Sad news: baby elephant has died.
 

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...773558-cp.html

I guess she had too much of an uphill battle to fight.

That's too bad, the zookeepers and vets who put in so much to care for her, must be very saddened.

That is awful.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. That's equivalent to saying a teenage mother should be barred from having children later in her life because of an irresponsible act made during years when better judgement was lacking.

The fact is that, as stated, it is normal for first time elephant mothers to abandon their offspring in the wild. Looking at that, you can easily make the leap of logic and say, "Hey! this would have happened anyway!!"

Animal rights is one thing, animal liberation is another.

That aggravates me to no end.

I've been following the story. Very sad to hear the little one didn't make it :cry:

In the wild, elephants live in matriarchal societies where young female elephants are able to "learn" how to care for their young by watching the older females of their group rear their young. Yes, occasionally, first time wild elephant mothers abandon their babies, for much the same reason the captive mother abandoned her baby - it was sick. Unfortunately, there is no elephant medicare to help in these situations.

The vets and other zoo staff did their best to care for the sick infant, but in the end it was not enough. Elephants are highly social and live in complex societies. I have a whole bunch of if only's going around in my head, but, ultimately, infant mortality is an utterly sad fact of life :sad:

I heard that on the radio this morning. Very sad :frown:

It was a cute little elephant!

Isn't this an elephant we're talking about? Are newborn elephants referred to as "infants?"

Hmm, yes, infants generally refer to human babies. Elephants are very intelligent and live in highly evolved societies, so I have great reverence for them. Please, don't get me started on elephants in most zoos, elephants in cities in South Asia, speciesism in reference to calling a baby elephant an infant......

Hmm, please don't accuse me of speciesism. The same quality that allows me to recognize what exceptional and wondrous beasts elephants are tells me that we are indeed a species far apart, and that I may ascertain by this and other "higher faculties" that your life is of infinitely greater consequence than that of an elephant.

I agree that this baby elephant's death is very sad, and would greatly prefer that it had survived. That would be a very cool thing to take my kids to see, as part of their ongoing instruction in the appreciation of nature.

Yes, my life is more important to me than an elephant's life is to me. But to an elephant, I'm sure it's own life is more important to itself than my life is to it. The need to survive and thrive has got to be one of the most basic of all needs in any living entity.

As for the "higher faculties" issue, human animals do not have a way to truly measure the higher faculties of other animals. We only assume that because other animals do not have written language (or spoken/unspoken language that we can understand), do not build monumental cities (with the exception of some species of insects), are not capable of Googling, that they do not have some form of thought or have souls. But in the heaven I go to after this life, there will be mammals, fish, birds, insects, amphibians, et al, and I welcome a heaven populated as such.

you really think an animal has the rational and state of mine to know its importance in the world? isn't that what separates humans from animals?

sure they have a instinct to survive but it is an instinct, not a thought process, and thats it. Lets not project human traits and value onto animals other wise we will have to say our fish would be happier if we killed the one thats bugging it at night :mrgreen:

Steve

The idea that anything shouldn't be bred in captivity is utterly absurd.

There's no doubt elephants are "highly" evolved. Of course whether being "highly" evolved is such a good thing is anyone's guess. Evolution is about long-term survival (read: eons), and both elephants and humans are unlikely to be around for any significant period of time, compared to, say, many species of protozoa. The more conventional scale we use to measure organismic "success", intelligence, dominance, is one that is of little relevance in the grand scheme of things.

I'm taking an animal behaviour class right now, and it's possibly been the most interesting class that I've taken in my life, along with a few criminology courses. I am tempted to switch my focus to what's known as comparative psychology to spend my career watching monkeys in Africa. This is a little cliché, but it's helped me realize how "small" I am.

I think the only way some of the worlds animals / plants etc will survive is through human interference. IE: Zoo's , Arboretums etc etc. Of course, its our duty to give them as close as possible their natural habitat.

