http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-naked-truth/

Going furless was not merely a means to an end; it had profound consequences for subsequent phases of human evolution. The loss of most of our body hair and the gain of the ability to dissipate excess body heat through eccrine sweating helped to make possible the dramatic enlargement of our most temperature-sensitive organ, the brain. Whereas the australopithecines had a brain that was, on average, 400 cubic centimeters—roughly the size of a chimp's brain—H. ergaster had a brain twice that large. And within a million years the human brain swelled another 400 cubic centimeters, reaching its modern size. No doubt other factors influenced the expansion of our gray matter—the adoption of a sufficiently caloric diet to fuel this energetically demanding tissue, for example. But shedding our body hair was surely a critical step in becoming brainy.

I read this article at the grocery store. Enjoy.

And yet some people still think the earth is flat.

That was most certainly interesting.

but furry is still cuter

humans...still insisting that they're so superior to everything else. >.> whatever...bigger brains doesn't necessarily mean smarter or better.

i mean, just look at how things are in human civilization these days. if we're so smart, why are so many humans quite the opposite of smart? is there any other species on this planet currently that is anywhere near as self-destructive or regressive as humans?

i'm still waiting patiently for anthros...and i'll just continue to wait. i'll just keep waiting and watching humanity act superior to the countless things in the world that they are in fact INFERIOR to. well...that and destroy themselves daily.

Doomguy666 said:
And yet some people still think the earth is flat.

those idiots, everyone knows it's hollow

http://imgur.com/Bsg1SlV

Fenrick said:
imgur.com/Bsg1SlV

*sigh* and some people think humans are smart. *facepalm*

Munkelzahn said:
those idiots, everyone knows it's hollow

I thought it was a tetrahedron!

Fenrick said:
http://imgur.com/Bsg1SlV

Pretty sure you can prove that wrong by standing up at dawn and watching the sun rise a second time.

treos said:
humans...still insisting that they're so superior to everything else. >.> whatever...bigger brains doesn't necessarily mean smarter or better.

i mean, just look at how things are in human civilization these days. if we're so smart, why are so many humans quite the opposite of smart? is there any other species on this planet currently that is anywhere near as self-destructive or regressive as humans?

i'm still waiting patiently for anthros...and i'll just continue to wait. i'll just keep waiting and watching humanity act superior to the countless things in the world that they are in fact INFERIOR to. well...that and destroy themselves daily.

To be fair, while I can be pretty liberal sjw trash myself, for all the supposed self destruction humans have done to one another, humanity accounts for several fold more mammalian biomass than anything else on the planet. The next biggest contributors are all domesticated animals.

Evolutionarily speaking, we're doing pretty good as an animal, a couple billion lost to genocide withstanding. Granted as I said, we could stand to do better as a people, but that's apples to oranges.

The brain thing though isn't just a problem of size but of one of energy. It's a math problem that failure to account for means death. No wish wash can hand wave it away. Either you fuel the organ or you die and those with less metabolic demands live on.

Obviously with modern society this (shouldn't) be a problem (greed aside...). If anything we have the opposite problem. But life on earth for early man wasn't a cake walk. Every advantage is useful to survive.

Could a sentient furry evolve? I think absolutely but you still have to solve that caloric math problem. They would need some other advantage or lucky break.

Humans aren't as biologically weak as you think. We deal with endurance and pain better than most animals. We invented surgery 6 thousand years before anesthetics. We could chase and harass animals for weeks till they dropped dead from exhaustion.

That isn't to say there isn't pros and cons to this. Endothermic systems process materials great and let us be active when we shouldn't otherwise be, but take a lot more resources than exothermic systems necessitating a hearty diet and so forth. Etc.

It's all give and take, we just hit the lottery at the right place and right time. Hell we weren't even the first or only 'naked ape sapient' around for a while.

Add in just some disease where the quicker maturing Neanderthal did better, at the right time and suddenly our brand of sapients could be the one you see depicted in diaramas in science museums instead.

DamienG said:
stuff

like i said: always claiming to be superior despite how weak and inferior we really are.

