[DH-Biker]

I was thinking today that, realistically, we aren't a species that bears any real methods of defense or attack. Just as a scenario, picture us without a weapon, without a place to hide and with a 600 pound animal in front of us. An open savannah with a wilderbeast or something, what can we possibly do?

We can't outrun it, we wont hurt it by smashing it in the face with our fist, so what do we do? We had to have the intelligence to create the sharp stone attached to a stick, otherwise we'd have been killed.

Is it therefore a justifiable argument to state that our intelligence is our greatest defense and weapon? But if we didn't have that, we aren't really a species that specialises in attacking nor running. Yeah, we have our adrenal system and we can flood our body with adrenaline enough for a few minutes worth of running like hell or fighting harder, but we don't have claws, we don't have a jaw designed to bite in aggression, we don't have venom, we don't have vivid colours, we don't (on average) have the stamina for extended periods of fleet, we can't fly and aside from a fairly solid fist we possess nothing to use as blunt force.

If it wasn't for martial arts or the knowledge that hitting someone hurts them, we wouldn't have much to go off.

Nor are we particularly tough. We aren't covered in thick armoured plates, our vital organs are protected by a simple bone cage that isn't hard to break and although many can shrug off pain to a fairly high level, we are still susceptible to the methods many predators use to kill their pray, e.g. a bite to the neck, etc.

But yeah, are we a species that is necessarily designed to fight? Or was it purely that we are so intelligent that has allowed us to conquer the animal kingdom the way we have. Its no surprise that without man's modern marvals for survival, we are almost certain to die in the wild when other animals are around. It would be unlikely for a fully grown man, no matter how fast nor strong, to survive long without a weapon or fire in the middle of the African Savannahs, for example.

Is our intelligence and adrenal system the only factors (I say only, they are exceptionally potent) that we can call our arsenal of weapons? Or is it the fact we can run and move across rough terrain fairly aptly that is our defense?

[T-Toe]

We're probably one of the most fragile creatures on the planet. Our intelligence has brought us thus far.

[Bellissima]

our brain is our weapon... probably most decent sized animals could kill us if we weren't capable of maing weapons... most can't run fast, most can't fight well... our trick is our brain and really, that's the best advantage evolution could give.

[Elwyn]

Our intelligence has meant we can use tools and weapons, I should imagine as we started using these things our natural arsenal of killer teeth and claws were gradually phased out as we evolved.

[A level Az]

We are the kings OKAY? Huge jaws, big claws and cute paws are nothing against a gun. Sure you can put us in a 1v1 situation with no weapons, but that's unrealistic. We could put a shark on a dry raised platform with no water in the middle of a city centre, it isn't gonna kill ****.

[DH-Biker]

(Original post by Bellissima)
our brain is our weapon... probably most decent sized animals could kill us if we weren't capable of maing weapons... most can't run fast, most can't fight well... our trick is our brain and really, that's the best advantage evolution could give.

Although I agree with your point, just to throw a spin is it really the best advantage?

For example, the Tyrannasaurus Rex is regarded as the greatest land predator the world has ever seen. Were it not for the cataclysmic events of the Jacutan Meteor, there is no way life would've advanced the way it did.

At the time, the T-Rex was contested by other large predatory dinosaurs and yet, with a relatively small brain it was able to overcome all other predators and become an apex predator. Whilst we can't accurately state "OK, this is what it did and this is how it acted" due to the fact the last one died 65 million years ago, fossil records support the fact that the T-Rex, despite its small brain, was unconqurable. And there were plenty of other dinosaurs that could take it on.

Again, I agree with your point but its just to add a counter point.

[DH-Biker]

(Original post by A level Az)
We are the kings OKAY? Huge jaws, big claws and cute paws are nothing against a gun. Sure you can put us in a 1v1 situation with no weapons, but that's unrealistic. We could put a shark on a dry raised platform with no water in the middle of a city centre, it isn't gonna kill ****.

Obviously. It needs no mention that a 7.62mm round is going to counter a claw or tooth. However, we're still not a species that is safe. There are plenty of hunters who are killed in the wild, even with firearms. Big game hunters have died in the hundreds throughout the last two centuries, when African Hunting was a pasttime of the elite and adventerous. We can still be snuck up on, we can still be caught off guard. If we were put in a pen with a tiger and a machine gun, then obviously we'd be fine as long as the weapon was loaded.

Take that away, however, starve the Tiger and watch what happens.

[Craig_D]

We're as strong as we need to be, shown by humanity's current dominance of the planet. Arguably we're too clever; we've advanced quicker than our prey, to the point that (barring maybe bacteria) we could wipe out anything that we wanted. Intelligence and teamwork has always been humanity's weapon, rather than brute force, yes. The concept of an animal of our strength and size regularly killing mammoths some would see as a rather bizarre concept, but happened nonetheless.

