language and learning skills? No, we can learn more about that from parrots and dolphins. Societal structure? Elephants are more similar to us in that regard.

The point, would be to have a more accurate understanding of who we are, and be able to better relate to the world around us on a whole. Too many common misconecptions existed about ourselves because we are "most closely relate" to primates. (such as assuptions about how we look at power structures, or the reason and forms in which we use tools etc.)

Thankfully, we have many scientists who don't think in these terms, and thus are more than happy to compare the decision making systems of our brains, and the decision making systems of colonies of ants.

I'm not being obtuse...

I'm making a point which is apparently flying above your heads. Using an arbitrary system to say that we are most like things which we are very different from doesn't really help anybody. What have we gained by focusing on primates? Nothing but surprises when we learn how similar we are to parrots and dolphins and ants and elephants and viruses and mold etc.

It's not arbitrary, it's backed up by DNA, which are the instructions for life, we evolved from the same immediate ancestors, we are very similar, very closely related.

Societal structure? Elephants are more similar to us in that regard.

Why do you think elephants have a closer societal structure than chimpanzees, where did you get this from?

Thankfully, we have many scientists who don't think in these terms, and thus are more than happy to compare the decision making systems of our brains, and the decision making systems of colonies of ants.

They do think in those terms, it doesn't obstruct them from comparing in any way.

Just because we most closely related to chimpanzees doesn't mean we only compare to them, it's just a simple fact that we are and it's the easiest way to classify things, I can't even imagine the diagram that links a virus closer to humans than a chimpanzee.

Let's just stop short of giving equal rights to the beasties, hm?

The basic rule still has to be, we get to eat them, they don't get to eat us.

Why do you think elephants have a closer societal structure than chimpanzees, where did you get this from?


It's just something I've heard over the years.

From various reports such as this:

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/060808a.shtml



can't even imagine the diagram that links a virus closer to humans than a chimpanzee.


Refer back to agent smith quote earlier in the thread.


It's not arbitrary, it's backed up by DNA, which are the instructions for life, we evolved from the same immediate ancestors, we are very similar, very closely related.


It is arbritrary. It's not "backed up" by DNA, it's -defined- by DNA. DNA is by no means the "instructions for life", hormones and environment are just as important. DNA is but one ingredient.

It's just something I've heard over the years.

From various reports such as these :

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/060808a.shtml


http://creation.com/elephantsjumbo-minds-as-well-as-bodies

I've been hesitating to ask this question for quite some time, but are you religious? It's not really an important question as such but this determination to classify humans as unique and special...

Actually, chimpanzee societal structure is more similar to humans in that they live in large social groups composed of both male and female, whereas elephants tend to be female only, males tend to live alone or in groups of males.

Whether the elephant is more intelligent than the chimpanzee may be up to debate, but whether they're more closely related is not.

Fission-Fusion Society

A fission-fusion society is one in which the social group size and composition change throughout the year with different activities and situations. This is the social pattern typical of chimpanzees. Individuals enter and leave communities from time to time. Adult males occasionally wander off and forage alone or join a few other males in a hunting party. Females casually change membership from one group to the other. This occurs especially when females are in estrus and seeking mates. As a result, foraging and sleeping groups reform frequently. Male chimps are the relatively stable core of the community since they rarely join other troops.

What allows for the generally loose relationship between chimpanzee communities is that they apparently recognize a wider range of social bonds than do monkeys. They often have relatives and friends in several different neighboring troops. When chimpanzee communities come together, they usually exchange friendly greetings rather than show aggression. However, it would be a mistake to assume from this that chimpanzee society is always peaceful. The adult males within each community are frequently engaged in complex political activities involving scheming and physical intimidation in order to move up the dominance hierarchy. They develop short-term alliances with other males by mutual support, sharing meat, and allogrooming (grooming others). It isn't always the largest and strongest males who make it to the top of the hierarchy. Often teamwork used to frighten and impress is more effective than any one individual's muscles in achieving chimpanzee goals. This is an indication of their intelligence.

