Behold the Homind

Remember, Natural Selection is a constantly changing filter. It's not just a screen of one mesh size, it varies over time and location and what might be a filter for one species may also be an opening for another.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Both.At the bacterial level "survival" is puerly based on chemical reactions. The same chemical reactions we see around us every day. Bacterias are chemical machines driven by the same forces wich govourn chemistry everywhere else in the universe.Given this, and by extrapolation, the "will to survive" is puerly based on these same chemical reactions. Margoulis in her book paints a vision of the world where it's not so much animals "compeating" for survival as it is organisms "chemicaly interacting". In one chapter she scales up the idea to critters on the savanna.Infact, even our own much toutted conssiousness is now seen as a bi-product of those same reactions. Neuroscientists have observed that the "reasons" we do things are infered by our brain AFTER we do them.That is to say, if I decide to go to the kitchen, you then ask me "Why did you go to the kitchen?" and I respond "Because I was hungry." My reason for the descision actually came after the fact! First my brain generated the impulse, then my rational mind kicked in like "hmmm, im getting a signal to go to the kitchen. Let me make up a reason why."Scientists have shown this by stimulating certain parts of a subjects brain responsible for moter reaction. They would "force" the patient to raise his arm, then the doctor would ask the patient why he did it, invariably the patient would make up a reason!ABE: The theory I spoke of has much evidence behind it, and is very popular. I don't, however, wan't to give the impression that it is the dominant theory in the field. I'm not a neuroscientist, I only know what I read in scientific american and on NPR This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-05-2005 01:34 PM

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

Hmmm... From Amazon I'm skeptical when it comes to Panspermia or Extra-terrestrial origins. It leaves you in the same boat as ID if you ask me. You still don't know where first life came from.By all means read it, but if I were you, I would be highly skeptical. Try reading up on the auther and his/her credentials.This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-05-2005 02:03 PM

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

I don't know if he belives in Aliens per se.Panspermia is a scientific hypothesis (NOTE: HYPOTHESIS) that says there "seeds" of life all over the universe. The idea is that the organic material which causes the origins of life could be delivered to earth in an asteroid or something.Now, while I suppose it COULD happen, there is nothing to support it. Infact, there is ample evidence for an abiogenesis model here on earth. That is, the "primordial soup".For more on the subject, read here: Panspermia - Wikipedia

There are several versions of "panspermia".One is "aliens did it" and is the province of fruitloops and cranks.Another, equally out there, is that life was brought to Earth on asteroids. (and how does life spontaneously form in space, eh?)However, there is one hypothesis that is not from Wingnutia. It is a fact that certain types of organic molecules form in space, on asteroids and in gas clouds. Some amino acids, sugars, etc.The non-fruitloop version of panspermia hypothesizes that these organic molecules, brought to earth by asteroid bombardment, "kick-started" the process of abiogenesis. The fact is that life appeared shortly after the LHB (Late Heavy Bombardment) at the end of the Hadean. In other words, it doesn't posit that life was brought to Earth by asteroids (or aliens), only that these molecules were.

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.However, primates are clearly social animals and so it is reasonable to assume our ancestors lived in groups. Now some aniimals in groups aren't too bright (a school of fish for instance) but others, especially the hunters tend to be on the upper end of intelligence (e.g. dogs, wolves). Clearly the development of greater intellegence leads to more sophisticated social interactions, including the development of language. Such advances make for better hunting skills, group protection etc. My guess is that these advantages would provide the selective pressure for greater intellegence.There are costs off-course to a bigger brain. First of all, it eats a lot of energy, so a bigger brain has to let you get aditional food to feed it. The other problem, that still exists to this date, is that getting that big head out during birth is problematic. Many women have died in childbirth and many still continue to die giving birth (clearly we're a work in progress, but our brains have got some of us out of the pickle again by giving us surgeons with anesthesia). One adaptation to this problem is to give birth the less deeloped babies (with smaller heads), but again that means more parental care ex utero, which requires our brains to give us the social skills required to pull it all off.

