Human vs Chimp

[Crni Vuk]

Youre not a mother. And I mean it.

Dont understimate the biology, schock or what ever, that can happen to your body. I mean seriously. The world is full of stories by more or less ordinary humans doing all sorts of crazy stuff that seems either unbelievable or outright impossible. People that survived fatal wounds, yet still managed to kill dozens of enemies and beating the shit out of the enemy. How do you explain what some people can do when they are hypnotized. I sadly dont know all the details, because I havn't read it in english, but it seems that our brain has a lot of barriers that keeps us from actually using our full potential with our muscles, for the simple reason to protect us from hurting our self like the joints, so when you sit there doing your 50 pounds on the bench-pres then your body might take a lot more, but your brain knows that its not good for your health.

Who knows if the body and brain of a chimpanzee isnt ... working in a different manner? So maybe he can do something that seems unbelievable? I mean they dont get as old as we do either. Hey! I am not saying that he will lift 2-3 tons like its nothing or that every chimpanzee will turn in to the hulk when in rage throwing cars around like toys, but yeah. Riping your face off? Or your arm? That probably seems possible.

I mean Christ, look at those fucking arms. LOOK AT THEM! I dont even want to imagine what it might be like getting smacked by that.

As far as most articles and studies goes, tentative conclusions suggest that a "typical" chimpanzee might have 2 or even 3 times the strength of a decent football player. Part of that seems to come from the fact that chimps fall in the spectrum of "sprinters" with the way how their bones and muscle density is set up - which was already discussed here. Intersting research, so much for sure. Lets just hope that planet of the apes is still far far away from us ...

When it comes to mother nature and her beasts, the human is rather on the looser side with his body. Most animals of our size (or comparable size) are usually much stronger, can take a lot more pain and are - what surprise! - much better suited to the hazards out there. We compensate this by our motor skills and intelect, and with years of training and all that people can achieve impressive things, but still, when it comes to pure strength we would have already trouble with dogs and pigs in most cases.

 

[Hassknecht]

Humans have the advantage of tools, though. Even if it's just a boot.

 

[valcik]

Those smartass chimps can't be trusted!

 

[zegh8578]

Alec, ffs...

Easily throwing out the random insults, to get your desperate point across, are we?
I want you to notice, and notice well the difference in our argumentative style here:

I said - and I repeat once more, for your final benefit: PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL. Why do I use words, Alec? Ask yourself, why do any of us use words?
Why did I not take care of writing "The same species"?
Because I _know what I'm talking about_, and words like "species" "identical" "exactly" "almost" HAVE MEANING.

Proconsul and Kenyapithecus "What?", yeah what? They are CHIMPANZEE-LIKE ANCESTORS OF HUMANS.
"B-but my Richard Dawkins book says nothing about those?" *flips through index*
Your book probably mentions Australopithecus, all traditional discourses tend to go as far back as Australopithecus, but not much more.
Australopithecus is about 2 million years old, there are still 3 million missing* - EITHER WAY... It is not a long stretch so say that all relatives of chimpanzees will be pretty damn chimpanzee-like, even the Bonobo.
"No they will NOT!"
FINE... you win

As for communicating, "NO! you said TALKING!", yes yes, I said talking, I was simplifying the matter slightly, making it more accessible, making it feel more "real", comm-u-ni-ca-ting sounds so static and mechanical, besides ALL animals communicate, fuck even some PLANTS communicate.

What would you have had me write?
"Communicate-ever-so-slightly-but-more-complex-than-plants-especially-more-complex-than-some-birds-but-hey-while-we're-at-it-definitely-more-complex-than-chimpanzees,-cus-after-all-neanderthals-are-a-SPECIES-of-the-genus-HOMO-and-should-be-prettttty-darn-close-to-humans,-at-least-closer-than-chimpanzees!"
^see how that sentence becomes too long?
So I wrote "talk"
Neanderthals could talk. Babytalk? Gurgle? They talked.

Here comes the point: Can an adult human talk to a baby? YES.

All I did, Alec, was to offer a bit of an expanded view. A bit LESS drudged down in old myth, without pulling out the tinfoils: Humans can talk to each others, even different species of human. "NO THEY CAN NOT!!!"

fiiiine... you win, whatever.

* 3 million years missing from most topics about it, not from the fossil record. You should study the fossil record. That's where the goodies are.

