Do you consider Humans to be Animals?

[Valdehmar]

That's a rather misleading statement. How exactly do you define advanced?

I wouldn't say we were the most advanced, just because we have what we deem a discernible language and because we have apposable thumbs that doesn't make us more advanced along the evolutionary scale than, let's say, dogs. Sure, they might not have thumbs and they can't speak like a human, but they can communicate equally as well as any person can between themselves, and they have no need for extra appendages because they are perfectly suited to their lifestyle as they are.

I find such a statement fairly arrogant and rather untrue, of course, it depends on your definitions of 'advanced'

Do you see dogs with medicine as advanced as ours? What about weapons, or computers? I say advanced because technologically, we are.

You bring up the question of advanced species in a thread debating humans being animals, and you expect me to deduce you meant technologically advanced? Seems legit.

[Hammurab]

Yes. I do.

My Rottwieller can use a computer.

Well, a Mac.

[Hydralis]

Do you see dogs with medicine as advanced as ours? What about weapons, or computers? I say advanced because technologically, we are.

You bring up the question of advanced species in a thread debating humans being animals, and you expect me to deduce you meant technologically advanced? Seems legit.

Take it as you will. The reason humanity advanced was because of technology. It was simple tools at first, like the things that apes use. Just sticks and stones. Then we learned how to make the sticks and stones work better. And we just kept getting more advanced.

[Hetland 2]

You bring up the question of advanced species in a thread debating humans being animals, and you expect me to deduce you meant technologically advanced? Seems legit.

Take it as you will. The reason humanity advanced was because of technology. It was simple tools at first, like the things that apes use. Just sticks and stones. Then we learned how to make the sticks and stones work better. And we just kept getting more advanced.

I have cats that can open doors. Is that close enough?

[Hammurab]

You bring up the question of advanced species in a thread debating humans being animals, and you expect me to deduce you meant technologically advanced? Seems legit.

Take it as you will. The reason humanity advanced was because of technology. It was simple tools at first, like the things that apes use. Just sticks and stones. Then we learned how to make the sticks and stones work better. And we just kept getting more advanced.

You have to admit, the latest generation of stick-and-rock based molecular surface spectrography devices are pretty fuckin' trick.

More rock than stick, these days, but still.

[Tovaslavia]

Humans are animals. We evolved from the great apes. We still have very animal-like qualities, like intuition and natural instincts. Our bodies are a work of evolution, just like all other multi-celled organisms

[Hammurab]

Humans are animals. We evolved from the great apes. We still have very animal-like qualities, like intuition and natural instincts. Our bodies are a work of evolution, just like all other multi-celled organisms

Yeah. Hell, even the single cellular organisms show evidence of evolution.

And that's fuckin' awesome, we come from the GREAT apes! We're great!

All other species can suck it!

[Valdehmar]

You bring up the question of advanced species in a thread debating humans being animals, and you expect me to deduce you meant technologically advanced? Seems legit.

Take it as you will. The reason humanity advanced was because of technology. It was simple tools at first, like the things that apes use. Just sticks and stones. Then we learned how to make the sticks and stones work better. And we just kept getting more advanced.

Although biologically we are no more advance than Chimps, Apes and other primates, in fact, they are probably biologically superior to us considering they are almost all larger, faster and stronger. Chimps also have an incredible and easily discernibly faster set of short-term memory and reaction times.

If we hadn't worked out how to use relatively advanced tools, live in large social groups and discovered fire we wouldn't be the ones ruling the earth right now. Purely from a biological standpoint, Neanderthals should be the kings of the planet considering they were our betters in every way bar sociological skills, which got them killed.

[Hammurab]

Although biologically we are no more advance than Chimps, Apes and other primates, in fact, they are probably biologically superior to us considering they are almost all larger, faster and stronger. Chimps also have an incredible and easily discernibly faster set of short-term memory and reaction times.

If we hadn't worked out how to use relatively advanced tools, live in large social groups and discovered fire we wouldn't be the ones ruling the earth right now. Purely from a biological standpoint, Neanderthals should be the kings of the planet considering they were our betters in every way bar sociological skills, which got them killed.

Is that really what killed them out? Poor sociological skills?

Rough for them. Too bad they didn't have the internet. People with poor social skills can always thrive on the internet.

[Hydralis]

Take it as you will. The reason humanity advanced was because of technology. It was simple tools at first, like the things that apes use. Just sticks and stones. Then we learned how to make the sticks and stones work better. And we just kept getting more advanced.

