has anyone watched Dawn of the Planet of the Apes?

[Blaggard]

I think it raises some very interesting philosophical dilemmas.

Spoilers follow:

Humanity has been almost wiped out by a disease that is a flu virus, possibly let out of a research facility, it tends to make humans like zombies, well more like them anyway and is almost always fatal. Cezar (a sentient and very clever ape with the IQ of a smart human) is the leader of the apes, the apes are perhaps now perhaps in ascendancy because humans are now mostly only existing in small numbers. Humans can speak still, apes tend to use sign language but are learning to speak.

Long story short, it is now the dawn of a new era for apes.

"Apes do not kill apes."

Humans are of course apes, but we will forgo the hubris of idiots in describing us as something more and address, what are the moral issues in that film. If you have not seen it, feel free to join in anyway...

[Wyman]

I thought it could have been better. I think there's more of a chance for computers to take over than apes.

Here is a dumb question: If at some point in time humans (or their ancestors) took an evolutionary fork in the road towards larger brains, standing on two feet, etc. - why did apes stay the same?

I am asking anyone with some expertise in biology - I have an understanding of the basics. Many forms of homo______ branched off and then died away, but presumably, apes just kept on trucking along close to how they are today.

[jackles]

Yep the apes represent the localness in humanity. The beast is local is what its saying . Getting beond the local identity is getting beond the beast. Out of the trivial localness of the brain.

[DesolationRow]

I saw the film not expecting much and was pleasantly surprised at how good it was. It did pose some interesting questions about loyalty and in-group/out-group dynamics. And great special effects.

[thedoc]

I thought it could have been better. I think there's more of a chance for computers to take over than apes.

Here is a dumb question: If at some point in time humans (or their ancestors) took an evolutionary fork in the road towards larger brains, standing on two feet, etc. - why did apes stay the same?

I am asking anyone with some expertise in biology - I have an understanding of the basics. Many forms of homo______ branched off and then died away, but presumably, apes just kept on trucking along close to how they are today.

1st a note of clarification according to the latest classification that I have seen, humans are apes, humans and apes are monkeys, the whole group evolved from a monkey ancestor and none of the groups have stopped being monkeys, they just became a different group of monkeys. Something to do with the tail, having one, or not.

That being said, the apes and monkeys of today inhabit environments where their characteristics are doing just fine for survival of the species, no need to evolve higher intelligence. What became humans moved into environments where intelligence seemed to be an advantage for survival, so intelligence has developed. The real question, for me, is that current human intelligence is much higher than needed just for survival of the species, so why do humans seem to be so much more intelligent than other species?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I thought it could have been better. I think there's more of a chance for computers to take over than apes.

Here is a dumb question: If at some point in time humans (or their ancestors) took an evolutionary fork in the road towards larger brains, standing on two feet, etc. - why did apes stay the same?

I am asking anyone with some expertise in biology - I have an understanding of the basics. Many forms of homo______ branched off and then died away, but presumably, apes just kept on trucking along close to how they are today.

1st a note of clarification according to the latest classification that I have seen, humans are apes, humans and apes are monkeys, the whole group evolved from a monkey ancestor and none of the groups have stopped being monkeys, they just became a different group of monkeys. Something to do with the tail, having one, or not.

That being said, the apes and monkeys of today inhabit environments where their characteristics are doing just fine for survival of the species, no need to evolve higher intelligence. What became humans moved into environments where intelligence seemed to be an advantage for survival, so intelligence has developed. The real question, for me, is that current human intelligence is much higher than needed just for survival of the species, so why do humans seem to be so much more intelligent than other species?

I'm glad you answered him. As for our intelligence, it's to do with how we learn from each other. Every time we learn something new our brain becomes that much more complex. We are also learning more and more all the time about the intelligence of other animals. We used to be taught that invertebrates have very little in the way of intelligence. We now know that the octopus is one of the most intelligent creatures around. Same with birds. 'Bird brain' doesn't even sound right any more as an insult. Are humans intelligent as a species, or are there just a few freakishly intelligent ones who have dragged us to where we are now? There do seem to be an awful lot of morons out there.