Chimpanzees are not the only primates that change group membership from time to time. For instance, adult rhesus macaque males usually must permanently leave the community of their birth and try to join others in order to find mates. This is not easy since they are not warmly welcomed in their adoptive troop. Group composition of some langur and baboon species also change as a result of the availability of food and mates. Evidently, none of these monkey species change group composition with the ease and frequency of chimpanzees. As a result, their societies are not usually referred to as fission-fusion types.

I'd say monogamy is possibly a human trait though it's hard to say how much of that is cultural compared to natural.

Most notable however is the ease at which groups mix and match, much like human friendship circles, we have core groups, some have friends in other groups and we generally have a wide range of social bonds

Source (http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_2.htm)

Actually, chimpanzee societal structure is more similar to humans in that they live in large social groups composed of both male and female, whereas elephants tend to be female only, males tend to live alone or in groups of males.


Right, beceause male/female segregation NEVER happens in human societies.... Who's ever heard of such a wild idea!? Loner males and social females? Not in -my- human society! </sarcasm>

Right, beceause male/female segregation NEVER happens in human societies.... Who's ever heard of such a wild idea!? Loner males and social females? Not in -my- human society! </sarcasm>

Oh dear...

Taking exceptions to prove a rule, I'm sure there's loner chimpanzees as well, it's not the general feature of their societal structure though.

You're beginning to clutch at straws, given a broad definition of 'beginning'.

Pick up the May '09 issue of Scientific American, it has an entire feature on 'What makes us Human', the word 'chimpanzee' comes in the 4th sentence by the way.

I'll see if I can link from the website.

There you go: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-makes-us-human

Refer back to agent smith quote earlier in the thread.

As someone else pointed out, all animals have those traits, humans are just very successful at it, the analogy is flawed anyway since the vast majority of virus co-habitate with their host quite happily, in fact they make up a fair bit of our own DNA.

It is arbritrary. It's not "backed up" by DNA, it's -defined- by DNA. DNA is by no means the "instructions for life", hormones and environment are just as important. DNA is but one ingredient.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Of course we are an animal, by definition.

I still find educated people that don't know that. Also many people do not know that Linnaeus was searching a way to put humans apart from other animals when he started his work on taxonomy. And we ended up being monkeys...

Whilst chimps are lying around, picking their bums and eating their own shit...

That's what they want you to believe... ;)

Tool use
Modern chimpanzees use tools, and recent research indicates that chimpanzee stone tool use dates to at least 4300 years ago.[16] A recent study revealed the use of such advanced tools as spears, which Common Chimpanzees in Senegal sharpen with their teeth, being used to spear Senegal Bushbabies out of small holes in trees.[17][18] Before the discovery of tool use in chimps, it was believed that humans were the only species to make and use tools, but several other tool-using species are now known.[19][20]

One indication that chimpanzees are really smart is that they have...wars.

Oh dear...

Taking exceptions to prove a rule, I'm sure there's loner chimpanzees as well, it's not the general feature of their societal structure though.

You're beginning to clutch at straws, given a broad definition of 'beginning'.

Pick up the May '09 issue of Scientific American, it has an entire feature on 'What makes us Human', the word 'chimpanzee' comes in the 4th sentence by the way.

I'll see if I can link from the website.

There you go: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-makes-us-human



As someone else pointed out, all animals have those traits, humans are just very successful at it, the analogy is flawed anyway since the vast majority of virus co-habitate with their host quite happily, in fact they make up a fair bit of our own DNA.



Oh dear, oh dear.

Your source:
Title: What Makes Us Human?
Subtitle: Comparisons of the genomes of humans and chimpanzees are revealing those rare stretches of DNA that are ours alone.
Scope (key concepts):

Chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans and share nearly 99 percent of our DNA.
Efforts to identify those regions of the human genome that have changed the most since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor have helped pinpoint the DNA sequences that make us human.
The findings have also provided vital insights into how chimps and humans can differ so profoundly, despite having nearly identical DNA blueprints.


