What is a Man? Points to ponder...

[Edbear]

You do realise a goat is a wild sheep? One has just been domesticated and bred into a very docile meat machine.

And that wild sheep (sheep in the modern form you recognise them) are found wild all over the world?

Me thinks your in denial of whatever doesn't suit your mankind being put on this earth in an advanced state theory.

We've done ok so far... Even if our mental capacity had not evolved, we still would have survived... we learned how to make fire, steered clear of the dominant predator of the millenia, caught some monsterous animals for food, carved drawings into walls, developed the ability to survive in some of the most hostile environments that the planet has ever had... everything you have mentioned above, humans have been able to achieve without being anywhere near as domesticated/intelligent as we are today...

What makes you so sure we couldn't have survived? I can't understand why you are so sure that we would have died off?

I'm obviously talking way over your heads. Go and actually do your own research instead of parroting very limited statements and hearsay by others. Your understanding of biodiversity and genetics, of "evolution" and of Earth's and Mans history is sadly lacking. You're talking old schoolboy ideas that are so far out of date as to be laughable.

No disrepect to your intelligence or motives, simply a lack of up to date and accurate knowledge.

[Headbanger]

I'm obviously talking way over your heads. Go and actually do your own research instead of parroting very limited statements and hearsay by others. Your understanding of biodiversity and genetics, of "evolution" and of Earth's and Mans history is sadly lacking. You're talking old schoolboy ideas that are so far out of date as to be laughable.

No disrepect to your intelligence or motives, simply a lack of up to date and accurate knowledge.

Lmfao, now thats a post I can relate to.

Personally I have never once come across anything backing up what your putting forward, So Im going to say I'm comfortable in my understanding of mans position in the great scheme of things, our history, and the role played by evolution.

[Headbanger]

And these guys back it up.

http://activity.ntsec.gov.tw/lifewor...tion_cc10.html

http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm

Australopithecus Alpha (about 4 to 3 million years ago): Existing archaeological evidence show that the Australopithecus Alpha is the oldest ancestor of mankind. Archaeologists gave the name “Lucy” to the earliest Australopithecus Alpha. She was a Hominidae that lived on trees half of the time. Her brain size was about one-third of a person’s brain. The most important thing was that she could only walked with her hind legs, so different from other animals that walked on four limbs.

[Rogue Rider]

Man-Kind: an odd breed of destructive and thrill seeking idiots.
Man-Look: to search thoroughly at a glance so one can objectify and abuse females for moving things
Manimal: Hairy man fan, no shaving necessary.
Mantle: a place to stick shit
Man-key: a tool for every hole.
Man-Tool: again a larger tool for a different hole, or to hit with.
Man Time: any time that fits

[Edbear]

Lmfao, now thats a post I can relate to.

Personally I have never once come across anything backing up what your putting forward, So Im going to say I'm comfortable in my understanding of mans position in the great scheme of things, our history, and the role played by evolution.

And these guys back it up.

http://activity.ntsec.gov.tw/lifewor...tion_cc10.html

http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm

Australopithecus Alpha (about 4 to 3 million years ago): Existing archaeological evidence show that the Australopithecus Alpha is the oldest ancestor of mankind. Archaeologists gave the name “Lucy” to the earliest Australopithecus Alpha. She was a Hominidae that lived on trees half of the time. Her brain size was about one-third of a person’s brain. The most important thing was that she could only walked with her hind legs, so different from other animals that walked on four limbs.

As I said, so out of date as to be laughable! Australopithecus? C'mon, get with the times. You very obviously have not done any personal study on the subject which is no surprise that you haven't
"personally come across" any evidence... Try some recent science...

[Headbanger]

As I said, so out of date as to be laughable! Australopithecus? C'mon, get with the times. You very obviously have not done any personal study on the subject which is no surprise that you haven't
"personally come across" any evidence... Try some recent science...

I'm happy with the accepted view of real-world experts in the field.

That's what we pay them for.

Of course, if you do manage to sway the experts with your claims their ignorance is laughable then I'll take your claims seriously. So far I only have your word for it.

