Human vs Chimp

[Crni Vuk]

Why not? I would rather want that someone is learning one of the martial arts schools which is about lethal techniques because he simply enjoys it - the learning, instead of learning it only because it has a lot of lethal techniques. I mean just because you learned those techniques doesnt mean that you have to use them or that you would take pleasure in killing someone. I am not going to judge someone who really enjoys to learn his martial arts and is very passionate about it, even if it is full of potentialy lethal techniques. I mean, otherwise I could say the same about someone who's learning to shoot with a rifle on a shooting range, or learning fighting techniques with a sword. Some have simply a lot of fun learning those things and that is ok in my book, as long you are a normal sane human beeing, then I dont see why you should not learn it , otherwise if no one would take his time to properly learn it, then they would get lost over time, which is what happened already to a lot of different styles and fighting techniques for various reasons - mainly because no one needs it anymore, I mean who's using a 2H sword for his personal defence today? But we are also loosing a part of human history with those things!

 

[AskWazzup]

And yet you opened posts repeatedly with inflammatory and dismissive comments about an entire category of martial discipline.

I think you are a bit over sensitive and a big romantic too . Not that it's a bad thing.

All you need do is look.

I am sure there are interesting and great disciplines being taught somewhere, but as i already said in my previous posts, if i cannot compare them to the creme de la creme of of today, i cannot regard them by some mythical standard. When i see them raising their fist above everyone else, then we can talk.

 

[SnapSlav]

Why not? I would rather want that someone is learning one of the martial arts schools which is about lethal techniques because he simply enjoys it - the learning, instead of learning it only because it has a lot of lethal techniques. I mean just because you learned those techniques doesnt mean that you have to use them or that you would take pleasure in killing someone. I am not going to judge someone who really enjoys to learn his martial arts and is very passionate about it, even if it is full of potentialy lethal techniques. I mean, otherwise I could say the same about someone who's learning to shoot with a rifle on a shooting range, or learning fighting techniques with a sword. Some have simply a lot of fun learning those things and that is ok in my book, as long you are a normal sane human beeing, then I dont see why you should not learn it , otherwise if no one would take his time to properly learn it, then they would get lost over time, which is what happened already to a lot of different styles and fighting techniques for various reasons - mainly because no one needs it anymore, I mean who's using a 2H sword for his personal defence today? But we are also loosing a part of human history with those things!

I don't disagree, particularly with the point of certain disciplines fading into obscurity as a consequence of their lack of necessity. But my point is an objection based on noting the difference between wanting to learn something because of an intellectual pursuit, and wanting to learn something because it's fun. Those are two different things. I WOULD object to the notion of taking up your rifle at the shooting range if your reasoning was because it's fun, but I have nothing against gun ownership- especially when personal defense is your inspiration. Go for it! But because you find a tool that's designed to kill cathartically thrilling? Yes, I will distinguish the differences between 2 similar, yet different things, and draw a line where I feel it's appropriate. It's fine to want to learn these fading disciplines for the explicit purpose of "keeping them alive (historically)", but not for "fun". To be able to quickly and efficiently dispatch another human life should NEVER be, feel, appear, or seem "fun", even if it's never the person's intention to utilize it in that manner.

 

[BonusWaffle]

Would anybody really be interested in learning to shoot guns if they couldnt kill people?

 

[AskWazzup]

Would anybody really be interested in learning to shoot guns if they couldnt kill people?

Not a real gun, but i like to shoot bb guns at targets (targets devoid of life).

I always hated this discussions, someone trying to explain me how the Judo I learned was useless and its just good to get warm like runing or wrestling,

Looks like a very painful warm up he he. I once got thrown to the pavement when i was a kid, by a bigger kid. Now take a Judo practicionier, a pavement, my bigger mass and i would probably go out cold from throw like those above.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Would anybody really be interested in learning to shoot guns if they couldnt kill people?

yes, pretty much most of those people I guess.

I mean there are a lot of people that just enjoy the competitive nature of something, weapons, particularly fire arms can be very intimidating, from their design and technology which has become more and more efficient and we see them in the media all the time used in wars and conflicts, like machineguns, assault rifles and the like. But, I do believe that the sentiment behind firearms is not that far away from someone who's learning the bow or how to use a sword, and using the bow rather just for the practise, the competition and challange, it is usually not meet with the resentment that you just learn it because it could theoretically kill someone. With firearms in particular though you have also the fascination behind the technology, the concept behind some firearms from a technological standpoint is extremly fascinating, like the history and evolution of firearms and artillery!

but let us not turn this in to a "weapons are bad, mkay?!, they are designed only for killing!" discussion. I think it should be never a problem for a full grown up and sane person to own or handle weapons as long we live in a moderate and free society, with a few limitations of course. An armed population is not a problem, a gun culture which sees weapons rather as toys then what they really are, weapons, is though.

