HIGHEST BUT NOT SUPERIOR

1. 60

   A.Villarasaposted 12 years ago

   Man, having  developed  the most complex and integrated  cerebral function of  all the animate entities on earth , have been given "rule" over  those entities by  divinely inspired evolutionary process. This is not to say that  he is the ultimate "superior" being... on the contrary, he is rather a weakling compared to his nearest so-called genetic relatives, the great apes.  Man's and the great ape's bodily design and its mechanics are far inferior to that of the sharks or the ants. So in "Camelotian"  terms,  the king actually has not clothes.  Man's ego alone have carried him this far... and his ego could also terminate his lording it  on  earth.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ya think??????????  Gee, let me watch yet again the various Planet of the Apes movies, and Jaws for sure.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         KFlippin:
         
         Unhappily Hollywood is really not a place where realism overtakes rabid imagination.

         replyreport
2. 80

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   Good point.
   But we do have those highly evolved brains which are rapidly rendering our bodies less and less useful!
   Still, we could learn a lot from our shark and ant brethren!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hello M.Mom:
      
      I agree,  if by  less and less you mean the almost universal sedentary lifestyle of  the people in the developed countries..... what with their variagated mechanical contraptions that they use at work and at leisure time. In the world of modern Homo Sapiens  the inverse relationship between physical activity and mental acuity has the perverse effect of making man less healthy(obesity) and more susceptible to physical devaluation(injuries).
      
      There is something to be said about the lives of our pre-historic progenitors. Theirs was the life of almost constant physical struggle... a major  reason why they were able to survive 3(or was it four?) near extinction episodes over the millenia.
      
      Modern man, with his supposed highly evolved brain, may not survive the next episode, because it  might be self-inflicted.

      replyreport
3. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago

   As soon as I see a squirrel driving a Ferrari, I'll be more than happy to claim that I'm POSSIBLY not superior to another animal.
   
   And this notion of "the highest" and "the superior" doesn't really correlate with the theory of evolution.
   
   All that evolution has to say about the subject is that humans have been able to reproduce and survive long enough to reproduce again.
   
   As soon as that statement becomes false, we'll be history.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "As soon as I see a squirrel driving a Ferrari, I'll be more than happy to claim that I'm POSSIBLY not superior to another animal."
      
      
      
      Anything else, Evan?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Very interesting photo. That squirrel must be raking it in at the stock market.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Nah - he probably gets it selling bear skins from his hunting trips.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Are you saying the squirrel is packing? I thought the Constitution only allowed you to keep and arm bears...

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Regardless, the squirrel is not subject to the constitution........just thought you might want to be reminded of that.
                  
                  I do love squirrels, ever rescued and bottle fed a baby one and prepared it for life in the wild??

                  replyreport
               2. 96

                  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes.  Bears already have arms, and you can't keep them unless they dance.

                  replyreport
      2. 0

         kimberlyslyricsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         LMFAO       

         replyreport
      3. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         that's pretty close, but not a ferrari.

         replyreport
4. 96

   wildernessposted 12 years ago

   I would disagree that man is the weakling you project.  For instance, a well trained man in good condition can outrun a horse over the long haul - there are few land animals that can put out the mileage a man can per day.
   
   A man's eyesight is poor compared to an eagle, but good indeed compared to most animals in general.
   
   No animal has the dexterity that a man can produce with his hands, not even the other primates.
   
   We have a tendency to compare our physical characteristics to the best in the animal world, but that isn't really fair.  To say that we are physically inferior to a shark is patently untrue - no shark will ever hold a hammer to drive a nail, nor is their vision anywhere near as acute as ours.  All animals, including man, have their own strengths and weaknesses.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      kimberlyslyricsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         They used to let humans compete in the Kentucky Derby, but the horses were at such a disadvantage.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hello Wilderness:
      
      What I meant to infer with the statement that " man's bodily design and mecahnics is inferior to that of the shark" , is,  in the context of  the varying proclivities/demands  of  their respective immediate environment (, Man-land/air; shark-water) man's is definitely inferior to that of the shark. I read somewhere that the shark's  basic anatomical structure  have not  changed  a single iota since it made its appearance millions and millions of years ago. Which means, the shark's body in the water is much more adjusted to the needs and demands of the water, and has therefore  not found n any evolutionary reason to change.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         It is hard to tell with sharks as they have no bony skeleton to fossilize, but there does not seem to be a great deal of major change.  On the other hand, humans are still evolving quite rapidly and may do so even more rapidly in the future as they use that brain tool thingie that they have to accelerate the process.
         
         In this respect I would think that you are entirely correct; the shark is better suited to its environment than humans are.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You mean Homo Sapiens evolving to Homo Roboticus?  I  very scary though from my perspective, but I assume that man will do anything and everything including becoming a soul-less versiomn of his previous soul-ful self.

            replyreport