Mhhh... I find pretty obvious that the article quotes chimps early on when the scope of the article is to compare humans with chimps.

Try again, I know you can do better.

Your source:
Title: What Makes Us Human?
Subtitle: Comparisons of the genomes of humans and chimpanzees are revealing those rare stretches of DNA that are ours alone.
Scope (key concepts):

Chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans and share nearly 99 percent of our DNA.
Efforts to identify those regions of the human genome that have changed the most since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor have helped pinpoint the DNA sequences that make us human.
The findings have also provided vital insights into how chimps and humans can differ so profoundly, despite having nearly identical DNA blueprints.


Mhhh... I find pretty obvious that the article quotes chimps early on when the scope of the article is to compare humans with chimps.

Try again, I know you can do better.

I probably wasn't clear, the point I was trying to make was they defined how we're human by seeing how we differ from our closest relative, for good reason, a similar reason to why we're grouped with them.

They didn't define what makes us human by comparing us to elephants.

Ultimately, it was posting a relevantly interesting article to read.

I probably wasn't clear, the point I was trying to make was they defined how we're human by seeing how we differ from our closest relative, for good reason, a similar reason to why we're grouped with them.

They didn't define what makes us human by comparing us to elephants.

Ultimately, it was posting a relevantly interesting article to read.

Ah, I see.

Anyways, thanks for the linky. Saved.

....
All I am arguing, is that it would be more realisitic to have a 4th category which at the current time only humans (as far as we know) fit into, than it is to try to say that what animals do and what humans do is qualitatively the same....

But our behaviour is qualitatively the same. Just because we are quantitavely doing a lot more of it at more complex levels does not change that.

And fungus are simply plants with a possible chitin component to thier anatomy.....

Curently we are classified as animals, because we don't have a good mechanical understanding of what makes us different. But to pretend that the differeneces don't exist is just foolish.

Fungus do not use photosynthesis. And no one is pretending that there are not differences between humans and other animals.

That's what they want you to believe... ;)

These tools are merely there to facilitate the butt picking! :p

...an arbitrary system...

Yeah, see, at this point I pretty much think you just need to try attending an actual biology class, because you're getting sillier by the minute.

One indication that chimpanzees are really smart is that they have...wars.
Well, the patriarchal chimp species, anyhow.

The matriarchal chimp species prefers to use sex to solve their differences.

I have yet to hear of, or witness an animal that is sentient/sapient. (and after looking up the strict definition of the word, I believe the proper word might be sapient?)


Oddly enough, the best that is written up regarding defining the term in the way I mean it is, "personhood"

It entirely depends on what classification scheme is used to define "consciousness."

For instance, in the 1970s a group of researchers ran with the idea that a fundamental and necessary part of consciousness is the ability to recognize one's own self as distinct from other individuals. Imagine their surprise when they discovered that, using this definition of consciousness, an adult chimp is "sentient" while a 2 year old human is not.

Are you trying to imply that plants and minerals are "inferior" to animals?

How arrogant of you! It's just a different type of existance that plants and minerals have, it's not "inferior" or better, just different!

All I am arguing, is that it would be more realisitic to have a 4th category which at the current time only humans (as far as we know) fit into, than it is to try to say that what animals do and what humans do is qualitatively the same.

When somebody discovers the poetry of dogs, or the complex philosphical reasoning of parrots, then they can add parots and dogs into that category as well.

The kingdoms in taxonomy are based on evolutionary history. It is a big big differences between plant, fungus and animals, but no real biological difference between humans and any other primate.

It is just that you focus on the brain. If we choose any other small physiological difference between animals like you do we could argue that the flatworm C. elegans should have it's own kingdom for reason X.

Well, the patriarchal chimp species, anyhow.

