-
We aren't adaptable, we're adapting. We're the only species that adapts our enviroment to suit ourselves. Also we have cookies. Delicious cookies.
-
Mmm cookies
-
No we aren't lol. We're just the only species that can create tools that make us adaptable.
-
About right
-
That's a pretty good adaptation
-
Ants and rats would like to have a word with you.
-
Tell that to Arthropods.
-
Even then we can still kill Arthropods easy, we have adapted to the ability to kill any species, including our own, in the blink of an eye
-
Yes but Roaches can survive that. If one can, than certainly more can. Insects kill other insects all the time. Some kill humans with deadly venom. And some of those deadly ones are masters of stealth. Arthropods also evolve incredibly fast. They also reproduce faster than us. Their life cycles are shorter allowing for generations to pass by with evolutionary changes occurring much much faster than we could ever achieve. I'm just saying, they will be evolving and thriving long after we are gone, and they will probably be responsible for fixing the world if we should ever render it unfit for humans.
-
Why evolve when us humans are already the best? Those Arthropods are behind by a couple billion years
-
Technology merging with our biology is the next step of human evolution
-
Actually your right. Can't wait till we have nanobot technology
-
Yep. No more aging, getting sick etc.
-
We'll be just like lobsters! Always regenerating and never dying of old age.
-
Lobsters taste amazing haha
-
Hmm with some butter and lemon! I'm craving some right now and I'm also craving me some crawfish
-
We are incredibly self destructive. We are far from the best
-
Then tell me a species that beats us humans
-
Fire ants. Pretty much have rendered themselves immune to extermination by any force nature can put up, let alone humans meager abilities. "We have tools". Yeah? We also point nuclear weapons at [i]ourselves.[/i] It's difficult to say humans are intelligent and therefore superior when we will happily end our own species over a bit of land and a minor disagreement over something stupid.
-
Ants capture other ants and make them slaves and besides I find it hard to believe that ants are capable of dominating humans hahaha. Also no one in the right mind is willing to nuke anyone else, they know nothing good comes of it. Why do you point out the bad things only btw? I've never heard of ants sending rockets into space or finding cures for deadly diseases. When you see an ant that helps another animal out of goodwill then you can compare them to humans. Humans are resilient, even more so than stupid ants. Give a better example if their even is one.
-
You act as if technological accomplishments are great life achievements. The only accomplishment for life is survival and reproduction. Ants have that covered, with single colonies spanning continents, surviving as a species for billions of years, through several mass extinction events. If we go to other planets, you can sure as hell bet that ants will end up there. Oh, and ants don't actively release millions of tons of toxic chemicals into the environment and slaughter entire species for sport. Ants can do just about every basic thing that humans did to start a civilization. Be glad they don't have fire or large scale communication, because that would result in the single greatest compound intelligence on Earth, a title humans currently hold. [spoiler]An ant's brain is the size of a pinhead. They are capable of learning and assisting nest mates. Humans have a brain about the size of tennis balls, and have the ability to make complex decisions, which let's be honest, are often decisions to not learn from our mistakes and to not help someone when it won't benefit us. Don't believe me? Try riding a bike. Cars rarely slow down or get out of your way. They don't care what happens to you unless they do something themselves to hurt you.[/spoiler]
-
Edited by BurningGoats: 10/26/2014 6:45:40 AMTechnological advancements ARE great achievements. We also have survival and reproduction down too. We have been to every single continent I'd like to see ants travel to Antarctica. I also don't know how ants would colonize other planets lolol, do they have tiny space suits for ants?! Hahaha. Ants do destroy other species too btw, in Texas they are wreaking havoc on native species. Even on, wait for it... other ants! You must have a small brain too because my brain isn't the size of a tennis ball bro and when I ride a bike people do slow down. Perhaps you just live with assholes because I rarely ever see a person drive like you described it. I've yet to be convinced that ants can even contend with humans.
-
The only animals that can withstand Antarctica were born there. Humans and all their fantastic technology can't last very long there. And I'm sure ants were there when it was still called Pangaea. Now answer me this: If a mass extinction event occurs tomorrow, which species will be more likely to survive? [spoiler]I don't consider all our modern technology to be great feats, because we can still be wiped out in an instant. Ants? Those'll still be around. Really, if ants and humans suddenly decided to fight to the death, humans would be unable to eradicate the ants without rendering the Earth uninhabitable for all complex life, even if we hid in Antarctica. "But we have pesticides!" Yeah, where are we gonna dump them? Everywhere? It might not even affect the ants! What you fail to realize is all human accomplishment requires humans to be alive in order for them to mean something. Besides, despite all these "acomplishments", most of our population still craps in their drinking water. So you really think we'll recover from Yellowstone erupting, let alone survive? [/spoiler]
-
Edited by BurningGoats: 10/26/2014 7:26:18 AMPerhaps you should do some research before you go making absurd statements. There are several widespread and PERMANENT (emphasis on PERMANENT) research stations throughout Antarctica. Also Pangea is different than Antarctica Soooo yeah. Also ancient ants originated 140-160 million years ago and Pangea broke apart around 200 million years ago so ants as we know them today didn't exist on Pangea. As for who would survive that's a tough nut to crack but I would go for the humans as they can reason and figure their way around a problem. Also if ants and humans were to duke it out then ants probably wouldn't be able to kill a single human. We might even weaponize cordyceps fungi to eradicate those stupid, six legged creatures. That drinking water that you talked about that gets crapped in is filtered and cleaned so it can be drinkable once more. That's pretty advanced if you ask anyone. Still not considering the hilariously absurd idea of ants being superior to humans as true.
-
I understand that permanent bases exist in Antarctica, with researchers usually not spending their entire lives out there. Ones not on the coast suffer from problems such as being buried beneath ice. The Red Imported Fire Ant is an invasive species to many countries, costing the FDA $5 billion annually, and, in the countries attempting to exterminate them, only Australia had partial success, but had sites crop back up in multiple areas. [quote] Ants have colonised almost every landmass on Earth. The only places lacking indigenous ants are Antarctica and a few remote or inhospitable islands. Ants thrive in most ecosystems and may form 15–25% of the terrestrial animal biomass. Their success in so many environments has been attributed to their social organisation and their ability to modify habitats, tap resources, and defend themselves. Their long co-evolution with other species has led to mimetic, commensal, parasitic, and mutualistic relationships. [/quote] In other words, a bunch of insects are about as successful in being dominant life forms on Earth as humans with technology. I was wrong about Pangaea, but you didn't really research yourself, now did you? And I highly doubt humanity would be able to survive a mass extinction event. They're far too large of mammals, far too reliant on the current ecosystem, and first world countries are completely reliant on unsustainable practices. Massive food shortages would incite war, dwindling resources even further until only pockets of humanity remained, perhaps to be done in by disease or rapid climate change. Ants? Specialists will die off, but the general omnivores will be able to still find a variety of food, as they don't rely on very specific crops. Populations will dwindle, but if plants survive, most insects will, too.