So the kicker will now be, will you:
1. continue to argue that hominids cannot talk, and do never look like a chimp
or
2. admit that you got carried away. I will admit simplifying the matter beyond reason, as a compromise.

 

[alec]

I did not get carried away.
All your above post says is this: "Alec, I use words the way I see fit. I don't care about the real meaning of the words used in a discussion. In my dictionary, 'talking' means 'communicating' and 'practically identical' means 'completely different'." You even go as far as saying that some words 'almost have meaning'.
Am I, or anyone else for that matter, to take this seriously?

continue to argue that hominids cannot talk, and do never look like a chimp

Dude: I never said hominids can't talk. And I didn't say Neanderthals didn't communicate either. I said that talking Neanderthals are a controversial idea. Because, you know, there is a difference between talking and communicating. Jesus.
I also never said that hominids never look like a chimp. Again you change my words into what you seem to think they mean. 'Looking like something' is not the same thing as 'being similar', 'being practically identical'. Asimo, the bipedal robot, looks like a human being, but are they practically identical? Are they in any way similar apart from looks?
Next time I start a discussion with you I am going to ask you to define every single word you use, seeing as how your dictionary differs from the ones that have been printed so far.

Here comes the point: Can an adult human talk to a baby? YES.

 

[zegh8578]

Isn't it annoying when arguments are all about what you didn't say?

The _closest relative a chimpanzee can ever have_ will be _pretty damn similar to it_, the current living Homo sapiens is _not_ the closest relative a chimp can have, because we are removed from it many species. I _know_ that the chimpanzee is 5 million years apart from its ancestor, just as we are -
but living a very similar way of life, it is very likely that the chimpanzee is very similar indeed to our common ancestor from 5 million years ago.

Does that finally feel better?

 

[AskWazzup]

Youre not a mother. And I mean it.

Dont understimate the biology, schock or what ever, that can happen to your body. I mean seriously. The world is full of stories by more or less ordinary humans doing all sorts of crazy stuff that seems either unbelievable or outright impossible. People that survived fatal wounds, yet still managed to kill dozens of enemies and beating the shit out of the enemy. How do you explain what some people can do when they are hypnotized. I sadly dont know all the details, because I havn't read it in english, but it seems that our brain has a lot of barriers that keeps us from actually using our full potential with our muscles, for the simple reason to protect us from hurting our self like the joints, so when you sit there doing your 50 pounds on the bench-pres then your body might take a lot more, but your brain knows that its not good for your health.

Come on Crni, you know that this is mythical thinking. Something you're implying would have huge benefits in sports and warfare, and you can be sure that humans would already be injecting whatever would cause that. And this is not even going into logical and scientific side of things.

I mean Christ, look at those fucking arms. LOOK AT THEM! I dont even want to imagine what it might be like getting smacked by that.I mean Christ, look at those fucking arms. LOOK AT THEM! I dont even want to imagine what it might be like getting smacked by that.

Those are amazing arms for a chimp, but they are not THAT amazing if you compare the chimp with:



195 cm 160 kg of muscle

 

[Crni Vuk]

I dont know, for me the chimps arms look pretty similar to his. The chimp arms look like they have a bit more body fatt here and there. But that doesnt have to mean much, considering that most weightlifters dont look like Schwarzeneger in hist best times either. I would not be surprised if the chimp would still kick his ass.

*Edit Not to mention, its a rather random chimp I would suppose, one of many, they probably all have more or less a similar look and he is also in captivity - I guess at least for several years if not even born in captivity. So coming up with a picture of a well trained atheltic person? Not sure if that is really a fair comparison. Like I said in another post. Compare the Superman with Superchimp, and Superchimp still wins. Why do you argue so much anyway? it seems rather obvious that the chimp is AT LEAST twice as strong like a human. And this is when you take a REGULAR chimp and compare him with a decent FOOTBALL player. I mean I dont even claim that your average chimp will start to hurl around cars and trucks while riding on a giant shark with laser shooting out of his eyes each time it gets in a rage. But a chimp vs a human in a 1vs1 fight-to-the-death situation? My money would go pretty much always on the chimp.

Come on Crni, you know that this is mythical thinking. Something you're implying would have huge benefits in sports and warfare, and you can be sure that humans would already be injecting whatever would cause that. And this is not even going into logical and scientific side of things.

They dont?

