Humans aren't the only artists?

[x_Silver_Starlight_x]

God-the-almighty

x_Silver_Starlight_x

I don't know, it didn't really surprise me.
I have this majoy inferiority complex; I don't think humans are as great as we make ourselves out to be.
You mentioned that you don't think birds can make art? I think they can. It's not the same as ours, but it fits my definition of art none the less. Certain species of birds build nests, like Aurelius said, and they try to one up the next guy to make it nicer. They try to use it as a message to a lady bird to say "Hey, we could make beautiful babies together." Other birds learn various songs and try to create a single, beautiful and impressive song, again to send the message that he's a good mate. I don't think it's purely instinct (though clearly it is to some extent), since the nests change from one bird to the next. They have personal touches. I don't doubt that they could learn to paint, since some are capable of using tools.
Elephants have also been taught to paint. While this certainly isn't a natural occurrence, it's possible.
Anywhoosles, I'd be more interested if it were a monkey. Neanderthals are extremely close to human beings, and sometimes considered a subspecies.

It would be considered a sub species only if they shared more genes with humans. Think of the quaga, that is a subspecies of zebras. They are working on breeding them again from zebras because the genes reside in the same species. You can't do that with neanderthals. The source population of Homo Sapiens doesn't share genes with them, Europeans and Asians do because there was limited interbreeding but only about 2% of those genes survive. There were several species of hominids We are one and Neanderthals were another. I guess what makes them so interesting is how close they were to us and the fact they were still around so recently. As for the birds I agree somewhat they do learn and develop their craft but I think the element of symbolism is missing. I think that's why it's not really art.

It depends on the anthropologist you ask. Some will classify them as a subspecies of human, others as a closely related species. Chances are if they mated with modern humans, they're a subspecies, since different species cannot produce viable, fertile off spring. They did.
As for the birds, there may be symbolism that we're entirely unaware of. Certain colours may mean certain things, certain arrangements others. We can't really delve into their minds. But we do know they create, so I find it entirely possible that they are applying symbols and messages that we don't know of.

[Shintenzu]

I don't think it should be suprising that sentient beings are capable of producing art.

[God-the-almighty]

x_Silver_Starlight_x

God-the-almighty

x_Silver_Starlight_x

I don't know, it didn't really surprise me.
I have this majoy inferiority complex; I don't think humans are as great as we make ourselves out to be.
You mentioned that you don't think birds can make art? I think they can. It's not the same as ours, but it fits my definition of art none the less. Certain species of birds build nests, like Aurelius said, and they try to one up the next guy to make it nicer. They try to use it as a message to a lady bird to say "Hey, we could make beautiful babies together." Other birds learn various songs and try to create a single, beautiful and impressive song, again to send the message that he's a good mate. I don't think it's purely instinct (though clearly it is to some extent), since the nests change from one bird to the next. They have personal touches. I don't doubt that they could learn to paint, since some are capable of using tools.
Elephants have also been taught to paint. While this certainly isn't a natural occurrence, it's possible.
Anywhoosles, I'd be more interested if it were a monkey. Neanderthals are extremely close to human beings, and sometimes considered a subspecies.

It would be considered a sub species only if they shared more genes with humans. Think of the quaga, that is a subspecies of zebras. They are working on breeding them again from zebras because the genes reside in the same species. You can't do that with neanderthals. The source population of Homo Sapiens doesn't share genes with them, Europeans and Asians do because there was limited interbreeding but only about 2% of those genes survive. There were several species of hominids We are one and Neanderthals were another. I guess what makes them so interesting is how close they were to us and the fact they were still around so recently. As for the birds I agree somewhat they do learn and develop their craft but I think the element of symbolism is missing. I think that's why it's not really art.

It depends on the anthropologist you ask. Some will classify them as a subspecies of human, others as a closely related species. Chances are if they mated with modern humans, they're a subspecies, since different species cannot produce viable, fertile off spring. They did.
As for the birds, there may be symbolism that we're entirely unaware of. Certain colours may mean certain things, certain arrangements others. We can't really delve into their minds. But we do know they create, so I find it entirely possible that they are applying symbols and messages that we don't know of.

I would look at the genes first. If Africans had Neanderthal genes I'd consider that but they don't. Related species can have fertile offspring. Even horses and donkeys rarely do. Then you have tiger and lion crosses, I'm not sure if those are fertile though.

[God-the-almighty]

I wasn't trying to start a big controversy when I made this thread, I just found it interesting.