Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DJ]

How can a bear that weighs the same as a man have much more muscle tissue? Do they have less internal organs or something?

Oh, and while hands certainly can't do anything near the tissue damage that claws and teeth can, I wouldn't write them off as natural weapons. They're great for dislocating the opponent's joints, and can cause instant paralysis and death if you get a grip that allows you to twist the spine. That, and strangulation can ruin anyone's day. But we just don't have the brute strength it takes to snap a bear's neck.

[ChairmanPoo]

I don't think a bear is very susceptible to those, though. With the thick skin and fur, and fat.

[DJ]

I don't think those are much use against having your extremities twisted into unnatural positions. The only thing that helps there is having enough muscle to resist the force that's doing the twisting.

[DeKaFu]

Zoology-major atheist here.

And yes, evolution is real, because almost nothing in biology would make any damn sense without it. You can't look at any topic within biology and not have it resting, at its base, on evolution. Morphology, behaviour, ecology, physiology, genetics, taxonomy... all fit snugly in the framework of evolution. And the fact that a lot of them were studied before evolution was discovered doesn't mean that it's possible to go back, knowing what we do now.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

How can a bear that weighs the same as a man have much more muscle tissue? Do they have less internal organs or something?

Because our muscle tissue is far more dense than that of anything other than a chimpanzee. 100 grams of human muscle is less muscle in volume than 100 grams of black bear muscle. We weigh almost the same, but black bears have more muscle in volume because their muscle isn't as dense as ours.

[Muz]

Evolution isn't really somthing one "believes" or "doesn't believe" in. Those terms are correct, but deceptive, making evolution look like some kind of religious choice rather than a scientific theory. That said, I think that we have sufficent confirming evidence of evolution to begin calling it the Law of Evolution, if only to get rid of the ill-informed "It's only a theory!" argument once and for all. That, and all advances in biological science since Darwin's original theory have fit evolution perfectly (looking at you, Deoxyribonucleic acid), to the point where we have quite literally no reason to doubt it's credibility anymore.

This post runs close to what I think. "Evolution" as a whole is a pretty loose term. When most people say they don't believe in evolution, what they really mean is that they don't believe humans evolved from monkeys. There's no Laws saying what and how Evolution works yet. Obviously, bacteria can grow and mutate. Things do evolve from one form to another. Does that mean "Evolution" exists? Whatever it means, it's still not defined well enough to extrapolate from that and say that humans evolved from single celled thingies or fish or monkeys.

Anyway, it's not really a religious thing. I somewhat believe in creationism, but that doesn't mean the people aren't created by procedurally generating them via evolution. There are perhaps some churches that oppose it, but much of the theist world doesn't have a stance on it, and if they do, they'll probably change it once someone devises some proper proof I actually know a Muslim theologian who took it from the Quran to say that humans did evolve from animals.

[Il Palazzo]

Re: Bear&Human dick waving contest.
How about the (wo)man who posted about human muscle tissue being the second densest among all animals, would just provide some data supporting that claim?
Seriously, unsupported statements on the internet? What's the world came to?

As for the thread's topic: Regarding the situation described in the OP(teacher's attitude when faced with certain questions), what do you people think would be the right way of answering it, other than just dodging it completely for the fear of being fired?

[ChairmanPoo]

Whatever it means, it's still not defined well enough to extrapolate from that and say that humans evolved from single celled thingies or fish or monkeys.

There are plenty of fossil records that give a rather clear image of the evolutionary process of human beings.

Because our muscle tissue is far more dense than that of anything other than a chimpanzee. 100 grams of human muscle is less muscle in volume than 100 grams of black bear muscle. We weigh almost the same, but black bears have more muscle in volume because their muscle isn't as dense as ours.

This statement is contradictory. You say that bear muscle is less dense (by which I assume you mean has more fat), and try to pass it as an advantage for the bear.

[DeKaFu]

As for the thread's topic: Regarding the situation described in the OP(teacher's attitude when faced with certain questions), what do you people think would be the right way of answering it, other than just dodging it completely for the fear of being fired?

My high school biology teacher basically just made a point of saying at the beginning that she was aware people might have different personal beliefs, but for the purpose of this biology class evolution has to be treated as fact. It's what is being taught and it's what is expected on the tests.

Which makes me think there might've been issues in the past where people put "God did it" on their biology exams and complained when they lost marks for it. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

This post runs close to what I think. "Evolution" as a whole is a pretty loose term.

