/sci/ - Science & Math

;_;

In my honest opinion: Humans.

>>4797478
we're woefully average. we only got to where we are now because of our intellect.

any kind of dragonfly. they're just so elegant.

>>4797481
We are the most successful of all the species.
:)

But this thread is about beauty, not success, and I still think I would choose humans.

Other than that, I like colourful animals; exotic birds, and suchlike.

bioluminescent creatures.their beauty actually serves some sort of purpose.

>>4797488
Octopus.

>>4797478
This thread is about animals, not humans.

>>4797505
Humans are a type of animal.

(We are alive, therefore we are either a plant, an animal, or a fungus.
Can you guess which?)

:)

>>4797513
>humans
>animals
Are you fucking retarded?

>thinking biology is a science

Humans, because only humans can appreciate beauty

>>4797523

Humans are animals.

I like pandas.

>>4797546
No, you fucking dipshit. They are humans!

I mean, look at a fucking monkey. Do I have anything in common with that thing? They are stupid as fuck. Why would I be the same thing they are?

>>4797551

Made out of rainbows.
Best eyesight known.
Fastest punching animal.

birds of paradise

inb4 the crazy lightshow cuttlefish

>>4797551

Do sparrows have anything in common with lions. NO YOU FUCKING IDIOT BUT THEY ARE BOTH ANIMALS. This is /sci/ not /butthurtanger/ so fuck off.

>>4797574
>implying you are not rustled

>>4797551
negros are very close to monkeys, look at the shape of their heads and giant lips and so on.

>>4797574
Sparrows and lions are of the same intellect, they have no consciousness and just life to eat, sleep and breed.

Humans are intelligent beings with the ability to talk, think and feel emotions.

>>4797581
>negros
Bitch, I was talking about humans, not sub-humans.

>>4797578

>>4797577

Yeah im rustled, just a bit tho.

I'd say cannabis

tardigrades

>Glaucus atlanticus
Zeus almighty, it's so beautiful.

>>4797523
>>4797578
>>4797551

You guys are to stupid for /sci/.
We are animals, mammals to be precise.
Wheter you like it or not.

they're like the cats of the ocean.
they really don't give a fuck.

>>4797637
Everybody knows that.
There are trolls in the thread.

>>4797637
Where is your evidence? Mammals have no consciousness and no emotions. They just live to eat, sleep and breed. Humans are intelligent and able to feel emotion. That is a scientifical fact. Why do you consider humans animals if they clearly aren't?

>>4797642
>they really don't give a fuck.
Because they can't. Are earthworms now the cats of the dirt?

>>4797648
Haha. You are not really very good at trolling, I think.

>>4797472
Holy shit that's gorgeous. It's like everything I love all wrapped up into one creature.

>>4797472
Looks like some computer-designed starcraft enemy. not really beautiful, if you ask me, but interestind indeed.

>>4797488
>MOST SUCCESSFUL OF ALL SPECIES
>MOST SUCCESSFUL OF ALL SPECIES
>MOST SUCCESSFUL OF ALL SPECIES
>MOST SUCCESSFUL OF ALL SPECIES
>MOST SUCCESSFUL OF ALL SPECIES
>MOST SUCCESSFUL OF ALL SPECIES
>MOST SUCCESSFUL OF ALL SPECIES
>MOST SUCCESSFUL OF ALL SPECIES
>MOST SUCCESSFUL OF ALL SPECIES

CONFIRMED FOR FULL FUCKING RETARD.

I MAD? YES. QUITE.

>>4797650
Got several responses. /sci/ isn't really a smart place after all.

>>4797656
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/species-of-the-day/collections/our-collections/glaucus-atlanticus
/index.html

>>4797652
>that feel when you can't keep one as a pet because of it's very specific diet

>>4797657
Then what do you think is the most successful species?

>>4797658
Sometimes one can not tell when somebody is trolling, or if they just do not know something.
I posted >>4797513
But I did not post after that; I decided it was a troll.

>>4797665
How the fuck do you measure something like that?

Maybe it's ants. They obviously have more members than humans on earth.

Or maybe it's bees, because the shit they make tastes better than anything humans can vomit up or shit out.

Or maybe it's giraffes because they have the longest necks.

>>4797669
>How the fuck do you measure something like that?
Then why did you imply that I was so obviously wrong when I suggested that humans were the most advanced species, if you think that it can not be measured?

>Maybe it's ants. They obviously have more members than humans on earth.
Having a larger population does not mean that a species is more advanced.
If so, then bacteria are the most advanced, by far.

>Or maybe it's bees, because the shit they make tastes better than anything humans can vomit up or shit out.
Honey is quite tasty, but do you truly believe it is superior to all of the foods that humans have ever created?

>Or maybe it's giraffes because they have the longest necks.
Haha.
No time for your sillyness, then.

I love Asian Fairy Bluebirds.
>Those blues, man

>>4797673

Successful and advanced are two different things.

Successful is relative based on what you mean by success.

biodiversity? biolongevity? bacteria are the most successful.

>>4797673
>If so, then bacteria are the most advanced, by far
>bacteria
>animals
Get out of this board. Bacteria are eukaryotic.

>>4797695
>Bacteria are eukaryotic

>>4797701
Then, what are they?

>>4797715
Wait. You're serious?