The matriarchal chimp species prefers to use sex to solve their differences.

Which is the best evidence that they are intelligent :)

It's just something I've heard over the years.

From various reports such as this:

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/060808a.shtml


Ok that is interesting but it hardly sets them ahead of the chimpanzee.

Chimps show compassion as well. Dr. Goodall wrote how one male became the guardian of two youngsters that weren't his.

Chimps practice rudimentary politics. You can read this in Chimpanzee politics by De Waal


It is arbritrary. It's not "backed up" by DNA, it's -defined- by DNA. DNA is by no means the "instructions for life", hormones and environment are just as important. DNA is but one ingredient.

Blinks. Wow. I really don't know what to say to that.

Well, the patriarchal chimp species, anyhow.

The matriarchal chimp species prefers to use sex to solve their differences.

Eh? Species?

Bonobos have prostitution.

They trade food for sex.

Blinks. Wow. I really don't know what to say to that.

Well, just think about it for a second then.
If DNA were -actually- the "instructions for life", then identical twins, would behave the same way, have all the same likes and dislikes etc.

But they don't, because other factors play an important role as well.

Regardless of whether or not we are related to monkeys that does not mean we "are" monkeys. I don't believe we are like every other animal and are unique here despite those criminals and the like who would act like common beasts. In fact I think it is a rather self-loathing and self-destructive view to think of ourselves as arrogant animals.

Regardless of whether or not we are related to monkeys that does not mean we "are" monkeys.

It's true, we aren't monkeys. We're apes.

Well, just think about it for a second then.
If DNA were -actually- the "instructions for life", then identical twins, would behave the same way, have all the same likes and dislikes etc.

But they don't, because other factors play an important role as well.

Here you go: http://www.chem4kids.com/files/bio_dna.html

From which...

DNA = INSTRUCTION BOOK
Just remember that DNA is the instruction manual for an organism. Even though all organisms use the same five base pairs to build DNA (purines and pyrimidines), it is the order that makes us who we are. Every organism on Earth has a different number and order of base pairs. That order determines your physiology.

Now I know you're applying a different, broader interpretation of 'instructions for life' but you can't in this instance, because we meant it in a specific, understood way.

Hope you enjoy the site, rummage around.

It's true, we aren't monkeys. We're apes.

I believe you understood what I meant. Our actions make us who we are. Some act like apes, others don't.

I believe you understood what I meant. Our actions make us who we are. Some act like apes, others don't.

Ahhh a broad interpretation of the nature vs nuture argument.

In a previous post you mentioned DNA doesn't have much as hormones, etc come into play.

Problem is there are codes that make us what we are. Well I should say suggest as we don't understand the genome yet.

A very interesting answer to nature vs nurture is the case of David Reimer.

A botched circumcision and the decision to turn him into a female. Altered and raised as a girl yet "she" showed all the male characteristics of a boy.

http://www.amazon.com/As-Nature-Made-Him-Raised/dp/0061120561

http://www.amazon.com/As-Nature-Made-Him-Raised/dp/0061120561

We had to study that in General Psych, that guy was creepy, he practically exuded suicidal tendencies....

Regardless of whether or not we are related to monkeys that does not mean we "are" monkeys. I don't believe we are like every other animal and are unique here despite those criminals and the like who would act like common beasts. In fact I think it is a rather self-loathing and self-destructive view to think of ourselves as arrogant animals.

Why is it self destructive to think we are animals? And why is animals arrogant?

The science of biology lays no judgment on how worthy different organisms are, they are classified dependent on their evolutionary history. Humans evolutionary history is within the kingdom of animals and hence we are an animal. We do not really have anything that is unique compared to any other animal. What are your scientific reason to differentiate us from the animals?

