Thread: Adaptation; Human vs Animal

Do animals physically or mentally adapt as well as humans do? I thought of this after getting calluses from doing lots of climbing. For Ex. do monkey develop calluses or do they just naturally always have them. Or do animals get tans?

You can speak of mental situations to but, I am more interested in the physical. I would guess that humans would generaly be better at adapting to mental situations but please say so if I am wrong.

Have at it.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Do animals physically or mentally adapt as well as humans do?

There is nothing in the entire world that humans can do that at least one animal cannot do.

build a computer... build cities, etc.. animals can't build stuff...

Termite mounds...relatively taller than the tallest human skyscraper.

Bird's nests.

Dam (beaver).

etc.

nah.. let me go deeper then, animals don't use electricity to produce light. They don't use oil to travel. they don't go to work every day, and neiter to school. Animals don't write..

You are fishing. You are merely mentioning very specific and confined examples for the sake of elevating the human species to a new level.

I can do the same thing:
Humans can't grow their incisors continuously.
Humans can't build a bird's nest.
Humans can't digest wood.
Humans can't fly (unassisted by modern technology).
Humans can't dive till depths of 500m and more (unassisted by modern technology)

Moreover, humans couldn't produce electricity a few hundred years ago either. By the electric eel could.

Humans can't use horns to show their sexual proweness.

Humans can't pick up a log with their nose.

The list is endless.

Yours is merely based on technology which is ever changing and not a reflection of the intrinsic properties of the human species, other that it has the rare capacity to have a fast cultural evolution. Other animals have cultural evolution too. Nothing that sets us apart.

Except our egos.

still humans do have capabilities that none of the other animals seem to have.

but you mean that animals are the same as humans? Sorry, but they are certainly not.

Unlike all other animals, humans create their own problems. (that's not specific is it?)

How is it fishing? The mental abilities of animals are not on par with ours. There are intelligent animals but nothing that rivals our own ability to think, reason, learn about, and manipulate the world around us. I'm not sure how that's a stretch, it's a pretty significant feature of humanity.

Originally Posted by Zwolver

nah.. let me go deeper then, animals don't use electricity to produce light. They don't use oil to travel. they don't go to work every day, and neiter to school. Animals don't write..

My point is that this entire question is poorly formed, and several of you seem to accept the poorly formed question as reasonable.

You say, for example, that animals don't use electricity. How about the animal known as Homo sapeins? Do all of you who ignored Homo sapiens believe that this species is not an animal?

Of course we're an animal, but that's just a semantics nonsense question because we all realize that 1) we're animals and 2) in the context of this thread, "animals" refers to the rest of the animal kingdom. It's a fairly standard convention in informal conversation.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Of course we're an animal,

Oh, then we agree.

but that's just a semantics nonsense question

Oh, so you didn't notice?

because we all realize that 1) we're animals and 2) in the context of this thread, "animals" refers to the rest of the animal kingdom. It's a fairly standard convention in informal conversation.

I disagree, obviously. I also consider it a poor "convention." Zwolver used the term "other animals". This is clearly superior in my mind than separating humans from animals. To what group do you claim to belong, and do you think that the others who would agree with you here belong, for which you think this a "fairly standard convention"?

It's convention. Ever heard of "animal rights" for example? Do you think no one in the world, except you, realizes that humans are animals? Maybe you should start the revolution to get the terminology fixed.
Gimee a break. In certain context, "animals" can mean "animals other than humans"
Definition #2 from dictionary.com
2. An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.

I guess they're wrong too

Originally Posted by Neutrino

It's convention. Ever heard of "animal rights" for example?

Yes. These people speak on a forum where buzz words are far more important than scientific words, such as on a science forum.

Do you think no one in the world, except you, realizes that humans are animals?

I did not mean to suggest that people here do not know. I just recommend that people say what they know and not use sloppy vocabulary.

Maybe you should start the revolution to get the terminology fixed.

I just did. And look at the reaction that I recieved from you.

Gimee a break.

Would you like a break, or would you demand that everyone accept any sloppy terminology always, in fear of the negative reaction by the users. Have you never objected to what you consider sloppy terminology by others? Never?

In certain context, "animals" can mean "animals other than humans"

I quite agree. However, I personally do not think that a science forum is one of those contexts.

Definition #2 from dictionary.com
2. An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.

I guess they're wrong too

It is not at all that they are wrong. However, I do not think that they had a science forum in mind when developing this definition.

You know, if you want to use the word animal in a science forum to mean certain animals and not others, go ahead. I don't care that much. I just thought that I would point out something that I consider to be fairly important. Your reaction makes it quite clear that you seem to think that if there are 100 definitions for a word in a dictionary then we are entitle to use the word in any context and let the listener guess which meaning we are using at that time. Feel free. How can you blame me for caring about your word usage? Do you seriously think that no one would notice, or do you think that no one has the right to care about the misuse of this word?