Isnt the use of steroids and all kinds of chemicals, hormones or what ever the try to "trick" the body in to doing something it otherwise is not capable of doing? And they also try more and more genetic doping. There is a lot of research here. Understanding muscles, muscle growing and why some muscle systems work different then ours etc.

You are assuming here thatsimply injecting some adrenalin or other artificial substance in your body would have always the exact same effect like in nature. It seems there are neurological barrieres at work here. And it is an undisputed fact that the mind has a very big impact on your physical abilities. So a housewifve without training showing extraordinary strength for an EXTREMLY LIMITED amount of time? Seems not unlikely to me at least. I am not saying shes a car lifting hulk, you know.

An evolutionary biologist argues that humans may lack the strength of chimps because our nervous systems exert more control over our muscles. Our fine motor control prevents great feats of strength, but allows us to perform delicate and uniquely human tasks.

​

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090330200829.htm
​

Right or wrong? No clue. But I have read this idea of neurological limitations a few times. And why does it sounds so strange? For me, it doesnt, we display a level of fine motor skills not present in any of the biger apes.

 

[MutantScalper]

Those are amazing arms for a chimp, but they are not THAT amazing if you compare the chimp with:

View attachment 716

195 cm 160 kg of muscle

Bob Sapp...I've seen him fight few times...my money's on the chimp.

 

[.Pixote.]

Where does the humble Mandrill sit in the equation. Those jaws look terrifying.

 

[zegh8578]

Mandrill comes into "general beast realm", those guys fend off leopard, the way another leopard would fend off a leopard. We have entered the world of teeth rip meat apart.

Baboons in general are frightening. Not particularily dangerous to humans, in that they generally don't attack or eat us, but they can develop many a nasty habit, such as home invasions, baby snatching, etc

 

[Crni Vuk]

baby snatching? What the fuck. Like in real baby snatching or just the typical



myth

 

[zegh8578]

They would snatch a baby to eat it, yes not to hold it for ransom.
All predators of a certain size and ferocity, will snatch a baby if they are just left laying around.

Lesson - don't leave babies just laying around in places where certain-sized predators frequent.

speaking of it, some monkeys are in fact known to the idea of ransom. These monkeys in India, there are ones who have learned to hold items ransom, simply by experience. They have learned to take something accessible, like a hat, and stay within reach of the victim, in hopes of getting a trade for it. Tourists, enticed by the monkey not escaping, might quickly think of trying to bargaign, out of their own instinct - to lure the monkey to drop their sunglasses, for a banana.

 

[AskWazzup]

Bob Sapp...I've seen him fight few times...my money's on the chimp.

I did hesitate to post his picture (i could find plenty more others, just his was the first thought that i got), but then i remembered how he was bending everyone's hands like rubber in arm wrestling and how his defeats and knockdowns look awfully suspicious (not to me alone). But i was referring to the fact that Crni was very impressed with the physique of the chimp, and i agree it's pretty good, but not godlike even compared to humans and often is not that impressive if you look at some humans.

I dont know, for me the chimps arms look pretty similar to his. The chimp arms look like they have a bit more body fatt here and there. But that doesnt have to mean much, considering that most weightlifters dont look like Schwarzeneger in hist best times either. I would not be surprised if the chimp would still kick his ass.

*Edit Not to mention, its a rather random chimp I would suppose, one of many, they probably all have more or less a similar look and he is also in captivity - I guess at least for several years if not even born in captivity. So coming up with a picture of a well trained atheltic person? Not sure if that is really a fair comparison. Like I said in another post. Compare the Superman with Superchimp, and Superchimp still wins. Why do you argue so much anyway? it seems rather obvious that the chimp is AT LEAST twice as strong like a human. And this is when you take a REGULAR chimp and compare him with a decent FOOTBALL player. I mean I dont even claim that your average chimp will start to hurl around cars and trucks while riding on a giant shark with laser shooting out of his eyes each time it gets in a rage. But a chimp vs a human in a 1vs1 fight-to-the-death situation? My money would go pretty much always on the chimp.

