What bothers me about the evolution of Man

Well maybe, but I'm not sure that we know that all/any other Homo were conscious beings - which I'd say was the break through.But if we could show that other Homos were big brained and conscious or even just very intelligent I'd still say that it has only happened once.There are no other examples of real intelligence in the animal kingdom - either now or before. But we know that other massively useful adaptions have evolved several times in several groups - eyes, flight etc.I'm not arguing against the proposition that our brain evolved, I'm simply saying that it's interesting that such a useful thing isn't more widespread.

This is only true if you redefine 'intelligence' to exclude the intelligent animals that surround us.
You could maybe argue that mankind is the most intelligent - but it would be wrong to claim that there are no other intelligent animals.If we claim to be 10 (on a 1-10 scale of intelligence) then that is simply because someone has to be.
But that ignores all of the 9.9's, 9.8's.Intelligence is used by every living creature.
Just some animals have more than others. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

No, for real. Your cat is a conscious being.... I think the word your looking for is sentient. Why? Sentience happened more than once... There's the other species in Homo and also, australopithecus exhibit traits of sentience. I don't know about that "real" qualifier, but chimps and dolphins and elephants all exhibit traits of sentience as well. We killed them.Seriosuly, start getting competitive with us and your species goes down.ABE:From Message 49

quote:

---

i would strongly argue that on a scale of 1 to 10 where we are 10, the next highest qualifying intelligence would be less than 1 by a long, long way. And until you can find an example of a species using any form of technolgy cleverer than a pointy stick and/or language higher than a few grunts, shreaks and pings, i'd say nothing even approaches the scale.

---

So, you don't know what you're talking about then... Neandertals were pretty sophisticated.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

i would strongly argue that on a scale of 1 to 10 where we are 10, the next highest qualifying intelligence would be less than 1 by a long, long way. And until you can find an example of a species using any form of technolgy cleverer than a pointy stick and/or language higher than a few grunts, shreaks and pings, i'd say nothing even approaches the scale.

You vastly underestimate the difference in intelligence shown between humans and other species.Some birds have been shown to be sufficiently intelligent to recognize the patterns in stop lights and drop nuts in front of cars that are stopped so that they'll crack the shells when the lights turn green.Humans have been shown to sufficiently understand the basic workings of the Universe to transmit information on a global scale nearly instantly, calculate the motion of planetary bodies, and escape the gravity well of the planet.Various species of ape participate in complex social hierarchies.Humans do that, too - with social groups many orders of magnitude larger.Many animals make "nests" of one sort or another for shelter.Humans build skyscrapers. We're thinking about orbital habitats and permanent bases on the moon, and we have the intelligence to actually pull it off.The level of disparity in adaptive intelligence is so large that there lacks a sufficient scale. Our brains are like supercomputers while the most intelligent animals are basic calculators. Our closest competition isn't close at all.And yet human intelligence requires major sacrifices. We spend far more energy on our brains than other animals, around 20% of our total metabolism goes to fuel our brains instead of our muscles. We would starve to death more rapidly than a similar organism that only devoted 5-10% of its metabolic energy to its brain, and that's a major disadvantage. Others have pointed out the sacrifices made in reproduction, that human babies are born significantly early because the cranium is so large that it has to finish development outside the womb. This is another huge disadvantage.The only reasonable solution that accoutns for how we could establish such intellectual disparity in the face of such significant evolutionary disadvantages is a self-perpetuating cycle where greater intelligence compared to the group provides a continual reproductive and survival advantage one generation after another. The best example of this is social competition, where the individuals of our species compete with each other for social dominance, where such dominance leads to both advantages in survival and in reproduction. The offspring then compete with each other, and so on, in a cycle that never ends.

Yup - they had fire and everything. But they evolved from the same line as us, so I'll stick with what I said, our level of intelligence and sentience/consciousness has only evolved once.

But now your claim is vacuous...ABE:Seriously though, if Homos split into two different species that both exhibit sentience, what's the point in saying that because they both came from a common ancestor that it only happened once when its clearly being shown that it happened more than once?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

That depends on what you're talking about...If you take one average human and put him in a room with one average Neandertal, they could use the same scale.However, if, like you're doing, you take the technological advancements made by billions of humans and compare it too extant species, then yeah, the scales don't compare.

1) I realize that others are including extinct species, specifically extinct hominids that are closer relatives to humans than extant apes, but I'm not. It's rather tough to gauge the relative intelligence of an extinct species, especially since we'd also be talking about our own extinct ancestors rather than modern man in the comparison. I'm only comparing modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens to other extant species.2) Our ability to share information with other members of our social groups on an abstract, as opposed to demonstrative level is part of what sets us apart intellectually. Human beings don't have to learn everything solo, or even mimic what we see other individuals doing - we can communicate abstract concepts through language rather than demonstration. Other species can't do that. They learn alone, and some of them are capable of mimicking behavior they see in others, but you can't give a team of macaws all the tools and material and blueprints necessary for building a skyscraper and expect them to understand the plans.

Why? In the context of something "that only evolved once" that seems to be begging the question. Maybe a better word would be "knowledge" than "intelligence".Haven't you heard of a particular chimp being said to have the intelligence of a 3 year old human, or something like that? That's using the same scale that you're saying no other animals are even on...

I'm sorry, I not used to discussing at this level of pedantry. Please try to accept a general, high level point when you come across one.If you know of any non-ape descended animal that has developed anything even approaching our level of intelligence or consciousness (or bloody sentience if you prefer), please name it.

What point? Your pointless one? More of them or the same ones again? Dolphins and elephants were mentioned and they are pretty damn smart...But really, there's no point. The fact that non-apes haven't developed as much intelligence as humans doesn't mean a whole lot. Especially in the context of the evolution of the brains of man. More especially, in the context of the fact that other non-man species also evolved similiar levels of intelligence.

If you are talking about Neanderthals and simmilar none of their brain sizes comes close to us on a scale where a squid is 1 and we are 10 they would be a 6,5 at best. Cant be to sure without an iq test from them

Actually the Neanderthal brain size was very comparable to today's modern Homo sapiens brain size and seem to average slightly larger than Homo sapiens sapiens.

quote:

---

Abstract

​

Full brain endocast reconstructions of the Neandertals, Spy I and II, Djebel Ihroud I, and the Homo erectus specimen from Sal, Morocco have yielded accurate volumes. Spy I = 1,305 ml; Spy II = 1,553 ml; Djebel Ihroud I = 1,305 ml; Sal = 880 ml. While there are no remarkable gyral and sulcal patterns one can delineate, the brain endocasts do show evidence of left-occipital, right-frontal petalias, suggesting right-handedness, and possibly human cognitive specialization, involving symbol processing and visuospatial integration. Some speculations regarding Neandertal brain size are also offered, in which it is suggested that their possibly larger brain sizes were related to greater muscularity than in modern Homo sapiens.

---

From American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 55, Issue 3, pages 385—393, July 1981

dang i take it back i thought their brains where smaller some 70% the size of ours at max