You should feel free to use any word you wish in any way that you wish. However, how can you act so surprised when I think that you are misuing your word?

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

You are fishing. You are merely mentioning very specific and confined examples for the sake of elevating the human species to a new level.

I can do the same thing:
Humans can't grow their incisors continuously.
Humans can't build a bird's nest.
Humans can't digest wood.
Humans can't fly (unassisted by modern technology).
Humans can't dive till depths of 500m and more (unassisted by modern technology)

Moreover, humans couldn't produce electricity a few hundred years ago either. By the electric eel could.

Humans can't use horns to show their sexual proweness.

Humans can't pick up a log with their nose.

The list is endless.

Yours is merely based on technology which is ever changing and not a reflection of the intrinsic properties of the human species, other that it has the rare capacity to have a fast cultural evolution. Other animals have cultural evolution too. Nothing that sets us apart.

Except our egos.

I agree.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Do animals physically or mentally adapt as well as humans do?

I answer yes.

OK no one answered my question.

To keep things simple I will stick to one example that I put before.
Calluses: Humans don't have these thick patches of skin unless they use there hands in such a way. And If they stop doing things that create calluses the calluses go away. Do monkeys do this? Or do they just have thick skined hands from birth? If a monkey is caged all its life and never climbs around, aren't its hands just as thick as if he was climbing around?

If a dog sits in the sun all day does it get a tan?

Originally Posted by DaBOB

OK no one answered my question.

I did. You led off this thread with a question, and I answered it.

To keep things simple I will stick to one example that I put before.
Calluses: Humans don't have these thick patches of skin unless they use there hands in such a way. And If they stop doing things that create calluses the calluses go away. Do monkeys do this?

I believe that if you look at the butt calluses of certain monkeys you will find that they vary depending on the monkey's lifestyle/location.

Hermes I think you just like to argue :P

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Hermes I think you just like to argue :P

True. However, I thnk that you are trying to justifiy you poor usage of a scientific term by claiming that the press misuses it freely and so no one should care if you do too.

What the crap..it's not misuse. Language is more than a collection of definitions despite what you seem to want it to be. Although, for the record, dictionary.com clearly supports this usage of the term. There's context in which certain words have different meanings than in everyday usage.
Theory in science is not the same as when Sherlock Holmes has a theory about why the butler did it. It's not misuse of "theory" when Sherlock Holmes has one..
Saying "I'll call you back in a minute" does not mean that in literally 60 seconds, your phone will ring. It's not a misuse of "minute"
And likewise "animal" in THIS context does not include humans, and obviously so.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

What the crap..it's not misuse. Language is more than a collection of definitions despite what you seem to want it to be. Although, for the record, dictionary.com clearly supports this usage of the term. There's context in which certain words have different meanings than in everyday usage.
Theory in science is not the same as when Sherlock Holmes has a theory about why the butler did it. It's not misuse of "theory" when Sherlock Holmes has one..
Saying "I'll call you back in a minute" does not mean that in literally 60 seconds, your phone will ring. It's not a misuse of "minute"
And likewise "animal" in THIS context does not include humans, and obviously so.

Sure. Hey, anyone on a science forum should have dictionary.com available as their source of scientific definitions.

All of your examples, although true, are irrelevant to me. In a biology forum, I would expect people not to defend their non-biology oriented usage of a word by pointing to dictionary.com. I do agree with your statements, for the press, but not for a biology forum. Sorry to bother you. Feel free to use any words you want in any way that you like. Hopefully for you, people will understand your meaning more often than not. Maybe in your case no one has ever been confused by your dictionary.com word usage of any word.

Sorry to interrupt your argument...

I think certain animals like monkees (who are actually very similar to humans, whether or not that has anything to do with it) definately have the ability to adapt to their lifesytle. But it would be less likely that an animal like a fish could adapt to situations as well. Of course, I'm not sure if that could be tested because there really isn't a lot of variation in a fish's life. (Is there?)

Originally Posted by llantas

I think certain animals like monkees (who are actually very similar to humans, whether or not that has anything to do with it) definately have the ability to adapt to their lifesytle.

Several types of animals have been shown to be able to think and change to change their behavior in response to the environment. In addition, several species seem to use a form of language. Great apes not only can use language, but have learned to communicate with humans using complex sign language.

Originally Posted by Hermes

I do agree with your statements, for the press, but not for a biology forum. Sorry to bother you. Feel free to use any words you want in any way that you like. Hopefully for you, people will understand your meaning more often than not. Maybe in your case no one has ever been confused by your dictionary.com word usage of any word.

Would you like me to write to the many scientists who have written popular books on biology using the words human and animal exactly as Neutrino is using them here, and tell them that they were being very unscientific?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Would you like me to write to the many scientists who have written popular books on biology using the words human and animal exactly as Neutrino is using them here, and tell them that they were being very unscientific?

Feel free.