Through this it allows us to get educated about them and give civilization as a whole a broader outlook on the environment around us. Some people don't change their habits until they really see whats being affected by them. (environmental pollution, deforestation etc)

Hopefully they learned something from this baby elephant and are more prepared for the next time.

Just my 2 cents.. :biggrin:

Just saw on the news, the fellow in charge of their breeding program said as soon as they can they want to try again...

Humans are animals. At one time there would have been very little difference to even consider our species seperate from others on this planet. At what point in evolutionary history did humans "decide" they were special? When they could think that they are?

When a territorial animal marks its territory it is saying to the world, "This is me! This is my land! I am important!". Just one example.

I just love nowadays how " tree-huggers " try to put a human element to the animal kingdom as a whole ... elephants dont do anything except by instinct or in this case of raising their young they " ape " the older females ... this is not a thinking rational being.

You can teach a rat to go through a maze to get some cheese ( and that is a learned behaviour ) but he is never going to compose music like Chopin. :lol:

I was conversing with a " tree-hugger " :razz: and she actually had animals higher on the scale than humans in terms of importance :rolleyes: ... now I know most of you in this thread wont go so far but to think of a animal in human terms as far as evolutionary evolving is ludicrous dont you think ?

I know they are animals.. but we have a very different quality from the rest of animals.

and as for marking territory goes this is purely mating instinct. the smell keeps other males away from that area. they don't go out and think "well if I pee on this tree no one will bother me" by instinct they pee on random trees in there area or on rivals already scented trees, in order to attract females. so really he is saying "hey Baaaaaby" :mrgreen:

Steve

For humans to stake a claim to "rational thinking" as a quality only they posess is extremely conceited and narrow-minded. Doesn't take much study in the animal kingdom to see true learning processes develop apart from instinct.

thats a Pablo's dog. it is repetitive conditioning, not true learning. there are some animals that can do true learning but they do not posses rational thought and a self awareness.

Steve

Because we can " decide " to invent things we became special ... when we could rationalize and expand our minds past a primate we became " special "

Oh No ... I have upset another " tree-hugger " :razz:

I used to volunteer at the Vancouver Public Aquarium. I was there when the baby Orca was born & also when it died. That was a very sad day, especially after seeing all the effort everyone put in to try to save it's life. However, like mentioned earlier, captive breeding programs may be the one hope for long-term survival for many endangered species.

I'm sure you're all familiar with PETA and ALF?

This is about as extreme as it gets in terms of animal rights/liberation and I'd hate the play the game against an organization that has millions and millions as its support base, mostly people who are ignorant to the actual concept of PETA.

BLSKBJLKJSAKLJB:LKAJ:LKJELVKJELJ:LVKJLKWAJE:KLJVE. .. I have a six page rant on this if anyone is interested.

:agrue:








Think I should enter this as my avatar?

http://www.canreef.com/photopost/dat...ranny_kick.gif

Pavlov.

So what separates us from the other animals? We thought it was tool use, then Goodall and others found out otherwise. Is it self-awareness? Good research suggests that many animals know they're looking at themselves when you put a mirror in front of them, and not another individual. Is it the ability to feel compassion? In one particular species of monkey, if you set up an experiment so that everytime one individual presses a button to get a piece of food, it electrocutes another individual in its line of sight, the first animal will quickly stop pressing the button and come close to starvation, apparently to avoid causing harm to its counterpart. Based on what humans value, we certainly are more successful than other primates. However, to say we are somehow fundamentally different than any other animal is pre-Darwin religious drivel.

Instinct is "a behaviour pattern that appears in fully functional form the first time it is performed, even though the animal may have no previous experience with the cues that elicit the behaviour." They are coded for genetically, and most biologists/animal behaviourists accept that behaviour is the result of both genetics and modeling. Salmon know to swim back to where they were born to spawn. But even organisms as simple as wasps can learn that they've made a mistake when they attempt to mate with an orchid for the first time.

Humans have large brains, and the current hypothesis for this is that we evolved them in order to function in complex social environments where relationships with our peers are very different from individual to individual. But I doubt any of us could remember the location of 1000+ seeds over the winter like some birds. So again, what is success in the grand scheme of things?