There is undoubtly a fascination with weapons, or pretty much anything, that could be considered as such, this includes fire arms just as it does weapons like swords or if you want so even combat related martial arts techniques could fall in to that, this fascination is quite often very sublte though! Could anyone imagine games, movies, books etc. beeing interesting without weapons? Or at least something that could be considered as part of a conflict, didnt we all fall guility of enjoying shooters for what they are, shooters .

I dont think this fascination or even the "thrill" of learing it, is really a problem, as long as the people learning those things keep in mind what they learn.

It's fine to want to learn these fading disciplines for the explicit purpose of "keeping them alive (historically)", but not for "fun". To be able to quickly and efficiently dispatch another human life should NEVER be, feel, appear, or seem "fun", even if it's never the person's intention to utilize it in that manner.

I know what you mean and where you are comming from and I do gree with you, but when I say "fun" then I was talking more in a broader sense here, the preservation is what some see fun, I am not going to theorize what is considered fun here for each individual, because there are plenty of reasons, some might just do it for the challange because it is a very diffcult thing, learning the correct use of the Katana for example, is not an easy thing to do, and certain schools of Kung Fu require a very high degree of physical and mental discipline, watching someone shoot a needle trough a glass plate just with his hand is quite impressive!

 

[Crni Vuk]

Would anybody really be interested in learning to shoot guns if they couldnt kill people?

yes, pretty much most of those people I guess.

I mean there are a lot of people that just enjoy the competitive nature of something, weapons, particularly fire arms can be very intimidating, from their design and technology which has become more and more efficient and we see them in the media all the time used in wars and conflicts, like machineguns, assault rifles and the like. But, I do believe that the sentiment behind firearms is not that far away from someone who's learning the how to use a sword or bow, using the bow rather just the practise the competition and challange, it is usually not meet with the resentment that you just learn it because it could theoretically kill someone. With firearms in particular though you have also the fascination of technology here, the concept behind some firearms from a technological standpoint is extremly fascinationg, like the history and evolution of firearms and artillery!

but let us not turn this in to a "weapons are bad, mkay?!, they are designed only for killing!" discussion. I think it should be never a problem for a full grown up and sane person to own or handle weapons as long we live in a moderate and free society, with a few limitations of course. An armed population is not a problem, a gun culture which sees weapons rather as toys then what they really are, weapons, is though.

There is undoubtly a fascination with weapons, or pretty much anything, that could be considered as such, this includes fire arms just as it does weapons like swords or if you want so even combat related martial arts techniques could fall in to that, this fascination is quite often very sublte though! Could anyone imagine games, movies, books etc. beeing interesting without weapons? Or at least something that could be considered as part of a conflict, didnt we all fall guility of enjoying shooters for what they are, shooters .

I dont think this fascination or even the "thrill" of learing it, is really a problem, as long as the people learning those things keep in mind what they learn.

It's fine to want to learn these fading disciplines for the explicit purpose of "keeping them alive (historically)", but not for "fun". To be able to quickly and efficiently dispatch another human life should NEVER be, feel, appear, or seem "fun", even if it's never the person's intention to utilize it in that manner.

I know what you mean and where you are comming from and I do gree with you, but when I say "fun" then I was talking more in a broader sense here, the preservation is what some see fun, I am not going to theorize what is considered fun here for each individual, because there are plenty of reasons, some might just do it for the challange because it is a very diffcult thing, learning the correct use of the Katana for example, is not an easy thing to do, and certain schools of Kung Fu require a very high degree of physical and mental discipline, watching someone shoot a needle trough a glass plate just with his hand is quite impressive! And if someone devotes his whole life to such disciplines because he think its fun, then who am I to tell him that he's wrong?

 

[BonusWaffle]

I think what i was trying to get at is that the desire for competitive competence in the use of weapons is entirely based in their ability to kill others, so by following this same logic wouldnt it be true that systema/krav maga and the like are objectively superior than less combat effective martial arts?

 

[MutantScalper]

I think fighting hand-to-hand combat with a chimp would deffo put the human in a disadvantage. Chimps bite and yes, are very strong. Here's an image of a chimp that's for some reason shed it's hair/fur. The size of that arm makes me think that they're pretty strong.

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/5/6/56649-chimpanzee19.jpg

The biting thing would make the fight different from a fight against a human opponent. A chimp would primarely go for the bite, doubt a human can bite as effectively as a chimp. Once you have your finger bitten off or a piece of your flesh missing, shock will set in and you won't be able to fight very effectively any more.

