The Difference Between Animals and Human Beings

Human evolution is not visible within a single lifetime, although we can observe evolution in shorter-lived species. By definition, it requires at least two generations, and it seems that evolution in humans takes many generarations: at least dozens for a small change, hundreds for a significant change. While there appears to be a trend towards larger brains, it's very slow in developing. For all practical purposes, we're basically identical to every human who has lived in the last 5,000 years.

Apparent human muscle mass is not changing because of evolution, but because of our lifestyle. Athletes are proof that humans can still develop significant muscle mass when they choose to do so.
 
I was not refering to the Roman soldier, i was refering to the Medivel knight, who did wear heavier armor than the Roman Soldier, as did their horses.
And now, just to throw more wood in the fire: "Man is a rope between the animal and the Superman...Man is not a goal but a bridge... to the Superman" -Nietchze
 
That's so, but their horses carried most of the burden. The extra weight of the European box armour was chiefly carried by the mount. Foot soldiers (pikemen and archers) still hauled the standard 75 lbs.
 
If you want to know all about the origins of human life on Earth, I suggest you read The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy by Douglas Adams [!--emo&:P--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth by Buckminster Fuller is also a good read. It's insightfully thought provoking and it touches on adaptaion and specialization.
 
I'm not giving up! LOL. C'mon LooseCannon, knights fell off their horses and carried that heavy armor on their own!
 
From what I've heard, knights who fell off their horses were pretty much toast in combat, mainly because of all that heavy armor. That was the whole point of jousting. Being able to unhorse your opponent meant you'd won the battle, barring an exceptionally heroic effort by the unhorsed knight.

Maybe LC or the Duke has some more info on this? I suspect you guys are busy with finals this time of year, but I hope you can find something. [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
Yes, Onhell. They did. And the finest knights (Germans in their circa 1400 box armour) were actually quite able to battle on foot. As long as you didn't want them to run anywhere, because the armour weighed about 150 lbs. (Appx. 70 kg). But the balance of the suit of armour allowed them to be fairly nimble on foot.

Dismounted knights, if they were able to regain their footing after falling from their mount, and assuming they didn't knock themselves out in the fall, became like immobile stones. It takes a very hard swing to penetrate thick layers of iron. The added momentum of a mounted knight's horse is what allowed them to fight each other. The extra punch from the horse is what allowed fatal blows to be dealt to knights, but only from each other. Only a pikeman had a similar chance, because he could use the rider's momentum against him (as shown by Wallace's schiltions at the Battle of Stirling Bridge).

Trying to penetrate those layers of iron, specifically forged to deflect blows, with a slashing weapon (such as a long sword or an axe) was damn near impossible. Once again only pikemen would have a chance, and that's because they were usually lightly armoured, so they could simply outdistance the knight, and turn around for another couple jabs.

Any mounted man is worth four or five foot. This was proven several times; at the Battle of Adrianople, where 40,000 Romans (an Imperial army under the command of Emperor Valens!) were swept up by a surprise massed cavalry charge; at Hastings, where William the Conqueror's Norman cavalry established dominance all over the field; even as far back as the Battle of Cannae, during the Second Punic War between Carthage and the Roman Republic, where Hannibal Barca's cavalry encircled a Roman army, hot in the pursuit of what appeared to be a retreating Carthaginian centre.

The medieval era brought this to the forefront. In their quest to establish dominance after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, many nations and people turned to cavalry. The most famous leader of this time was fictional. His name, of course, was Arthur, King of the Britons. Several candidates exist for the real Arthur, but the most likely is a fellow known as Ambrosius Aurelianus, who was half Roman half Celtic, and dwelled in the Roman town of Aquae Sulis in Britain (today called Bath). According to records, Aurelianus used massed cavalry to sweep a Saxon force from Badon Hill. As is common knowledge, King Arthur and his Knights did the same, all over Britain, before he invaded places like Ireland, Norway, and Rome.

The legend of cavalry lasted into the 20th century. In the Crimean War, cavalry were disused in a futile charge every Maidenfan knows about: Tennyson's infamous Charge of the Light Brigade. (Into the jaws of death rode the six hundred...or if you're a Maidenfan: "The horse he sweats with fear we break to run/The mighty roar of the Russian guns") The illusion of cavalry superiority was carried over into the US Civil War, where the large distances being covered lent weight to the use of cavalry, but only as reconnaisance troops (in example, when cavalry was used as scouts, it led to one side being able to position itself to win great victories, such as the Confederate victory at Bull Run, but when cavalry was released on raids, the lack of intelligence often led to massive blunders, such as the Confederate and Union armies meeting at Gettysburg).

The Franco-Prussian War was won mostly by rail-deployed infantry. But again, cavalry forces had their place to make rapid strikes, gather information, and to hold down the southern diehards after Paris fell. And you all know the futility of World War 1...well, certain commanders, like Haig, kept cavalry forces in reserve the whole war, intending to use them when the promised breakthrough occured. By this point cavalry was officially useless. Their place as mobile troops was being taken by tanks, although it would be 10 or 15 years before those were fast enough to completely acceed horsemen. And the recconnaisance role was already taken over by airplanes.

