Guest Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 It doesn't take new DNA to change appearance and physicality. Environmental changes will effect how the same genes are expressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 That is also true. I've discussed the topic of capillarization in other threads as an example. For cold weather athletes having increased capillarization as a way to keep extremities warm. For example, studies have shown that if you soak your hands or feet in ice water for extended periods of time that you will have more capillaries per square cm after about a month to six weeks of this treatment. High altitude mountain climbers will train in this manner. Reinhold Messner used to take ice baths for an hour at a time during his training. It does have a positive effect on the ability to stay warm in extreme cold conditions. I give partial credit to this for the fact I still have ten fingers and ten toes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 BF, I think we're talking about adaptation yes? The same phenomenon is responsible for huge muscles on folks who train/pump them to the point of breakdown, swimmers who can withstand depths that would literally squash the air out of a normal person's lungs, or for that matter one who practices shooting a gun eventually gets very good at hitting the target--why? Enhanced hand to eye coordination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Man is an animal; more specifically a great ape: Biota Domain: Eukarya Kingdom: Animalia Subkingdom: Eumetazoa Superphylum: Deuterostomia Phylum: Chordata Subphylum: Vertebrata Infraphylum: Gnathostomata Superclass: Tetrapoda Class: Mammalia Subclass: Theriiformes Infraclass: Holotheria Superlegion: Trechnotheria Legion: Cladotheria Sublegion: Zatheria Infralegion: Tribosphenida Supercohort: Theria Cohort: Eutheria Magnorder: Boreoeutheria Superorder: Euarchontoglires Grandorder: Euarchonta Epiorder: Primatomorpha Order: Primates Suborder: Haplorrhini Infraorder: Simiiformes Parvorder: Catarrhini Superfamily: Hominoidea (apes) Family: Hominidae (great apes -- orangs, gorillas, chimps, proto-humans, and humans) Subfamily: Homininae (gorillas, chimps, proto-humans, and humans) Tribe: Hominini (chimps, proto-humans, and humans) Subtribe: Hominina (proto-humans and humans) Genus: Homo (humans) Species: Homo sapiens (wise humans) Subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens (modern wise humans) To think otherwise is the ultimate in anthropocentric thinking. I suggest rephrasing the question to: "Are bigfoots human?" I don't think so, as there is no evidence of sophisticated tool making. If they were to be classified as Homo, they'd be the least technologically sophisticated of the genus, other members of which at least mastered stone toolmaking. At best I believe bigfoots are hominins, possibly proto-humans; at worst I believe they are at least great apes. Edited October 23, 2012 by Pteronarcyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Tool making is not the determination for humanity. Also, why would bigfoot NEED tools? They are perfectly adapted to their environment. It would be a negative thing if a BF needed tools to survive, it would be an adaptation coming from a position of weakness and frailty if they had to use tools. Tool use is an accomodation, a weakness in the species. A prop to help them survive where otherwise they would die out. I think humans began using tools and their brains because otherwise they'd have died out as a weaker ill-adapted species, not because we are more advanced. More advanced intellectually, yes, but not more advanced physically.... our tool use is a crutch, not an advancement. Where's tool use got US as a species? Rampant overpopulation, fouled our own nest, created the ability to annihilate every species on the planet, created mass suffering and deprivation in a large portion of humanity that should not exist, wars without end, machinery that will outlast us and rot down into toxic waste, we've extincted thousands of species we share the planet with, we've instigated genocide after genocide in every hunter-gatherer tribe we've enountered, made slaves of millions of fellow humans even today, and are generally imploding. Not a great showing for tool use. We ourselves and our planet certainly are NOT better off because of the ability to use tools that homo sapien sapiens have. I'd have to vote that tool use is leading to worldwide societal suicide. Destroying the world you live in and patting yourself on the back for your own cleverness is insanity. More and better tools have NOT been a good thing for our species. That was a rather redundant post, sorry, it's 7 am and I need more coffee. Edited October 23, 2012 by madison5716 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Tool manufacture and use are part of the description for the genus Homo. That's all it is. All members of the genus Homo have made and used tools. There is no judgement or moral consideration in the scientific definition of Homo. Our bodies evolved in response to the fact that our tool usage made life easier. If our ancestors never discovered broken rock technology then we would be hairy and wild just like bigfoot or the australopithecus species we and perhaps they evolved from. As for the judgy part of your rant, we succeeded for thousands of years over the other animals around us and over varied environments including the arctic wastes because we were smart and had the ability to manufacture a wide array of tools. That we have become so populous is a demonstration of our strength as a species. Now we are reaching a boundary. The world is finite and we need to develop new tools, skills and philosophies to overcome the limits of this boundary and/or ourselves. Remember, we didn't have anyone guiding us through our development. We had no idea we were causing extinctions or destroying forests. We are still only learning how we are affecting the world. And we are starting to repair some of the damage we have caused. I think we deserve a little credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 We were also walking upright millions of years before we started using tools. But, I will go look into what you said. Thank you for your reply. This is all so fascinating to me. That we have become so populous is a demonstration of our strength as a species. Now we are reaching a boundary. The world is finite and we need to develop new tools, skills and philosophies to overcome the limits of this boundary and/or ourselves. It's been good in one way, in that we have wildly succeeded in proliferating. However, I don't see us having the intelligence to STOP growing on our own. All evidence is to the contrary. We had no idea we were causing extinctions or destroying forests. We are still only learning how we are affecting the world. And we are starting to repair some of the damage we have caused. I must respectfully disagree entirely. We have known what we are doing for decades and instead of slowing down and building with wisdom, we have ramped up the destruction. Though I do think the whole concept of permaculture is a most excellent development. Anyway, I don't think we have much common opinion and to each his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Tool manufacture and use are part of the description for the genus Homo. That's all it is. So I went and looked things up and these are some