This is the link Daganeville originally put up about elephants, that was edited after I raised the religious question but remains in the section as I quoted:

http://creation.com/elephantsjumbo-minds-as-well-as-bodies

Conclusion

Strip away the media hype and evolutionary spin, and the empirical evidence reveals that elephants rival, and even surpass, chimpanzees in many areas of intelligence, self-awareness, social complexity, emotional capacity, tool use, artistic and linguistic ability.

The Bible makes it clear that elephants and chimpanzees were created as distinct, animal ‘kinds’. However, human beings were specially created in the image of God with an intellectual, technological, emotional, and spiritual capacity far superior to any animal. Chimps are not human relatives any more than birds or elephants are, so when any other group of animals rivals chimps in ‘closeness to humans’, it may surprise evolutionists, but not creationists.

While I give Daganeville the benefit of the doubt, very charitably in my opinion - though I can easily imagine s/he just googled and linked without realising the significance - there's just no purpose to reclassification other than a creationist viewpoint.

The next step is asking why we don't consider the earth as the centre of the universe rather than this arbitrary method of using the likely source of the big bang as the centre, generally for no better reason.

I find these sorts of comments very weak, much like saying 'well how do you know pink unicorns don't exist?'

All evidence indicates that dogs don't communicate anywhere near to the level humans do,


'All evidence' indicates nothing of the sort. We simply don't know.

You use lack of knowledge as evidence, and have the termerity to call another argument weak?

I'm not being obtuse...

I'm making a point which is apparently flying above your heads. Using an arbitrary system to say that we are most like things which we are very different from doesn't really help anybody.


There's nothing arbitrary about it.

Species are linked by genotypical (and thus, often, phenotypical) characteristics. That's about as UN-arbitrary as you can get.

It's true, we aren't monkeys. We're apes.

However, our "closest relative" in your view is a Chimp, which is a monkey.

We share the most DNA with a monkey, yet we are classified as apes. You see no problem with this and your claim that DNA matters most?

Here you go: http://www.chem4kids.com/files/bio_dna.html

From which...

Now I know you're applying a different, broader interpretation of 'instructions for life' but you can't in this instance, because we meant it in a specific, understood way.

Hope you enjoy the site, rummage around.

So you want to limit our understanding of reality based on term usage used to explain things to children? Sorry, but I prefer to look at reality as it is, not as it is simplified.

There's nothing arbitrary about it.

Species are linked by genotypical (and thus, often, phenotypical) characteristics. That's about as UN-arbitrary as you can get.

And that is a better system than being linked by function, purpose or environment why?

However, our "closest relative" in your view is a Chimp, which is a monkey.

We share the most DNA with a monkey, yet we are classified as apes. You see no problem with this and your claim that DNA matters most?

This is incorrect. Chimpanzees are considered apes, not monkeys. The difference between monkeys and apes. (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-monkeys-and-apes.htm)

And that is a better system than being linked by function, purpose or environment why?

Because living organisms do not have specific functions, environments or purposes, but they do have specific DNA and structure.

While I give Daganeville the benefit of the doubt, very charitably in my opinion - though I can easily imagine s/he just googled and linked without realising the significance - there's just no purpose to reclassification other than a creationist viewpoint.


Correct, I googled it, saw the line in there about elephants mourning their dead, brain size, and matriarch based family life, and didn't read the rest of it.

I took it down, when I saw the url name and realized it would just confuse the argument because you would look at "who it came from" instead of "what it said."

Research on Elephants is very limited, research on chimpanzees has been popular and unquestioned since the 60s. I wouldn't expect there to be many people to question the status quo without a reason to do so, but it's a question that should be raised anyways.

We find the most human like behavior in Grey Parrots, African Elephants, Chimpanzees and bottle nosed Dolphins.

If your understanding of us humans being just another animal, I would expect to find the most human like charachterstics in Chimps, Babboons, Great Apes, and Lemurs. (Which share many characteristics beyond just DNA) Not in animals that are outside our class.

This is incorrect. Chimpanzees are considered apes, not monkeys.

ahh, when science and society differ.

