Beyond a Zoo

Viewing 31 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #433
      Inuyasha
      Participant

      Are Zoos helpful to already endangered and closely endangered species. Or are they a barrier for evolution. I mean speices that should be exict (because of humans) shouldn’t exist still under evolution. The only thing blocking this are zoos.

    • #19924
      thank.darwin
      Participant

      They are not a barrier for evolution… evolution takes place in a zoo just as much as in the wild… only in different ways

    • #19925
      mith
      Participant

      Zoos are not really for animal protection. The protected are usually kept in sanctuaries or federal parks. Zoo’s are more of a display case IMO.

    • #19971
      Inuyasha
      Participant

      So animals in zoos evovle the same way as animals in the wild. Wow i never knew. Do you have any information on this.

    • #19978
      biostudent84
      Participant

      I don’t think thank.darwin meant that they evolve identically to those animals in the wild, rather that they still do evolve in zoos.

    • #20395
      Inuyasha
      Participant

      Well than if you keep an animal in a zoo long enought wouldn’t it eventually evovle into a different species?

    • #20406
      MrMistery
      Participant

      As everyone probably knows, when kept for a large period of time in captivity, an animal loses certain functions that it had during the stay in the wild. For example, predators can not hunt so effictevily when kept in captivity and then released into the wild, because in the zoo the food was handed to them on a plate. So they addapt to their new habitat. This also, in my opinion, is a form of evolution(just in another way)

    • #20410
      mith
      Participant

      Survival of the cuddilest.

    • #20413
      Inuyasha
      Participant

      Hmm. So how do you describe an organism like a hybrid. For example a liger. Ligers don’t exist in the wild. Althought it didn’t evovle it was techincally man created. So are ligers part of the evolution of zoos. And has there been any species that has actually evovled in a Zoo?

    • #20462
      adidasty
      Participant

      dude nature would be so cool without humans. evolution would be completely natural and artificial selection by humans wouldnt stop anything. we really do do a lot of harm to true natural selection by creating fake habitats and changing ecosystems. humans suck. lol

    • #20467
      thank.darwin
      Participant
      quote biostudent84:

      I don’t think thank.darwin meant that they evolve identically to those animals in the wild, rather that they still do evolve in zoos.

      Thank-you for clearing that up! 😀

    • #20468
      thank.darwin
      Participant
      quote adidasty:

      dude nature would be so cool without humans. evolution would be completely natural and artificial selection by humans wouldnt stop anything. we really do do a lot of harm to true natural selection by creating fake habitats and changing ecosystems. humans suck. lol

      If humans where not here then an intelligent life form would eventually evolve and have the same effects on the environment as we do now. 😀

    • #20661
      Inuyasha
      Participant

      Intersting theory. But would the new intelligent species be as destructive as humans are. I really doubt that. Since we erdicated over 10 billion species since our existence.

    • #20762
      thank.darwin
      Participant

      Yes, I believe that an intelligent species would eventually have negative affects on the environment…

    • #20763
      biostudent84
      Participant
      quote thank.darwin:

      If humans where not here then an intelligent life form would eventually evolve and have the same effects on the environment as we do now. 😀

      I wouldn’t go that far. Since humans learned to farm crops and domisticate animals, they have been more or less removed from any semblance of a true niche in nature. Since we do not have a niche in nature, if we were to be “gone,” there would be no reason to evolve another “intelligent”–as you say–species. The only way a new species arises in the absence of another is when there is a void in nature. If humans were to be “gone,” again, there would be no void.

    • #20783
      Inuyasha
      Participant

      Really, don’t you think that eventually an organism would develop just as smart as humans. Who knows that organism may exist already….

    • #21314
      Bleh
      Participant

      For a animal to be ‘smart’ it need to be able to adabt and make tools, so if you have a stone and use it as a stone (say as otters do) that isnt smartness, just a trick passed down from generations, but if ulter that tool for a better use, (say hitting it with another rock and making a blade edge) is smartness.

