#14: Animal Testing

Heavenly Spoon :F said:
There's very little evidence for the aquatic ape theory. Whilst it seems very convincing, and explains quite a lot (losing fur, standing up, ...), it is by no means factual (yet).
Click to expand...
Controlled breathing, nose facing downwards, small leftovers of ''flippers'', our skin containing fat, smooth skin... and since other primates don't have this, okay the long-nosed monkey and a japanese gibbon do have some of these features, but we didn't evolve from them and still no other primate does have fat in their skin and other sea mammals do have. For me it's the clue our ancestors spend a lot of time in water for a certain time, at least for hunting. Maybe a global warming causing the forests to dissappear? Idk, but it has a lot evidence for me. Still I don't see any other way this can be proved, since the evidence is (I think) lost and all the evidence we have is what we are.

Edit; forgot to tell there's also evidence in this theory of our more evolved brain compared to other big primates. By eating a lot of fish and sea creatures that period, could have been a reason and a chance for our brain to evolve that big and to what they now are...
 
I know it's very convincing, as it would explain a lot, but for now, there's no other evidence supporting it. If it's true, we'll probably find enough evidence in the future (these changes occurring at a very specific point in the evolutionary tree, a reason for semi-aquatic life, and so on), but ATM, it's not factual yet, so don't speak about it like it is.
Just because it's currently the best and most logical theory to explain all of these features doesn't mean it's right (although I will admit that it most likely is).
 
Heavenly Spoon :F said:
I know it's very convincing, as it would explain a lot, but for now, there's no other evidence supporting it. If it's true, we'll probably find enough evidence in the future (these changes occurring at a very specific point in the evolutionary tree, a reason for semi-aquatic life, and so on), but ATM, it's not factual yet, so don't speak about it like it is.
Just because it's currently the best and most logical theory to explain all of these features doesn't mean it's right (although I will admit that it most likely is).
Click to expand...
Okay, you're right, I should have talked like that. But we can't deny there's evidence, anyway let's go back discussing animal testing, because this is going off topic, isn't it?

@kashmaster, why are you so sure less ''complicated animals'' have less feelings? Maybe they don't show it, or we understand it, there's no prove they feel less pain.

@darthpika, actually yes, without other animals we wouldn't exist, assuming we all would be herbivorous and live on plants. Why would we evolve then? There would be nothing to make us evolving more and more. Climat changes do, but then at the end we would end up again with different species, since some do evolve in order to adapt to the climate and some don't cause they live on other places.
 
^ I am not hung up upon the idea, Heavenly suggested it so blame him :p, That could bee a possible reason, we may not be able to decipher their emotions. There may be proof that they have less feelings. If you was hurt I am sure there would be some sort of distress coming from you and if an animal doesn't depict that, naturally we would assume they feel less pain but I dunno ;P
 
kashmaster said:
^ I am not hung up upon the idea, Heavenly suggested it so blame him :p, That could bee a possible reason, we may not be able to decipher their emotions. There may be proof that they have less feelings. If you was hurt I am sure there would be some sort of distress coming from you and if an animal doesn't depict that, naturally we would assume they feel less pain but I dunno ;P
Click to expand...
Well I agree, I would say so too, but still we can't say for sure. It's because we look through the eyes of a human at them. Not putting us in their positions, something like that... okay that sounded really weird, but oh well...
 
If we once lived in the water... wouldn't it make more sense for our nose to face up, not down? :/ Ya know, a downwards facing nose isn't exactly ideal for going up for quick breaths.
 
I do get you DP, but nature can be weird (Lungfish are good example). I expect that we are part of a weird but successful evolution.
 
If our nose face up, water would be pouring in...

Hold a glass hole-up under water, now do the same hole-down.
 
DarthPika said:
If we once lived in the water... wouldn't it make more sense for our nose to face up, not down? :/ Ya know, a downwards facing nose isn't exactly ideal for going up for quick breaths.
Click to expand...
Well Heavenly Spoon said:

Heavenly Spoon :F said:
If our nose face up, water would be pouring in...

Hold a glass hole-up under water, now do the same hole-down.
Click to expand...
 
They don't live in shallow water, though. For them, it's obviously beneficial to be able to stay underwater.

It's not like evolution can only provide one solution for a problem, BTW.
 
DarthPika said:
I've noticed that Dolphins/Whales have gotten around this little problem...
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's years and years of evolution. Ever looked inside a dolphin (not litterally) you'll notice that the nose isn't connected anymore to the stomach and so the mouth not anymore to the lungs, they're perfectly adapted for a marine life. We weren't, we only hunted in water most likely. It would have taken years of evolution before we would have had a better solution, well a nose facing downwards is an easy solution too and it works, didn't take that much change, like HS said, there are more ways to solve a problem.
 
Pokequaza said:
Well I agree, I would say so too, but still we can't say for sure. It's because we look through the eyes of a human at them. Not putting us in their positions, something like that... okay that sounded really weird, but oh well...
Click to expand...

I do understand what you mean, they could have another way of depicting pain that we may not be able to see
 
kashmaster said:
I do understand what you mean, they could have another way of depicting pain that we may not be able to see
Click to expand...
Yes, something like that, anyway you got my point, that's the most important.
 
As long as it's within reason, never. (As in no going "HM I WONDER IF I CAN DEVELOP A WAY FOR HUMANS TO LIVE WITHOUT A HEAD, BETTER TEST ON BUNNIES FIRST")

Better them than us.
 
^That has already been done with dogs. I think it was a russian experiment. They managed to have a live dog without a head. They also managed to put a head on a different dog and had the critter live. (Why do I read scientific magazines is beyond me at this point) The subjects did die after a couple of hours.

What's more important then knowing if you can put a head on another body?
 
afstandopleren said:
^That has already been done with dogs. I think it was a russian experiment. They managed to have a live dog without a head. They also managed to put a head on a different dog and had the critter live. (Why do I read scientific magazines is beyond me at this point) The subjects did die after a couple of hours.

What's more important then knowing if you can put a head on another body?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's that important, when we will ever find a proper way to connect the nerves we already would be using robots and robotic body parts, since that is already in development.

So there's no point in hurting animals for that...

And if, I still think it would be easier to get a robotic body part than a real one...

(ow damn... pretty scary actually, FMA in rl)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top