If humans were gone.......

[Royston]

Lots of creatures have had the opportunity to evolve erect-backed bipedality' date=' but only a few have (the others being cormorants, auks, and penguins) and only one (us) uses that posture as the primary one and during any serious locomotion where performance matters. Speaking strickly biomechanically, the human form is vastly inferior to most other animals. I would say that it's not an pure adaptation itself, but a result of our past history constraining our adaptive possibilities so that this was the best of a limited set of options.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

I've heard the current argument is, that due to climate change there was a depletion in forests. As the forests became scattered, our ancestors adapted so they could travel across scrub-land to the pockets of forest that were available. Of course less forest meant less need for tree climbing skills...and so these pyhsical traits were diminished over time.

 

A freakish change in our evolution is the lowering of the larynx...as far as I know this was just a fluke, yet it's shaped the way we communicate...apes have a higher larynx to our own, and have limited nuances to their vocal communication compared to ours.

 

It's interesting that you get penguins nesting in the patagonian desert / the falkland islands and the Galapogas Islands (right near the equator), as well as the Antarctic. They're even found in the Amazon rain forest !! I guess being a bi-ped increases the options for survival.

[LucidDreamer]

There are like 6 billion of us and our DNA is strung all over the world. It is likely that any species that develops sentience after us will have as much curiosity as we do. The same goes for any alien species that visits our planet. Seeing as the death-ray only killed us and didn't cause us to disintegrate or destroy all of our buildings then there would be a good chance that some of our DNA in some way would be preserved, even for millions of years.

 

Since genetics and curiosity are natural developments for sentient species then I imagine that the chances are alot better than close to zero that another sentient species will raise us from extinction just to prove to themselves that they can do it.

 

Lots of creatures have had the opportunity to evolve erect-backed bipedality, but only a few have (the others being cormorants, auks, and penguins) and only one (us) uses that posture as the primary one and during any serious locomotion where performance matters. Speaking strickly biomechanically, the human form is vastly inferior to most other animals. I would say that it's not an pure adaptation itself, but a result of our past history constraining our adaptive possibilities so that this was the best of a limited set of options

I mostly agree with you. We are slow, weak, bad swimmers, bad climbers and bad at just about everything except using tools. This is likely part of the reason we developed sentience. However, our bodies are quite adaptable and versatile, which is quite a useful trait for a tool-user.

[Aardvark]

It's interesting that you get penguins nesting in the patagonian desert / the falkland islands and the Galapogas Islands (right near the equator)' date=' as well as the Antarctic. They're even found in the Amazon rain forest !! I guess being a bi-ped increases the options for survival.[/quote']

 

It is interesting where you get penguins, they are a remarkable species, but i would not hold them up as an example of how great being bipedal is. Their advantages are associated with great swimming skills and the ability to weather very cold climates. The bipedal movement on land is a case of making do, not an advantage and doesn't seem to confer any extra options for survival.

 

BTW, what are these Amazon penguins? Penguins need cold waters, unless a new species with unusual characteristics has just been discovered i think you are mistaken.

[Royston]

It is interesting where you get penguins' date=' they are a remarkable species, but i would not hold them up as an example of how great being bipedal is. Their advantages are associated with great swimming skills and the ability to weather very cold climates. The bipedal movement on land is a case of making do, not an advantage and doesn't seem to confer any extra options for survival.

 

BTW, what are these Amazon penguins? Penguins need cold waters, unless a new species with unusual characteristics has just been discovered i think you are mistaken.[/quote']

 

I agree on retrospect...Penguins are really quite clumsy creatures on two legs.

 

I'm trying to find a link to the Penguins found in the Amazon...I saw it in a programme just a few days ago, I'll let you know when I remember the name of the programme.

[Bettina]

So...what are the chances that earth would have another intellegent being capable of building machines.

 

Bettina

[LucidDreamer]

Very good, in my opinion. Almost all multi-cellular animals would benefit from greater intelligence. However, there is a price to pay for intelligence and not all animals are equipped to support a large and complex brain. So, although there is a price to pay it is still almost always beneficial.

 

I think there is a general trend towards encephalization, or at least increased intelligence (sp), especially among large mammals because they are especially equipped to support it. I mean look at how many smart mammals there are: dolphins and porpoises, dozens of species of whales, many species of apes, and elephants. I think that the trend among large mammals is to improve intelligence. So I think that as long as the earth's environment supports the existence of large mammals there will be a trend towards encelphalization, which should eventually lead to the use of tools and machines. I think the major factor then is the environment, with an emphasis on natural disasters since mankind will be dead.

