I'm sure you guessed from the thumbs down, but it is pleasure. Dude, just google it next time...

meh...don't give a shit about thumbs....and I don't understand why I have to "guess by thumbs"
I believe human race is superior because of it's communication abilities
anyway thumbs up for you....and no I won't use google cuz fuck all ya

You're welcome mate....

Coincidently, humans are superior due to our superior ability to invent and adapt, hence the reason we are the top of the food chain.

Even if your theory is correct, then wouldn't self-sufficiency make a person superior to other people?

Chimps are more adaptive than we are....and they're very smart...plus they're much much stronger....still not on top because they can't communicate the way we are

and I'm not talking about who's a better person...I'm talking who's a better race

By "race" I'll assume you mean "species"; and my comment about better person was aimed at you, in the hope that next time you'd google the question, or try and find out on your own steam.

Furthermore, Chimps more adaptive? No fucking way. If chimps were more adaptive; why are they localised to a single continent? where are the chimps in the North Pole? In the deserts? They are adapted only for the jungle, whereas humans have colonised the entire globe.

I won't google something up because there are always idiots who say shit wrong...been there done that

yes chimps are more adaptive, but they are "just like humans" stay in places where they can find food, since they eat a lot they rather live in the forest where there are lots of trees and plenty of water, they would be able to live in those environments if enough food is supplied.
it's not like human beings live in the middle of the sahara either, we live in the deserts and so because there are animals there to feed on, BUT there are places that are not inhabited by anyone in EVERY single continent on earth, which doesn't make us any better than they are, can you live somewhere without water? I don't think so, that doesn't mean you're not adaptive though

So your willing to trust someone on funnyjunk who may/may not be taking the piss but not the world most successful search engine? Wow.

-Chimps are more adaptive in terms of genes, mainly due to the fact they're closer to our common ancestor. However in the terms we are talking in, humans are more able to change their environment to work for them; and therefore more adaptable.

-Humans do live in the Sahara. Nomadic tribes known as the Bedouin have lived in the Sahara for millennia; albeit never staying long in the same place.

-Humans inhabit a greater range of habitats then chimps; they have adapted to a wider range of environments. Chimpanzees only live in the Jungles of Central Africa, and along the Ivory Coast. They are only adapted to one environment.

-Chimpanzees can't live somewhere without water either.

Maybe do a little more research?

the world's most successful engine works by searching for the words that I entered....not the truth, you can't ask google "what's that song pete was listening to yesterday?" and it magically gets that to you right? that only proves what I'm saying, human communication can't be topped by anything, including the so called "world's most successful search engine"

if you put a chimp in a house or a backyard it will create a mess but still gonna survive somehow, how about we put you in the middle of the jungle and see how much longer you will? actually that would be hilarious...

I know humans do live in Sahara since I'm in one of the countries that is a part of the Sahara, still they don't live anywhere there, only in specific places where sufficient food and water exist, and they travel all the time to find some when their sources are consumed, still proves that humans can't live in every single inch of the world

that is correct in a way, but it won't be fair to compare all the races of human beings to one race of monkeys, to make a better comparison you have to compare the habitat of chimps and Afrikanische Neger (that's not racism, that's the scientific name for the race of humans who live in the central africa) and then you'll find than Negers can't live in the north pole as well, and will suffer a lot if they're taken out of their inhabitants

I know chimps can't live without water, just stating that just because there isn't sufficient food and water resources in a place doesn't mean that the creature is not adaptive

I agree with you....you need a lot more research before you're able to talk to me about such subject

Well if you don't trust google; maybe use just look up a website on grammar. And as for superior communication, I must assume you are lacking due to the lack of thanks I received for helping you correct yourself.

Firstly, feel free to drop me in a jungle any time you like. Not everyone on the internet is a fat slob who only knows about video games. Just give me a knife and some clothes and I'll be dandy.

Secondly, they do live in the desert, as they spend their whole lives there. They may not be able to live in one place, but they have adapted their lifestyle and culture to cope with the desert. And humans inhabit many more habitats then chimpanzees.

