How strong is a silverbach gorrila compared to a strong adult male human

Humankind sadly has lost a lot of its muscle mass over the years. If you encounter a silverback gorilla and it sees you as a threat to its tribe(I think that's what its called) consider yourself dead. They are bigger and bulkier then us.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Humans are stronger than ants on most definitions of "strength" includng this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_(trait)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

While a gorilla might get within sight of a lion by coming to the edge of the jungle, it seems doubtful that they ever fought in the wild. Lions roam the open plains where their natural prey live. Gorillas live in the jungle where their food can be found. A gorilla might wander to the edge of the jungle & be seen by a lion, but he would not wander far from the jungle. I wonder if lions ever get near the edge of the plains.

I would be amazed if a lion ever attacked a gorilla even if it came lose enough to be seen. Predators did not attack rabbits when they were introdued to Australia, due to their not being familiar prey. The rabbit population grew to become quite a problem. I would be even more amazed if the gorilla did not avoid an encounter.

What I wonder about is whether they ever met in an arena & were forced to fight.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You may notice you use the present tense in your original claim. You may also notice that you are using the past tense in your second statement.

In short you have failed to adhere to the basic principles of logic and consistency.

Are you also claiming that the TV was invented a few million years ago? Because that is also the logical implication of the combined statements if we want to wave away the grammatical inconsistencies.

In my opinion you are merely being intellectually dishonest. But this is not how science works. You make a precise statement. You amend it. But you don't pretend your modification of position is your original position.

This is the end of this discussion though, because I do not believe you can see the difference. Otherwise you would have made the connection yourself.

 

I would doubt it. Of course Silversbacks(The leader) are very protective of their troop. If it sees that it is in danger and it can't run away it may fight. But because of the fact that the Lion is made to kill. I doubt that the Gorilla would stand a chance.

 

No I didn't, in fact I even used the word "past" in my claim!

"I'm pretty sure these two animals have crossed plenty of times before in the past. probably not often enough to capture on TV though"

Don't be covering up your mistakes with stupid statements.

You know very well what my statement was. I don't want to say it again.

Thought so, this is the end of the discussion for you because you want to back out without admitting there's a good possibility I'm right.

 

Yes, this is probably correct. I doubt they would fight if they actually saw each other. But again, we don't really know - might have happened once!

I would agree that the gorillas would wander far less than the lion. The lion is much more likely to wander into a forest at some stage. they are very curious animals and I'm sure they would have no fear. I have seen plenty of documentaries of lions in wooded areas.

I agree. I think they might both get defensive but a fight would be unlikley.

Now that would be interesting!

 

So they had TV in the 19th century?

 

What do you not understand about a simple english sentence?

I have said that they would have met in the past but would have been a very rare occurence. So rare in fact, that the last time they met would probably have been before TV was invented. Hence my sentence:

Do I have to translate everything I say like this? Ah forget it, I don't want to argue about this anymore either.

 

The first part is correct but cheetahs are even worse than lions at climbing.

The second part is wrong - pehaps you were confusing lions with cheetahs who are the only cats that do not have retractable claws. The reason of course is that they are the only cat whose sole method of hunting is "the chase".

 

Several hundred pounds of adult male gorilla is not going to be climbing trees to escape a lion. Nor would any but extremely desperate, suicidal packs of lionesses even consider attacking such an animal.

Lions do hunt in packs, but they kill individually. The kill by attrition and blood loss strategy is poorly suited to them. I suspect a gorilla would be in more danger from a pack of determined, starving hyenas.

About twice the size of the largest jackals - wolf sized.

Going back to the first humans into Australia, there were large animals on the landscape, including predators much larger than a thylacine - capable of killing the ten foot tall kangaroos of the time, probably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_megafauna

Europeans never saw the original landscape of Australia - it had been almost completely modified by human-set fire, the fairly recent extinction of the large animals, etc.

In the book "Last Chance To See", Douglas Adams records the answer given to this question (the one about whether a lion or a gorilla would win a fight) by some professional gorilla guides. Apparently the question is a common one. I refer the curious to the book, passing on only the comment of the guides' supervisor: "I wish they wouldn't do that".

 

No problem, cheetahs were always my favourite animal from when I was about 7 years of age (my first memeory of them was during on "really wild show" episode on the BBC). They are probably still my favourite animal (although I am less obsessed with them now!)

 

An interesting thought about Tigers & I think it applies to lions. They have very little endurance & try ot sneak close to prey before attacking. They have to catch prey with a short fast sprint & a final leap.

In tiger country, the number of tiger attacks on farm workers was drastically reduced by having people wear a rear facing mask. A tiger would not try to attack because he thought he would be seen at a distance. Perhaps it might be more precise to say that his instincts were tuned to not attack prey which was facing him from a distance. Who knows what a tiger (or or lion) actually thinks when hunting prey?

 

Well, yes this is correct. Lions don't have a lot of endurance (compared to predators such as hyenas or hunting dogs). They do also try to get as close to their prey as possible. However the big difference is that lions work in teams so it is a good bit easier for them since they can use ambushes. Tigers have to do a bit more individual work and therefore tend to be bigger, stronger and more agile than a lioness.