A google image search for "monkey" gives 10 out of the first 25 results as a chimp.

When you do a google image search for "ape" you get 2 out of the first 25 results as a chimp.

Fun times there.

However, our "closest relative" in your view is a Chimp, which is a monkey.


Chimps aren't monkeys.


And that is a better system than being linked by function, purpose or environment why?

Originally, taxonomy WAS organised by phenotypical characteristics. In order to move away from arbitrary choices like 'function', which are debatable - we have moved towards genotypical characteristics, which are concrete.

Example - a fish and a seal both swim. You could claim that as a function. Does that mean that a seal's closest 'relative' is a guppy?

ahh, when science and society differ.


It's fine for science and society to differ. Because not everyone is a scientist. Of course, when you're discussing something like the definition and categorisation of species - it's the scientists who win the toss.

I believe you understood what I meant. Our actions make us who we are. Some act like apes, others don't.

Yes, you meant to make a silly point and couldn't even get the basic science involved correct. And 100% of humans act like apes, by definition, because we are apes. I act like an ape to the same degree that I act like a human or a woman or a Poliwanacraca, seeing as I have no other option.

However, our "closest relative" in your view is a Chimp, which is a monkey.

We share the most DNA with a monkey, yet we are classified as apes. You see no problem with this and your claim that DNA matters most?



So you want to limit our understanding of reality based on term usage used to explain things to children? Sorry, but I prefer to look at reality as it is, not as it is simplified.

These two pieces of post, put together, are possibly the funniest thing I have read all day - and I spent the past couple of hours reading a comedy blog. Bravo!

Chimps aren't monkeys.



Originally, taxonomy WAS organised by phenotypical characteristics. In order to move away from arbitrary choices like 'function', which are debatable - we have moved towards genotypical characteristics, which are concrete.

Example - a fish and a seal both swim. You could claim that as a function. Does that mean that a seal's closest 'relative' is a guppy?
Would you argue that phenotypical is arbitrary or not?

So because genealogical isn't debatable that means it isn't arbitrary?

If we categorized animals by chemical composition that also would not be debatable, would you say it's not arbitrary? Or perhaps color, weight, density?

If swimming was a valid function then sure, but I doubt swimming could be argued to be a valid function.

But if you don't like function, then perhaps you would want to categorize by niche?

So because genealogical isn't debatable that means it isn't arbitrary?

No. Because genes define what an animal is (not quite the way I want to put it, but I can't think of a better way) using them to define groupings is perfectly valid and logical.


If we categorized animals by chemical composition that also would not be debatable, would you say it's not arbitrary? Or perhaps color, weight, density?

Color, weight, and density all vary immensely between animals of a single species. As for chemical composition, the exact numbers will be dependent on environmental factors (such as, for instance, how much salt the creature has eaten).

If swimming was a valid function then sure, but I doubt swimming could be argued to be a valid function.

Then please give an example of a 'valid function'.

But if you don't like function, then perhaps you would want to categorize by niche?

'Niche' can change. Just because a species is adapted well for niche X doesn't mean it can later find itself surviving well in niche Y. Also, if I understand what is meant by 'niche' then polar bears and penguins should be grouped together (they both live in cold and harsh conditions). If this isn't a valid niche, the please give a better example.

Would you argue that phenotypical is arbitrary or not?


I would argue that phenotyping isn't deliberately arbitrary - it attempts not to be - but that it can be.


So because genealogical isn't debatable that means it isn't arbitrary?


You can argue that ANY classification is arbitrary. You can argue that. But I'm not sure what you'd gain from it. If you don't classify, at all, then you have billions of unique and wonderful things (which is good) and no way to collect all that knowledge... no way to predict common characteristics, etc... no way to catalog what you see. So you pick emthodologies by which to categorize - and a GENETIC model is about as un-arbitrary as you're going to get.


If we categorized animals by chemical composition that also would not be debatable, would you say it's not arbitrary?