I'm not a "tree hugger". But seeing ourselves as superior to other animals is a quaint notion that has long been abandoned in scientific circles (since Victorian times). We don't "own" anything on this planet.

Thanks, Quinn. Merry Christmas to you, too.

That comment puts you into the Angry Young Man category. Let's talk again in 10 years, OK?

Pre-Darwin, as in, not modern day, tolerant religious traditions. I am not implying there is a problem with religion as a whole.

It's realy sad to hear about the death of the baby elephant, but equally sad to see animal rights activists come out of the woodwork and say "See! I told you so! You shouldn't breed these animals in capitivity!".

These same retards wouldn't bat an eye at what's happening to people in Africa every day, but ride a bull in a rodeo, eat a steak or wear a leather jacket and they'll go to the end of the earth to stop it.

If not for captive breeding programs around the world, there would probably be many animals gone already. In many countries the animals that are kept and bred are food, clothing and trophie items in their native habitat. Endangered or not!

I think all the tree hugging PETA pukes should get back to their plant eating place at the bottom of the food chain! :lol:

That's Pavlov BTW, but repetetive conditioning is not was I was describing anyway. There are many instances of animals learning new methods of survival which they have discovered through trial and error, just like people do. Both lower and higher forms of life do this.

A couple examples from the primates:

A boy once fell into a gorilla enclosure and was knocked unconscious, I believe it was in L.A. The crowd panicked, screaming for help, wondering if the powerful animals would harm the child. A female gorilla who had recently lost her baby rushed over to the boy and hunched over him, baring her teeth at the other gorillas keeping them away. She them picked the boy up and carried him over to the door where the zoo-keepers enter to feed the primates and clean the cage. She then moved a short distance away, again keeping the other gorillas away until someone came in and took the boy away to safety. This showed learned behaviour which was not taught, advanced problem solving and empathy of another being.

Koko, http://www.koko.org/# the famous signing gorilla, has a vocabulary of over 1000 words in American Sign Language (ASL) and can understand over 2000 spoken English words, responding in ASL. She calls herself by her name, tells people she calls "friends" how she is feeling, describing a full range of emotions ranging from happy, sad, to embarrassment. She desired a pet and was given a kitten she named Ball. She now wants to have children and says she will teach them sign language. I find it hard to disagree that Koko has self awareness.

I do believe that humans have evolved in many ways beyond that which other animals have, that is beyond question. But when it comes to processes as simple as knowing who they are and what they are doing I believe there are many other species alive that have this ability. To return to the origin of this thread let's consider the mourning of the passing of a member of an elephant herd. The other members of the herd will spend days with the dying and the deceased, caressing the body, bellowing mournful cries. They will go without food and water just to be with their longtime companion. Those especially close to the deceased will often spend extra time with the body after the rest of the herd decides to move on. This process will even be repeated when the herd comes upon the bones of those they once knew. Pretty advance for "just an animal."

oops, missed a few posts while I was typing...

As Quinn has stated chimpanzees invent and use tools.
Other animals can rationalize and there are probably marine mammals with more expansive minds than primates. Humans definately have developed an advantage over the other residents of the planet but I cannot agree that we have a certain something that makes us more important, special or significant than others.

I am not and was not upset. Just asking some questions and enjoying the conversation. The "tree-hugger" term is being thrown around quite loosely here with a lot of generalizations. I fail to see how someone like myself can be labelled as such just because I have studied and have an understanding of animal behaviour anyway. Does that by default make you, BukAneer, an "ignorant redneck"? I think not.

On that note, there is anecdotal evidence (har har) that suggest that dolphins may have even greater cognitive prowess then humans!

To stick with the topic of this thread, I am very sad that the baby elephant has died.

