Behold the Homind

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

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 youThis message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-04-2005 02:29 PMThis message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-04-2005 02:32 PM

quote:

---

The question is not "why aren't all species, or all species of apes, intellgent?" The question is, "why did intelligence prove to be advantageous to human ancestors?"

---

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

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.

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.

quote:

---

I'll try, at least how I see it. Humans don't really have much else going for them. We are relatively slow, weak, have no real natural defences like claws or razor sharp teeth, we can't see very well in the dark, our sense of smell is nowhere near as acute as many animals, and to top all that off, we lost a lot of our trees that were our home for so long!

---

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

quote:

---

Boy, that is an ancient term that is no longer used! Where are you getting your information? If your sources are this out of date, no longer you are confused!

---

which is why I'm here,maybe I can get help?

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.

quote:

---

Now we get back to upright posture. Those arms aren't grabbing branches anymore, they are now interaction tools. Combined with our binocular vision, and large frontal lobes, those arms essentially turned us into thinking complex beings capable of all manner of technology. Our arms separated us from the world, provided a layer of abstraction, from which a consciousness could detatch itself from it's environment and begin to reason it.

---

This is beginning to shape up..thanx

that is clearer yes,but in reference to the following,

quote:

---

Creatures are surviving with what they have, not necisseraly what they need. Where as the savannah ape probably would have been a better surviver had he been shaped like a lion or cheetah, he only had ape parts to work with. So in the context of apedom, NS sellected for those things which would allow an ape-like creature to survive.

---

It brings me back to the question of "advantage" in correlation to "survival" in the context of NS.you mentionned that:

quote:

---

There is no overiding natural law that says "Intelligence is ALLWAYS advantageous", it just so happens that apes don't got much going for them except for their large brains and neat hands. So NS capitalized on them and developed one of many solutions to the problem of survival.

---

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

thanxhow 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 againThis message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-05-2005 11:31 AM

thanxI 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"?

have you read The Feathered Onion?I'm thinking about getting this book also, it's apparently very good.

So Trotman believes in the Alien theory?that puts a fly in my bowl of Onion Feathered souppanspermia...what is that?

quote:

---

One thought I'd like to add to this discussion is that there is a trend among hunters and social animals to develop intelligence. Granted this is a rough generalization

---

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