"Humans aren't as biologically weak as you think."

yes. yes we are.

inferior hearing to other animals. inferior physical strength to some. inferior speed. inferior senses of sight/smell/hearing/etc. to a variety of animals.

humanity has quite literally gotten to where it is today largely on nothing but sheer luck.

if we didn't have access to our advanced technology and weapons, humanity would die incredibly fast and easily as we have no real natural means of defending ourselves. we're soft and squishy and we have no claws or sharp teeth to use as weapons. any feral animal could just rip right through our flesh without any problem at all.

how anyone can sit there and make the claim that humans are superior in any way at all... just how far off into the realm of denial do you need to be to make such claims?

i've always found it to be rather insulting whenever i hear someone make the claim that humans are superior to just about anything else. we humans are not superior to hardly anything anywhere in nature.

heck, even animals that would gain an evolutionary advantage as a result of inter-species crossbreeding might prove superior to us. if only due to how humans have such a strong stance against the idea of anything "inter-species" so say goodbye to any potential advantages that could be gained that way...well, the anthro thing would probably solve that one. but then, anthros wouldn't be humans would they?

treos said:
inferior hearing to other animals. inferior physical strength to some. inferior speed. inferior senses of sight/smell/hearing/etc. to a variety of animals.

humanity has quite literally gotten to where it is today largely on nothing but sheer luck.

if we didn't have access to our advanced technology and weapons, humanity would die incredibly fast and easily as we have no real natural means of defending ourselves. we're soft and squishy and we have no claws or sharp teeth to use as weapons. any feral animal could just rip right through our flesh without any problem at all.

how anyone can sit there and make the claim that humans are superior in any way at all... just how far off into the realm of denial do you need to be to make such claims?

You have to be in the realm of science (and at least read the article). Luck has nothing to do with it. Our hairlessness, posture, and running ability are adaptations that allowed humans to spread out across the globe and hunt. Intelligence begat more intelligence, since cooking and fire allowed us to support larger brains. Stone tool use and social intelligence (communication) allowed for more effective hunting. Our intelligence/communication and the dexterity of the human hand allowed us to pursue domestication and agriculture. Neither is unique in the animal kingdom, but we did it more effectively. Civilization and writing really got the ball rolling. "Lucky" accidental discoveries that can't be shared are just accidents. If they can be shared, they become advancements.

As the article and others clearly show, human evolution played a role in making us the masters of the planet, not just tools and technology. Our cross-country running ability and upright gait made it possible. Many humans have died from being attacked by stronger animals like lions and tigers and bears, but we prevailed because we developed our hunting abilities and formed a symbiotic relationship with canines. We drove mammoths to extinction in an age of sticks, stones, and fires. Once we mastered bronze, it was all over for non-humankind.

There is also our pretty sweet ability to heal our body. Almost any accident can be survived if the wound stays clean. Broken bones? Just tie them to a stick and let them heal in a couple weeks. Ripped off skin? Keep clean and scar tissue grows right back in. Muscles got cut up? Stitch them back together crudely and you can use it again in a month or two.
Almost no other animal can recuperate like we do from anything. We price we pay for this? Cancer. Our healing factor is amazing but it can backfire where cells just start to grow even without injury.

Also the whole intelligence thing, sure the other animals may be better physically, but we have them all in cages doing stupid things for our entertainment. We may be animals but every other lifeform larger than bacteria can be killed by us quite efficiently.

treos said:

inferior hearing to other animals. inferior physical strength to some. inferior speed. inferior senses of sight/smell/hearing/etc. to a variety of animals.

This just isn't true. No, our hearing isn't top notch, but it's not terrible. Though it's true that our sense of smell is hardly as useful as it is for a dog, our vision is far and away supreme when compared to just about anything that isn't a bird of prey.

Also, one overlooked advantage humans have: the ability to throw things. We can throw harder than pretty much any animal out there. Apes may be able to crush our skulls but they could never throw a spear with enough force to kill. We can.

Humans have amazing endurance that is unparalleled by most animals.

Our ability to coordinate with other humans is only rivaled by colonial creatures.

And we may not be as good at climbing, swimming, or running than most animals, but you'd be hard-pressed to find many animals that can beat us in all three. And almost no animals can walk long-distance as well as humans.

And that's not getting into the intelligence that has allowed us to build and use weapons like knives, bows, and spears. Nothing lucky about it.

The thing I see with most humans is environment. More specifically, the people around us. We tend to share the views of the ones we grew up with. We are probably the most social specices on the planet, but that means we'd listen to the ones we look up to.
We can do great things, helping the poor, teaching others, and accepting others.
Then at the same time, kill millions out of a irrational hate. We have both will and morals. Something most species we share this home with don't have to worry about....

meh, whatever. i still see no particular reason to like or even approve of humans. of course, that's been my opinion of my own species for along time...just nothing has ever happened to really improve that opinion is all (to worsen it however... >:( SO many things).

treos said:
like i said: always claiming to be superior despite how weak and inferior we really are.

