SkepticLance

To ecoli My answer to the conundrum of humans assisting non kin is simple. I think it is an evolutionary accident. Goes like this. Over most of human and pre-human evolution, social groupings were essentially tribal. Tribes were made up, over long periods of time, of individuals who were kin to other tribe members, and who assisted each other as a result. Evolution worked to result in humans who helped their fellow tribespeople, since they were all (or mostly) kin. However, the simplest and easiest evolutionary change was to cause a trait to evolve that led to humans helping other humans whether kin or not. Since most humans in the tribal situation were kin, anyway, the more general trait worked just as well. Thus we now have the behavioural trait of humans helping all other humans (to some extent) whether kin or not.

To ecoli The sociability of humans is doubtless an important part of what we are, and a driver of human evolution. However, if we are talking about what makes us special, the use of technology is more special. Sociability is very common in the animal world, with many, many species living social lives, whether ants, termites, meerkats, baboons, bonobos, dolphins etc etc. The use of technology is much rarer. Minimal technology is used by other great apes, and by the New Caledonian crow, but by very few animals overall.

Doubtless you are correct. However, the 'perfect creator' concept is still applied to a large degree by fundamentalists. And fundamentalists are the ones who deride evolution.

lucaspa said "Most of your list is a byproduct of technology." That is really my point. We are a very strange ape, and the reason for the strangeness is the unusual evolutionary process we went down over the past few million years. Evolution requires adaptation to changing circumstances. Europeans in general (not quite all) have a gene to permit lactose tolerance. This is due to the fact that, over the last few thousand years, Europeans have added animal milk to their diet. We have adapted with the lactose tolerant gene. If we regard the milking of cows, goats, raindeer etc as a form of technology, this is a direct evolutionary response to a technological advance.

One of the functions of government is 'blue skies' research. Businesses will invest money in research without subsidies, but only if there is a moderately immediate prospect of a good return. Research to open new technologies with little or no previous history is mostly the province of government, and governments should be prepared to spend up large. This is especially true of research into energy.

To MedGen GRRRRR You spoiled my explanation. You are right, but Vexer asked for a very simple explanation, which I was trying to give. Your add on is correct, but adds complexity, which I was trying to avoid.

Sparky I have a sister who is a creationist. I am thus very aware of their arguments, and how little (zero) scientific merit there is in those arguments. Why should I waste my precious liesure time at a movie reiterating those same idiotic arguments?

Vexer Mitochondria are in every cell in the body. When a cell divides, both daughter cells inherit mitochondria, which also divide to increase their numbers, roughly at the same rate as the cells divide. When an egg cell is formed, it inherits those mitochondria, with the difference that it destroys those mitochondria that are imperfect. Sperm cells are too small. They contain nucleus and almost nothing else. No room for mitochondria. If you are asking how mitochondria originally got into cells, then we are talking about a stage in evolution - probably about a billion years ago. The theory is that the first eucaryote cells accepted into their mass some bacteria. Those bacteria were probably parasites at first, but evolved into symbiotes. The bacteria evolved into mitochondria, which perform the function of converting adenosine diphosphate into adenosine triphosphate (ADP to ATP) - thus storing energy for the cell.

I think the best thing that should be done with high-rise roofs is to dump a load of top soil and plant it out. I am not so worried about the actual plant species. Just get it covered in soil and growing plants.

To Sparky No, I have not seen that movie and have no intention of doing so. It was reviewed in the 12 April issue of New Scientist. They say .... " endless clips of Nazis from the second world war. Nazis? What have Nazis to do with a film about the 'conflict' between evolution and intelligent design?"..." The film-makers logic is that by teaching evolution, the US public school system is telling children there is no God, morality or free will." "Expelled is pure propaganda. Its style reminiscent of a sub-standard Michael Moore flick complete wiht voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around." And so on. After reading the view of New Scientist, I have drawn the conclusion that this film is a nonsense ranting by creationists, and I do not want to expose myself to its insanity.

To iNow You are correct in saying costs will drop. The costs of pretty much any manufactured product will drop, unless it is based on a limited resource that cannot be substituted, and those items are unusual. But cost is relative. You have to show the cost will drop relative to alternatives.

CDarwin said : "But chimps do retain tools already. Sometimes they'll carry specific sticks around for miles. They'll do so in the mouths or often just in one hand, and they seem to get around alright." Perhaps chimps are on the verge of their next evolutionary sprint. Just as soon as they get rid of those pesky Homer saps first, of course!

Paralith said "Of course human women want husbands. But do they want one husband all to themselves for the rest of their lives, or will they be happy to be the second wife to a rich and influential husband?" As a woman, you can answer that one better than I can. No woman truly understands men, and no man truly understands women. A terrible generalisation, I know, but true to a degree. So I ask you ; "Is being a co-wife as desirable for a woman as being a sole wife?" If the answer is yes, I am going hunting for my number two! Paralith also said "I see a problem with it." It is perfectly possible to be proud of something and also research it dispassionately. Blindness is overcome with professionalism. Besides which, anthropology is not my professional activity. I am involved in industrial chemistry and microbiology. It pays more! CDarwin asked "Why did bipedality proceed enlarged brains by 5 million years if they both had the same driver?" Since we have a lack of facts, there is no obvious answer. However, I am going to offer an outrageous and shameless speculation instead. Please don't shoot me! The difference between chimps and pre-humans could have been something as simple as the retention of tools. Imagine our forebear using a stone to smash rotten wood for grubs. By pure chance, it happens to be a very superior stone. Instead of throwing it away, the ape hangs onto it and carries it along. The advantages of always having a superior tool with oneself become apparent and the entire tribe gets into the habit of carrying their favourite tool, and this continues for mutiple generations. This ties up one hand - no longer suitable for locomotion, hence driving adaptation to more upright stance and bipedal locomotion. However, it would not, immediately, necessarily drive evolution of a larger brain. OK. Terrible speculation, but at least it shows that there are possible explanations. Beside, speculating can be fun. CDarwin said : "I don't think it's a terribly important issue which species is more "unique," Nor do I. However, I mention it only to support my case that there is a special and unique driver for human evolution.

To iNow I did not read your reference since I had already read the original article in the printed edition of Scientific American. What they claim sounds very good. Unfortunately, I have also seen data indicating that the costs of solar energy are likely to remain very high for a long time. Maybe that is wrong????? but it is also possible that SciAm are wrong. Regardless, it seems to me that the best approach as of the present time is nuclear. Proven technology. Hardly any greenhouse gases. Reliable 24 hour generation. High energy density, meaning little land required (compared to wind power and solar energy, for example). Generating plants able to be put anywhere (ie not confined to where an energy source happens to be) meaning that reticulation distance can be minimised. Wonderful safety record. Including Chernobyl, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, fewer than 4500 deaths in its entire history. Problems mainly political, due to people creating a fuss where it is not justified. Of course, what will actually happen is a wide range of plants. Nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, wave power, hydro, geothermal. Sadly, it will include a lot of new fossil fuel plants also. To swansont. Did you not read my entire post?

To CDarwin I don't want to over-state my 'umbrella' theory. Certainly evolution is a complex process, and many variables are likely to be involved. However, I think adaptation to an increasing facility with technology has to be one of the most important. Why not chimps? I suspect the difference was pure luck. One tribe of early ape was subject to a set of circumstances that led to advancing technology and the chimps forebears were not. Luck plays a role in evolution that is often underestimated. You also need to understand what I mean by technology. Chimps have technology when they bang the stones together to crack nuts. I suggest our early forebears simply developed a range of such techniques. They became, through evolution, expert tool users, but remained inexpert tool makers until much later in evolution. Upright gibbons? Yes, but not upright supported by hind legs, most of the time, as humans do. Gibbons have highly developed arms and use them to support the body more than legs. When I said 'most upright' I meant in the way designed to free the arms and hands for tool use. Monogamy for humans. It is, of course, not perfect, but is unusual for primates. I doubt it is simply cultural. The habit is too widespread. Name me a culture where most women do not want a husband or equivalent. All species are unique in some way. Correct. But no other primate is as unique in as many ways as humans. I see no problem with being proud of our uniqueness and abilities as a species.

There is no doubt that action needs to be taken to control greenhouse gases. However, determining the best action is the question. I am deeply cynical of the actions surrounding Kyoto. We see foolish acts, such as countries in the EEC importing palm oil for biodiesel. This has led to vast areas of tropical rain forest being felled to plant oil palms. Greenhouse emission have increased more than 20 fold as a result. Action needs to be carefully managed and planned. Urgent action leads to foolish action, and those who insist on urgent, even panic actions, are doing the whole world a disservice. The first step is to decide what alternatives are currently available, and implement them. For example; the new generation of hybrid internal cimbusion/electric cars are about to be released. These cars will have larger battery storage and the capability of being charged at home from dometic electricity. Since most car trips are short, this will permit most car trips to be done on battery power, cutting fuel use and emissions dramatically. Alongside this, we need far more electrical generating capacity, from non carbon emitting plants. My own view is that the world needs about 1000 new nuclear power plants, mainly in China, USA and Europe, and we had better get started! After implementing what is currently or nearly available, we need to develop further alternatives and implement them as they come on stream. The main thing is no silly urgent actions.

I am actually very fond of New Scientist. As well as its appeal to lay people, I think it has a real place as a source for updated information across the board for scientists. Lots of scientists are operating within deep specialties, and read only material related to their narrow specialties. New Scientist provides a quick and easy read of a range of stuff - helping specialists to gain a wider knowledge.

To Phil I stand by my claim of human uniqueness. We are a very strange ape! We are the only terrestrial mammal in our size range that is functionally hairless. We have the biggest primate brain - by far. We are the only truly upright ape. We have the strongest legs and weakest arms for our size of any ape. We have the smallest gut for our size of any primate. We are the only primate able to run long distances. In fact, for human athletes our stamina is better than almost any other mammal (major exception being the horse). We are the only primate with complex language. The only ape that forms long term (mainly) monogamous pair bonds. etc etc.

To iNow I hate those kinds of references. Why cannot they use Celsius like all civilised people?

In the last few days I saw a television program on fishing. This guy was swimming a baited line with a big hook and big bait - out past the breaker line on a surf beach, and catching big bronze whaler sharks - 2 to 3 metres long. Bronze whalers are listed as 'man-eaters'. They stated that the sharks were numerous at that point and swam in and out of the surf regularly and routinely. Well, the beach in question is a very popular swimming beach. On a warm summer weekend day, you might see hundreds of people playing in the surf. There never has been an attack there, but must have been hundreds of occasions where the big sharks detected the humans and ignored them.

I have a personal 'umbrella' theory too. I think that technology drove evolution from apes into humans. Began with our ape forebears, with a tribe of apes adopting simple technology - rather like that which modern chimps use. Maybe banging stones to break nuts, or using wooden skewers to dig bugs out of rotten wood, or something similar. The difference is that the ape tribe that became our forebears hung onto and developed the basic technology, and became dependent on it for survival. That meant that those best adapted to the use of tools were the ones to pass on their genes. This leads to bigger brains, upright stance, good manipulative fingers etc. Other consequences of technology (after millions of years of evolution) include the use of alternative means of keeping warm (clothing, fire, sleeping under straw) which would permit the loss of hair, and the benefits that come from loss of hair. Use of fire and cooking permits the reduction in gut size etc. Of course, this is a simplified picture and the drivers of human evolution would include other factors. However, it makes sense to me that the main thrust leading to the evolution of that unique species called Homo sapiens was the use of ever more complex technology and adaptations to use technology plus adaptations that came from the benefits of technology.

A nice reference for those interested has just been placed by New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn13620 This is a good resource, with lots of information about evolution, and based on good science. It describes a lot of poorly understood matters. For example : Why do males have nipples? Why are some people homosexual? etc. Take a look.

The data relating to the basics for global warming is clear cut. Since about 1976, the world has been warming at a very steady rate, and alongside it, CO2 has been also increasing at the same steady rate. Over this time period, there is no alternative cause for the warming that matches the need for a steady change to cause a steady change. In other words, for the past 30 odd years, global warming is anthropogenic. I see no other credible interpretation of the data. The strange thing is when we get down to predictions. The range of alternatives is staggering. We get Prof. de Freitas saying that the warming has peaked and we are now about to go into a cooling phase. We get Prof. Hansen saying that the warming is going to accelerate, and the sea level will rise five metres in the next 100 years, flooding all coastal cities, sea ports, and all low lying coral atolls, plus destroying Bangla Desh. We even get Prof. Lovelock saying that it is now too late, and most of the human species will die, along with a big chunk of all other species on this planet, and all we can do is try to save a few humans. All these predictions come from the same data. My own view is that we should avoid extremists at either end of the prediction spectrum. Warming is currently 0.18 C per decade and sea level rise is 3 mm per year. My own prediction is that these will continue (plus or minus a moderate amount) until humanity achieves a balance in greenhouse gases.

To Pangloss You can see what I mean. Just a couple of hours, and substantial overreactions from both iNow and Bascule already! Guys, I am giving you three days open slather. As it happens, I am off to a special family gathering for 3 days, taking me away from my computer. You can have all the goes at me you like. I cannot reply for 3 days. Have fun!

Pangloss While I don't agree with your basic premise, you have my full sympathy in the nature of the opposition you meet. I affirm that anthropogenic global warming is real. Nevertheless, I am sceptical of some of the detail. When I express any of this scepticism, I get met with opposition of the sort that one receives when expressing blasphemy inside a temple. For example : I noted in one discussion that, in the winter just past, Arctic sea ice had made a very substantial recovery towards historic norms. In making this claim, I was 100% correct, but it was as though I had denied their God. The opposition was vociferous and emotional. You need to remember that, for many of the people on this forum, anthropogenic global warming is not just science - it is their religion.