Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 9:57 PM
32 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,176 Year: 9,212/19,786 Month: 1,634/2,119 Week: 394/576 Day: 69/128 Hour: 7/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   Behold the Homind
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 46 of 73 (249845)
10-07-2005 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 1:32 PM


Rules of Probability?
Again, under the rules of random factors tributary to evolution, laws of probabilities could have easily provided this scenerio under those rules.

There is a good deal of argument about how inevitable intelligence like ours is or is not. The reason for some argument is that we do not know enough to judge the probabilities. You don't know if it was "easy" or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 1:32 PM ausar_maat has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 47 of 73 (249851)
10-07-2005 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 12:56 PM


ausar_maat writes:

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 ;)


I can't imagine why you would think that. You would do better to look at prairie dogs or naked mole rats, for at least those are intensely social species.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 12:56 PM ausar_maat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 2:27 PM nwr has responded

  
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 3665 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 48 of 73 (249857)
10-07-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by nwr
10-07-2005 2:05 PM


touché for the bears, I actually hesitated before posting the bear example ;)

but my point remains a valid observation.

as for bees and ants, I wasn't comparing them to us. But to each other, to establish that similar characteristics, even complex ones like queen-worker dimorphism among these social insects, can be reproduced based on those same rules of random factors causing evolution in species. Why not this characteristic: "intelligence" in the more human sense of it.

Because communication techniques are being developped as we speak and significant progress has been made to discipher daulphan language. That's why I said they are like humans of the sea. But do you see the specificness of my observation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nwr, posted 10-07-2005 2:05 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 2:45 PM ausar_maat has not yet responded
 Message 50 by nwr, posted 10-07-2005 7:48 PM ausar_maat has responded

    
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 3665 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 49 of 73 (249860)
10-07-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 2:27 PM


quote:
There is a good deal of argument about how inevitable intelligence like ours is or is not. The reason for some argument is that we do not know enough to judge the probabilities. You don't know if it was "easy" or not.

yet similar conditions apply for other species to have done so, randomely.

I mean, how "easy" was it for those hymenopta to develop toward the queen-worker dimorphic colonies we see today? Not to mention that in the case of "warrior ants", they have not evolved one bit in the last 100 million years, somehow escaping evolution (no real point intended with this observation though).

I said ants and bees, but I can go on to other insects. Their level of social organisation is extremely advanced and complex. Much more so then many mammal social types. Then many many many many of them in fact. Yet, it's there, it happened, randomely, and more then once.

yet for intelligence, even on a more basic level as with the homo habilis, our first "speaking" and "tool" using late cousin, it's a not go. No randomness there. Not possible. Even though the same rules apply then for the development of other characteristics. I mean, it's a little "easy" to just say that we don't know how "easy" it was for it to happen, don't you find?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 2:27 PM ausar_maat has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 50 of 73 (249902)
10-07-2005 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 2:27 PM


as for bees and ants, I wasn't comparing them to us.

I've been wondering why you are even bringing them up in your reply to me. I didn't mention them. But I suppose it is because I mentioned other social species (prairie dog, native mole rat).

I think you missed my point. You were asking about intelligence. My point is that intelligence is mainly a social adaptation. We use our intelligence most importantly for social interactions. That our intelligence is greater than that of other social species, is related to the complexity of our social interactions being greater than with other social species.

Sure, we also use intelligence to explore space, design aircraft, etc. But our ability to use intelligence in that way is mainly a side effect of a social adaptation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 2:27 PM ausar_maat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 8:15 PM nwr has responded
 Message 68 by Omnivorous, posted 10-31-2005 2:05 PM nwr has responded

  
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 3665 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 51 of 73 (249909)
10-07-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by nwr
10-07-2005 7:48 PM


Sure, we also use intelligence to explore space, design aircraft, etc. But our ability to use intelligence in that way is mainly a side effect of a social adaptation.

As far as the bees and ants I wasn't responding to you actually if you follow the thread carefully.

As for the above statement, this is my point to begin with. If I didn't see our intelligence as an adaptive strategy resulting from our social interactions, I wouldn't have a basis for arguing the development of intelligence in other species. If you carefully read back what I said, that much is evident.

So I don't see your point? At least not in reference to mine..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by nwr, posted 10-07-2005 7:48 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by nwr, posted 10-07-2005 11:29 PM ausar_maat has responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 52 of 73 (249949)
10-07-2005 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 8:15 PM


So I don't see your point? At least not in reference to mine.

Maybe we are miscommunicating. Sorry about that. I'll stop commenting in this thread, at least for a while.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 8:15 PM ausar_maat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ausar_maat, posted 10-08-2005 12:32 AM nwr has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 658 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 53 of 73 (249957)
10-08-2005 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by ausar_maat
10-04-2005 1:22 PM


Not how it works
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?

This is a great question for Intelligent Design proponents, since it's a big contradiction in their theory. However, it's not a problem for Evolution.