"Humans aren't as biologically weak as you think."

yes. yes we are.

inferior hearing to other animals. inferior physical strength to some. inferior speed. inferior senses of sight/smell/hearing/etc. to a variety of animals.

humanity has quite literally gotten to where it is today largely on nothing but sheer luck.

if we didn't have access to our advanced technology and weapons, humanity would die incredibly fast and easily as we have no real natural means of defending ourselves. we're soft and squishy and we have no claws or sharp teeth to use as weapons. any feral animal could just rip right through our flesh without any problem at all.

how anyone can sit there and make the claim that humans are superior in any way at all... just how far off into the realm of denial do you need to be to make such claims?

i've always found it to be rather insulting whenever i hear someone make the claim that humans are superior to just about anything else. we humans are not superior to hardly anything anywhere in nature.

heck, even animals that would gain an evolutionary advantage as a result of inter-species crossbreeding might prove superior to us. if only due to how humans have such a strong stance against the idea of anything "inter-species" so say goodbye to any potential advantages that could be gained that way...well, the anthro thing would probably solve that one. but then, anthros wouldn't be humans would they?

See the problem with that is that it's not even true. Human sense of sight is actually incredibly good, if specialized for diurnal use. Yeah, we don't see too well at night, but neither does most creatures that are diurnal. We have incredibly good stereoscopic vision, very detailed color vision, and a remarkable ability for edge detection. Our eyes are very good at seeing different types of things at once, in ways that most animals who are more specialized can't. They might pick out the thing they're more specialized at better, but we have a wider range, allowing us to use them for both hunting and foraging/scavenging.

Our sense of smell is very detailed for what it's set up to detect. It's our weakest sense, for sure, and it's not set up to detect a lot of the things that other animals use theirs for. The things though that it is set up to sense, it does so with incredible power. It can detect some disease causing agents in foods to a few parts per trillion in the air. Our sense of taste is incredibly developed and helpful for making sure that we receive the correct nutrients needed for, again, the huge metabolic engine that is the brain.

Human sense of touch and hand-eye coordination are extremely well adapted. Humans are the only animal on the planet that can coherently throw and hit an object with any real accuracy, for example.

Human endurance and resistance and healing ability are extremely well adapted. Humans can beat horses in a foot race, if you make the race long enough. The quick advantage of fast speed will drop over time, and the human will catch up and surpass their prey.

And as I said, all of these things have pros and cons and they all have a price. It's a math problem and an engineering problem. And it's a pretty serious one. Failure to satisfy the conditions after all is death.

Yeah, we don't have sharp claws, but we have specialized finger nails that assist in the sense of touch and fine motor manipulation of the hands. Take that back and add the claws in, what are you giving up? Fine dexterity? Throwing ability?

We don't have a giant vomeronasal organ, because the sinus cavity is super specialized to pick out impurities in our very, very wide diet (to keep us safe) and relatively small to give space for the brain and vocal chords that make language possible. Add one in, and what are you giving up to make it work? A wide variety of ability to digest various foods? If so, then how are you making up the caloric need in lean times? The specialized ability to detect bad food in a huge variety of foods? Then are you adding extra stomachs to ferment these foods? Where is that going to fit? Or are we just carving out parts of the brain? Which ones, and how important are they? With all the changes in our mouth, are we giving up the ability to use it to ventilate heat? With a snout, is our ability to stabilize our head while running upright (and thus able to throw and use tools) impaired?

Our running gait is decoupled from our respiratory ability which is unusual in many animals. This allows us to greatly exert ourselves in highly unusual and adaptive ways. We have short toes without good claws on them, but that allows us to decrease the mechanical work on our feet while running and walking. Add them back in, and we're going to need more fuel to keep repairing busted tendons or run for shorter distances, which negates a large advantage we have.

I mean you say we have no 'natural' way of defending ourselves, but I think that the huge prices we've paid to adapt to using these tools is a pretty natural and valid strategy in evolution. No less unnatural than having ants throw themselves to the death to preserve the genetic identity of their colony rather than themselves, or wolves forming packs, or eagles spending a large metabolic debt for the ability to see fish underwater from super far away.

If you pick and choose very specific examples where we lose in a very specific match up, you're going to make anything look foolish. You can make a bloodhound look like a bad tracker if all you look at is their eyesight.

I mean, you say it's a product of luck, but yeah, that's true of every organism out there. Nobody picks the form they're born into. And intelligent human designer might be able to improve on the product entirely, and we've been doing that sort of with other species through plant and animal husbandry for thousands of years (at least if your definition of improvement is better use to us).

Humans are in a lot of ways are pretty middle of the road in a lot of things, and aren't as weak as you think. But we have highly specialized body adaptions, and all of them are paid for in full. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

It's easy to say some theoretical species would be better when you don't have to figure out how to make the math or engineering work.