Having said all that, horsemen dominated from 375 - 1853, a time longer than the Roman Legions, longer than Alexander the Great, longer than anything else in history. The tactics developed by horsemen in this period has been adapted to our new form of mobile warfare, best shown in France in 1940 and Russia in 1941.
 
By WWI do you mean the Poland charge unto the German tanks? I thought that the most immidiate replacement of the horse was the JEEP, which has now evolved into the Humvee.
 
The Polish cavalry charge in '39 was just...silly. No offense to those brave men, but cavalry charges died in Flanders in 1914. And the jeep really didn't replace the horse. The horse was the method of mobile warfare. Cavalry was used to establish battlefield superiority, not to move around soldiers (although mounted infantry, ie dragoons, became important in the 18th century).
 
Actually, Everything needs a start. If one star made everything, we are stardusts.
Sorry for breaking your philosophy thoughts [!--emo&:(--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/sad.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'sad.gif\' /][!--endemo--] lol
 
Hello all, I was looking through some old papers of mine the other day and I came upon an old writing where I discuss this very issue, though it is more "philosophical" than sientific, i thought it would be a nice read for you all. Now, my ideas have progressed and evolved since this writing but it is still worth while.

Where Do I Come From?

That question probably starts in evolution and the fact that, where did we all come from? Charles Darwin (18091882) made a bold attempt in trying to answer that question (as did Gregor Mendel and Archibald Garrod to name a few) by publishing his most renowned work, The Origin of Species. In it Darwin proposes two main theories: He proposed that all existing vegetable and animal forms were descended from earlier, more primitive forms by way of a biological evolution. Secondly, that evolution was the result of natural selection.
Natural selection occurs during sex as the genes of the two parents (and other ancestors) gets passed down to a new creature. Natural selection works to improve the chances of survival for that species. Thake for example the eagle, eyes are fundamental to catch prey an the eagle with best eye sight catches more prey and its chances of survival are better than an eagle with poor eye sight. So the eagle with good eyes lives and the one with bad eyes dies, therefore the good eyesight gets passed on to the offspring of the "fittest" eagle. And it works that way with every species... including us.
The interesting thing to see is that even though the chimp and the gorilla are our clesest or more similar ancestors we all come from ONE common ancestor, most likely a bacteria. How else could it be possible that we hold genes from every animal that is, was, and most likely will be? But even though a frog has the genes of a chimp somewhere in its DNA it is still a frog, right? We have done a good job at describing other animals' behavior but we are still perplexed at our won. We have decided that teh chimpanzee is promiscuous and aggressive, the gorilla is polygamist and peaceful and we are monogamous when it comes to our mating and social behaviors. But is "man" really monogomous/ How come some are promiscuous and others polygamist? Are they more chimp or gorilla than they are human? Is it that our bond to these species is still closer than we think (genetically pseaking)? Why do we wage war like the aggressive chimpanzee instead of love like the peaceful monobo? Is the answer in our species age? We are a young if not the youngest species on the planet. Crocodiles, sharks and birds were around since the age of dinosaurs; we are only ten million years old. Are we more primitive than what we would like to think? Erich Fromm speculated tht mental afflictions and drug addictions are symptoms our rce suffers because of the change from tribe to society. Tribe people don't suffer depression, alchoholism or schizoprenia (THIS LAST SENTENCE IS OPINION). Their lives are less stressful to ours. They don't worry if they'll ose their job, their home or if they'll get shot if they drive by the "ugly side" of town. But we still are one; we are humans. We are not Hispanic, Anglo, African or one of many hyphenated Americans. We are one race and that is the Human Race.
My philosophy teacher told me to think about what makes an American an American and a Mexican a Mexican. They both have family concpts, cultrue, rituals and beliefs. but they vary and these minute differences when combined mak them look worlds apart. The Mexican family concept is that family is all you got and they are there to help you. You don't leave home until you get married and probably won't work until you have a degree or your economic situation forces you to. The American concept of family is tht they are a nuisance, people you see on Thanksgiving and Christmas. Parents are in the way of teh child and the child in the way of the parents. You turn sixteen and you better get a job. You are eighteen and what are you waiting for to move out. Mexico's culture lies in thousands of years of Aztec/Mayan civilization colliding with the Spaniard culture. In America, in the work ethic, the self-made person. There was nothing here, we made it and that is how it is going to be.
As for rituals I'll tackle what I have seen first hand. mexico is predominantly Catholic. The colonial churches are packed at every Mass, the priest stands behind the altar of gold with the crucified, bleeding Christ bearin a face of agony behind him. Saints who are either bleeding or crying in turn surround Jesus. Renaissances paintings fill the stonewalls depicting Jesus' suffering, a crying Virgin Mary while an inconsolable crowd looks on. The service is serious and solemn, no one smiles, and no one laughs. How can they with all those bleeding and crying saints around them? The message that is received is basically: Jesus suffered so you must too. Which it couldn't be any further from the truth. But it is a good way to control the masses in an impoverished nation. In the U.S churches have neat designs, bright interiors and fewer saints. The altar is simple and bare. Jesus is not bleeding and he looks peaeful, as though asleep, he doesn't suffer. Either that or Christ King is present, resurrected and in full glory. Priests are welcoming and even crack a few jokes during their sermon. Any Mexican would see it as blashemous, but that's the way things are. We have family, culture and rituals. Chimps have their trees and gorillas their plains. It is sad to witness how these groups get along so well and they can't even speak (chimp with chimp, gorilla with gorilla). We have the ability to convey messages to each other without having to howl, roar or smack someone upside the head. Yet we still behave like chimps, and we still behave like gorillas. Others act like lions protecting their territory and will shoot you if you walk on their lawn. Our animal behavior is still very Present in us, which many use as an excuse to BE promiscuous or plygamist. Behaving exactly like animals, not humans. As humans we shouldn't deny our nature, but we can control it. We can rise above our urges; we are not denying them because that is when we become machines. Someone who doesn't feel nor react. It is the life long struggle of balance, we are not purely rational and we are not pure emotions. This is our hell and our curse, choice. We can choose to be animals and behave like chimps and gorillas or we can act like what we are, humans.
Where do I fit in all of this? Well, even though I'm my wn entity and have a mind of my own (at least I'd like to think so), I'm not an original mold. On my face I have trces from the Moors that invaded spain in the 9th century A.D. Of course people tell me I got them from my mother, but her? From her father and so on. So let's stick to the "close" family. I have my mom's bushy eybrows, yet they are shaped like my grandfather's on my Dad's side, Tata. My nose is a replica of my grandmother's from my Mom's side, Petra. I have my Dad's big ears and body structure. Tata's legs and hands are also found in my hysical presentation. But physical features are not all that we, as human beings inherit from parents. My questioning and independent mind is mostrly influenced from my mother. My laziness comes from my father as well as my easiness to lose my temper. My dreaming, imagination and hunger for books and knowledge come from my mom. My dad gave me my realist point of view. So according to nature I could easily become an easily angered, fat old man; according to nurture I can learn to control my anger and weight. Nature, I'd rather dream than work. Nurture, I can work to make those dreams come true. It all comes down to the questions college and English teachers ask all the time: Where do you see ourself in five years? Ten? at age five I wanted to be a fireman, policeman, doctor and a lawyr all at once. I guess that shows my idealistic mind of trying to change the world to make it a bettr place. Tata is a retired Mexican Army General, his social security check is US$600. He's fond of money a little too much. In his environment moeny was everything, pressure from family, society etc. He chose the Army as a safe ay to feed all his family. He wants me to be a doctor so I can take care of all my family financially speaking. but in my pursuit of happiness. I'd rathr be a priest. Why? I grew up with teh notion that mone isn't everything in life, material things come and go. This is very true and giving importance to those issues brings one a lot of unhappiness. Helping others and making other smile make me smile and feel good about myself. If I fail, depression taes me for a dark ride. So who am I? I am the result of more than four billion years of evolution. I am one out of 6.2 billion people and counting. Another warm body trying t get by in the horrible game of life. To my parents I'm Onhell*, to the government I'm a number, to the rest of the world I'm nobody.