And even if we were comparing all primates (bar humans), against humans, we still win; no other primates live in the Arctic or High in the mountains. And I think you'' find the Black man would survive significantly longer than the monkey, if both were given the same conditions to live in (i.e. a parka, someone to look after them, shelter etc..). And I already knew what Afrikanische Neger meant. It's German for African Negro.

Let's say we take the peak of chimp fitness and the peak of human fitness; due to their greater brain capacity, the humans would undoubtedly be more able to adapt to a greater variety of situations.

I disagree with you...you need to be a lot less arrogant before you talk with anyone.

Could I first asked why you asked the original question? On Funnyjunk, of all places?

I don't need to justify that I could survive in that situation. I can. Admittedly; I won't do as good a job as the chimp (which lives in the jungle), just as the chimp wouldn't survive as well as I in a city. So this argument is invalid.

If you will not take my example of the Bedouin, maybe the Eskimos, or the Amazonian tribes people, or the Sherpa can interest you. All are humans, yet all are adapted to their environments. Therefore humans are a more adaptable species then chimpanzees; as they are the more successful. And chimps couldn't survive in the desert if they had to find their own sustenance, as the Bedouin do. They would be unable to adapt, and therefore become extinct.

As for "it is true that no other primate can live in the arctic, but not because they can't adapt to the climate or the land, just because there isn't enough food and water"; this is one and the same as saying the chimp can't adapt to the environment. Lack of food and drink are conditions of the Arctic; which the Chimp is unable to adapt to, but to which humans have adapted. And what's wrong with drinking blood? It's an excellent source of sustenance in the wild.

Thirdly, you must have misread me. Humans have Adapted to a greater variety of HABITATS. Not situations. There for as humans have adapted to live in the Arctic, the tundra, the steppes, the mountains, the coasts, the jungle and many others; it is clear the humans are the more adaptable species

And weren't we arguing whether chimps or humans are more adaptable? There were no chimps present in Thailand, they haven't adapted to be capable of intercontinental travel. You can't add in new animals now, as the most adaptable creature is, by far and away, single celled organisms.

Your arrogance is heavily misplaced; you lost this debate before you even started.

(sorry message was too long) 4- we are, and as I said the people in Thailand aren't the same race as the ones in Central Africa, so to make the comparison more fair we have to choose the "equivalent" to chimps in Thailand, which is Macaque (if you forgot why I'd like to remind you that we're comparing between Primates and Humans, not a single specie of primates against all races of humans)

I lost shit bro, you lost this debate the second you thought you could have a debate with me

We originally started debating due to your stating "Chimps are more adaptive than we are....and they're very smart...plus they're much much stronger....still not on top because they can't communicate the way we are ". You compared a chimpanzees to humans not me. Even if we were debating on whether primates minus humans were more adaptive then humans, I am still correct as humans have adapted to a greater range of environments, whilst most other primates live around jungles.

Your arrogance is working against you. I am correct, yet you continue to stand by your viewpoint, even though it is clearly incorrect.

well that took sometime....I almost fell asleep... ( not joking, it's 6 AM)
I saw it in the post and I wanted to know, I couldn't ask on facebook because it's full of retards, I won't show my boobs to anyone so I defiantly won't ask on /b/ , I don't know why people think FJ is full of such genius trolls who can keep anyone lost for hours, maybe on facebook where the population is completely retarded but not in real life, and whenever I asked here I either get a good response or some lulz from an awesome comeback (rarely debates)

my argument is in no way invalid, you just lost the main point we're arguing about, I stated that a chimp can adapt more and better and you think they can't, I showed that it can survive in both the jungle and the city ( I know it won't do so well in the city but it will survive ) while you won't be able to last as long as it will last in the jungle while given the same equipments (nothing in both cases)

again with tribes, I understand that humans can adapt with their environment, but aside from the Eskimos there are different species of primates there who are well adapted and still can do a better job in your habitat than you can do in theirs.