      Also you need to be able to do this in the first place (so thoes who say dolphins are as smart as humans may be right but they dont have hands so there not going to get anywhere fast).- So if any animal is going to get as smart as humans its going to have some way of holding somthing (i.e hands, feet)

    • #21323
      biostudent84
      Participant
      quote Bleh:

      For a animal to be ‘smart’ it need to be able to adabt and make tools, so if you have a stone and use it as a stone (say as otters do) that isnt smartness, just a trick passed down from generations, but if ulter that tool for a better use, (say hitting it with another rock and making a blade edge) is smartness.

      Also you need to be able to do this in the first place (so thoes who say dolphins are as smart as humans may be right but they dont have hands so there not going to get anywhere fast).- So if any animal is going to get as smart as humans its going to have some way of holding somthing (i.e hands, feet)

      You’re getting too subjective. You are making the argument that the more like a human an organism is, the smarter it is.

      Read the past arguments. Intellect is the control an organism has over its abilities. The better an organism utilizes its abilities, the more of a chance it has to survive.

      You can’t truly relate intellect interspecifically. A bacteria is as intelligent at phosphorolating chemicals as we are at building skyscrapers.

    • #21325
      mith
      Participant

      @bleh

      If manual dexterity in using tools is the measure of intellect, then cripples like stephen hawkins would fall under the “dumb” category. Perhaps a broader definition would be more prudent?

    • #21327
      biostudent84
      Participant

      +50 Kudos points, Mithril

    • #21328
      mith
      Participant

      +1 level up 😀

    • #21332
      Bleh
      Participant
      quote :

      A bacteria is as intelligent at phosphorolating chemicals as we are at building skyscrapers.

      We can (well i think)- phosphorolate chmicals, but ive never seen a group of chemicals build a skyscraper…

      Also i was trying to make the point is that a animal that manages to adapt a tool to its own use is, in its way ‘smarter’ survival wise- not in say iq (like getting pigs to answer puzzels).

      quote :

      If manual dexterity in using tools is the measure of intellect, then cripples like stephen hawkins would fall under the “dumb” category

      with my expleration above, who would survive longer in a forest? = a monkey or stephan. – your point about the expleration was good though.

    • #21336
      biostudent84
      Participant
      quote Bleh:

      We can (well i think)- phosphorolate chmicals, but ive never seen a group of chemicals build a skyscraper…

      We can…but can we can’t get nearly enough energy to survive by doing so.

    • #21342
      mith
      Participant

      well, the monkey would survive longer, so you think the monkey is smarter?

    • #21344
      biostudent84
      Participant
      quote mithrilhack:

      well, the monkey would survive longer, so you think the monkey is smarter?

      The point I’m making…that I’ve been making ever since this thread (and another thread by Inuyasha) started, is that it is impossible for a human to compare relative intelligences between organisms. Since we ourselves are organisms, we will always have extreme bias. The more like us an organism is, the more intelligent it appears to be to us.

    • #21494
      Inuyasha
      Participant

      What if u ran a double blinded T test on both tested and testing subjected. U could list each of a certain creature’s traits and have HUMANS decide which creature they are better off. But have the real experiment be a two sample T test….

    • #21496
      biostudent84
      Participant

      It won’t work….because in a human-designed test, the test would by design mark the more human-like organisms as more intelligent.

    • #21516
      James
      Participant

      So is intelligence a solely human trait?

    • #21532
      mith
      Participant

      no, it’s simply inherently biased towards humans.

    • #21566
      Inuyasha
      Participant

      but in a double blind, although humans are the sample test takers they wouldn’t know what they were testing. they can be given characteristics to choos their “favorite” traits and rank them.

    • #21568
      mith
      Participant

      but those choices would be biased, ok lemme give you an example

      Animal 1: Can solve complex differential equations.
      Animal 2: Can peel a banana with it’s foot.

      Animal 1: Can tell political jokes.
      Animal 2: Screeches in a number of funny octaves.

    • #22199
      Inuyasha
      Participant

      Right. But still can’t u think of one way?

Viewing 31 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.