[mashman]

I'm obviously talking way over your heads. Go and actually do your own research instead of parroting very limited statements and hearsay by others. Your understanding of biodiversity and genetics, of "evolution" and of Earth's and Mans history is sadly lacking. You're talking old schoolboy ideas that are so far out of date as to be laughable.

No disrepect to your intelligence or motives, simply a lack of up to date and accurate knowledge.

Perhaps you have "book blindness" and lack the ability to detach yourself from the subject enough to offer an objective view ... I say this as an uneducated man, but feel it's validated by observation, based on your comments in regards to the abilities of animals, or lack of, as you allude to... they're still here... even the stoopid ones... which contradicts your argument that "dumb" animals can't make it in this world... and there's no "pretty polly" here...

"Animals have no control over their fate" - nope, because they're all fatalists they'll jump off that cliff if their friend does it.
"We don't breed fast enough" - We don't? coulda fooled me...
"Humans possess two things animals don't, a superior brain " - because dolphins don't travel by submarine?
" and an intangible quality that has animals instinctively wary " - wouldn't you be wary of walking up to a Lion in its habitat?

and a few more...

You must be able to see that my confusion is not based on lack of "understanding"... but one of conflicting logic...

[Edbear]

I'm happy with the accepted view of real-world experts in the field.

That's what we pay them for.

Of course, if you do manage to sway the experts with your claims their ignorance is laughable then I'll take your claims seriously. So far I only have your word for it.

You only "have my word for it" because you can't be bothered finding out anything for yourself, and for very link such as you provide there are others with the opposite view from just as highly qualified scientists.

I have researched everything currently available on relevant subjects and trust me, you have no idea. Your attitude is one of a person easliy led and convinced of what he would prefer to believe.

If not, tell me what personal study you have done to confirm the veracity of these links. Just beacause someone with letters after their name says something doesn't make it true. Much of what we have been taught as Gospel has in recent years been totally discredited. That includes calling into question the age of life itself. Is it really 3.5m years old? I bet you firmly believe the Earth is 4.5b years old as well.

Now post the links to the science about these questions and why they cannot be taken as gospel. I bet you've never even heard of any recent science questioning dates.

Perhaps you have "book blindness" and lack the ability to detach yourself from the subject enough to offer an objective view ... I say this as an uneducated man, but feel it's validated by observation, based on your comments in regards to the abilities of animals, or lack of, as you allude to... they're still here... even the stoopid ones... which contradicts your argument that "dumb" animals can't make it in this world... and there's no "pretty polly" here...

"Animals have no control over their fate" - nope, because they're all fatalists they'll jump off that cliff if their friend does it.
"We don't breed fast enough" - We don't? coulda fooled me...
"Humans possess two things animals don't, a superior brain " - because dolphins don't travel by submarine?
" and an intangible quality that has animals instinctively wary " - wouldn't you be wary of walking up to a Lion in its habitat?

and a few more...

You must be able to see that my confusion is not based on lack of "understanding"... but one of conflicting logic...

Like I said, right over your head.

[Headbanger]

I am well aware there are multiple views on just about everything, If you looked at my links they represent two different approaches.

And yes, I'll be easily led and allign myself to the combined might of the real world experts rather then the internet ones.

anyway, How old is the earth in your view?, and what makes you contest it?

[Edbear]

I am well aware there are multiple views on just about everything, If you looked at my links they represent two different approaches.

And yes, I'll be easily led and allign myself to the combined might of the real world experts rather then the internet ones.

LOL!!! Just in case it escaped your notice, what were those links to? Not anything on the Internet were they..?

Let me illustrate. Re: the age of the planet and why do they say 4.5b years? There is much discussion and many differing views among scientists as to the age of the rock we live on. Some opine a much lower age, some opine a much older planet. It is simply an average of scientific opinion, not based on verifiable science that leads most to settle on 4.5 billion years as a best guess.

There is no solid evidence for any assertion. The upshot is that no-one can say how old the Earth is.