I did state perfectly clear that the only reason chimps ( primates in general) don't live in the far north is because of insufficiency in food, not the climate or the land type, a human can't live in a place where there's no suitable food, and so can't the primates, the only difference is we are predators who are able to hunt down animals and eat them by our nature ( before you say that's a way to prove they're less adaptive, Cheetahs are a billion times better hunters than you'll ever be and still we're better adapters )
drinking blood is disgusting

I didn't misread you, you clearly said (the humans would undoubtedly be more able to adapt to a greater variety of situations. ) not habitats

This is where my insomnia becomes an advantage... Fair enough.

You argument is invalid. Sure a chimp could survive in the jungle and the city. Given the same equipment as a chimp I would survive better in the city, and the chimp would be superior in the jungle. Also, humans have adapted to live all over the globe, a point you seem to be ignoring.

Are you sure you have the right definition for adapt? As a verb it means to become adjusted to new conditions. Which humans are clearly better at, as we have adapted to a greater number of conditions then primates, and particularly chimps.

As for your argument about chimps in the far north, the lack of food is a condition that must be met in order to survive. Humans are able to survive there, but chimps aren't, so humans have adapted to a greater number of habitats then chimps.

As for drinking blood, it is a very efficient way of getting nutrients quickly, and therefore very good in a survival situation. You'd think snails are disgusting, but fried in garlic butter, they're lovely.

And you've actually admitted I'm correct: "again with tribes, I understand that humans can adapt with their environment, but aside from the Eskimos there are different species of primates there who are well adapted and still can do a better job in your habitat than you can do in theirs. " I think if left to our own devices, I'd survive longer in a jungle then a chimp would in the city. I give the chimp a matter of hours before it's run over. Assuming neither of us have any support.

Humans have adapted to a greater range of environments, therefore we are better at adapting then chimpanzees. Case closed.

I'm not sure we agree on the definition of "adaption", you seem to be talking about short term adaption like adapting to the weather in Tokyo or the Height on a mountain, I'm talking about ever lasting adaption, Charles Darwin type of adaption when you start morphing into a whole new race or specie more adaptive to the environment around it, Just like Homosapiens ( who were black and tall ) changed into the form of Eskimos (who are short) to adapt with the new environment, still on the short term a monkey can do a better job in your inhabitant than you can do in theirs.

the insufficiency of food is a condition, but the state where you don't have the kind of food you eat (vegetables) ? that's not a condition, as I stated before humans can't live without water, I wouldn't call you unadaptive because you couldn't live without it, I would if you can't live with FEW of it, but without even a drop? can't blame ya

I rather drink my own blood than eat a snail, fried or not

I believe you should watch Nat Geo wild more, I saw a whole show about monkeys in south africa who learned to live very close to people and every now and then they came in the city, opened doors and windows and ate everything inside, I'd like to see you climbing on a tree and taking an apple off the hand of a chimp, I repeat, that would be hilarious....

Primates can live in almost same range of environment (excluding the far north) and in places you can't endure and under threats and conditions you don't even know of, therefore they're more adaptive. Case closed

your ignorance seems to be working against you this time, simply because neither one of us can tell which is correct, otherwise we wouldn't need judges in courts, just let both sides argue till one proves his point.

I would argue more with you but the (case closed) part really shut me off, not willing to talk if you're not willing to listen

PS: I won

Nope, we're on the same page in terms of definitions. Humans have adapted in the long term to more environments, therefore we are the more adaptive species.

This statement is completely contradictory; first you admit that lack of food is a condition, then you say that the lack of food that one depends on isn't a condition.

Trust me, fried snails are awesome, and one should try everything once.

I don't watch Natural Geographic wild as I do not have sky or whatever TV company it comes on. Sky? However, it seems to be talking about baboons, which always go into empty houses. They also sling shit at each other. And why the personal attack again? Stating that it would be hilarious to watch me struggle to survive in the jungle and in a fight with a chimpanzee isn't nice at all. Granted, I've called your intellect into question, but saying you'd enjoy watching me be beaten?

The key is "almost" the same range of environments as humans. Not as many. Also, this isn't about me surviving in different situations, it's about the whole species of humanity.

As for being shut off by "case closed", you said you'd like to watch me die in the jungle. So you can get off your high horse. Anyway "case closed" is merely a figure of speech, indicating I feel I've made an irrefutable point.

PS. If it means that much to you, you have it. I'm going to sleep.