[thedoc]

There do seem to be an awful lot of morons out there.

I was going to ask which you would rather spend time with, a Dog or a person of low intelligence, but then I realized it would be the Dog and it didn't really suit my purpose. Even though a conversation with a dog would tend to be a bit one-sided, it could be less tedious than the alternative. Granted there are some mentally challenged people who can be quite interesting in limited areas, I think a non-speaking companion would be a lot quieter and sometimes easier to deal with.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I thought it could have been better. I think there's more of a chance for computers to take over than apes.

Here is a dumb question: If at some point in time humans (or their ancestors) took an evolutionary fork in the road towards larger brains, standing on two feet, etc. - why did apes stay the same?

I am asking anyone with some expertise in biology - I have an understanding of the basics. Many forms of homo______ branched off and then died away, but presumably, apes just kept on trucking along close to how they are today.

You can't 'unplug' an ape.

The likely hood of the scenario aside, I think the film was most excellent. CG has moved on with great strides, and despite the nay -sayers, computers have more power by thousands of times, beyond which the sci-fi brigade have tried to worry us that they are going to take over the world.
In a real sense they have taken over the world, but they have done so as slaves, with no prospect of manumission.

Oh - your dumb question. Apes did not stay the same, they also evolved to their environments. Apes are not our ancestors, but we do share common ancestors.

As for one homonid taking over another - it's happened a couple of times already.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I saw the film not expecting much and was pleasantly surprised at how good it was. It did pose some interesting questions about loyalty and in-group/out-group dynamics. And great special effects.

I thought they were particularly clever at the end when the camera zoomed right into Cesar's eye. A shot that no camera could get on a real eye in real time.

[Wyman]

I thought it could have been better. I think there's more of a chance for computers to take over than apes.

Here is a dumb question: If at some point in time humans (or their ancestors) took an evolutionary fork in the road towards larger brains, standing on two feet, etc. - why did apes stay the same?

I am asking anyone with some expertise in biology - I have an understanding of the basics. Many forms of homo______ branched off and then died away, but presumably, apes just kept on trucking along close to how they are today.

1st a note of clarification according to the latest classification that I have seen, humans are apes, humans and apes are monkeys, the whole group evolved from a monkey ancestor and none of the groups have stopped being monkeys, they just became a different group of monkeys. Something to do with the tail, having one, or not.

That being said, the apes and monkeys of today inhabit environments where their characteristics are doing just fine for survival of the species, no need to evolve higher intelligence. What became humans moved into environments where intelligence seemed to be an advantage for survival, so intelligence has developed. The real question, for me, is that current human intelligence is much higher than needed just for survival of the species, so why do humans seem to be so much more intelligent than other species?

But they didn't all move. Some stayed in Africa alongside the gorillas.(I actually thought they spread from Africa fully evolved - or else they would have had to evolve, then move back to Africa) Humans eradicated the Neanderthals in Europe somehow - so why didn't they eradicate chimps and gorillas? A lot of other more 'evolved' hominids from the same ancestors went extinct - if they were smarter than apes, then why did they die out?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I thought it could have been better. I think there's more of a chance for computers to take over than apes.

Here is a dumb question: If at some point in time humans (or their ancestors) took an evolutionary fork in the road towards larger brains, standing on two feet, etc. - why did apes stay the same?

I am asking anyone with some expertise in biology - I have an understanding of the basics. Many forms of homo______ branched off and then died away, but presumably, apes just kept on trucking along close to how they are today.

1st a note of clarification according to the latest classification that I have seen, humans are apes, humans and apes are monkeys, the whole group evolved from a monkey ancestor and none of the groups have stopped being monkeys, they just became a different group of monkeys. Something to do with the tail, having one, or not.