How would it be helpful? We expect certain common factors from... say, dogs and cats, because there are common ancestors, because they share genetic traits. What would we gain from a pure chemical composition approach? We could be fairly sure that neither skunks nor starfish would spontaneously combust?


Or perhaps color, weight, density?

If swimming was a valid function then sure, but I doubt swimming could be argued to be a valid function.

But if you don't like function, then perhaps you would want to categorize by niche?

If a pigeon that exists in a desert climate, and one that lives in a wet climate, are identical - why should they be separated by niche?

Would you argue that phenotypical is arbitrary or not?

Phenotypical isn't arbitrary, but it has also been shown to often be inaccurate, largely because various animals will end up with similar traits because they fill similar niches in different ecosystems or because its a very useful trait, rather than because they are actually closely related. It's called convergent evolution.

So because genealogical isn't debatable that means it isn't arbitrary?

Until you disprove the notion that DNA is the "blueprint", as it were, for life, genetics are pretty clearly the best means of classification.

No. Because genes define what an animal is (not quite the way I want to put it, but I can't think of a better way) using them to define groupings is perfectly valid and logical.



Color, weight, and density all vary immensely between animals of a single species. As for chemical composition, the exact numbers will be dependent on environmental factors (such as, for instance, how much salt the creature has eaten).


Circular logic there. If a species was defined by it's color, then no two species would have the same color. etc.


Then please give an example of a 'valid function'.



'Niche' can change. Just because a species is adapted well for niche X doesn't mean it can later find itself surviving well in niche Y. Also, if I understand what is meant by 'niche' then polar bears and penguins should be grouped together (they both live in cold and harsh conditions). If this isn't a valid niche, the please give a better example.

If some particular species were to suddenly go extinct, what would be the result on the environment it lived in? Whatever that result would be, the inverse would be it's function.

So if say species Y went extinct and the result was, "species X now has no food source" then the function of species Y would be, "being the food source for species X"

A niche is commonly understood to be:

The concept of the ecological niche is an important one; it helps us to understand how organisms in an ecosystem interact with each other. The concept is described by Odum as follows:

The ecological niche of an organism depends not only on where it lives but also on what it does. By analogy, it may be said that the habitat is the organism's "address", and the niche is its "profession", biologically speaking.

Odum - Fundamentals of Ecology - W B Saunders 1959

Here are a few examples to help you understand what we mean when we (ecologists) use the term "ecological niche":

What do oak trees do? If you can answer that question you know the oak trees "profession" or its ecological niche. Perhaps you think that oak trees just stand there looking pretty and not doing vey much, but think about it.

Oak trees:
1. absorb sunlight by photosynthesis;
2. absorb water and mineral salts from the soil;
3. provide shelter for many animals and other plants;
4. act as a support for creeping plants;
5. serve as a source of food for animals;
6. cover the ground with their dead leaves in the autumn.

These six things are the "profession" or ecological niche of the oak tree; you can think of it as being a kind of job description. If the oak trees were cut down or destroyed by fire or storms they would no longer be doing their job and this would have a disastrous effect on all the other organisms living in the same habitat.


Different between a niche and a function, (in my mind) is that many creatures might have the exact same niche, but a function would be unique to that specific species.

Circular logic there. If a species was defined by it's color, then no two species would have the same color. etc.


So... polar bears, Siberian tigers and maggots are all the same species?

ahh, when science and society differ.

A google image search for "monkey" gives 10 out of the first 25 results as a chimp.

When you do a google image search for "ape" you get 2 out of the first 25 results as a chimp.

Fun times there.

Google images is not an authority on biological taxonomy. Biological taxonomists are.

no way to predict common characteristics, etc...


And of what use is that?

What predictions have we learned from the fact that the DNA of humans and parrots are distant, but the dna of humans and chimps are nearly the same?

Which new diseases have we been able to cure because we classified animals by DNA?

"Google images is not an authority on biological taxonomy."

Who argued that it was?