Why are giant pandas so lazy?

It's just not that exciting to get up and eat bamboo all day.

Glen Davidson

A 90-kg panda expends less than half the energy of an equally weighted human

"Our teddy bear is short and fat.
Which is not to be wondered at:
He gets what exercise he can
From falling off the ottoman,
But generally seems to lack
The energy to clamber back."

A. A. Milne.

Whole poem here.

But teddy bears, not being as smart as Professor Steve Steve (and not having the same diet), do not ruminate.

Of coarse its unrelated to motivation. Its the same equation as for sloths or koalas or sloth bears. The latter a bear that lives in the trees of india. they all eat plants and indeed ones that must be consumed carefully. They have limited diets.
They were not the way originally but only becvame that way after entering the tree life. This is important for creationism. it means adaptation is easily done and done the same from like prompts in their world.
The small brain size also, I think, was not original but a later adaptation. its not that they are dumber but , I think, they use less memory and that is why the 'brain' gets smaller. I do think the brain is just a giant memory machine as opposed to a witness of intelligence. so it can change as the memory ability changes. We have bigger 'brains" only because we have greater memory ability. this fits in with seeing us as immaterial souls where our actual thinking goes on.

Maybe being all thumbs, they lost any motive for being ambitious?

Robert Byers said: Of coarse...

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: Of coarse...

You're unbelievable, Robert Byers.

Robert Byers said: This is important for creationism. it means adaptation is easily done and done the same from like prompts in their world...

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: This is important for creationism. it means adaptation is easily done and done the same from like prompts in their world...

Um.. the observation that, over the generations, the environment and the resources therein can have profound effects on how animals physically and behaviorally change and adapt is important for creationism? I would comment more, but my W.T.F. meter has just exploded, I have to go pick shards of glass out of the cat now.

“Boggles the Mind” Byers strikes again? Send me to the BW if you want (I understand), but leave Byers there, Matt, please! The World needs to witness - or at least, needs to laugh.

Matt Young said:

“Boggles the Mind” Byers strikes again? Send me to the BW if you want (I understand), but leave Byers there, Matt, please! The World needs to witness - or at least, needs to laugh.

Mr. Byers gets 1 comment, and everyone gets 1 shot at him. Here is my 1 shot: I still think that he is pulling our collective leg.

He has been pulling this crap for years. Have you seen his own personal web site? Have you seen the manifestos that he thinks pass for science?

Or maybe it is just a failed attempt at artificial intelligence. That would explain a lot.

Judging from all the pictures I've seen of Prof. Steve Steve with his learned colleagues, he must be a very very small giant panda indeed.

Re "Even an artificial intelligence program would have some conception of grammar and punctuation. And perhaps proofreading."

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

Re "Judging from all the pictures I’ve seen of Prof. Steve Steve with his learned colleagues, he must be a very very small giant panda indeed."

But who is pulling his strings?

Matt Young said:

He has been pulling this crap for years. Have you seen his own personal web site? Have you seen the manifestos that he thinks pass for science?

His website seems to be here. I have never seen it nor heard of Creation Conversations. It is profoundly depressing that people can be so ignorant yet so completely confident in their assertions. I will not say that you have spoiled my day, but you have made a very good effort.

Or maybe it is just a failed attempt at artificial intelligence. That would explain a lot.

Even an artificial intelligence program would have some conception of grammar and punctuation. And perhaps proofreading.

I think the application of the term "lazy" is unfortunate and simply a gross misapplication of a term more appropriate for the humanoid species only. We tend to describe animals of all kinds in human terms, not taking into consideration the facts such as the article elaborated regarding the panda. It's unfortunate that we still regard the old saying "man is the measure..." when we speak of other life forms as we remake them all in our own less than perfect image.

Robert Byers said: Of coarse its unrelated to motivation. Its the same equation as for sloths or koalas or sloth bears. The latter a bear that lives in the trees of india. they all eat plants and indeed ones that must be consumed carefully. They have limited diets. They were not the way originally but only becvame that way after entering the tree life. This is important for creationism. it means adaptation is easily done and done the same from like prompts in their world. The small brain size also, I think, was not original but a later adaptation. its not that they are dumber but , I think, they use less memory and that is why the 'brain' gets smaller. I do think the brain is just a giant memory machine as opposed to a witness of intelligence. so it can change as the memory ability changes. We have bigger 'brains" only because we have greater memory ability. this fits in with seeing us as immaterial souls where our actual thinking goes on.

I am truly sorry.

Henry J said: Maybe being all thumbs, they lost any motive for being ambitious?

In fact gaint panda is not lazy, especially wild panda.They spend 14hour finding their food everyday. But now they do not need to make effort to do that in human's gardern.

Mei Xiang at the Smithsonian Zoo isn't lazy she is a great mum to Bao Bao and now there's a good possibility she is going to be a mum again. Any time between 28th August and mid September if all goes well.