of the things I've found. This one says both paranthropus and austrolopithecus breeds were likely using tools. http://blogs.smithso...of-stone-tools/ This article shows ten animals that use tools: http://www.livescien...mals-tools.html At www.freedictionary.com it states the definition of a human is - "Any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage". Nothing about tool use. At http://www.biology-o...ictionary/Human I see the definition of human as: Abipedalprimate belonging to the genusHomo, especially Homo sapiens. and Of, pertaining to, having the attributes of, a being belonging to the species of the Homo sapiens. In taxonomy, humans belong to the family Hominidae, of the Primates, under classMammalia of phylum Chordata. They are identified by the highly developed brain that confers advanced skills in abstract reasoning, articulate language, self-awareness, problem solving, and sapience. They are bipedal primates in having an erect carriage. They are skillful in handling objects with their hands. Humans may also be described as social animals capable of showing sympathy with other beings, and living life with (inherent) values and ethics. Can you show me what you are referencing to say that tools manufacture and use are part of the definition of being human? I would like to read it because I'm not finding it. And I"m not trying to argue, but I do want to read another opinion from the three I found just by a simple Google search with what looked like relatively smart sources. Edited October 23, 2012 by madison5716 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I only have this to add. The "McMansion" derail aside, great thread so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Tool making is not the determination for humanity. Not all tool makers are member of the genus Homo, but all members of Homo have been tool makers. Also, why would bigfoot NEED tools? They are perfectly adapted to their environment. It would be a negative thing if a BF needed tools to survive, it would be an adaptation coming from a position of weakness and frailty if they had to use tools. Tool use is an accomodation, a weakness in the species. A prop to help them survive where otherwise they would die out. All successful adaptations are, by definition, coming from a position of weakness and frailty. A successful adaptation gives an individual or species an advantage over those it is competing with, intraspecifically or interspecifically, respectively. [O]ur tool use is a crutch, not an advancement. Feel free to advance yourself by giving up all tool use. If you do, mind if I start a pool on how long you survive in your advanced lifestyle? Where's tool use got US as a species? To the tippy top of the planet's food chain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 As I've noted before, we are at the top of the food chain... until the bullets run out.... Have you seen the documentary about that Korean guy that spent months at a time hiding in blinds in Siberia in order to film wild tigers? He made a rather cogent comment, that in cities humans feel like we are gods, invincible. However, in the wild (especially when confronted by a wild tiger) invincibility has nothing to do with it... it was a humbling experience. Tool use is our adaptation, the same as hermit crabs borrowing snail shells is an adaptation. BF adaptation seems to be more along the lines of being the biggest, baddest hominid in the neighborhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) Feel free to advance yourself by giving up all tool use. If you do, mind if I start a pool on how long you survive in your advanced lifestyle? And my point is, I wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in you-know-where without my tools, lol. Don't make that betting pool, it'll be a short game! Without my game-changing tools, I might as well change my name to "Snack"! Edited October 24, 2012 by madison5716 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Please forgive me See if I am off base here. I have not read the entire thread so do not know the direction it has taken thus far. But as I read your post I wonder… What makes a human human? Please know I am not poking, just honestly wondering. Would it be the traits you mention in your OP such as mourning of the dead, falling in love, believing in an afterlife? If so there are many, many humans that would not be considered human than. We have Jeffrey Dahmer types, Hitler types, atheists. I’ve seen people that would walk over newly passed kinfolk just to get all they could. I’ve seen able-bodied adults swindle others in need. I’ve seen innocent people suffer at the hands of others. I’ve seen greed that killed. I see war over whose vision of the after-life is considered right. I see war over who thinks the other should parish over things like skin color and heritage. Fall in love? Does love even exist? I have come to think only degrees of usefulness exist. The more useful you are to someone the more they want you, as that need is met you become less useful until you are no longer needed. I have never found loyalty, or love – only those that say what it takes to get what they want until they find better, or those that just flat out take what they want. Some say inspite of these types the majority of mankind is good, so I hear tell. Now, on the animal side however, there are those instances that don’t fit what is considered norm as well. I watch my group of Mourning Doves and think of how they mate for life – something I have never seen, and more than likely never will in my human life. There are several animals that do. I have seen pets mourn the loss of another animal, or person until they too passed from the grief. I’ve seen stories on one species of animal adopting another when it was in need – such as a dog nursing a kitten when a mother was lost, or pets that were smart enough, or lead by some means, to save human life. And we learn most animals kill for need, not just to put a trophy on a wall. When I read reports of sightings that say these creatures look so human-like it makes me uncomfortable. Uncomfortable in that if they are higher order like us does that mean they struggle in their existence? That thought is sad. Not much too really add to the discussion in the end I suppose. Just letting thoughts dribble though the fingers. Please forgive if out of place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 When I read reports of sightings that say these creatures look so human-like it makes me uncomfortable. Uncomfortable in that if they are higher order like us does that mean they struggle in their existence? That thought is sad. Sadder still to kill one for the sake of proving it lives? There is no doubt in my mind that killing one in any other scenario than self defense, will do emotional damage to the killer. I believe they have emotions and thoughts. Heck, I even think they can have a sense of humor! Whatever it is they are found to be in the end... it will have implications on our culture. They are not just clever animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 You're not out of place BigGinger. You've made some intelligent observations, actually. The truth is, at this point anyways, we don't really know if Bigfoot is closer to an animal in terms of the things you touched on, or a human. Hopefully in the near future we get some answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts