delboy

I think I get it. We are just inevitable chemical reactions, but that is also the same as free will and consciousness. Bit difficult to get your head around, but then no one knows where thoughts and consciousness come from so understandable I guess. Or are you suggesting it just comes from increased complexity?

Ah. Very wise. I'll also stop punching myself in the face then. I don't know, but it could well be something like camera noise. The sensitivity is turned up to the max, so some random firing of the nerves occur??

This is a subject I nearly started a thread about a while back. And apologies, I've not read all the thread so might be repeating a bit. I find it difficult to understand that we have free will since I can't imagine where it comes from. OK, I know that's no argument but I also think no one has come up with any explanation how it arose. My thinking goes like this. RNA/DNA came about by inevitable chemical reactions. It began to copy - by inevitable chemical reactions - and evolution set in. The reactions became more complex, and therefore the cells became more complex. Eventually we get multicellularity and nerve cells. Still all inevitable chemical reactions?? Then we get an animal that can make choices, for example to fight or flee a situation. Is this still the result of a highly complex set of inevitable chemical reactions? Without an explanation of how thoughts or consciousness work, don't we have to think that? If not, when did it change and how? Even assuming the existence of consciousness, surely it must have a purely chemical basis. So it's just a bit of an illusion really. I think this kind of thinking is what some of the posts from a few days ago where alluding to.

Light receptor cells in the retina also respond to touch (I think I read they evolved from touch receptors), and the brain interprets it as light. If you close your eye and push in the corner you might 'see' some light. It's also why we might 'see stars' when punched in the face.

I'm not sure harking back to Darwin is particularly useful, given the lack of information they had back then.

Yes, the biological definition. Which often gets confused with non-scientific cultural definitions of human races. Is that the point you're making??

The quote is correct. Chimps and bonobos are apes not monkeys, and our closest relatives. Gibbons are also apes (but not great apes). The best guide is that apes have no tail, monkeys (and other primates) do. Though there are a few monkeys that have lost their tail.

It doesn't necessarily need to be food related. But being able to indicate a specific location to another seems to require a pretty high intelligence. I'm slightly intrigued that something as 'lowly' as a bee can manage this. I can only think it's done in a very different way to us. Rather than any kind of forethought I imagine it happened by some kind of 'happy accident' of behaviour/evolution. But it's tricky to imagine what it might have been.

I'm talking about giving some information so the individual can go and find the food by itself.

Simple question... Are humans and bees the only animals able to directly communicate to another the location of a food source. I'm thinking of direct communication - rather than scent trails which I believe ants and termites use.

There is a similar situation with the carrion crow and the hooded crow. They used to be considered subspecies because they are perfectly capable if interbreeding. But they are now classified as two separate species because they only interbreed in the limited geographical area where they overlap. If it was purely behavioural/cultural differences that stopped sapiens and neanderthals interbreeding, they would be considered separate species by most definitions. But if the barriers were overcome interbreeding was obviously possible.

We have long been a social animal and conscience and guilt help us to remain a useful member of a social group. Maybe we could survive without these emotions but certainly not as a social animal. Evolution can't choose the route it takes. If something starts off as slightly social it's very likely that becoming more so is the way evolution will progress. And after all, everything needs to be at least slightly social for reproduction to happen.

These are the things that make us human. They are some of the most important things we evolved to make us so successful. I'm sure many other animals have them to some degree, but it's our advance in these areas that's one of the most important reasons for our survival. One theory suggests that it's our more advanced use of culture that caused the extinction of neanderthals. All these things give rise to greater social bonding which is one of our greatest survival tactics. You only need to look at other apes and elephants for example to realise that we're not alone in having all these emotions.

Rice is virtually a complete balanced diet I believe.

You're right, mutation is the way DNA changes. But as far as I know recombination is not a major cause of change - it mostly just rearranges what is already there. 1. Mutations are not restricted to small changes in base pairs. Sometimes much larger copying errors occur. For example, longer DNA sequences may become deleted or replicated. And the number of chromosomes can also change through mutation. For example, gametes (reproductive cells) normally have half the number of chromosomes compared to normal cells (chromosome are in pairs and they normally separate out in gamete production), but sometimes gametes are produced with the normal number of chromosomes. If two such gametes combine to produce a new individual it will have double the number of chromosomes as the parents. 2. I don't know how sexual reproduction first evolved or if it is known, but I suspect it didn't initially involve males and females. It was probably involved 2 similar cells coming together to exchange DNA, and gradually became more complex with a differentiation between cell types. There are others here more expert than me who might correct me, but I think I've got it about right.

OK, I'll have a go at a reason why advanced thinking may have evolved. For a few thousand years it's been culturally important to build monuments of worship, particularly to the sun and maybe other objects. Some complex thinking and communication is involved to build these accurately to line up the relevant parts to mark the winter solstice or whatever. Perhaps those that where able to understand and build these things were reproductively successful - some kind of sexual selection happening maybe. Just a thought. So complex 'maths' could have evolved. But the utilisation of the evolved brain power for more and more complex understanding must have a greater emphasis on learning passed on through communication rather than genetics, the more recently we consider. But I agree, the physical brain we have (well, some have, certainly not me) to do it must have evolved.

We are talking about the distinction between simple and advanced mathematics. The question was about advanced maths and maybe I should have been clearer in my post. As I understand it there is a distinct difference between evolved behaviour and learned behaviour. One is transmitted through genetics and one through communication of some sort. I'm suggesting that more simple maths evolved. Advanced maths has only existed for a very small number of generations (much of it only in the current generation I assume) so evolution has had no time have any effect. Therefore it must be a learned and communicated behaviour.

Maybe it didn't evolve. Since it's happened in such a short time it seems unlikely to me. Brain power evolved to handle the basic needs which could be selected for, and then more recently that brain power was expanded more by collective learning and by passing on that knowledge through the generations by teaching rather than via mutation and selection.

The article was about how to read a phylogenetic tree so not detailed about reptiles/mammals. This is the quote. Sorry I can't seem to quote the tree diagram but it's the basic tetrapod tree. I think you're right, the distinction must be inferred from the fact that all extant mammals have alpha keratin and all reptiles (inc birds) have beta keratin.

Was going through some old papers and found my reference! https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227265191_How_to_Read_a_Phylogenetic_Tree p509 My mind can rest now!

I'm at page 74 so far and very little history. Good up to date treatment I'd say. I've come across a fair bit of maths already and there looks to be plenty more. My guess is it's a perfect degree level evolution book.

Dawkin's books are good, but, yes, aimed at the general public more. I've just started reading Evolution by Douglas Futuyma which seems an excellent general textbook on evolution, but not sure how good it will be for the specialist areas you want.

I wouldn't be entirely happy with the word trial since it seems to imply some kind of positive forethought, whereas the changes happen due to errors in DNA copying. Though error and error does sound a bit silly, I admit.

Yes, this is the slight difficulty with strict cladistics. Taken to it's extreme, everything is a bacteria. Though actually mammals evolved within the synapsids which are not true reptiles

Dinosaurs are reptiles. By modern classification birds are reptiles - specifically dinosaurs. And therefore ankylosaurus and triceratops are much more closely related to birds - both being dinosaurs, and lizards being in a separate reptile group. It's all down to the meandering path of evolution. It's the same reason that although a bat and a bird might superficially look similar, a bat is much more closely related to a whale than a bird.