Threads in the off-topic forum going off-topic? Unprecedented!![]()
I wouldn't see the discussion as "going off topic". More of a slight detour to try to define what we mean by "life" here on earth before looking for it out there.![]()
And thats constantly changing with new Extemofiles being discovered every time a politician lies (thats every 50 seconds)
Life is life, regardless of how complex it is. And I would say that bacteria has colonised pretty much every land mass on the planet inhabited by other life forms - and did so long before any of us did!
And some animals could survive many things that would kill humans in seconds, using nothing but their own evolutionary adaptations - they don't need to resort to technology.
Having a major effect on the climate can't be classed as being a "successful" trait - we are also a profoundly short sighted species in that we can see the harm that we are doing, but are leaving it ridiculously late to do anything about.
As for profoundly changing the animal fauna, I suspect many other species have done that throughout the existence of life on the planet. The introduction of a non-local species will often have a profound effect on local species.
No serious human biologist / paleoanthropologist plainly claims that humans are animals.
Humans are not completely different but yet party significantly: hidden ovulation for example, which makes it almost impossible for both human genera to realize fertility. Well, breasts indipendent from lactation, the colour of the nipple-region as well as the size of the areola is something that is unique among mammals. Just to name a few things.
hidden ovulation for example, which makes it almost impossible for both human genera to realize fertility.
It does not matter how the animal survives, just that it survives (or not).
Being in great enough numbers with profound enough activities to cause such harm, yes. That is successful.
...
Please name a single animal species that has caused as many animal genera to go extinct as Homo Sapiens.
Indeed. So you would agree that there are many other species that are better at surviving than humans?
You have a very strange definition of "successful", if you include a species' ability to destroy its own habitat and wipe itself out, or to wipe out other species.
You have a very strange definition of "successful", if you include a species' ability to destroy its own habitat and wipe itself out, or to wipe out other species.
:rofl:Humans ARE animals. The lucky ones are, at least.
Because a good lot of the rest are vegetables...
Both human genera? I thought Homo was the only one for the last few million years...
hen it takes the decision of which man's sperm will fertilize her away from her brain and give it to the egg itself
I'm not sure how it relates to adult genes, but I know that there is a genetic defect which causes a man's sperm to be unable to penetrate the egg.err... Isn't that strictly regulated by the concept "first to the finishing line"? I never heard that an egg-cell would be discriminative about which sperm to let in...