Life? Recent scientific study has shown that the biological markers in rock that indicate life's origins may not be biological at all as they can be readily formed by natural chemical processes. So where does that leave assertions that these markers "prove" life is 3.5 million years old?

The more scientists discover about Earth, the Universe and life, the less certain they are of anything at all. Recent studies call so much into question that we have heretofore accepted as "Fact", that many scientists are now throwing up their hands and saying, "We just don't know, anymore!"

[Headbanger]

LOL!!! Just in case it escaped your notice, what were those links to? Not anything on the Internet were they..?

The difference is I wasn't claiming any expertise, nor trying to convince you of anything, nor disprove anything, Just demonstrating their is considerable scientific weight behind the popular view on the evolution of mankind after you attacked it as being laughable and ignorant.

Scientists best theory is the Earth is 4.5b years old, thats good enough for me. There will always be reason for debate.

If my son were to ask me how old the earth was, I'd tell him Scientists believe it to be 4.5 billion years old.

[Winston001]

You still aren't getting it. As far back in history as you can go, there have always been both domestic and wild animals. They haven't changed and wild animals cannot be conditioned to be domestic or vice versa. Sheep will never be but domestic and tigers will never be a domestic species. Ask a Zoologist to explain the difference between domestic and wild to you.

Sorry Ed but I can't let this waffle pass uncontested. The famous experiment by the Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev to domesticate Arctic foxes proved domestication of wild animals can be done. Not easily, but done nevertheless. Indeed you can buy these foxes in Europe - for a price.

The zebra is the standard example of a wild animal which resists domestication. Zebras are horses, horses are domestic animals.....but zebras aint. Go figure.

As for animals automatically flinching at the sight of a man - let me introduce you to the polar bear and the tiger. Both of these animals coolly and deliberately stalk man. The great white shark does the same.

With the common house cat (for which I have an affection) opinions are divided. Cats are actually wild animals which have adapted to live with humans but retain their wild natures. If you think about it, the cat serves no useful purpose to man, but man is very useful to the cat. Food, shelter, etc and if the human dies, find another or just live in the wild.

[huff3r]

Sorry Ed but I can't let this waffle pass uncontested. The famous experiment by the Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev to domesticate Arctic foxes proved domestication of wild animals can be done. Not easily, but done nevertheless. Indeed you can buy these foxes in Europe - for a price.

The zebra is the standard example of a wild animal which resists domestication. Zebras are horses, horses are domestic animals.....but zebras aint. Go figure.

As for animals automatically flinching at the sight of a man - let me introduce you to the polar bear and the tiger. Both of these animals coolly and deliberately stalk man. The great white shark does the same.

Ok how about this for waffle. Your comment on Zebras. Zebras, unlike horses, lack stamina, and therefore are NOT domesticated. Not because they cant be, but because there is no point. They are useless to anyone.

[mashman]

Like I said, right over your head.

sooooo many things are... still, you contradict yourself with your animal statements, then you contradict yourself saying that the old science is wrong because the new science points to the "fact" that previous science COULD wrong... not exactly a solid argument that encourages me to read more on the subject...

[mashman]

Sorry Ed but I can't let this waffle pass uncontested. The famous experiment by the Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev to domesticate Arctic foxes proved domestication of wild animals can be done. Not easily, but done nevertheless. Indeed you can buy these foxes in Europe - for a price.

The zebra is the standard example of a wild animal which resists domestication. Zebras are horses, horses are domestic animals.....but zebras aint. Go figure.

As for animals automatically flinching at the sight of a man - let me introduce you to the polar bear and the tiger. Both of these animals coolly and deliberately stalk man. The great white shark does the same.

With the common house cat (for which I have an affection) opinions are divided. Cats are actually wild animals which have adapted to live with humans but retain their wild natures. If you think about it, the cat serves no useful purpose to man, but man is very useful to the cat. Food, shelter, etc and if the human dies, find another or just live in the wild.

or the guy who wolfified himself [IMG]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Ellis_(wolf_researche and became the alpha male in his own right...