That being said, the apes and monkeys of today inhabit environments where their characteristics are doing just fine for survival of the species, no need to evolve higher intelligence. What became humans moved into environments where intelligence seemed to be an advantage for survival, so intelligence has developed. The real question, for me, is that current human intelligence is much higher than needed just for survival of the species, so why do humans seem to be so much more intelligent than other species?

But they didn't all move. Some stayed in Africa alongside the gorillas.(I actually thought they spread from Africa fully evolved - or else they would have had to evolve, then move back to Africa) Humans eradicated the Neanderthals in Europe somehow - so why didn't they eradicate chimps and gorillas? A lot of other more 'evolved' hominids from the same ancestors went extinct - if they were smarter than apes, then why did they die out?

They were probably no threat. They had no reason to want to eradicate them. They were not a food source. They may not have even been aware of the others' existence. Who knows? Do you think there were billions of humans around back then? Which time-frame are you referring to? We also know that Neanderthals and what we refer to as 'modern humans' bred with each other, so most of us are hybrids.

[thedoc]

But they didn't all move. Some stayed in Africa alongside the gorillas.(I actually thought they spread from Africa fully evolved - or else they would have had to evolve, then move back to Africa) Humans eradicated the Neanderthals in Europe somehow - so why didn't they eradicate chimps and gorillas? A lot of other more 'evolved' hominids from the same ancestors went extinct - if they were smarter than apes, then why did they die out?

They were probably no threat. They had no reason to want to eradicate them. They were not a food source. They may not have even been aware of the others' existence. Who knows? Do you think there were billions of humans around back then? Which time-frame are you referring to? We also know that Neanderthals and what we refer to as 'modern humans' bred with each other, so most of us are hybrids.

Try again, I never said that humans moved out of Africa, I said they moved to a different environment, could have been right in Africa. There are many environments in Africa, Mountains, not mountains, wet, dry, somewhere in between, forests, few trees like a Savanna. The point was (which Wyman seemed to have missed) is that humans occupied an environment that favored higher intelligence. Humans didn't eradicate other humans, monkeys or apes, for the reasons Veg. stated, but they probably evolved far enough that there was no desire to interbred with apes or monkeys, even if that was still possible.

[Blaggard]

Ok just to clarify humans have said they are not of the apes, but are of a higher order, something that is arbitrary and clearly not true. I didn't mean to start a biology war. We are essentially evolved apes, we have cousins who are monkeys and we are clearly differentiated enough not to be monkeys but we are a hairless ape, and the hubris of nomenclature of the last 200 years will not make us different enough to make us a special case of ape enough to say we are in a different Genus, let alone order or the lower spectrum of distinction; 200 years ago black people were not the same genus or species as us according to our definitions. We do tend to move on past idiocy though, although with all the progress of a drunk snail.

[thedoc]

What some people might believe or not, is hardly relevant to reality, it only indicates what some people believe.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

But they didn't all move. Some stayed in Africa alongside the gorillas.(I actually thought they spread from Africa fully evolved - or else they would have had to evolve, then move back to Africa) Humans eradicated the Neanderthals in Europe somehow - so why didn't they eradicate chimps and gorillas? A lot of other more 'evolved' hominids from the same ancestors went extinct - if they were smarter than apes, then why did they die out?

They were probably no threat. They had no reason to want to eradicate them. They were not a food source. They may not have even been aware of the others' existence. Who knows? Do you think there were billions of humans around back then? Which time-frame are you referring to? We also know that Neanderthals and what we refer to as 'modern humans' bred with each other, so most of us are hybrids.

Try again, I never said that humans moved out of Africa, I said they moved to a different environment, could have been right in Africa. There are many environments in Africa, Mountains, not mountains, wet, dry, somewhere in between, forests, few trees like a Savanna. The point was (which Wyman seemed to have missed) is that humans occupied an environment that favored higher intelligence. Humans didn't eradicate other humans, monkeys or apes, for the reasons Veg. stated, but they probably evolved far enough that there was no desire to interbred with apes or monkeys, even if that was still possible.

I think you intended this for Wyman.