Deathby

We are a factor, but don't forget elephants and rhinos still exist. At least till we got guns I think the major factor was climate. With a huge mass, there is a smaller surface area to lose heat from. And I believe the most recent Ice Ages have been in the Pleistocene. Australia had some really crazy megafauna until the aborigines came and wiped them out. There were wombats the size of a hippo

Play is by no means an indication of intelligence. Many predators "play" games when young as a means of learning vital skills. I am no expert on animal communications, but don't many herd animals have some form of language (if only "moo" = danger danger run like the wind). And most cetaceans, like whales have language almost as complicated as dolphins (is this right?). And I seem to recall hearing that dogs were smarter because despite their smaller brain size their brains are more structured- more convoluted. I know this is sort of a nick-pick but exactly how do you define intelligence. Some of these activities could simply be attributed to the dolphin's normal activities. Like I said, playfulness whilst is a sign of intelligence by human's standards could simply be a nifty way of learning vital life skills.

If a freshwater fish has a short loop of Henle since it can just excrete all its ammonia, doesn't it also excrete all its glucose and other stuff inside its blood since its also not filtered back into the blood?

Urey and Miller (no one guy with two last names so you're in the clear) are two scientists who showed that carbon compounds could form in the primaeval atmosphere. Later scientists have shown that life could also occur in other possible primaeval atmospheres (we're not certain exactly what the early atmosphere actually was) using any source of energy, be it geothermal, lightning or UV rays. What they still have yet to show is exactly how life originated from these carbon compounds. I mean if you put a pile of amino acids into a box they don't form life do they? But whilst life could possibly survive within the Oort cloud I doubt that it could evolve to such a complex stage that it could survive to intelligence like the "Greys" which could then survive by technology. Unless you mean they evolved to that intelligence level here, then left for the Oort Cloud. But that would make no logical sense, why not just live on Earth. Even if they have some totally alien way of thinking to get to the Oort Cloud they must have had technology. Surely there'd be some traces of them remaining on Earth.

Erm no what I meant is that the period of great change you just mentioned can be explained better by lamarckism than by evolution. What I meant was that a cataclysmic change in environment which provoked a stress on parts of an organism which would be transferred to the offspring hence adaptation to that change would occur faster than via survival of the fittest since changes would begin occuring within one generation rather than several. Whilst I don't really believe that Lamarckianism occurs, I just like discussing implications like this since I find it incredibly interesting (despite the fact it is wishful thinking). I never really liked the science textbook way of explaining away Lamarckianism. Dying your hair blonde wouldn't affect the body itself in any way would it? I think cutting off mice's tails was a much better experiment, since lack of use of the tail would theoretically shorten the tail due to atrophy. I obviously can't find a way around this since I don't have access to a laboratory and lots of mice to disprove or prove his theory. In reply to your question I believe he used mice. My internet research skills are quite bad, but I'll have a stab at finding an article on it. And if the offspring can be given immunogens by the mother, then why not other hormones? If the mother was producing excess hormones that direct proteins to build stronger muscles (I don't know any of the specifics about how this happens as I've said) then the hormones which float around in blood could be transferred to the offspring just as easily as immunogens.

I like your nice Neanderthal hypothesis too, but from what I've seen of the Flintstones ... I'd like to see a discussion on the socialogical impacts of smaller family groups vs large "packs". Do you think that families created a nicer environment and less tension between Neanderthals? Or that packs created greater environmental stress meaning that sapiens "evolved" to become more aggressive? I saw a nice discussion here about the concept of religion and evolution, I'd like to link that into here. Could it be that with abstract concepts like art (as you have said) and religion are directly caused by a large pack mentality? With specialised hunters and gatherers, there would be some with spare time who could be devoted to praying to the gods and painting. I recall hearing about some paintings really really deep into a cave, so clearly the painter had a lot of time to waste. But even more interesting, could it be our abstract thought (as opposed to linear thought) that kicked out the neanderthals? I mean we haven't really proved that Neanderthals were straightforward thinkers and we were lateral, but it would be an interesting thought. I don't presume to think that we'll solve the neanderthal problem here, I just like to think about the more interesting consequences of what we say