I don't doubt that any of these mutations could have lined up badly for us, or better for us, but if they had lined up badly, we'd be dead and not having this conversation. Just like every other organism that didn't make it. I don't doubt that the formula could be improved upon. But throwing things willy nilly in the mix is a good way to not make it, if you're not willing to answer, what are you going to give up or how are you going to pay for this advance.

Also I'm kind of wondering if you know what the term species even means or what genetics even means? Like what's all this about cross breeding? It's not like you could literally have sex with a dog and produce a human with superior smelling or something. Biochemical barriers are still a thing.

I feel slightly dumb, as apparently all this that I wrote above tl;dr was already written by other people, but when I clicked on what I thought was a link to the forum was only a link to the response to me, and so I didn't realize all of that was already said, hah. Sorry for repeating everything people basically already said.

treos said:
meh, whatever. i still see no particular reason to like or even approve of humans. of course, that's been my opinion of my own species for along time...just nothing has ever happened to really improve that opinion is all (to worsen it however... >:( SO many things).

That's likely coming from a strong confirmation bias. It's, again easy to see all the negatives people have and are doing, and ignore all the positive things. But overall, the positives outweigh, and always have outweighed the negatives. And that ratio gets better every day.

It's a slow and grinding wheel of change, and I admit, for those that happen to fall in between the cracks, and live in the 'wrong place at the wrong time', it's of little solace. There's so much more that can be done. I won't deny that, and I won't try to deny the pain and suffering people have needlessly experienced and are experiencing now while that progress slowly marches forward. But it does march forward, and always has.

Our species and all of our societies are still in its infancy, and we are, as far as we know, the first to ever get as far as we have. (And if anybody else has gotten here first, then they're not sharing the fruits of their labors with us, or are incapable of doing so).

That said, I don't know you, and I don't know your experiences, and I'm not about to make any claims about them, or deny any of the pain you may have personally suffered.

I just wish humans had tapetum lucidum like some canines and felines had, it would make seeing in the dark easier instead of having to rely on our rod cells to adjust after 20-30 mins.

fox_whisper85 said:
I just wish humans had tapetum lucidum like some canines and felines had, it would make seeing in the dark easier instead of having to rely on our rod cells to adjust after 20-30 mins.

Mine adjust to dark pretty well, but not to light.

fox_whisper85 said:
I just wish humans had tapetum lucidum like some canines and felines had, it would make seeing in the dark easier instead of having to rely on our rod cells to adjust after 20-30 mins.

The tapetum definitely does make it easier to see at night but it does have the disadvantage of making the owner extremely easy to see if they are looking towards something brighter than their own position.

I'd never be able to stalk people with that!

Hairless ape master race defeats furries.

Wir müssen die furries ausrotten!!!!
I couldn't help myself the the title of the thread sets the joke up perfectly.
Also this thread in general XD.

Furrin_Gok said:
Mine adjust to dark pretty well, but not to light.

turn the lights on in the basement more and that'll change

aurel said:

I doubt that is correct to say that any adaptation humans have is a good adaptation, every adaptation is to the environment, so how can it be correct to say that we have a good adaptation to an environment when we live at every environment?

The reason we live in every environment is because we are a well-rounded species capable of crossing long distances in short times and are generally highly adaptive. You can have humans with nothing but sticks and rocks survive in jungles, tundras, deserts, forests of all kinds, tropical islands... there really aren't a lot of animals you can put in any environment like that and expect them to survive.

Endurance over short speed bursts totally doesn't help me when I'm late for the bus either :D (who needs endurane if you can go cheetah for 300 meters and then sit on your butt for next 20 minutes)
How big is our endurance anyway? I'd expect most predators to walk quite a distance to find a target, then sneak and charge.
http://www.wolf.org/wolf-info/basic-wolf-info/wolf-faqs/#x
Gives me ... 80Km per day

Large predators usually have to be very careful about energy conservation. Even something like running mile could have major repercussions for something like a cheetah in particular. The energy they expend is tremendous. Wolves happened to be one of the few animals that can match humans in long-distance running, which is probably why they caught on.

Throwing crap at a large crowd isn't remotely comparable to impaling an animal with a spear.

"With a snout, is our ability to stabilize our head while running upright (and thus able to throw and use tools) impaired? "
Putting on a plastic cup on my face revealed no errors.

Did you really run through rough terrain like the woods though? Because keeping your eyes on the ground while not getting them poked out by branches would be pretty difficult in that situation.

"Our ability to coordinate with other humans is only rivaled by colonial creatures."
HA!

Case in point