How?

When most people say they don't believe in evolution, what they really mean is that they don't believe humans evolved from monkeys.

We didn't evolve from monkeys. All species of monkeys and the great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor.

There's no Laws saying what and how Evolution works yet.

I'd like to note that I was incorrect before, and evolution can never be a scientific law as they exist now.

Obviously, bacteria can grow and mutate. Things do evolve from one form to another. Does that mean "Evolution" exists?

Seeing as that's evolution on a small scale, yes it does.

Whatever it means, it's still not defined well enough to extrapolate from that and say that humans evolved from single celled thingies or fish or monkeys.

It's quite well defined. We never evolved from monkeys, as before we shared a common ancestor. I don't know if the evolutionary line of humans ever had a fish included in it, but it would have been eons ago. Probably, seeing as all life started in the oceans, but those weren't all fish. We definately had a single-celled ancestor near the begining of life on Earth, as those are a prerequisite to multi-cellular life, which we are.

Anyway, it's not really a religious thing. I somewhat believe in creationism, but that doesn't mean the people aren't created by procedurally generating them via evolution. There are perhaps some churches that oppose it, but much of the theist world doesn't have a stance on it, and if they do, they'll probably change it once someone devises some proper proof

There is, and has been for many decades, proper proof. Science is not a nice place to be. Any scientist would give anything if told you could show them scientific proof of evolution being wrong, but the fact of the matter is that this doesn't exist. Once you get proven wrong in science, your theory is out the door forever and is replaced by somthing new, likely whatever disproved you. Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been in the scientific meat grinder for almost a hundred and fifty years now, and no strides forward in biology have done anything but make it stronger.

Re: Bear&Human dick waving contest.
How about the (wo)man who posted about human muscle tissue being the second densest among all animals, would just provide some data supporting that claim?
Seriously, unsupported statements on the internet? What's the world came to?

There's no need to be mean. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any data about it. I just remember this being a fact about humans that I learned at some point. Sorry, can't find any supporting data on the internet. Doesn't mean it automatically isn't true, I just can't find anything on it.

[DJ]

I find it hard to believe there's significant difference in muscle strength per weight between mammals. I think the differences in actual strength are all due to anatomy, ie the kind of leverage these muscles get.

[ChairmanPoo]

It's not impossible. Some mammals could conceivably have the actin-myosin filaments in the muscles to overlap more and better, thus getting better performance. Even the composition of the elastic tissues in muscles could present huge performance differences.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Because our muscle tissue is far more dense than that of anything other than a chimpanzee. 100 grams of human muscle is less muscle in volume than 100 grams of black bear muscle. We weigh almost the same, but black bears have more muscle in volume because their muscle isn't as dense as ours.

This statement is contradictory. You say that bear muscle is less dense (by which I assume you mean has more fat), and try to pass it as an advantage for the bear.

I don't mean it has more fat. I mean that the same amount of muscle tissue in weight for a human and a bear would result in more muscle in terms of volume for the bear and more muscle in terms of density for the human. The bear's muscular anatomy allows it to overpower a human, even though they have almost equal muscle in weight. A hundred pounds of iron vs. a hundred pounds of lead, to give an analogy of what I'm trying to tell you, with Bears representing Iron and Humans representing Lead.

[ChairmanPoo]

No offense, but I don't think you are too sure of what you're saying. You painted human denser muscle as an advantage (and rightfully so, if it's so). Now you try to paint bear's less dense muscle as the superior one. This is another contradiction. Plus, how would a less dense muscle be stronger? if it's less dense it's because it has more of less dense tissues (as I said, fat, which already exists in muscle tissue to varying extents), and less of muscle proper. I don't know jack about bear's muscles, but I very much doubt that they vary so significantly in composition from human ones as to be both lighter and better performing.

[DJ]

It's not impossible. Some mammals could conceivably have the actin-myosin filaments in the muscles to overlap more and better, thus getting better performance. Even the composition of the elastic tissues in muscles could present huge performance differences.

Yeah, but why wouldn't everyone have these stronger muscles? Strength seems universally useful, so it stands to reason our pre-mammalian ancestors would evolve them. My best guess is you'd have to sacrifice energy efficiency for that. In which case it would still be useful for an animal that doesn't move too much, like some kind of an ambush predator, but not for a nomadic specie like humans.