Cute Baby Animal Appreciation Thread

[zimmah]

[Symmetry]

[Aradhus]

Karate Kittens

[MeDeFe]

A giant mouse devouring a bear... Now that is awesome.

[Baron Von PWN]

[MeDeFe]

I see the other bears have climbed a tree, attempting to escape a nibbling death.

[Gillipig]

Click image to enlarge.

Humans are animals too !

[Gillipig]

Well... animals mostly follow their instincts.

So do we.

I don't think animals can comprehend the concept of "cuteness". For wild animals at least. For domesticated ones, it might be a bit different, but most wild animals just basically see things from the view of survival and propagating their genes.

That's just a wild guess from your part. Do you think you can tell when an animals gets the "awwh that's cute" feeling? I find it quite likely that elephants or other animals that protect their young for a long time have extensive feelings for them. Quite similar to our own. What makes you think we don't see things in terms of survival and reproduction too? We're no different than other animals in that sense. We've been created under the same rules. The rules of evolution. This is actually a discussion I'd like to have unlike many pointless discussions I've taken part in here on CC .

[natty dread]

So do we.

No we don't. We have higher brain functions that allow us to override those instincts.

That's just a wild guess from your part.

That's why I said "I don't think". Lrn2read.

I find it quite likely that elephants or other animals that protect their young for a long time have extensive feelings for them.

Which is not the same as recognizing the abstract concept of "cuteness". Feelings are one thing, abstract thought is another.

What makes you think we don't see things in terms of survival and reproduction too? We're no different than other animals in that sense.

Because we don't have to think just about survival and reproduction anymore. We have evolved past that point where that was our only concern. We have the capacity to think of abstract concepts, something most other animals lack. We are able to override our basic animal instincts, we can choose if we follow those instincts or not. All thanks to higher brain functions.

We've been created under the same rules. The rules of evolution.

Amoebas are a product of evolution too. So are bacteria and viruses. Not to mention plants and fungi. Yet they have very little in common with, say, chimpanzees. The interesting thing about evolution is that it's capable of producing an incredible diversity of life. We have tons of life forms on this planet that are very different from us.

I don't think you quite comprehend the "rules of evolution". It's not a strict set of rules that makes us all evolve towards some universal goal. Evolution quite simply just means that organisms adapt to their circumstances. We evolve to have the qualities that best help us to adapt to the environment we live in, and two organisms evolving in different places can evolve to have very different qualities. That's called selection pressure.

For certain reasons, we humans found it beneficial to develop higher brain functions. Also, evolution doesn't just stop there. Just because our instincts were important to us at caveman times, doesn't mean that all of those instincts are helpful now. So we are constantly evolving to adapt to modern life. That means that instincts that no longer benefit our survival are slowly fading away from the gene pool.

This is actually a discussion I'd like to have unlike many pointless discussions I've taken part in here on CC

Feel free to create a new thread for it.

[Gillipig]

So do we.

No we don't. We have higher brain functions that allow us to override those instincts.

The majority of all decisions you make are instinctive. We are very much ruled by our instincts.

I find it quite likely that elephants or other animals that protect their young for a long time have extensive feelings for them. Quite similar to our own.

Which is not the same as recognizing the abstract concept of "cuteness". Feelings are one thing, abstract thought is another.

So you're saying that we are the only ones who can step outside of the box and recognize cuteness none subjectively? Since when did we start being able to do that ? What we find cute and instinctively like (instincts that according to you doesn't affect us very much because of our highly developed brain) is determined by our DNA. And our DNA is the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution. What we find cute is nothing else but instincts that served our ancestors well and made them better suited to survive. Generally we think young cattle animals are cute, why? Because if we do we are more likely to not harm them. And if we don't harm them they will grow up and become bigger. And then when they are big enough we stop thinking they are cute and so we have nothing against killing them. On another note we're also instinctively bothered by mice, mosquitoes and other animals that for many of us today is not very dangerous. When I wake up in the middle of the night due to hearing a mice walking around somewhere above me it is not a rational decision. If I would've stopped and thought for one second I would've just ignored it but we're incapable of it. And I'm not capable to (with my human brain) convince myself to stop feeling bothered by it. It's in my genes to dislike the sound of a mice. It's also in my genes to think a baby sheep is cute.