Homo Erectus spreads around the world. In Europe / Asia it adapts to the colder climate and eventual Ice ages and becomes Neandertals. In Africa, a different group of Homo Erectus adapts and becomes Cro-Mag. Both groups exist in their seperate areas for a while, eventually Cro-Mag ventures out and spreads into Neander territory. For a while both groups exist across that range.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ausar_maat, posted 10-04-2005 1:22 PM ausar_maat has not yet responded

    
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 3665 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 54 of 73 (249961)
10-08-2005 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by nwr
10-07-2005 11:29 PM


btw, when you mentionned rats, you don't know how right you are. Because rats, are just about the only mammals with a prefrontal cortex like the primates, those highly connected with cognitive associated to social behavior, and non-motor faculties,and would facilite the developement of intelligence on our level. Although other species could have developped a prefrontal cortex, randomly, eventually, for exactly the same or because of other factors, causing, eventually, by pure hazard, that kind of mutation. A neuroscientist or paleoneurologist may proove me wrong here, but the more exclusive neocortex in mammals in general, which also allows for this social behavior to occur, would be enough to set this mutation off in other species. But rats, yeah, the relationship is even easier to establish since they're about the only other mammals with a prefrontal cortex like the primates.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by nwr, posted 10-07-2005 11:29 PM nwr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ausar_maat, posted 10-08-2005 12:55 AM ausar_maat has responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 658 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 55 of 73 (249962)
10-08-2005 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by ausar_maat
10-04-2005 2:28 PM


Evolution of Intelligence / Bipedalism
I wonder what was the purpose of becoming bipeds? Apes seem to be doing ok.

Humanity is not the only species to have developed bipedalism.

Bipedalism has some advantages. The ability to carry children, food or tools while travelling is a big one. Reduction of exposure to sunlight is another one. Increased line of sight over tall grasses for example. Ability to reach things in branches.

So, why haven't lots of creatures developed it? Well, there are disadvantages as well. Soft underbelly is exposed to danger. Much slower on two legs than on four. Young take much longer to develop the skill to travel on their own.

But more importantly, evolution is random. Even if bipedalism was massively advantageous for all creatures, a species would have to randomly develop it. It's not a selected process.

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.

First thing is this - How do we know it hasn't?
Whales could be twice as smart as we are, but without thumbs they aren't about to be making any tools. Without a need for shelter, they aren't going to be building any cities.

The Octopus is incedibly intelligent as a species, and if any of them lived long enough to do anything about it, they might just take over the world. Unfortunately (fortunately) they live only a few years.

Second thing - There are huge advantages to having a big brain. But there are big disadvantages, too. It takes a lot of oxygen to feed the brain. So, unless the lungs increase substantially, that oxygen has to be taken from someplace else. In our case, we took it from the muscles. We are significantly weaker than chimps, for example. But they can't do crossword puzzles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ausar_maat, posted 10-04-2005 2:28 PM ausar_maat has not yet responded

    
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 3665 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 56 of 73 (249964)
10-08-2005 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by ausar_maat
10-08-2005 12:32 AM


Homo Erectus spreads around the world. In Europe / Asia it adapts to the colder climate and eventual Ice ages and becomes Neandertals. In Africa, a different group of Homo Erectus adapts and becomes Cro-Mag. Both groups exist in their seperate areas for a while, eventually Cro-Mag ventures out and spreads into Neander territory. For a while both groups exist across that range.

(btw, I can't speak for or on behalf of ID since I'm not familiar with it, I just bought Darwin's Black Box and haven't read it yet ;) )

Back to our program,
That's the way Natural Historians explain this collage of Fossil foundings. It's not necessarelly dealing with the biological factors per say. Because saying an Erectus group became Neanths because of isolation during the Ice Age is highly plausible, but then again, Inuits have been in the cold for a period as long as the period leading up to the timetables crossing between the appearance of Neaths alongside the Herectus, yet Inuits are still looking just like they did when they left Mongolia. In other words, your example works, yes, but it's pure speculation it seems. A nice collage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ausar_maat, posted 10-08-2005 12:32 AM ausar_maat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ausar_maat, posted 10-08-2005 12:58 AM ausar_maat has responded

    
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 3665 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 57 of 73 (249966)
10-08-2005 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by ausar_maat
10-08-2005 12:55 AM


Whales could be twice as smart as we are, but without thumbs they aren't about to be making any tools. Without a need for shelter, they aren't going to be building any cities.

somebody already brought that up, I responded to this observation actually. Feel from to discuss my response however in a subsequent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ausar_maat, posted 10-08-2005 12:55 AM ausar_maat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ausar_maat, posted 10-08-2005 12:59 AM ausar_maat has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 658 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 58 of 73 (249967)
10-08-2005 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by ausar_maat
10-05-2005 9:13 AM


I'll tackle in Insect thing
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.

Say you're a leaf eating bug. You live on the branches of a particular type of plant. You and all your kin are green. Some of you are bigger than others, some are wider, some are taller.

Your primary predator is a certain type of bird. It hunts by spotting the insects amoung the leaves and picking them out. You can't fight back. You basically just eat leaves and hope you don't get picked off.

All your wide cousins get spotted very quickly, while you and your tall cousins fair slightly better.

Generations pass and this pressure leads to an increase in the average height of the bugs and a decrease in width.

But, all this time, the birds are getting better two. They have to eat, after all.

So, now it's not enough to be just tall. Tall and jagged edged blended in better than just tall. Birds weed out the others.

And on it goes. Until eventually you and I can barely distinguish the bug from the leaves among which it hides.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ausar_maat, posted 10-05-2005 9:13 AM ausar_maat has not yet responded

    
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 3665 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 59 of 73 (249968)
10-08-2005 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by ausar_maat
10-08-2005 12:58 AM


Bipedalism has some advantages. The ability to carry children, food or tools while travelling is a big one. Reduction of exposure to sunlight is another one. Increased line of sight over tall grasses for example. Ability to reach things in branches.

I don't believe I ever disputed that fact either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ausar_maat, posted 10-08-2005 12:58 AM ausar_maat has not yet responded

    
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 60 of 73 (250167)
10-08-2005 9:20 PM


Bacteria
Any good books on the role bacteria and viruses have played in evolution? The Lynn Margulies one? Did we adopt them, or did they adopt us? Has bacteria say, in the gut, been displaced by a more efficient food processor?
Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Yaro, posted 10-08-2005 9:28 PM Nighttrain has responded

    
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019