|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Behold the Homind | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
So how do we explain the presence of more then one hominid species at one time. Like the Homo neanderthalensis and the Homo sapiens have apparently both been found inside the same timeframe of existance. How and why is that? Meaning to say, how does one evolve into something that's already here?
NOTE: I'm not a biblical creationist, I only seek understanding
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
I understand,
but another I would have is, what would cause these species to have a need to evolve? Specifically in the case of hominids, what warrants intelligent evolution or the evolution of intelligence? I don't really grasp it. I understand that species can die off, but between NS providing giraffes with long necks to reach leaves on higher trees and H.Sapiens developping the level of intelligence to fly to the moon, I don't see the need there? Like before I even ask for the purpose of developing higher intelligence, I wonder what was the purpose of becoming bipeds? Apes seem to be doing ok. We could have survived without the level of intelligence we presently reached it seems. So I don't see how that transition and selection was "natural"?Can someone explain this transition scientifically please. The notion of "Intelligence's purpose" and need. Also, it may seem like a dumb question, but Apes are only one type of life form. Why hasnt higher intelligent developped in other species, like in bigger mammals who would have a big enough brain to evolve in that direction for whatever reason. thank you This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-04-2005 02:29 PM This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-04-2005 02:32 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: The notion of "advantage" or "survival", does it have a biochemical root in the NS process? At some level,I have a hard time understanding how an insect develops the "advantage" of looking like a leaf to ensure it's "survival". The same way I don't see how our H.Sapien brand of "intelligence" proves to be an "advantage" in for a social type. Many types of social groups exist, we found many behavioral similarities among several of them, although they may be different from each other genetically, namely ants and bees, daulphins and wolves. They develop systems, even complex ones, such as collective intelligence among ant colonies and bee hives, but no other species has developped "intelligence" as an "advantage" on the H.Sapien level. Yet I so no reason for it? can someone explain? This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-05-2005 08:38 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
yes,
but I didn't see how this explination resolved my subsequent observations. Which is why I quoted the key sentence for which I needed further elaboration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
There is also another aspect of this question of developped "intelligence", which puzzles me. What is the minimal neurological configuration of the brain size and structure, that would be considered necessary for a hominid to be considered, "intelligent" on the H.Sapien level. Meaning to say, for example, would an Zinjanthropus boisei, who existed between 2 and 1 millions ago, if brought back to the futur through Doc Brown's time vehicle, be able, under tutelage, to learn to fonction just like any other human being today. Like get a job Burger King or study Civil Engineering, developp the swagger of Ricky Martin with the ladies, etc. If so, then how do we differentiate him from an H.Sapien, other then through physiological factors. If not, then what are the neurological constraints that would prevent him from doing so? And more importantly, what NS process, through isolation or other relevant factors would warrant this "advantage". I'm also unclear on how an "advantage" is not a need, or how an insect simulating the shape of a leaf is an "accidental" mutation but yet, bestows a specific natural "advantage" to it's recipient.
please debrief..I am but a novice on the=is subject. So I ask alot of obvious questions, thank you for your patience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: you're absolutely right, however, that's my bug with this whole issue. Why would nature remove these advantages from us : sharper teeth, (much) hairier bodies, tails, better sight and hearing, stronger bodies, etc, at the expense of a "higher intelignce"? We could always say, well..it just does..but then again, science is about inquiring. I don't see the need to trade these advantages for an intelligence form that would allow us to build the tools and synthetic means of producing what nature was capable of providing us naturally. In that sense, from the Sahelanthropus tchadensis to the present day H. Sapien...it seems as though we devolved and our ape "cousins" like the gorillas evolved. Is there a specific principle in the NS paradigm through which I could find an answer to these questions? thank you
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: which is why I'm here, maybe I can get help?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
in all truth, I'm aware of the term Australopithecines. I didn't think it was a big deal to use the former though. Since it's only a technicality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: This is beginning to shape up..thanx
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
that is clearer yes,
but in reference to the following,
quote: It brings me back to the question of "advantage" in correlation to "survival" in the context of NS. you mentionned that:
quote: So a "solution" to a "survival" problem isn't always an "advantage", if I take your meaning correctly? If not, please elaborate. If so, please elaborate. thanx
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
thanx
how can I find out more about the biochemical origins of "survival" in living organism, as a purely scientific process though. Because, at this point, the information I have read leads me to view "survival" as a philosophical concept, more then as a biochemical principal inherent to the eukaryota's evolutionary stages. It seems the "need" (another loose canon)to "survive" in organisms, which is the primary if not only "cause" of evolution, has an unclear cause itself. I would need source material on those very specific areas: "survival" and is there a need for it. If so, what warrants the "need"? btw, I enjoy your explanations, they are very productive and constructive..thanks again This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-05-2005 11:31 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
thanx
I will check it out. But from that reading, did you find the notion of survival was explained based on a specific biochemical factor, or was is more on a the basis of interpretating the phenomena of said "survival"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
have you read The Feathered Onion?
I'm thinking about getting this book also, it's apparently very good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
So Trotman believes in the Alien theory?
that puts a fly in my bowl of Onion Feathered soup panspermia...what is that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: On that important note, since evolution and it's primary factors are, after all, random, other species could have developped intelligence on a different level. Speach, on a different level. Meaning, since in the case of chimps, the tendancies toward bipedalism was present, although the ardipithecus ramidus poses a problem to the theory of why we became bipedal, but nonetheless, using the current model, couldn't the random NS of adaptive strategies on the part of a species allow for others to say...speak ? The allometry of certain mammals, over time and who, let's agree, share some similar socio-behavioral traits with ape-types on some levels, could have evolved over time to a speciation leading to devolopped intelligence. In other words, based on the random nature of NS and speciation, for whatever numerous factors, our numerous taxons should have randomly produced a world that looked more like the Star Wars universe with Wookie, Ewoks and Trandoshans then the current unilateral inteligence development of the genus Homo alone. I mean, it would seem that random NS would have not only allowed, encouraged this? Mathematically, on a scale of probabilities, although I don't have a study to confirm or reject this hypothesis, but we're looking relatively equal odds of havin had at least, one other taxon produce speach or an intelligence similar to ours. Again, randomly, and over a long period of time. This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-07-2005 08:01 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024