What makes you think we don't see things in terms of survival and reproduction too? We're no different than other animals in that sense.

Because we don't have to think just about survival and reproduction anymore. We have evolved past that point where that was our only concern. We have the capacity to think of abstract concepts, something most other animals lack. We are able to override our basic animal instincts, we can choose if we follow those instincts or not. All thanks to higher brain functions.

Answered above.

We've been created under the same rules. The rules of evolution.

Amoebas are a product of evolution too. So are bacteria and viruses. Not to mention plants and fungi. Yet they have very little in common with, say, chimpanzees. The interesting thing about evolution is that it's capable of producing an incredible diversity of life. We have tons of life forms on this planet that are very different from us.

Your point being?

I don't think you quite comprehend the "rules of evolution". It's not a strict set of rules that makes us all evolve towards some universal goal.

*Chuckle chuckle*

Evolution quite simply just means that organisms adapt to their circumstances. We evolve to have the qualities that best help us to adapt to the environment we live in, and two organisms evolving in different places can evolve to have very different qualities. That's called selection pressure.
For certain reasons, we humans found it beneficial to develop higher brain functions. Also, evolution doesn't just stop there. Just because our instincts were important to us at caveman times, doesn't mean that all of those instincts are helpful now.

No, there's more to evolution than just that. You've got a decent grasp on evolution but you're missing some important aspects to it. Evolution starts with random mutations in DNA. These mutations are completely random, could be a third eye or white fur or hair itself. What determines if an individual with this mutation becomes successful is his environment. Is it a cold climate, what sort of predators/prey are there? A million different factors determines if a mutation is successful. And there are mutations that have become successful not because it gave it's owner an advantage but quite simply because it hasn't given them less of a chance to survive. Have you heard of recessive and dominant genes? Most mutations are recessive. You need one from your mother and one from your father to have the mutation. But some are dominant. You only need to have one dominant gene. And mutations that are dominant doesn't need to give you an evolutionary advantage to spread through a population, just not a disadvantage. An example of this is dimples in the chin. Doesn't give us an advantage nor a disadvantage. Then there's the whole thing with sexual selection but I've decided to skip it not because it's irrelevant but because I'm running out of time .

So we are constantly evolving to adapt to modern life. That means that instincts that no longer benefit our survival are slowly fading away from the gene pool.

Wrong again.
You are assuming that just because something isn't useful to us now, with years to come it will disappear. But here's the hook: People who doesn't have/have less of what is supposed to go away must spread their genes more than the average population. Meaning they must have more children. Now if you can justify why someone who doesn't have/have less of a said instinct will have more children than the average population, then I'd be very interested to hear it. In the time being I'm going to make some examples where what we consider would be good for mankind in long term is going the opposite way: Obesity is a problem right? And obesity is partly genetic! You would think that people who are obese are less adapted to our society!? Well obese people have more children than average sized people. So next generation, more people will have a genetic inclination of becoming fat than in the past. If this trend continues for many generations, humans will be much larger than they are now. Which is not a very good thing for mankind because that means we need to produce more food.
People with high education level have fewer children than those with low education level. meaning interest for education and using our "big brain" in advanced ways is being genetically punished. We are becoming more stupid. Now before you say it, yes education has a lot more to do with environmental factors than it has to do with genetic factors. But the amount is not what's important here. To eradicate this example you have to claim that education level has absolutely nothing, 0.000000000% to do with genetics. Most likely there's at least a slight correlation between education level and your genes, and that is enough to claim that future humans will be less smart than we are. If smartness where to be favored, smart people would need to have more kids than less smart people.Not a lot of people realize this so I don't blame you if you didn't either. I don't want to be a smart ass

This is actually a discussion I'd like to have unlike many pointless discussions I've taken part in here on CC

Feel free to create a new thread for it.

