Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
Take eyesight, for example. Yes, an eagle has far superior clarity of vision at a distance. But it has crappy colour vision and crappy low-light vision. Humans spank eagles in those aspects of vision. Humans are excellent all-rounders when it comes to vision.
HUmans can run with less effort due to the springiness of human legs. The force of impact of each footfall is partially stored in the form of compression and bending in the leg and released when pushing off for the next step, significantly reducing the effort required. Humans can do a medium run with a far lower proportion of maximum effort than other animals can.
So humans tire more slowly and overheat more slowly. It`s an advantage that was crucial when humans were hunter-gatherers on the plains of Africa. Persistence hunting works, so our ancestors ate.
Horses are unusual because they have been selectively bred by humans for millenia. They are, in effect, genetically engineered by humans to increase their speed and stamina.
They still can`t outrun equally fit humans over long distances. Horses bred for endurance can beat humans up to marathon distances, but beyond that it`s humans all the way.
The issue is sustained speed. A human in good shape can do a steady jog all day. No other animal can. At best, they can maintain a brisk walking pace...and human jogging pace is faster. A fit riding horse can comfortably sustain about 35 miles per day. A fit human can beat that while carrying half their own weight.
Lool so true.
Horses tire easily. Contrary to popular belief, horses can run for only about 45 minutes. Thats why they used so many horses for the pony express. Riders switched horses every hour.
Its true that we will not destroy it, but we could if we had to.
However I think things are going the other way. We are making the planet more suitable for ourselves, at the expense of the rest of life.
My fellow human, I`ve seen a polar bear in a sidecar using a machine gun. We`re royally f*cked.
I say we`re just testing how much bullsh*t the planet can take. One day, it`ll go postal on us and the Galactic News Network will have something of substance to report on other than claiming to be "The Unbiased Voice of the Galaxy." You`re not fooling anyone, GNN! We know you support the Nuglonion Party!
For Old Testament fundamentalists, first define the context of the "likeness" or "image" in which God supposedly created us.
If intellectual, consult the chart above or any other cognitive studies which establish the necessary building-blocks for a volitional, autonomous consciousness (I believe this one will do).
If physical, simply refer to the indisputable genetic similarity between Human Beings and nearly every other member of the Animal Kingdom (or Plant, for that matter).
Either way, whatever `image` He created us in is shared by other species strongly enough to qualify all of them for inclusion, at least to some degree. Therefore, God necessarily reflects some degree of `likeness` with all other living creatures on the face of the planet, and that either makes him an animal too
And of course, 5,000 years ago in the time of Noah humans lived 400-500 years, some even more than that. Right?
Yeah, I`d concur with that. Last month it was men in bras this month it`s infographics.
One difference between humans and any other animal is that we can use our language to talk about hypothetical events in the future.
We can only run the farthest because we intentionally train to do so. If a deer had the mind to train to run a marathon, I bet it could run it faster.
not true. we definitely didn`t develop it for no reason. there are lots of reasons as to why bipedalism developed, but whatever benefits it gave us such as freeing of the hands caused problems. one of the main problems was it made us slow.. excruciatingly slow. we had to be able to chase prey to exhaustion, often for days in order to make a kill. meat was EXTREMELY important in early humans diets.
Whether we`re a virus or not, the earth is pretty damn strong. We will not destroy it. At worst, we will make it unsuitable for ourselves. "
I agree with opiebreath (she is infinitely awesome) we wont kill the planet, she`ll kill us. we are nothing to this planet. we humans will all be dead long before the planet goes.
Whether we`re a virus or not, the earth is pretty damn strong. We will not destroy it. At worst, we will make it unsuitable for ourselves.
Cause we`ll all be gone!
Good infographic, the quahog clam lifespan blew me away...but I guess that wouldn`t matter to one without a defined brain. (Oh well, more chowder for us!)
Hmm... We`ve got technology. We`ve got transistors, penicillin and apple pie!
Lots of other species, including monkeys, apes and dolphins, make complex battle plans in advance--something impossible to do without an imagination, as you have to imagine an enemy that is not yet present.
There is some difference between comparing 500 years ago to 100 years ago, though. airsofter1 mentioned 100 years ago, in which case people undoubtedly were able to live well past their 30`s because there are plenty of documented cases. 500 years ago, maybe people didn`t often live past their 30`s.
I suppose the whole point though is that our lifespan has increased, whether it took 100 years or 500 years, so I`ll concede the argument.
...and what`s with all the infographics lately? I just don`t find them very entertaining.
Wrong. `Average` lifespan is usually worked out on ADULT death age, NOT taking into account infant mortality rates. The average person 500 years ago lived to 35-40, 200 years ago it was normal to die around 50. At the time of my birth (1966) the average male lived 63 years, that figure in 2010 is now 67 years.
These figures are world averages, which DO take into account places like Ethiopia, where the average adult dies somewhere in their mid-30`s. First-World median age at death has not tripled, but it is certainly at least 25% better than it was a couple hundred years ago.
well... you are an animal.what did you think you where?
We haven`t tripled our lifespan; that idea is a statistical fallacy. We have tripled our *average* lifespan. The reason why our average lifespan used to be shorter is because there was such a high infant mortality, so that dragged down the average. People could live into their 80`s in the past, though, granted, there weren`t many. We have extended our lifespan somewhat, as people didn`t generally live into their 100`s, while there are many who do now, but people didn`t typically die in their 30`s in the past, either.
As far as the post: It`s more the culmination of all of those things that makes us think that we are unique. Further, our abilities in these areas are more advanced than those of other animals. There is a gradient of ability and we happen to be at the high end of mental ability.
I will say, however, that in terms of evolutionary fitness, insects have us beat hands down because there are so many more of them and reproduction is the only measure of fitness in Darwinian Theory.
That may be good or bad. Take it as you will.
Like you`re going to spot any difference hanging out on IAB lol!
*Walks off to the mirror to admire his irrefutable sexyness*
So, really, why isn`t this showing what animals can make up an ape?
we are very unique. this poster sais it takes 8 animals to have what we have
I see no difference between any of us.
We forget we are animals too