Well, humans are also not supposed to be sitting at desk whole day long, picking their buggers and the chimp looks nowhere near that muscular, but i have no doubt that that chimp is damn powerful. I just don't believe that hype, as if a after a big 200 pound chimp tore up (and didn't even kill) an old lady (who is probably 50-70 pounds lighter, old and brittle), suddenly they are some killing machines. I believe they would probably win most of the time against the general population, but i don't think they can have their way that easy with a well trained human, who doesn't get sneak attacked. Just for giggles, i wonder what would happen if a killer athlete would sneak attack an unsuspecting chimp

You are assuming here that simply injecting some adrenalin or other artificial substance in your body would have always the exact same effect like in nature. It seems there are neurological barrieres at work here. And it is an undisputed fact that the mind has a very big impact on your physical abilities. So a housewifve without training showing extraordinary strength for an EXTREMLY LIMITED amount of time? Seems not unlikely to me at least. I am not saying shes a car lifting hulk, you know.

An evolutionary biologist argues that humans may lack the strength of chimps because our nervous systems exert more control over our muscles. Our fine motor control prevents great feats of strength, but allows us to perform delicate and uniquely human tasks.

​

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090330200829.htm
​

Right or wrong? No clue. But I have read this idea of neurological limitations a few times. And why does it sounds so strange? For me, it doesnt, we display a level of fine motor skills not present in any of the biger

Well, there are, i think, a couple of problems here. Our body is always trying to be efficient. Say i don't use my muscles for two weeks, i start to get muscle atrophy, so the body starts to shed everything it feels doesn't contribute to day to day life. If we were packing and lunging around these secret stashes of strength (that we may never use), then our body, from an evolution point of view, would be very inefficient.

Then there are all sorts of terrible, super stress inducing things happening in the world every day. For example those Indian guys, rapping some poor fellows wife in front of him... Or someone about to be killed, or seeing someone beat up your child etc. etc. These things are very frequent. So i would lean to the side, that would presuppose these magical feats working at a pretty frequent rate.

Then there is physics, how much force can we actually exert with a given muscle, with a given density and mass and leverage. Is it possible for someone with an undeveloped body to even exert a somewhat close amount of force with that kind of body?

 

[Crni Vuk]

But i was referring to the fact that Crni was very impressed with the physique of the chimp, and i agree it's pretty good, but not godlike even compared to humans and often is not that impressive if you look at some humans.

yes, but now you are comparing atheletes [ a specific type of person/group ] to the average chimp. Lets imagine you could get a chimp to spend his time to become an athletic chimp, in other words, doing more then his usual routine, focused on becoming better then ordinary chimps, then the athletic chimp would still beat the athletic human I guess.

they can have their way that easy with a well trained human,

Well. Who does? I mean, we sure have spend a good deal of time and resources trough history trying to find ways how to fight and kill each other efficiently. A trained person will definitely be a harder target. But again, we are talking here about a specific type of group then. Bruce Lee is not your average human.

Well, there are, i think, a couple of problems here. Our body is always trying to be efficient. Say i don't use my muscles for two weeks, i start to get muscle atrophy, so the body starts to shed everything it feels doesn't contribute to day to day life. If we were packing and lunging around these secret stashes of strength (that we may never use), then our body, from an evolution point of view, would be very inefficient.

Those are not secret stashes of strength, those are simply the maximum of potential strength that your body can use. There are enough examples of people showing extraordinary strength, stamina and perception given the right situation. This goes from firemans with a 6th sense to the soldier climbing up a cliff under fire, clearing several bunkers on the top, killing a good number of foes in hand-to-hand combat all while beeing wounded or a guy traped between two rocks in the wilderness amputating his own arm and walking back to the nearest place of civilisation, or someone surviving for months on the ocean, drinking his own urin and eating raw fish he catched out there. Why do some people survive while others die?

You are right, our body and muscles try to be as efficient as possible. But that also means that our body will never use more strength then required to preserve energy, that is efficiency, muscles, and cells are lazy, they really are! You have to force them to grow, either by contraction or some stimuli, muscles dont grow by them self. You probably dont use more then 60-80% of your maximal power over the day, particularly if the task is a routine, a well trained person might use more, like 90%, depending on his training and how often he is changing it. As a very simplified example, lets say 100% of your power is what you can lift once before you are so tired that you need to rest for some time. Most of the time you will not get in a situation where you need this power, even with a lot of training, you will probably never use more then 90% of what your body is really capable of, your brain simply makes sure that you dont go over your limits. For obvious reasons. Damage to your joints and muscles or other parts of your body. Hence why doping is so dangerous. They often work as stimulants that allow you to go one step further. And this has killed people already in the past. Ignoring this barrier is also a reason why people suffer serious injuries or even die sometimes in military training, its not uncommon with the SAS that people collapse and hurt them self during their training, because they dont listen to their body and push it over its limit. Obviously, like with most things in medicine/sport, this is not a really accurate science where you could say that it works the same way for everyone. It is a very individual process with a lot of factors. Some collaps faster then others, some have better muscle fibers that can handle more stress and better use of oxygen in their blood and so on.