To continue on with the meat of this thread.... I havent read every word posted but have disagreed greatly with the majority of what has been posted..... You have voiced your opinions and they are yours to voice, on my end personally, you can throw all that evolution crap out the window! I think Darwin was a very stupid man, he went all over the world and saw all nature had to offer in all its intricate detail, and said, "evolution is the answer" What a Moron!!! I love and hate science, if you study science and cant figure out that a greater being "God" created everything, you are foolish in my eyes. Science proves gods existence and disproves evolution. There is no proof of evoloution, only speculation, there has been no species found in the midst of an evolutionary change. Have you ever looked at the supposed prehistoric human skulls that they found, they are 2 colours, 1 colour is actual bone that they found(very small skull area), then the other colour is what forms the whole shape of the monkey man skulls. And then they find hair on the skull, so prehistoric man is hairy all over, but they only found hair on the top of the skull, go figure??? I cant fathome how a person can study the complexity of just the small marine life enviroment that we try to sustain in our tanks and not belive that god created that life... If I had a big steel box and filled it with every seperate part of a car and shook it for a million years, do you think when I opened the box I would have a running perfectly torqued to spec car...???? I sure dont think so, yet the odds of a rock hitting earth and life starting, or you and myself comming from some sea goo are sooooo much higher..... many wont agree with my post, fair enough.....
In the bible God told us that we would be above all his other creations on earth, monkey is not my equal.....

Was that me? :confused:

Harsh, and no, you're wrong in assuming that those people who believe in evolution are ignorant or stupid. Let's be fair here; for some people, it is perfectly reasonable to believe in evolution, for others, creation. There's no definitive proof that says either is absolute (personally, I think both are wrong but have no solution to offer).

For all the naysayers to evolution: yes, macroevolution does have merit to it (see 21 proofs for macroevolution). Yes, indeterminant and intermediate fossils have been found, not all of them, but enough to say that they do exist (keep in mind that fossilization is a rarity at best).

To those who want to bash creation: Sometimes, using abberant mineralization to explain human footprints found alongside dinosaur footprints is hard to swallow.




Oh, a bit off tangent, but I don't by the "OMG, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ODDS OF THE EARTH BEING EXACTLY THE RIGHT DISTANCE FROM THE SUN TO SUPPORT LIFE AND SPINNING AT THE EXACT SPEED NEEDED TO MAINTAIN AN ATMOSPHERE, ETC, ETC, ETC" arguement.

Consider this: If you have six six-sided dice and you roll them six times, you will end up with six permutations of six in six results, with the odds of obtaining any given result as a function of x^y^z. Now let's take that logic and consider if you have six six-sided dice and are prepared to roll the infinite times. What's the result? Well, you're looking at something like infinite permutations of six in infinite results. Within those results, the chances of obtaining any unique permutation is COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE.

Now, I know the universe is not infinite (well, so science tells me), but it is vast. So vast as to say that it is wholely feasible for there to be a unique, or otherwise, occurance of a planet that is EXACTLY THE RIGHT DISTANCE FROM THE SUN TO SUPPORT LIFE AND SPINNING AT THE EXACT SPEED NEEDED TO MAINTAIN ATMOSPHERE, ETC, ETC, ETC!!!

I disagree, what I said is my strong personal opinion, I am not assuming anything, it is the way I feel, and I feel strongly about it....

Also dont take anything I say personally... I may have forgotten to take my meds...lol

.. OMG, OMG, OMG, OMG!!!! I think I may have come up with a reasonable (in my mind) explanation for life!

Holy crap, I think I'll write all this down and present it here later!!!!!


Edit: Nope, nevermind. It's stupid. Dammit.

