Upload
Login or register

kanedam

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:3/11/2013
Last Login:8/31/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#5991
Comment Ranking:#3785
Highest Content Rank:#257
Highest Comment Rank:#173
Content Thumbs: 14959 total,  16418 ,  1459
Comment Thumbs: 31295 total,  38125 ,  6830
Content Level Progress: 52.2% (261/500)
Level 210 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 211 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 20.3% (203/1000)
Level 324 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 325 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:4
Content Views:693054
Times Content Favorited:847 times
Total Comments Made:11655
FJ Points:28758
Favorite Tags: sinfest (4)

latest user's comments

#84 - thats a detail that makes quite a difference. 03/03/2016 on Cover up +2
#75 - thats because "intelligence" in the normal language … 03/03/2016 on evolution +1
#68 - they arent really that well adapted to their niches. …  [+] (2 new replies) 03/03/2016 on evolution 0
User avatar
#74 - locurus (03/03/2016) [-]
Sorry, I meant to say canines.

I still can't say I agree with you. Animals simply vary both on an axis between specialist and generalist, and on an axis of intelligence, but I don't think it's as simple as a one-on-one relation of the two. The abilities of fine motor control or complex social interactions have a much greater correlation with intelligence than simply how well adapted a species is. To test this, I wouldn't even know how to quantify adaptiveness in the first place.
#75 - kanedam (03/03/2016) [-]
thats because "intelligence" in the normal language often is defined differently than in a scientific meaning.
fine motor control or complex social interactions have nothing to do with intelligence for example.

i could get my book out to write down the definition of intelligence in this context properly but i think that would take a while and i'm not sure if anyone on here really is interested in that.
#61 - thats technically not true either. humans can (if hea… 03/03/2016 on evolution +58
#55 - a nice hypothesis in evolutionary traits is that the less spec…  [+] (5 new replies) 03/03/2016 on evolution +1
User avatar
#63 - locurus (03/03/2016) [-]
I don't know... Humans might fit that, but what about other intelligent animals? Whales and dolphins, crows, other primates, dogs, octopuses - they're the animals that usually get named when talking about intelligence, and they're all very well adapted to their niche. Maybe that hypothesis was true for humans, but it doesn't strike me as a general rule in nature. Then again I haven't heard of it before or read up on it.
#127 - smartythechicken (03/03/2016) [-]
what about me
#68 - kanedam (03/03/2016) [-]
they arent really that well adapted to their niches.

if you compare the beaks of a crow to other birds you will be able to tell that their beak isnt perfectly formed for a certain kind of food. its hard for them to open hard shells or to rip out flesh pieces. their claws arent that well for any special purpose either. (just compare it to the colibri or a woodpecker). so they make up with intelligence for the lack of specialized tools on their body (using rocks to destroy nuts, and so on)

dogs are not really natural animals, they have been bred for millenias, so they have been bred to fit to the humans.
for each of those animals its true. of course some are better adapted than others, but overall they arent as highly specialised as certain other animals. those specialised the most usually arent named in the list of intelligent animals, and the more specialised the less likely it is for the animal to be considered intelligent.
User avatar
#74 - locurus (03/03/2016) [-]
Sorry, I meant to say canines.

I still can't say I agree with you. Animals simply vary both on an axis between specialist and generalist, and on an axis of intelligence, but I don't think it's as simple as a one-on-one relation of the two. The abilities of fine motor control or complex social interactions have a much greater correlation with intelligence than simply how well adapted a species is. To test this, I wouldn't even know how to quantify adaptiveness in the first place.
#75 - kanedam (03/03/2016) [-]
thats because "intelligence" in the normal language often is defined differently than in a scientific meaning.
fine motor control or complex social interactions have nothing to do with intelligence for example.

i could get my book out to write down the definition of intelligence in this context properly but i think that would take a while and i'm not sure if anyone on here really is interested in that.
#54 - its not so clear in the scientific field how the causalistic w… 03/03/2016 on evolution +1
#53 - nice to see someone argue objectively. thumb up 03/03/2016 on evolution +1
#52 - there are a lot of predators that dont have forward facing eye…  [+] (3 new replies) 03/03/2016 on evolution +2
User avatar
#209 - synthane (03/03/2016) [-]
Seems a bit like you are coming at this with the belief that the most likely cause is a mixture of all of them. Also, the third point you made is basically exactly what he was saying, anyway.

For your examples of predators that don't have forward facing eyes, none of the ones you listed are apex predators, meaning they still need to be able to watch for other predators.

Also, the monkeys have forward facing eyes due to their need for depth perception in the trees rather than purely for hunting.

The "x-ray vision hypothesis" makes sense, but is ultimately a side-effect of depth perception. It makes little sense to be able to see "through" something like a leaf because it needs to be inches from your face for that to be successful. Otherwise, one eye needs to be closed if the other is blocked, which an animal with side-facing eyes would be able to do as well.

As far as other predators producing their own vitamin c, that is likely mostly predators developing that trait due to being pure carnivores. While some may eat plants on occasion, most carnivores don't eat plants enough to be a sufficiently regular supply of vitamin c. On the other hand, as omnivores we are tuned to eat plants and have little need to produce our own vitamin c.

In any case, as you said it is hard to pinpoint exactly why many of these parts are as they are because there are so many potential reasons. Looking through the other posts around here, many of the points people bring up have a certain element of validity but don't cover the whole spectrum. Honestly, it is mostly conjecture.
#245 - kanedam (03/03/2016) [-]
i dont know the cause myself. i was just pointing out that its wrong to state it as fact that it is the way the other user said. it's a hypothesis among others, noone knows which is the right one and neither of them got to the level of being a theory or accepted as fact in the scientific community.
the third point i made IS what he was saying, i just listed it to show its just one hypothesis among others and where/when this hypothesis came up.

stating that monkeys have forward facing eyes because they need depth perception and it has nothing to do with them hunting is exactly the kind of argument that shows one cant simply say "if the eyes are forward facing the animal has to be a predator".

with just one eye looking the depth perception might get lost. (about the x-ray hypothesis) smaller animals dont need that because they usually are small enough to easily see through small holes or rather move their whole head/body.

i'm not daring to state which hypothesis is correct, or which isnt. maybe ther ewill be coming other hypothesis... i just wanted to point out that what he stated was a hypothesis, not an accepted fact eventhough it is often viewed as such in docutainment and unserious science magazines.
User avatar
#254 - synthane (03/03/2016) [-]
That's cool. Didn't mean what I said to come off as aggressive or anything. While I also can't definitively say which is true and which isn't, I tend to think that a combination of many theories is likely the closest to the truth, as is the case with many scientific fields.
#18 - i got the **** explained from muahahaoflore and that made it s…  [+] (3 new replies) 03/03/2016 on Cover up +1
User avatar
#20 - whitebuddha (03/03/2016) [-]
all gucci, i was just giving my point of view. It's a pretty complicated spider web of politics this year everywhere you look.
User avatar
#19 - MuahahaOfLore (03/03/2016) [-]
The attack itself that happened was preventable.
People are upset about that; Hillary had intelligence about a Maybe attack.

In my opinion They should have taken action but;
Sometimes threats are real and sometimes they are not.
If you jump at every threat you would be spread thin;
Hillary made a decision that she thought was prudent under the circumstances
Shit happens
She could have just apologized and it would have been a non issue
User avatar
#65 - storyofmark (03/03/2016) [-]
I think she's trying to justify it because Bernie can call her out on bad judgement otherwise. Which he already is but still
#23 - succes is achieving the goals you have set for yourself. … 03/03/2016 on Success. Your thoughts? 0