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

Do you have some evidence that speech has not developed in other species?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

ausar_maat,Your post was a little dense, but if I get the general gist of it, yur saying that NS and random mutation would have lead to more than one species having speach and intelligence on par withours. And I think you would be right.Infact, we had neandratall, ...somethin aster... crap.. Well whatever There were numerous members of the genus Homo running around back at the beginning. They died off (some theories point to Homo Sapiens killing them off). We are just one of the lucky few.Further, many animals such as dolphins/whales/elephants have very complex languages and highly devloped brains. I offten wonder what the diffrence between them and say a primative tribe of humans is?This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-07-2005 12:38 PM

In many ways, daulphins are the Humans of the sea world in terms of intelligence, absolutely.But I meant genotypes outside the hominid branch. Like bears for example. Bears, in comparison to Apes, would have made great Ewoks here on earth We accept the transitional process of Evolution to be tributary of random factors like mutation, isolation, climate adaptive strategies, all random, yet with a purpose, which assign survival advantages to it's recipients. We saw what happened to the hominid....us.Just based on probabilities, applying the same rules, though I don't have a study to substantiate it mathematically, we should, randomly speaking, have seen at least one other type of Wookie or Rodian (a little Star Wars humour here ) pop up somewhere on this good earth?Of several observations, I wondered about that in particular.

Hmmm... I don't know about that.You see, evolution works by filling niches, and often times, it's a "This town is only big enugh for one of us" kinda scenario.Consider a creature like the horshoe crab. It's an ancient creature who lived back at the time of the trilobites. Infact, it's the closesst thing to a trilobite we have today. All of it's relatives have died out and now there are only two extant species, that's because it filled a particular nitch, it's king of a particular hill, and everyone who has tried to knock him off it has failed.Kinda the same thing with humans. We fill the nich for super-smart ape-men, and personaly, I think our dominance of the environment almost ensures the fact that no other creature will grow to compeat in that niche.

however, early hominids developped exclusively in East Africa, leaving tremendous space elsewhere for this scenario to take place with other genotypes. Based on the same exact random rules.Geographically, we can see how there would have been space of it to happen. Africa was not "more special" to the point of being the only environment capable of producing at least, semi-intelligent types, like Homo Habilis or "Handy Man", first one with the Broca area developped enough for speach.Eventually, once say "Intelligent species" A, meet "Intelligent species" B, you can let nature take it's course and allow the fittest one to survive. Again, under the rules of random factors tributary to evolution, laws of probabilities could have easily provided this scenerio under those rules. We find this in areas not pertaining to the characteristic of intelligence. For example, Ants and Bees. One aerial, one ground. They developped similar forms of collective intelligence, yet, are not directly part of the same transitional anscestral branch, thought they are both hymenoptera in origins. But conditions, genetic, dietary, climatic and otherwise, made it possible, since we're dealing with the same random rules, to produce more then one dimorphic queen-worker based colony types among social insects. This is perfectly natural of course. Which naturally raises the question, if this is true in some many other examples for so many other characterics, why doesnt' the rule apply to a more "developped intelligence" similar to ours in other species. Why don't we have a Star Wars planet?
I wish I had a study showning the probalistic mathematical impossibility of the random occurence, but I don't. Therefore, I raise o question, which isn't even rally an hypothesis. But if the basis of that question have any validity, it raises more questions. Don't you find? And I'm not even trying to make assumptions. I'm just saying if I we're a biology student, I'd look for a paper on the subject, if I couldn't find any, I'd consider writing a thesis on the question.This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-07-2005 01:40 PMThis message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-07-2005 01:43 PMThis message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-07-2005 01:45 PM

Hmm... Ya. Im not sure about the provabilities involved, but I see your logic. As a fan of sci-fi and fantasy, I certainly see it's appeal as well Although, one beef I allways had with "star wars" style planets, and indeed the idea of "other" intellegent species here on earth, is that we automatically assume that if they are smart they will be able to interface with us. Why should we expect this? We can't even figure out what dolphins are saying, why should we expect to be able to relate to another intellegence?It's because of this that I wonder if we approach the question of sentience with a good deal of human bias. We expect bees and ants to express their sentience based on human rules. Isn't it a bit silly of us to deem those animals unintelligent on a totaly subjective criteria like "They don't have computers, they must be dumb."... heck! Do they NEED computers?I mean, that's like bees saying "Hmmm... humans don't have 360 degree view radious with the capacity to see in multiple color spectrums. They can't fly and can't build homes from wax they throw up... man, what a sucky animal."Heheh... Just some thoughts on the matter.This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-07-2005 01:50 PMThis message has been edited by Yaro, 10-07-2005 01:51 PM