As I said dont take anything I say personally, and I never said your opinions were stupid, they are your opinions, not mine, personally I cant fathom the belief in darwinisim, I find it "stupid" for lack of a better word. Because of what I believe in and what I have researched, I personally find evolution to be insulting. Again, please dont take offense, its a touchy subject, like abortion, if you say pro life like I do, pro choicers hate you....religion is always a touchy subject

I think my first point about Darwin and religion was taken horribly out of context. My aim was not to disparage religion. Certainly religion has its place, and I do not believe that belief in evolution (macroevolution/speciation, not just microevolution/natural selection) means that a person cannot also be deeply religious. I know he probably doesn't mean much to most of you, but even the Pope has said that evolution is compatible with Catholicism. Other than in the case of a few conservative sects with relatively literal interpretations of the Bible, I don't think there are any strands of Christianity that are completely incompatible with a belief in macroevolution. All I was referring to was the lack of critical thought that existed in most circles in Western society during the revival, the Victorian era, etc. Remember, up until Darwin, most revolutionary scientific thought complemented the Bible quite nicely (Lamarckian evolution, for instance). In fact, at first glance, Darwin's theory does not appear to contradict the Bible at all. It's the idea that chance mutations are selected for that causes so many problems, because it excludes the possibility of "man being created in God's image."* Remember also that it was precisely the fear of the public's reaction to this that kept Darwin from publishing until he was essentially forced to. Hopefully this clarifies what I meant when I brought religion into the equation.

As an aside, agreeing with Albert here, clearly our existence, if not an act of a supreme being, is a tremendous bit of good luck.

Kyle, for you, may I suggest some readings. Regarding creating a car by chance, please see the numerous critiques of Paley's "The Teleological Argument", which are available online. You may be familiar with Duane Gish, if not, take a look at almost any of his writings, also on the net. Then read Ketcher's "Against Creationism", and Gould's "So Cleverly Kind an Animal." Proving or disproving the existence of God is a difficult task, and to date, neither has been successfully accomplished. And if he/she/it/they do exist, who created them? :wink:

* Belief in evolution can leave a person feeling a bit empty. Modern revisions to Darwin suggest that any organism is really just a vehicle for the propagation of genes... I'm mostly here to give my genes a chance to replicate...

I guess I'm gonna toss in my two bits here too!

Evolution or creation doe's it really matter-we're here- let's just enjoy life for now and for the future!

Getting back to the poor baby elephant, I think it's really sad that she died, but I also feel that we need to protect and sustain life on on earth not just for us humans but for the animals of this world too!
If we don't try to help in some way, wether it be education, funding, volunteering, or a life long career- we all need to do our part to help keep this planet healthy.

Animals deserve as much respect in my book as much as humans, and in some cases they deserve more than some ignorant humans!
If this makes me a tree hugger, then I'm proud to be one :mrgreen:

I would suggest the topic of this thread as a possible difference. Despite the amount of destruction and killing and clear-cutting we seem to do as a species, I can not think of a single other animal that cares personally about the well being of another species (that is not motivated by personal preservation). I mean really, our concern for an elephant in the zoo or even all the elephants in Africa is not motivated by any sort of benefit to ourselves because, as a species, we do not rely on the elephant for anything. Infact, if anything, it could be seen by many as a competitor for space and a thief of farm produce. Despite this, there are people who have devoted their entire lives to keeping these animals alive. I don't think you will find a parallel anywhere else in the animal kingdom. It flies in the face of all the rules about survival of the fittest and whatnot.
Also, I don't think anyone would contest species evolve over time. I think it is the "theory of evolution" as an explanation of the origon of man (without the involvement of a Higher Power), that some of us have a hard time with. I belive that I am a man of strong convictions but I recognize that I probably don't have half the "faith" or conviction or fervor that someone who believes in a Big-bag-type theory has. Because, of the two options, .... that is really a stretch :razz:

- Chad

Whoa ... dont get your panties in a knot ... no time to stop being a lady :razz: ... I used the term " tree-hugger " far more affectionately than most people would use the term " ignorant redneck " ... and what exactly do you mean redneck anyway since you have never met me and have no clue as to my heritage. Tne term redneck would in this case be a racial slur and I am pretty sure we can all agree that we can keep race out of this conversation and focus on species instead.

Buk_A_neer
No it's because we can all see that you live in DeWinton :biggrin:
Just kidding!

What I want to know is, how come there's been no action in the nano forum for weeks and the lounge is getting this kind of interest?? C'mon guys, I posted updated pics of my tank and everything. :smile:

- Chad