I wouldn't go so far as to call this egocentric, anthropocentric or hubris. It is a common view of people who are new to evolution to believe that it is directional, that evolution = advancement = complexity. Humans happen to be the most intelligent and on top of the food chain, so that leads to the conclusion that they are "advanced", even though there really is no such thing in evolution: complex does not mean advanced nor does it mean evolutionary fitness (indeed, we are at risk of being wiped-out by simple bacteria or viruses). That is what causes the erroneous belief that humans are more "advanced", not hubris.
How was the supposed common ancestor of Chimpanzee and man look like?
- Thread starter C.E.O
- Start date
Thank you Russ_Watters.
I don't understand this part. Would you explain more, please?
All that means is that we have no natural enemies and can kill and eat anything we want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_chain
Actually we do. For example, lions love to eat us if they get a chance to taste our blood. We're definitely good at not getting eaten though.
I would like to see you eat a box jellyfish.
I'm sure they do, but I don't think the scoreboard leans in their direction.
No thanks.
Correct, but they are nonetheless a natural predator to humans.
And if a rat chews-open your jugular while you sleep it might kill you too, but in general, lions are not a significant threat to humans but humans area a significant threat to lions.
That's true; however, the distinction is that lions will hunt humans while rats wont. That is the very concept of a natural predtor, which (regardless of our threat level to them) lions are to humans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_predator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-eater
The second link says "man-eater" is a colloquial term, not a scientific one and the first one supports my position, not yours:
In other words, in situations of unusual disadvantage (such as having a rat gnaw open your jugular while you sleep) humans can be preyed-upon, but normally humans have no rivals.wiki said:
In nature humans are preyed upon by lions but not rats. In a technological environment we are much better at protecting ourselves.
What's "in nature" mean? My natural habitat is in my house and it has a locking door that I don't think a PA mountain lion can get through. I keep it clean, but still I'm much more at risk from rats than lions. Lions can also find me in my car, driving to work, but they have very poor odds if they try to attack me there too.
You don't think "in nature" means naked in the woods, do you? The very thing that puts humans on top of the food chain is our ability to create our own "in nature". Or in most cases, buy it. I'm finishing my basement but otherwise someone else built my "nature".
So what?
Only in bizarro land. Rats DO NOT hunt humans. Lions DO hunt humans. For example:
"Humans made up at least half of the diet of one of the lions in the last months of his life..."
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33588212/ns/technology_and_science-science/
I don't know if you are having difficulty understanding this or simply don't want to. It's a fact that humans are prey for lions and no amount of positioning or debate will change that. The rest is up to you and is exclusively your problem.
In nature - living without technological assistance.
You could put a suit of armor on a deer and then claim that it is no longer prey since lions cannot eat it. But that would be a pretty dumb way to define "prey."
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
No, I didn't mean to imply that it was a common ancestor. The hominid line had already split off from the chimpanzee line. I'm not even sure that the "true" chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes, and the bonobo, Pan paniscus, had speciated yet, off in their own line.
The ascendence of humans has affected the evolution of other creatures. When humans began wearing clothes and becoming less hairy, the lice that lived on their bodies by practicing parasitism found their new environment difficult. So they adapted to it. Body lice speciated from head lice sometime between around 50 and 100 KYA, with all the right adaptations to thrive inside our clothes without fur to hang onto.
Oddly enough, body lice transmit disease while the old-fashioned head lice do not.
Not really a good definition. A better term is apex predator of the species's own environment. Humans have become the apex predator of the entire planet, dining on the flesh of both bears and sharks.
This is why the term "apex predator" is a little more useful. The real world is a complicated place and occasionally a large, fierce carnivorous animal is brought down by some much smaller creature, such as a poisonous snake or a pack of hyenas or a tarantula or even, quite commonly, an army of bacteria.
But being labeled the apex predator of a habitat is a statistical measure, not an absolute. Many more humans eat bears and (unfortunately) sharks than the other way round.
As for lions, that is a purely local anomaly. In Europe, Australia or the Western Hemisphere you'd have to deliberately go out and get yourself a job with a circus before you'd have the slightest chance of being killed by a lion, much less eaten.
Many regions of the world still have fearsome predators. Americans are occasionally killed by cougars (mountain lions, panthers, pumas, they have several names) and grizzly bears. Wolverines (also called gluttons) take down a few of us in the Arctic latitudes, and alligators get us in the Southeast. But last time I saw the statistics, more Americans were killed by bison than by any other species... because they walk out onto the highways in front of our cars!