*obviously name was changed [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
I will answer and discuss your point Onhell, but I just want to think about what you wrote a little first. You talked about a lot of different subjects.
Quite a speech, to tell the truth... I didn't want to let it go without let you know I had very much enjoyed this reading. Thanks !
 
Thank you Owl, glad you enjoyed it. And I usually go all over the place in my writings, i've cut down in recent years but oh well.
 
I found this today. I thought there was a correlation to this topic. It's interesting anyway.

[a href=\'http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/04/16/pinker/\' target=\'_blank\']CNN[/a]
 
Our ability to plan ahead is far superior any other mammal, according to science.
How would we know? We can't ask an ant, a dolphin, moose or killerwhale.
 
I didn't know that ants were mammals... Did I miss something in my biology classes? [!--emo&:P--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Maverick+May 17 2004, 11:09 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Maverick @ May 17 2004, 11:09 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] I didn't know that ants were mammals...  Did I miss something in my biology classes?  [!--emo&:P--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--] [/quote]
It's their biggest secret yet. [!--emo&^_^--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'happy.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Tormentor+May 17 2004, 10:54 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Tormentor @ May 17 2004, 10:54 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] It's their biggest secret yet.  [!--emo&^_^--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'happy.gif\' /][!--endemo--] [/quote]
And once again, maidenfans.com is the first site to reveal such an extraordinary story! Blabbermouth will publish the news soon too! [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
Maverick has made the most relevant input in this topic to this point.

Humans are created by multi-dimensional mice as a tool for finding the secrets of life, and they keep watching and experimenting with us in various scientific laboratories at this very moment.

I really shouldn't read so many crap books....
 
Back
Top