But its clear that our brain hase certain fail-save systems that come in to effect so that you dont risk your health, to prevent serious long term damage. But a very huge amount of schock could eventually lead to a situation where you mobilize all resources of your body to get to the absolute maximum of what you can do for a very short amount of time. Where this maximum is? Its very different for each person.

Then there are all sorts of terrible, super stress inducing things happening in the world every day. For example those Indian guys, rapping some poor fellows wife in front of him... Or someone about to be killed, or seeing someone beat up your child etc. etc. These things are very frequent. So i would lean to the side, that would presuppose these magical feats working at a pretty frequent rate.

*shrugs* well they probably do happen quite often. But not all of them get recorded. There are quite a lot of remarkable stories out there. Are all of them true? Probably not. But you cant ignore them all either, particularly the ones that are well documented. Like I said, this is a situation that can change from one person to the other. Someone might have resources in their body which they never realized before.

For example. Why do two people react completely different in the exact same situation? Like in a bank robbery where someone is pointing with a gun at the hostages. One person beeing rational, thinking and maybe even acting because of the adrenalin rush sharpening his senses and perception, while the other person cant move from the stress beeing literaly frozen unable to move up to the point where he might even pee in his pants. The parts of your autonomous nervous system are geting in conflict with each other here over the stress situation. Some say that this mechanism dates back to primordial times where one defence mechanism was to play dead while the other to run away, and they can get in conflict with each other. There are animals known to pee on themself in hope that a potential predator would ignore them. Of course, for the last few 100 000 years we dont have really to deal with predators anymore - competition though, but that is a different story! But there are a lot of factors inside your body that play a role, making it impossible to say how each individual will react. One mother might snap out becaues of panick, another becoming a superhuman for 10 sec. - I am exagerating here! You know what I mean. We can influence this process even, up to a certain point, trough training, repretition and all that. But every person will have his own way of dealing with very stressfull situations, be it a bank robbery, fighting on a battlefield, or winning a gold medal.

Otherwise, how would you explain it, that some people keep a cool head, knowing what to do, while others totally panick, despite of good training.

Luck? Destiny? Or just coincidence?

 

[alec]

Zegh might have a point.

 

[SnapSlav]

Spelled "skeptical" as "sceptical". Therefore, as a result of a single error, I shall unilaterally disregard everything said in that article, because CLEARLY they can't know what they're talking about if they can't be bothered to address the squiggly red line, right? That's airtight, flawless logic after all!

(Irony and frustratingly obvious typos aside, interesting read.)

 

[zegh8578]

Zegh might have a point.

About what?
Does the article explain how two species within one genus would never attempt verbal communication between each others?
If this debate is about who "wins", then you win Alec. You win gold, silver and bronze! Does the article also point out that none of our ancestors ever looked like apes, especially those that were apes?

Oh, and for the record, I never argued about when or when not neanderthals lived, so making this about me is a cheap shot, I would prefer if you refrained from such tricks in the future. I should find some wiki-article outlining how the fossil record can be used to determine evolutionary relationships, with the captions "Told you Alec! Evolution is real!"

 

[alec]

zegh, I said you might have a point. That was actually me being very nice. To you. Apparently the article (the one in the magazine, not the online one) reveals new 'evidence' that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals might have lived side by side for several thousands of years. This could imply complex forms of communication, for instance speech.

It was mentioned on the news over here, but in retrosight, it all did sound a bit 'fantastic' (remnants of Neandertal dna in the human genome ...). I am going to read the published article once I get to the library.

 

[zegh8578]

I guess I expected some form of "jab", but could not figure out what your point was. For a moment I even considered the possibility that you were being genuine there, but I don't know you well enough to tell sarcasm from honesty, and the internet has a tendency of overflowing with witty sarcasm left and right, so, my bad >:I

And yes, read the proper paper. FB is brimming with people who are excited about the discovery, well, the headline, well, their interpretation of the headline "Awesome, so neanderthals never died out, but mixed with humans? Cool!"