Behold the Homind

I hear we were housed in an alien petting zoo for millions of years then released back into the wild. Anyway, good post

Hey AM,It's not necisseraly the brain size but the brain to body mass ratio which is considered a mark of intelligence. In any case a creature like Zinjanthropus boisei, now called Australopithecus, would be much too chimp like to pass off as a human. If you saw him today, you'd think it was just a chimp. The major innovation of this species is upright posture.Now, if we got a critter like Neanderthals, we may pass him off as an east European wrestler And there is nothing to indicate they were particularly dumber than we were. I'm assuming you mean intelligence. Essentially, monkeys/apes in general, are pretty resourceful creatures. Let me give you a rundown of traits and maybe you can get a clearer picture.The primates have hands. These were originally tools to grasp branches (which selected for longer arms which extend away from the body). A side effect of this, is that better grasping means developing something of a thumb. This, as a consequence, leads to the creation of a general purpose manipulation device.All that swinging from the trees required lots of depth perception which selected for eyes in the front of the head. To process all that spatial movement, and run those complicated hands, the frontal lobes began to grow larger.Now we get a creature like a chimp, smart, tree dwelling, social(gotta do something with that left over brain power ).Now, take away all his trees. A chimp is pretty smart, they can learn from each other, they ain't just gonna roll over and die. They stick it out, and as a consequence the most resourceful chimps live longer, extend that over millenia and you have only resourceful chimps getting selected for.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.And so on and so fourth.Does that paint a clearer picture, or does it muddy the watter all the more?This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-05-2005 09:38 AM

Glad to hear it! Another point I alluded to, but didn't quite get accross, is the importance of context when it comes to NS.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.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.

That's not exactly what I meant. I just meant that no particular "advantage" is allways an advantage For example, fins and gills aren't very good in a desert, but they work wonders in the ocean. Or, heavy fur is probably not too good for a rain forest, but for icy tundra it's a good thing.The term "advantage" is subjective. It's wholey dependant on what the survival needs of the creature are in the given environment.With that said, any given "advantage" may turn into a disadvantage as environmental pressures change.In other words, Should things shift and start selecting for dumber humans with smaller brains, that's what would have to happen in order to ensure our survival.

Hmmm... one book that comes to mind is 'Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Microbial Evolution' by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan. It's an excelent book that explores evolution and the drive for survival starting with the simplest organisms on up. Though the book deals mostly with Microbial Evolution I found it to be an excelent primer on evolution in general.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Margulies makes it eerely seem as if bacteria have evolved us as a sort of bio suit A little portable eco system that supplies food for a teaming mass of microbs. She has a chapter devoted to it. It's pretty great stuff.

ya. I read an updated review commenting on some things. I belive the first printing was in '86, but it was updated in '97. My version says '97.ABE: I belive alot of what lynn margulis put's forward in this book has become mainstream theory. I'll let ya know.ABE2: The wiki had a good little blurb on her: This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-30-2005 08:25 PM