Young Chimp Beats College Students

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think any intelligent persons believes we evolved from chimps.

I can't disagree with that statement.

Originally posted by Robtard
"We" are superior to chimps, in terms of intelligence, that is a fact; it has nothing to do with thinking it, it just is.

It is yet to be seen, if we are truly more intelligent. If we destroy our own world and go extinct, is that intelligence?

It all depends on how you define superior and over what time period. All animals are superior enough to survive. Humans making cars doesn't matter to nature.

Originally posted by Deano
look around the planet. look at all the shit thats going on. as a race we cant even get along. hardly intelligent.

LOL... You know, animals don't "get along" with each other either, so I doubt that concept is grounds for judging intelligence.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can't disagree with that statement.

It is yet to be seen, if we are truly more intelligent. If we destroy our own world and go extinct, is that intelligence?

It all depends on how you define superior and over what time period. All animals are superior enough to survive. Humans making cars doesn't matter to nature.

No, it's a fact that we are. Just because "we" do stupid shit, doesn't mean we're not intelligent and/or less intelligent than animals. Other factors have to be equated into it.

No, not all animals are "superior" enough to survive (that is adapt), 95+% of every creature (that we know of) that has lived on this planer, is extinct. Arguably, are higher brains, will allow us to adapt and survive in the future, even if we do continue to pollute this planet as we are.

E.G. If we poison all our water sources, can chimp, ostrich or rat built a water purifying plant? No, we can though. Why? Because of our higher intelligence. Granted, poisoning our water sources would be a stupid move, but like I said, "stupid moves" doesn't necessarily mean a complete lack of intelligence.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, it's a fact that we are. Just because "we" do stupid shit, doesn't mean we're not intelligent and/or less intelligent than animals. Other factors have to be equated into it.

No, not all animals are "superior" enough to survive (that is adapt), 95+% of every creature (that we know of) that has lived on this planer, is extinct. Arguably, are higher brains, will allow us to adapt and survive in the future, even if we do continue to pollute this planet as we are.

E.G. If we poison all our water sources, can chimp, ostrich or rat built a water purifying plant? No, we can though. Why? Because of our higher intelligence. Granted, poisoning our water sources would be a stupid move, but like I said, "stupid moves" doesn't necessarily mean a complete lack of intelligence.

We are animals!

Rats may not be able to build a water purifying plant, but they could evolve into a creature that does.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We are animals!

Rats may not be able to build a water purifying plant, but they could evolve into a creature that does.

Yes, but why are you yelling the obvious?

Then they wouldn't really be rats anymore, now would they.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, but why are you yelling the obvious?

Then they wouldn't really be rats anymore, now would they.

Because the term superior has a lot of luggage that I disagree with. To put it simply, we are extraordinary animals, but we are not superior.

Do you think animals should have the same legal rights as us?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Do you think animals should have the same legal rights as us?

No. However, we should do everything in our power to care for those animals under our charge. Suffering should be avoided.

What is up with this whole "we" thing?

Most of us would not survive in the wild. "They" did and then "they" made different sorts of technology. Meanwhile "you" are living all the spoils.

A lot of "us" still live like animals because "we" don't give a damn to help "them."

I just see what is meant to be said but I don't think it holds up

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because the term superior has a lot of luggage that I disagree with. To put it simply, we are extraordinary animals, but we are not superior.

In terms of "intelligence", we are; that is the point.

Now if we were talking about physical strength, durability, speed etc. etc. etc., then sure, other animals are superior when compared to us.

Originally posted by chithappens
What is up with this whole "we" thing?

Most of us would not survive in the wild. "They" did and then "they" made different sorts of technology. Meanwhile "you" are living all the spoils.

A lot of "us" still live like animals because "we" don't give a damn to help "them."

I just see what is meant to be said but I don't think it holds up

"We" as a species, the royal we. Not personally you and I. Get it now, or does it need further clarification.

I understood it the first time.

I'm telling you it is extremely flawed logic. It's like a son taking credit for something his father did. He hasn't done a damn thing. Why expect him to innately do the same thing?

Being capable of and actually doing it are totally different.

That's an utterly bizarre thing to be annoyed about.

Originally posted by chithappens
I understood it the first time.

I'm telling you it is extremely flawed logic. It's like a son taking credit for something his father did. He hasn't done a damn thing. Why expect him to innately do the same thing?

No, it's not flawed at all. You and I are part of the human species, so when talking about the human species as a whole, "we" is an acceptable term.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
That's an utterly bizarre thing to be annoyed about.

Originally posted by Robtard
In terms of "intelligence", we are; that is the point.

Now if we were talking about physical strength, durability, speed etc. etc. etc., then sure, other animals are superior when compared to us.

I understand your point. Even with intelligence there are places that we fall short. The study at the beginning of this thread shows that for some reason chimps have a better short term memory (and I am taking the study at face value). I saw something on this study on TV, and tried to keep up with the chimps. I could not do it. I have a degree, and I could not do it as fast as the chimps. The numbers flashed faster then I could see all of them.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, it's not flawed at all. You and I are part of the human species, so when talking about the human species as a whole, "we" is an acceptable term.

So you are taking the top notch of everything and saying "that is us!"

If a guy can bench press 300 and I can only manage 180, it is what it is. Some can bench 600 but I'm not going to take pride as part of a species because "one" can do that.

In terms of intelligence, things are simply built upon. A theory exist, it is proven true. It is taught to posterity, proven false, and then approved upon.

Einstein, if cloned, would not be the same "genius" without the same circumstances, for example; cloning him would simply give a clone of a person and not the genius one would want to replicate.

It is more complex than you are making it seem.

Some people are better than others at certain things, but it is a fallacy to just take the top of everyone and claim it the collective goal of an entire species.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I understand your point. Even with intelligence there are places that we fall short. The study at the beginning of this thread shows that for some reason chimps have a better short term memory (and I am taking the study at face value). I saw something on this study on TV, and tried to keep up with the chimps. I could not do it. I have a degree, and I could not do it as fast as the chimps. The numbers flashed faster then I could see all of them.

All this study shows, is that one chimp can perform better at certain test designed to test short term memory. For the sake of argument, lets just say that chimps as a whole, have greater short term memory than humans. Short term memory is only one aspect of intelligence; it can't be the sole deciding factor of the "who's smarter".

Originally posted by Robtard
All this study shows, is that one chimp can perform better at certain test designed to test short term memory. For the sake of argument, lets just say that chimps as a whole, have greater short term memory than humans. Short term memory is only one aspect of intelligence; it can't be the sole deciding factor of the "who's smarter".

How would you define it?

Originally posted by chithappens
So you are taking the top notch of everything and saying "that is us!"

If a guy can bench press 300 and I can only manage 180, it is what it is. Some can bench 600 but I'm not going to take pride as part of a species because "one" can do that.

In terms of intelligence, things are simply built upon. A theory exist, it is proven true. It is taught to posterity, proven false, and then approved upon.

Einstein, if cloned, would not be the same "genius" without the same circumstances, for example; cloning him would simply give a clone of a person and not the genius one would want to replicate.

It is more complex than you are making it seem.

Some people are better than others at certain things, but it is a fallacy to just take the top of everyone and claim it the collective goal of an entire species.

They're not saying they did it though, are they? The point is that it has been achieved within our species, no one's trying to say that they personally can bench 300, invented the mobile phone or came up with the theory of relativity.