Ah yes you're right, that's what I read. The metals stuck in my head somehow and I got confused. You say stoneage man, but I recall there were Neanderthal skeletons and tools (don't remember how they could tell they were Neanderthalian tools) nearby. Would that show that neanderthal man predates sapiens' discovery of advanced fire? It doesn't matter if it was charcoal or not, but simply because they had such hot fires would show a good adaptation to colder conditions in Europe at that time. My knowledge of time periods has always been a bit dodgy. When we kicked em out of Europe was it the beginning or end of the Ice Age?

Well if animals could utilise Lamarckian evolution in addition to Darwinian evolution they could react to changes so much quicker. Say distances between copses of trees grew greater as praries expanded. A zebra with stronger legs from all the walking transferring those legs to its offspring would allow it to adapt to the prarie lifestyle much quicker than if it had to wait for survival of the fittest over several generations. And its not just wishful thinking, this guy has experimental data that suggests that immunity to certain diseases can be transferred to offspring.

I rather thought so. But then again this trend towards intelligent Neanderthals may just be a bandwagon for all anthropologists to jump aboard. I'm sure there's just as much evidence that we are smarter. (First and foremost the fact that we OWNED THEM)

I remember watching a short documentary on this guy who believed in Lamarcianism evolution still and was out to prove it scientifically. He had quite a bit of proof that it worked in immune systems as well. Given the complexity of living organisms, do you think that it would be feasibly possible for there to be a genetic way of explaining Lamarcianism (not necessarily in humans)? Proteins are made of amino acids which also compose DNA. In stretching its neck, hence building up muscles, could the excess production of proteins foment a change in the DNA structure by mutation that could possibly be transferred at a later stage to the gamete cells? This is all done without much specific knowledge of precisely how new tissue is formed. I mean if there was it would be a great boost to the punctuated model of evolution.

I always read about the great brain volume, but another article that always stuck in my head was one on the relative intelligence of dolphins. Despite their giant brains they may not be the third smartest animals since its not convoluted nor well structured. My memory isn't too great on the specifics, but its like a giant blob of brain cells, as opposed to human brains which are organised into little parts that each organise different things. Also I read somewhere (think SCIAM) that they found evidence of Neanderthal furnaces, which placed them ahead of homo sapiens at one point. Another interesting question is whether you think of them as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis or Homo Neanderthalis. I think the latter is the more correct modern scientific name, but the former is older and may be ingrained mor firmly in peoples minds.

Humanity has been focusing, then excelling in one field at a time for a very long time. Perhaps this is some evolutionary sideeffect of intelligence- we have to ponder something at one time. It just so happens that this particular modern focus happens to be so successful in evolutionary terms. First it was food gathering (or something I dunno). In the time of the Ancients it was empire-building, culminating in the Roman Empire, and possibly the later English, French and Dutch colonisation empires. But in the end all these empires sort of petered out and were replaced by democracies. Whilst we may think of science beginning with the Greeks it really was a part of philosophy. It was introspective "science". There haven't really been many huge developments in philosophy since then. Maybe a few choice quotes here and there "I think therefore I am" yada yada, but on the whole most of the big stuff was done then. In approximate chronological order... The Romans were poets and orators. The Arabians were matheticians. The Christians were religious and moralists. They excelled in those fields and refined them to a point where all major discoveries have really been made and now are being fine-tuned. Science has exploded and now it seems its petering out. To give one example, medicine, before it was just Alexander Fleming with one petri dish (an exageration of course) now its giant pharmaceutical companies with giant amounts of cash. But they are making less discoveries than ever. To me we're not making giant amounts of progress for the time alloted. We just so happen to be focusing on a field which has so many different applications to "real life".