Would love to, writing this reply was a lot of fun.

[Lootifer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNpeTCEPrRk
Off the chain cute! (yes yes darwinism wouldnt let this little tacker survive, doesnt stop it being cute though)

[Aradhus]

This isn't funny at all, and I don't respect anybody who laughs at it


Poor quality but a victory for cat lovers everywhere

[BigBallinStalin]

[notyou2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNpeTCEPrRk
Off the chain cute! (yes yes darwinism wouldnt let this little tacker survive, doesnt stop it being cute though)

Sad yet inspiring.

Thanks

[natty dread]

yes yes darwinism wouldnt let this little tacker survive

Fallacious statement

[Aradhus]

Energetic chick dun doggy style

[Lootifer]

yes yes darwinism wouldnt let this little tacker survive

Fallacious statement

How so?

[Symmetry]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNpeTCEPrRk
Off the chain cute! (yes yes darwinism wouldnt let this little tacker survive, doesnt stop it being cute though)

That was a great cute baby animal video, and it is appreciated.

[Army of GOD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNpeTCEPrRk
Off the chain cute! (yes yes darwinism wouldnt let this little tacker survive, doesnt stop it being cute though)

That was a great cute baby animal video, and it is appreciated.

I kind of want a blind kitty now. Or a pet that only has three legs. They're so much cuter when they have massive physical abnormalities.

Except a rabbit that poops out if its eyes. That's kind of disgusting.

[natty dread]

yes yes darwinism wouldnt let this little tacker survive

Fallacious statement

How so?

A cat with no eyeballs would survive if it was living in an environment where having eyes wasn't strictly necessary for survival.

For example, there are some lizards and fish that live in places with almost no light at all, and they have evolved to have no eyes.

[oVo]

W O O F !

[Lootifer]

yes yes darwinism wouldnt let this little tacker survive

Fallacious statement

How so?

A cat with no eyeballs would survive if it was living in an environment where having eyes wasn't strictly necessary for survival.

For example, there are some lizards and fish that live in places with almost no light at all, and they have evolved to have no eyes.

LOL! Now you're just being a dick Well played though I guess.

However if we are being anal, cats in their current stage of evolution would result in the little guy not surviving. Not only do cats rely heavily on their eyes, it wouldn't even get to that point because the mother of the litter would abandon it as soon as it realised it couldn't keep up (in the wild of course - some "modern" mother cats are more tolerant).

[natty dread]

yes yes darwinism wouldnt let this little tacker survive

Fallacious statement

How so?

A cat with no eyeballs would survive if it was living in an environment where having eyes wasn't strictly necessary for survival.

For example, there are some lizards and fish that live in places with almost no light at all, and they have evolved to have no eyes.

LOL! Now you're just being a dick Well played though I guess.

However if we are being anal, cats in their current stage of evolution would result in the little guy not surviving. Not only do cats rely heavily on their eyes, it wouldn't even get to that point because the mother of the litter would abandon it as soon as it realised it couldn't keep up (in the wild of course - some "modern" mother cats are more tolerant).

But your statement was "darwinism wouldn't let it survive", and there's no inherent rule in "darwinism" (by which I assume you mean evolution in general) that requires organisms to have eyes to survive.

You should have stated "evolution wouldn't let it survive in the conditions wild cats currently live in" for the statement to be accurate.

[Lootifer]

OK FINE!

[Aradhus]

yes yes darwinism wouldnt let this little tacker survive

Fallacious statement

How so?

A cat with no eyeballs would survive if it was living in an environment where having eyes wasn't strictly necessary for survival.

For example, there are some lizards and fish that live in places with almost no light at all, and they have evolved to have no eyes.

LOL! Now you're just being a dick

Now he's just being a dick? I'm pretty sure Nattys default position is dick.

JK, nat, don't flame me bro, don't flame me!