 

[.Pixote.]

In a physical fight a full grown male chimp will murder a human, no question. The strength of a chimp in a rage is frightening - a female chimp once pulled 1200 Ibs on a machine to test her strength. As well a chimp once pulled a child's arm out of the socket at a zoo - the child died on the spot, blood everywhere - you get the picture.

 

[AskWazzup]

In a physical fight a full grown male chimp will murder a human, no question. The strength of a chimp in a rage is frightening - a female chimp once pulled 1200 Ibs on a machine to test her strength. As well a chimp once pulled a child's arm out of the socket at a zoo - the child died on the spot, blood everywhere - you get the picture.

I see this mythical thinking is pretty prominent. The 1200 thing, as i pointed out previously, is a myth. And as for the child thing - puplling out the arm from the joint of a little child is not that amazing, as jiujitsu fighters have shown with well build adult fighters. I saw a video of a fighter breaking the other fighters leg in have with his hands and that was no child. No if a chimp would have done that, everybody would be screaming how the chimp is 20 stronger than a man. These stories about chimps dismantaling people are, as far as i have seen only about people who are elderly, frail and children.

That motherfucker is pretty ripped, but the strength difference is much lower than people make it out to be. At least that is what i think, as we can't actually test it.

 

[mobucks]

Go for they eyes Boo! The eyes! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGH!

 

[zegh8578]

AskWazzup, I know what you are getting at here, and I have thought the same thing many times. People like to wallow in "humans are so weak compared to animals, look at this example, our closest relative is 20 000 times stronger! Or was it twice as strong? Same shit!"

But as you also said, nobody has really done any proper tests on it, probably cus it would be very difficult to test. One thing is to force a chimp to try to bench, another is trying to force it to bench while high on adrenaline, it's all a very absurd prospect

However, it can probably agreed that if you take your average dude and your average chimp - the muscle density of that chimp will far surpass the muscle flabbyness of the average guy. Humans are usually just strong enough to write their names, open milk cartons, check their mailboxes... seriously...

Chimps can hang, from ONE ARM... while using the other arm to hold and eat a banana - calmly. When was the last time anybody relaxed while hanging from one arm? While a chimp does that casually.
The strength difference in multiplication, idunno, twice as strong? 1,5-times as strong? 10 times as strong? Idunno how to even measure it.
But stronger, most absolutely definitely.

Doesn't mean a human CANT be strong. A really trained human can rip another human apart, almost like a chimp would. But then again, a very strong, trained chimp would outdo a strong man again.

 

[MutantScalper]

Here's a video of testing bear's strenght, check the end of the video. Maybe something similar could be done to test chimp's strenght.

 

[zegh8578]

Tough one. Chimp tries to throw feces at human, human ducks. As humans are more evolved, we should win

We should, we do, and we did. Compare chimp dead from deforestation, with New York. Humans win.

The question is wether or not we win, unaided, hand-to-hand fighting, because there is no question at all if we can actually use our wits. Our wits gave us nuclear weapons

 

[alec]

Because, you know, we WERE pretty much chimps, 5 million years ago. And Chimpanzees were pretty much chimpanzees as well ;D
(to avert more specific argumentation: By that I mean - the physiology of the ancestor of human + the ancestor of chimps = our common ancestor - was, at the time, practically identical to the physiology of todays chimpanzees.

That's a false statement. There's no reason to assume that the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans looked practically identical to todays chimpanzees. Where the hell did you hear/read that? Most likely our common ancestor was just as different from chimpansees as chimpansees are different from humans. And that's what every evolutionary biologist will tell you. What you imply is that after the split this common ancestor evolved gradually into humans, yet the chimpansee would hardly have evolved at all 'cause you write that both are practically identical at the very start of the split. BS.

 

[Crni Vuk]

has anyone heard the story of the mother that managed to lift up a car to save her son? I mean not like the hulk, the story goes that he was working under his car while the car jack somehow knocked over or something. And the guy was now traped under his car. Turns out the mother had so much adrenalin inside her or was in such shock that she raised the car far enough so that 2-3 people could pull the guy out. A usual mother. A housewife? If that story is true. Then I would not be surprised about Chimpanzees with super-strength. Given the right conditions. I am pretty sure most people could become super fast with a lion breathing down their neck as well. Yeah well. Or end up as lion food. Which would be nice. For the lion.