>>4797721
I'm cereal as fuck.

>>4797695
>>4797715
>>4797727

Eukaryotes and Prokayotes (???) are types of bacteria.

Bacteria arent all eukaryotes.

>>4797488
>>4797513
>:)

>>4797746
You do not like the smileys?

>>4797741
Actually eucaryotes are inanimate matter while procaryotes are living matter. It's a chemical distinction.

RNA and DNA is different kinds of bacteria. DNA is bacteria enslaved by human cells to do their dirty work, that's why humans are advanced. RNA is free floating bacteria.

>>4797755

Wait what? Is this some sort of humorous comment at my expense?

I could be totally wrong, but last I remember Eukaryotes were just an advanced more internally complicated bacteria. One that had DNA and a nucleus etc etc. Prokaryotes were just blobs of cellular matter that manage to reproduce.

>>4797762
Molecular biology studies changed the picture a bit. Your view was valid until around 2002, the new molecular tools that became availible during the last stages of the human genome project caused a fair bit of rewriting of textbooks. But the education system is so glacial and conservative that the changes take time to diffuse out.

>>4797695
>>4797741

Are you fucking kidding me. I know that not everyone is a biologist but knowing the difference between prokaryotes, eukaryotes and archaea should be a prerequisite for posting on any science board.

Eukaryotes - multicellular organisms, animals, plants, trees, people, etc. which have membrane bound organelles within cells like mitochondria, chloroplasts, and ER. Also have introns in genes.

Prokaryotes - single celled organisms, bacteria. They have no membrane bound organelles, nor a nucleus as such to contain the DNA. Ribosomes don't count as they aren't membrane bound. Also can have polycistronic genes activated simultaneously in an operon.

Archaea are also single celled. They are distinctly different from prokaryotes, enough to warrant a total reconsideration of phylogeny to include them. Such differences include cell wall structure, which can contain pseudomurein and ether-linked lipids.

>>4797755

I hope you're trolling. Bacteria are as alive as you and me. We didn't really 'enslave DNA' to become advanced, although it has been theorised that mitochondria and chloroplasts may have begun as prokaryotes. By 'enslaving' them and incorporating them into our cells we can create the energy required to synthesize longer chains of DNA and therefore a more complex genome.

Also, bears.

>>4797793

Well fuck. I just looked it up and you are right.

My bad. Its been a long time since I took biology (8 years).

What do we call Bacteria with a nucleus? Do these just not exist? How did life make the jump from Prokayotes to Eukayotes?

>>4797807
>What do we call Bacteria with a nucleus?

We don't call them bacteria at all. you seem to equal bacteria with cell which is wroooong. Anyway, eucaryotes have nuclei so there you go.

>>4797814

I see. Thank you. This is not a mistake I will make again.

viruses

>>4797755
>mfw this post

>>4797873

>>4797807
>How did life make the jump from Prokayotes to Eukayotes?

That's a little like asking how we made the jump from chimpanzee to human.

>>4797876
So it's something we have to believe without evidence?

>>4797807

Just wanted to clear things up.

Endosymbiosis theory pretty much covers the 'jump' from single celled organisms to multicellular ones. It's basically a matter of being able to produce enough energy to synth and manipulate a genome large enough to create 'bodies' such as those found in eukaryotes. As I mentioned briefly before, without organelles devoted to the synthesis of ATP, such as mitochondria and chloroplasts, a cell can't produce the energy required. This is also why prokaryotic genomes correlate with the complexity of the organism; efficiency as they can't waste energy. Eukaryotic genomes are full of meaningless shit like introns and non-coding 'junk' DNA. We can synthesize as much DNA as we like so we are able to incorporate remnants of viral DNA and other such shit just because we can.

Bacteria do have a 'nucleoid' which is basically a denser area of cytoplasm containing proteins around the genome. It isn't membrane-bound though so it's not classed as a nucleus.

>>4797879
You got me.

Still not as beautiful as Jessica Alba

>>4797665

I dont know what the most succesful species is, but i do know that the humas is the species that have accomplished the most.

But succesfull we arent, we have only been around for 50,000 years out of 4,500,000,000 years. In that time period we have managed to fuck it all up.

>>4797909
Humans are not a species.

If I could fuck one other animal other than a human it would be a dolphin. So I'm going with dolphins

>>4797944
>implying sex with human females doesn't count as bestiality

The human female. Beastiality is physiologically and philosophically wrong, you sick fucks.

Sharks are the most beautiful.
They're so streamlined and efficient their form has barely changed for millions of years.

>inb4 ponies

I am the most beautiful animal.

>>4797523
No, he's right, humans are mammals.

>>4797478
tbh, I think this is the correct answer. Humans have a wide spectrum of personalities, wide spectrum of beauty, wide spectrum of everything imo. This gives rise do huge diversity. Something that almost no other animal has

>>4797969
No, they are not.

>>4797578
>Life


Get a load of this guy. Animal classification isn't based around what their goal in life is, Whether it's survival, or watching T.V. Humans are animals. Just because something is different, does not mean it's not an animal. Humans still belong to the Animalia kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090827072751AA2WOMp

http://biology.buffalo.edu/courses/bio531/lecture6.html

Also; animals live to survive, not "Eat, sleep, and breed"