Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
edited to add: study the history of science and technology in different societies. You'll realize how lucky we have been. Many societies have been on the brink of similar technological breakthrough as we had. Only we had the pure luck in Europe have those breakthroughs in a time that resources were plenty and the right societal conditions had arisen. But that is a whole different topic.
And again, it tells us little. Yes, we have a higher intelligence, but we are worse swimmers. Comparing the two characteristics is like comparing apples and oranges. The aerodynamics of fish and marine mammals are extremely advanced, and there is no measure of comparison to say that one is more advanced as the other. Just as there is no way to say whether apples are more advanced than orang
pittguy579 said:No, but better at EVERY SINGLE OTHER MEASURE THAN YOU CAN THINK OF
They could be. We could put nets and the like and troll through the deep and catch hundreds of times more fish than a single dolphin can
But at least I am not stupid
The only absurdities come from you and others that are trying to say humans aren't the most advanced creatures overll
Tryin to say humans aren't the most advanced creatures is absurd and obviously you weren't educated in logic
pittguy579 said:LOL I am going to ask some of my engineering friends to come on this board
They will get a kick out of it
Are submarines better at having offspring?
Are they better at forward somersaults, or just exciting the water at all?
That's not hunting though really is it
I wouldn't be so sure, you certainly don't come over as a genius
But surely that depends on the criteria, and intelligence just seems a bit arbitrary to me
No I wasn't, but at least I was educated
Baggins said:depends how big the rocket you strap to him is same as a man
Again, does it equal dolphins in agility, energy-efficience and aerodynamics? You're just hung up on that it's bigger and stronger. But that does not mean it's more advanced. Otherwise engineers wouldn't be studying the creatures in depth because they want to figure out how to achieve those same characteristics.
You yourself stated that those characteristics do not make something more advanced. Why are you backpedaling on that now?
There actually is a lot of luck involved in getting the right circumstances for those developments in place at the exact time. Why do you think it's only in the past 200 years that we have made such enormous progress? The greeks already had primitive steam engines, but the culture at that time wasn't in the right state to allow for it's further development. Took 2000 years to get there again.pittguy579 said:It is not lucky. Humans have always had the ability to do this unless you are saying we evolved over the last 2000 years
Yes it is. It all depends on the environment. In the wrong environment, we're nowhere with our technological advancements. Then other creatures will dominate. What is more advanced? The aerodynamic structure of the shark suit of a swimmer? Or a computer? How can you really compare the two? Same with humans and other creatures. Intelligence is nice and advanced. But it's not automatically the most advanced thing around, and comparing it with other advanced structures isn't really possible.No it's not. We have the ability to build machines that are much better swimmers than any animal. Animals can't do such things
Hence, we are more advanced
Can any dolphin fly to the moon?
And again you're equating brute force with advancement. They are not the same.pittguy579 said:It is just not bigger. It can do more "work" than a dolphin could ever hope to achieve or even a pack of dolphins could hope to achieve
I am not backpedaling. It is clear we can build machines that can do more" work" than a dolphin could ever hope to do
Baggins said:A man can't fly to the moon on his own either.
What's your point?
Tomk80 said:And again you're equating brute force with advancement. They are not the same.
pittguy579 said:No, but well maintained, they can live longer than dolphins and we can make more if we want
Probably not, but that is not a measure of efficiency
And submarines can exit the water. They can float on top
Catching fish is catching fish
wellNot very well
pittguy579 said:It is more than that. But this is pointless
If you don't think humans are the most advanced creatures in terms of capabilities, be my guest, but anyone with any intelligence knows better.
o that's 2 things dolphins are better at now.
I think this is the first time you have admitted error on this thread, possibly the first time in your existence
And hunting is hunting, i.e. catching a specific fish on purpose
Baggins said:List the capabilities that humans are most advanced in
I'll start you off
Intelligence
have you got any others, or is this the only capability that counts for you
Baggins said:perhaps dolphins have the intelligence to realise how pointless it is going to the moon
Wouldn't you agree as an engineer that efficiency is a good indicator of superiority? Which is more efficient at moving through the water.. a dolphin or a submarine?
I asked about efficiency. Which is more efficient? I cannot believe an engineer does not understand what efficiency is. The answer, as I am sure you are aware but are avoiding, is: A dolphin.pittguy579 said:Who can swim faster and farther without refueling?
I asked about efficiency. Which is more efficient? I cannot believe an engineer does not understand what efficiency is. The answer, as I am sure you are aware but are avoiding, is: A dolphin.
Which can move through the water continually for twenty five years without ever leaving the water? A dolphin.
Which never has to leave the ocean to refuel or get resupplied? A dolphin.
Why can't you see that the criteria you are using is subjective? If it is you opinion that intelligence and technical skill are the best indicators of superiority, that is fine. Many would agree. Why is it that you cannot at least acknowledge that there are other criteria that can be used instead? Why are other criteria, "stupid?"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?