Although biologically we are no more advance than Chimps, Apes and other primates, in fact, they are probably biologically superior to us considering they are almost all larger, faster and stronger. Chimps also have an incredible and easily discernibly faster set of short-term memory and reaction times.
Exactly. We outsmarted them. They were stronger, but we had a superior mind. Yes, Chimps and Apes are physically superior. They're faster than us, and stronger than us. We can't outrun them, but can they outrun bullets?
If we hadn't worked out how to use relatively advanced tools, live in large social groups and discovered fire we wouldn't be the ones ruling the earth right now. Purely from a biological standpoint, Neanderthals should be the kings of the planet considering they were our betters in every way bar sociological skills, which got them killed.

Exactly. Physically, they are superior, but we have the greater intellect. We can organize, and we can use technology to our benefit in many ways. Apes and Chimps may be faster than us, but are they faster than bullets or cars?

[Valdehmar]

Although biologically we are no more advance than Chimps, Apes and other primates, in fact, they are probably biologically superior to us considering they are almost all larger, faster and stronger. Chimps also have an incredible and easily discernibly faster set of short-term memory and reaction times.

If we hadn't worked out how to use relatively advanced tools, live in large social groups and discovered fire we wouldn't be the ones ruling the earth right now. Purely from a biological standpoint, Neanderthals should be the kings of the planet considering they were our betters in every way bar sociological skills, which got them killed.

Is that really what killed them out? Poor sociological skills?

Rough for them. Too bad they didn't have the internet. People with poor social skills can always thrive on the internet.

It is believed to be a major factor in their demise. This was due to the fact that because they flat-out refused to live in large groups, they struggled to obtain adequate food supplies and were much easier pickings for predators than the socially-skilled Homo Sapiens.

[Straight From Above]

Is that really what killed them out? Poor sociological skills?

Rough for them. Too bad they didn't have the internet. People with poor social skills can always thrive on the internet.

It is believed to be a major factor in their demise. This was due to the fact that because they flat-out refused to live in large groups, they struggled to obtain adequate food supplies and were much easier pickings for predators than the socially-skilled Homo Sapiens.

I gotta admit, it would be take a long time to win a game of Civilization II if you were only allowed to have cities as big as "1".

[Valdehmar]

It is believed to be a major factor in their demise. This was due to the fact that because they flat-out refused to live in large groups, they struggled to obtain adequate food supplies and were much easier pickings for predators than the socially-skilled Homo Sapiens.

I gotta admit, it would be take a long time to win a game of Civilization II if you were only allowed to have cities as big as "1".

Someone should make "Civilisation: Neanderthal Edition"

[Amland]

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

This is why I say we are animals. Because we are scientifically animals. I don't believe in any of this God trash or whatever.

[The Emerald Legion]

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

This is why I say we are animals. Because we are scientifically animals. I don't believe in any of this God trash or whatever.

Scientifically animals don't exist.



I just broke your argument.

[Tlaceceyaya]

This is why I say we are animals. Because we are scientifically animals. I don't believe in any of this God trash or whatever.

Scientifically animals don't exist.



I just broke your argument.

For clarity, did you say:
(Scientifically animals) (don't exist)
or
(Scientifically) (animals don't exist)?

[Straight From Above]

I gotta admit, it would be take a long time to win a game of Civilization II if you were only allowed to have cities as big as "1".

Someone should make "Civilisation: Neanderthal Edition"

Heh...your tech tree is three discoveries long, including "Don't Piss On The Berries".

[The Emerald Legion]

Scientifically, animals don't exist.



I just broke your argument.

For clarity, did you say:
(Scientifically animals) (don't exist)
or
(Scientifically) (animals don't exist)?

Does that clarify?

[Straight From Above]

What is a "scientifically animal"?

Is that like a graduated pyrex monkey or something?

Pardon me, sir. Your black body poodle is shitting on my lawn.

[Tlaceceyaya]

For clarity, did you say:
(Scientifically animals) (don't exist)
or
(Scientifically) (animals don't exist)?

Does that clarify?

I was separating the components of the sentence. Scientifically (adjective) animals (Like fat animals) don't exist, or animals do not exist in a scientific sense?

[Fellskie]

Humans are animals. There's a lot of scientific proof.

[The Emerald Legion]

Does that clarify?

I was separating the components of the sentence. Scientifically (adjective) animals (Like fat animals) don't exist, or animals do not exist in a scientific sense?

I added something to your quote of me.

Scientifically, Animals don't exist.

Humans are animals. There's a lot of scientific proof.

There can't be scientific proof of humans animal status because animal is a slot in a sorting system. It's not an innate portion of somethings being.

It's pretty much all semantics

[Bleckonia]

Yes.

[Valdehmar]

Yes.

Awesome discussion, great addition to the thread.

[Straight From Above]

Yes.

Awesome discussion, great addition to the thread.

You have to read between the lines. There is subtext in the penumbra.