GIGANTIC Rabbit

Roberto is a sweet, cuddly bunny...that weighs a terrifying 27 pounds (12kg).

Why don't you come and join us on Facebook and Twitter to stay up to date with our videos and other animal stories!!

Like us on Facebook: http://ow.ly/3FMm1

Follow us on Twitter: http://ow.ly/3FMte

Follow us on Tumblr: http://ow.ly/4H8re

• Category

  Pets & Animals

[Rabbit pulse]

I'm kind of scared....I hope he's not a bully....because I'm very small

[masafromhell]

My point on the panda was that, maching his environment, he survives better than most similar animals (concidered in his surroundings). Everything have a reason to be in nature, every aspect (significant one) of an animal have or had helped him in surviving in some way.

Evolution is mainly based on survival, and it could not exist without it, because it focuses on traits comming from mutations of the genetic code, such traits either help or (most likely) cripple the animal.

[Cody Cromarty]

The panda is an example of barely adequate half-successes that were just enough to keep the species alive in the environment. They're not only trying to eat an herbivorous diet on a carnivore's digestive system, but they're extremely reliant on particular environmental conditions and can't survive even minor fluctuations.

The point I'm making is that evolution is far more complex than "Survival of the fittest," or that humans somehow are outside of evolution.

[masafromhell]

I can assure you that negative traits are extremely frequents compared to positive traits, which is obvious, because new traits are genetic malformation, "flaw of nature" if you will, and very few times that malformation is benefical to the specie, while most of the time significant negative malformation are fatal, leading to the death of that trait.

Pandas are basically bears capable of nourishing themselves with bamboo, and he survives better in his environment then other bears in his region.

[Cody Cromarty]

Evolution is more complex than a simple "The weak die, the strong survive." Positive traits often last for many generations and provide an overall improvement, while negative traits have a chance of eventually disappearing. Allowing "the malformed" to live is only negative if it results in a net loss to the species, which it doesn't because they're simply not common enough. If you want an example of evolution not being perfect, look at the panda and its huge problems with its environment.

[masafromhell]

That's not a different path, it's a whole new path that was never used before and led the break of the natural order (Each year less species in the planet). It is quite clear that there is no animal with more independence from nature than we do. If a child gets a malformation that would be fatal in the hand of nature, we manage to save him, and possibly alowing him to reproduce.

We are without a doubt out of the natural selection, and thus unnatural.

[Cody Cromarty]

Well, no. Humans are very natural; we evolved the same way as other creatures, just on a different path that led to our intelligence and dexterity. We're actually an example of the natural process of evolution succeeding highly.

[masafromhell]

Well, actually unnatural is the only statement i really agree on, because we certainly are: We shape the world to our convenience, we fight the "natural way" to live at every corner, the natural selection can barely afect us because the needs for survivals have been drastically reduced for humans.

P.S.: Note that I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that the humans are the most unnatural specie there is on earth.

[TheComputerDerp]

One question. How did the mother give birth to that thing?