 

[zegh8578]

Because, you know, we WERE pretty much chimps, 5 million years ago. And Chimpanzees were pretty much chimpanzees as well ;D
(to avert more specific argumentation: By that I mean - the physiology of the ancestor of human + the ancestor of chimps = our common ancestor - was, at the time, practically identical to the physiology of todays chimpanzees.

That's a false statement. There's no reason to assume that the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans looked practically identical to todays chimpanzees. Where the hell did you hear/read that? Most likely our common ancestor was just as different from chimpansees as chimpansees are different from humans. And that's what every evolutionary biologist will tell you. What you imply is that after the split this common ancestor evolved gradually into humans, yet the chimpansee would hardly have evolved at all 'cause you write that both are practically identical at the very start of the split. BS.

Yes, I am implying that, and "every evolutionary biologist" will confirm that. Todays chimpanzee had little reason to evolve as much as humans, because our evolution was prompted by change in environment, primarily the reduction of African rainforests, from which our ancestors hailed.
Todays chimpanzee is a direct descendant (as we are) from that ancestor - but has not moved to another environment: Ergo it had no reason to change as much as we have.

I'm not making a statement about the general attitude of evolution as a global event, because there is no such thing. Evolution happens in bursts and waves, where and when environmental changes occur. Granted, there will always be minor mutations, but good genetic pools can keep a species more or less unchanged for the duration of its particular environment, which can last for several million years. In the fossil record, some species seem to last unchanged for 5 million years, 10 million.

So, no, it's a correct statement. There's a reason to, and the fossil record shows that they are pretty damn similar, and if seen in real life, they would be practically identical, although not exactly the same.

 

[alec]

Yes, I am implying that, and "every evolutionary biologist" will confirm that.

So, no, it's a correct statement. There's a reason to, and the fossil record shows that they are pretty damn similar, and if seen in real life, they would be practically identical, although not exactly the same.

From 'The Greatest Show on Earth' (2009) by Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist:

"Interestingly, there are as yet no fossils linking that ancestor (which was neither chimpanzee nor human) to modern chimpanzees." (chapter 6, page 151)

And from 'The Magic of Reality' (2011) by the same author:

"They'll be apes, and they might look a bit like chimpanzees. But they won't be chimpanzees. Instead, they'll be the ancestors that we share with chimpanzees. They'll be too different from us to mate with us, and too different from chimpanzees to mate with chimpanzees." (chapter 2, page 48)

If you want to talk out of your arse, do so with someone who doesn't read books and doesn't care to inform himself.
I would not be having this discussion if I hadn't read every damn book Dawkins ever wrote. He tackles the subject of the common ancestor (and how it was neither chimp nor human) in pretty much every book of his, clearly disturbed by the general public's lack of understanding about this topic. Now I know how he feels.

We could talk to our rivals.
We could! Neanderthals could talk, and dress, and decorate themselves.

Can you imagine!?

This, also, is highly debatable. Whilst there is evidence that Neanderthals were anatomically capable of producing something similar to human speech, having the right bones/muscles/tendons does not guarantee that the subject does in fact use something like human speech to communicate. Anatomical features that are used for speech are also found in other species, sometimes bigger and better, yet these animals did not develop anything close to human speech. Talking Neanderthals remains a very controversial idea, so the idea that homo sapiens could in fact talk with the Neanderthals is just preposterous. This would imply that they sat down peacefully with each other and, with their o so limited knowledge, learned each other's languages. There is no proof whatsoever that this ever occured. In fact, most evolutionary biologists would remark that the sudden disappearance of the Neanderthals and the arrival of homo sapeins in their region are most probably somehow connected. I guess they couldn't just talk their way out of extinction.

You should have your own program on the History Channel. People love crap like that.

 

[AskWazzup]

has anyone heard the story of the mother that managed to lift up a car to save her son? I mean not like the hulk, the story goes that he was working under his car while the car jack somehow knocked over or something. And the guy was now traped under his car. Turns out the mother had so much adrenalin inside her or was in such shock that she raised the car far enough so that 2-3 people could pull the guy out. A usual mother. A housewife? If that story is true. Then I would not be surprised about Chimpanzees with super-strength. Given the right conditions. I am pretty sure most people could become super fast with a lion breathing down their neck as well. Yeah well. Or end up as lion food. Which would be nice. For the lion.

When i was little, me and my brother were sitting in this barn kind of thing and it suddenly collapsed. My brothers face got stuck between the structure, and i had all kinds of adrenalin in me, but my strength didn't get any better when i tried to lift it (now i could probably lift it with a bit of effort). Adrenalin doesn't change the strength of your muscle fibers, it might change how your body reacts to stuff, but if it could actually make you stronger then all the athletes would have been using it long ago.