We've declined in strength as our minds have improved, as natural selection obviously found the latter to be a better weapon. Homo habilis would have been fairly strong, ergaster less so but slightly more intelligent, and so on.

[Bellissima]

(Original post by DH-Biker)
Although I agree with your point, just to throw a spin is it really the best advantage?

For example, the Tyrannasaurus Rex is regarded as the greatest land predator the world has ever seen. Were it not for the cataclysmic events of the Jacutan Meteor, there is no way life would've advanced the way it did.

At the time, the T-Rex was contested by other large predatory dinosaurs and yet, with a relatively small brain it was able to overcome all other predators and become an apex predator. Whilst we can't accurately state "OK, this is what it did and this is how it acted" due to the fact the last one died 65 million years ago, fossil records support the fact that the T-Rex, despite its small brain, was unconqurable. And there were plenty of other dinosaurs that could take it on.

Again, I agree with your point but its just to add a counter point.

in our environment/planet... yes... the dinosaurs practically lived in a different world and the meteor that wiped them out was an outside event that changed the environment dramatically and gave mammals a chance to evolve.

if we somehow had a t-rex here with us... i am pretty sure, like most things, we could kill it... though obviously we would most likely never have evolved if dinosaurs were still here.

i do think intelligence trumps most things

[Vixen47]

No, but we can think. Brains get you further than brawn... in most cases.

I suppose, one could look at how far we've come. We've intellectually "beaten" other species and now we're at the top of the game. We wouldn't have been able to do that without human intellect.

[A level Az]

(Original post by DH-Biker)
Obviously. It needs no mention that a 7.62mm round is going to counter a claw or tooth. However, we're still not a species that is safe.

Obviously not.

There are plenty of hunters who are killed in the wild, even with firearms. Big game hunters have died in the hundreds throughout the last two centuries, when African Hunting was a pasttime of the elite and adventerous.

Hunting for food is dangerous for both prey and predator, so I don't see your point.

Hunting for pleasure is retarded.

We can still be snuck up on, we can still be caught off guard.

And we can do the same to animals.

If we were put in a pen with a tiger and a machine gun, then obviously we'd be fine as long as the weapon was loaded.

Take that away, however, starve the Tiger and watch what happens.

Clearly you didn't read the part I wrote about unrealistic situations

[brittanna]

No.

[DragonHeartstring]

Perhaps if we hadn't used our intelligence, we would have evolved to have other 'weapons' through a mutation of genes and suchlike. Toughened skin or a more predatory instinct, maybe heightened senses. But it does seem that intelligence and the adrenal system are all we have if we were to be put in a one on one situation.

[RadioHawk]

I'd say as a species nowadays we're too heavily reliant on tools if that situation were to arise
Evolution, no need for claws cos we can MAKE claws/clubs/dildos
Suppose you could TRY and punch a bear to death but thats tricky

[cuckoo99]

so basicaly you are saying why dont we have horns or claws?
why would we need them if we possess the ability to create our own weapons that we can defend our selves with, that doesnt require us having to use some of our energy intake on growing and maintaining these horns or claws or w/e adaptation that makes us more deadly....

[Sheep]

when it comes to survival of the fittest

Intelligence is probably the biggest factor, by a long way

all those things you listed are just of such small importance in comparison

that's my opinion

[Artymess]

Though big teeth and sharp claws are an attractive prospect, they have nothing on intelligence and team work.

If I had to face off against a bear or a tiger I would happily swap my teeth and claws for castles and guns. It would seem, as we have evolved to have larger brains and smaller muscles, evolution had the same idea.


(hahaha, evolution is based on random variation and mutation, it has no ideas )

[SnoochToTheBooch]

well we have got aggression in us, we do fight amongst ourselves all the time. maybe that's just a relic from our distant past that does us more harm than good now.

[Curzon]

(Original post by DH-Biker)
Although I agree with your point, just to throw a spin is it really the best advantage?

For example, the Tyrannasaurus Rex is regarded as the greatest land predator the world has ever seen. Were it not for the cataclysmic events of the Jacutan Meteor, there is no way life would've advanced the way it did.

At the time, the T-Rex was contested by other large predatory dinosaurs and yet, with a relatively small brain it was able to overcome all other predators and become an apex predator. Whilst we can't accurately state "OK, this is what it did and this is how it acted" due to the fact the last one died 65 million years ago, fossil records support the fact that the T-Rex, despite its small brain, was unconqurable. And there were plenty of other dinosaurs that could take it on.

Again, I agree with your point but its just to add a counter point.

I watched an interesting documentary once that outlined that all the evidence points to T-Rex as being simply a scavenger, not a hunter. It made a lot of sense.

[Sheep]

(Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
well we have got aggression in us, we do fight amongst ourselves all the time. maybe that's just a relic from our distant past that does us more harm than good now.

I don't think aggression is such a bad thing