Are Chimps smarter than Monkeys?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by WANDERER, Jan 14, 2008.

  1. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Messages:
    704
    Questions for the not feint of heart and the not stupid.

    1- If no differentiation can be made between sub-groupings and genetically isolated populations of the same species then how are species produced at all?

    2- If no man can be judged by how (s)he looks, then why can a tree or a dog, and what of empiricism?

    3-If environment only affects the organisms, or a group of organisms, superficially then how does intelligence evolve at all, why is not intellect uniformly distributed across species, and what is the distinction between the physical and the mental?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Such breeds are the result of careful interbreeding. All those breeds would revert to the same general configuration if left to themselves. Humans don't select their mates in the same way, and so such specialization is rare. Pugs have the same genetic potential for intelligence as a collie. Some collies aren't so smart. Some pugs are very clever.

    Are chimps and humans the same? To an amazing degree we are.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Messages:
    704
    Are you saying that breeding is a human invention?

    Does the environment affect a species, just as a man affects his breeds, through selection?

    Case closed, humans are equal to chimps.....or are they just your [flame deleted]?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 15, 2008
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Removed flaming
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2008
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,728
    Where do you think human beings come from in the evolutionary tree Wanderer? Don't you believe we shared a common ancestor with the chimps? Or are you a creationist? Chimps and human share a lot of characteristics. Are we equal to them? Yes. We are equal in terms that we have equal rights to this planet. We are equal in regards to our right to exist.


    ------------------------------------

    One prime example of why we should never judge a man on how he looks:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Upon first glance, those who do judge solely on looks (or assumes that how one looks is an indicator of intelligence) would view him as being retarded. But he is one of the greatest minds of our times.
     
  9. mrow Unless Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    Bravo Enmos! :bravo:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2008
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,728
    I know the temptation to flame him is high, but lets keep it civil.
     
  11. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Bells, I apologize for that 'flaming'.. but wasn't it kind of equal to this:

     
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,728
    I fixed that. Missed it before. Thanks.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    There is no right to exist between species. Rights are a social convention created by humans to facilitate our interactions with each other. As such, rights only apply to humans.

    If an animal does have a right to exist, who should the dinosaurs sue regarding their extinction? Or the dodo? Or a million other species that have come and gone over the millenia?
     
  14. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    lol they are welcome to..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,728
    I meant equal rights to exist on this planet. I'll amend the 'rights' to ability to exist on this planet in regards to each of their own circumstances..

    However, I do believe animals do have rights. I guess we beg to differ on that. If you watch animals in the wild, you will see they recognise what we would deem to be rights or privileges.

    And you are applying their rights to human actions in regards to lawsuits. But to answer your question because I'm feeling cranky this morning and feel the need to be amused..

    Dinosaurs.. act of 'god' in that they cannot sue for an unenforceable event like an asteroid.

    Dodo.. the Dutch..

    Other species.. depends on each of their extinction circumstance.
     
  16. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Messages:
    704
    Ballsy, once more you take an environmental effect which warps or atrophies the natural potentials of an organism, as these are determined by its entire historical past, as evidence of soemthing you cannot defend.

    If I, Ballsy, grab a man and castrate him, will I then point to the dismembered individual as evidence that not all males have penises?

    The disease, Ballsy, that has crippled this man does not negate the entire heritage her carries and w2hich is expressed in his look.
     
  17. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Messages:
    704
    No responses, huh?

    To Ballsy:

    If I come across a burned tree in the forest, looking like a shrub because of what happened to it, will I assume that this tree is no different than the shrub?
     
  18. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Species are not produced, they evolve.
    All members of said groups are genetically different from each other, any drawn line is purely artificial.

    The question is what judgments are made. You can judge a person on their looks if it's the looks you want to say something about.
    Judgments about a persons character based on their looks are more often than not false. It is called prejudice..

    This is just not true. The environment has a large impact on a species gene pool over time.

    I just want to make clear that 'race' is the same as 'subspecies'.
    ALL humans alive today are members of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. So we are ALL the same race.
    The word race (as you want to use it) is thus misused, it is a relic from an ignorant past.
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,728
    *Sigh*

    Trying to book a flight to my aunt's funeral:bawl:.. God damn incompetent airlines..

    My point, Wanderer, was that one cannot judge a man's intelligence by how he looks. We both know Hawking is a brilliant intellectual, most probably the most intelligent human being on this planet. But one would not know that by looking at him because society has a tendency to view non-abled humans as being somehow inferior. For example, you cannot judge a race of people simply because of their race or how they look. One's race is not a determining factor of intelligence. Just as how one does not have to look intelligent to be intelligent. Get it now?

    Hawking is diseased and crippled. Ergo he is genetically inferior to you, assuming you are not diseased or crippled. Does that mean you are better than he is or more intelligent than Hawking? The answer to that would be no.

    And to answer your question, yes, there are some men who are born without penises. Does not mean they are not 'men'.
     
  20. DeepThought Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,461

    :roflmao:
     
  21. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Calling humans Homo sapiens sapiens is based on the idea that neanderthal was actually merely a subspecies of human, Homo sapiens neaderthalentis. But I believe that idea has gone out of favor and Neanderthal is now considered a seperate species. Regarding race=subspecies:
    So variation below the species level is race, and morphologically distinct populations are subspecies. Pretty arbitrary difference, if any, as far as I can see.
     
  22. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Messages:
    704
    That's what I meant, and you didn't answer the question.

    How do species, then, evolve at all?

    And so you are calling empiricism and the entire scientific methodology prejudiced?
    Again, you didn't actually answer the question.

    How does man gather information to judge at all?

    When a biologists judges an organism as belonging to a specific type with general characteristics, common genetic pasts, common method of surviving and reproducing, general physical/mental qualities, is he also not judging using sensual information?
    Why is some sensual information when used to judge indicative of prejudice in one context and not indicative of prejudice in another?

    Does the fact that a species looks a certain way not a result of its entire evolution, its past, its heritage?

    Thanks, genius.
    Now reread the question and try to understand it.

    Indeed. And how did we splinter away from our common ancestor and become a distinct species?

    Okay, lets call it type or kind indicative of a common heritage.
     
  23. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Link ?
    As far as I know all humans are taxonomically classified as Homo sapiens sapiens. I am not aware of any recent change in this.

    Well, it's true. Race = subspecies.
    Maybe different ethnic groups of humans would be classified as different subspecies if it were not humans. But what group would then be the nominate subspecies ? It would not be ethical to do so.
    And even if it were done it would only be on morphological grounds, skin color for example.
     

Share This Page