 

If mankind continues to "prosper" then I think you will end up with another intelligent being capable of building machines in less than 1000 years through genetic engineering.

[Bettina]

Very good' date=' in my opinion. Almost all multi-cellular animals would benefit from greater intelligence. However, there is a price to pay for intelligence and not all animals are equipped to support a large and complex brain. So, although there is a price to pay it is still almost always beneficial.

 

I think there is a general trend towards encephalization, or at least increased intelligence (sp), especially among large mammals because they are especially equipped to support it. I mean look at how many smart mammals there are: dolphins and porpoises, dozens of species of whales, many species of apes, and elephants. I think that the trend among large mammals is to improve intelligence. So I think that as long as the earth's environment supports the existence of large mammals there will be a trend towards encelphalization, which should eventually lead to the use of tools and machines. I think the major factor then is the environment, with an emphasis on natural disasters since mankind will be dead.

 

If mankind continues to "prosper" then I think you will end up with another intelligent being capable of building machines in less than 1000 years through genetic engineering.[/quote']

 

Then why hasn't another "machine building being" already happened. If your only giving it 1000 years, we should have already had a bunch of different types.

 

Bettina

[LucidDreamer]

Then why hasn't another "machine building being" already happened. If your only giving it 1000 years' date=' we should have already had a bunch of different types.

 

Bettina[/quote']

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that now that technology, and specifically genetics, has progressed to the level that it has that it won't be long until we "uplift" another species, disregarding disaster or any other radical change in how things are going.

[Bettina]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that now that technology, and specifically genetics, has progressed to the level that it has that it won't be long until we "uplift" another species, disregarding disaster or any other radical change in how things are going.

 

Oh....

 

Bettina

[zyncod]

Why exactly would any species benefit from 'intelligence' per se? Humans making that statement is the equivalent of dinosaurs making the statement that "Freakishly large size would benefit every species." I would posit that the very fact that humanity has words for "suicide" and "nuclear weapon" invalidates the argument that intelligence is in any way beneficial for the long-term survival of any species.

[Mokele]

I would posit that the very fact that humanity has words for "suicide" and "nuclear weapon" invalidates the argument that intelligence is in any way beneficial for the long-term survival of any species.

 

Except that evolution works on the short term. Traits that help you have more kids become established, regardless of what damage they'll do to the population as a whole 100 generations down the line.

 

However, that said, your objection to Luciddreamer is more or less right.

 

The way I would phrase it is that intelligence usually confers benefits, but also comes with drawbacks. In some species, like mammals and particularly apes, the benefits outweight the drawbacks. But in most species, the reverse is true, and the benefits of a large brain do not outweight the tremendous costs (brain tissue is very, very metabolicly expensive).

 

Mokele

[LucidDreamer]

Why exactly would any species benefit from 'intelligence' per se? Humans making that statement is the equivalent of dinosaurs making the statement that "Freakishly large size would benefit every species." I would posit that the very fact that humanity has words for "suicide" and "nuclear weapon" invalidates the argument that intelligence is in any way beneficial for the long-term survival of any[/u'] species.

When I say an animal would benefit from increased intelligence I don't mean that it would be better off being as intelligent as man. For instance, a feline could certainly benefit while hunting by being 25% smarter. But a 25% smarter cat isn't going to start coming up with new string theories or build a nuclear bomb. It takes a long time to develop a brain comparable to man's brain.

 

Also, suicide makes a relatively small dent in the population of mankind. When you talk about nuclear bombs I assume you are thinking that any creature that develops sentience would be as violent as we are. Homo sapiens, and their cousins, chimpanzees, and most likely our common ancestors are violent creatures. There are other creatures of great intelligence, such as certain whales and Gorillas that are more non-violent to one another that could develop sentience.

[Mokele]

For instance, a feline could certainly benefit while hunting by being 25% smarter.

 

But would the increase in kill rate make up for the metabolic expenditure needed for that intelligence? Probably not, or cats would be smarter than they already are.

 

Mokele

[LucidDreamer]

But would the increase in kill rate make up for the metabolic expenditure needed for that intelligence? Probably not' date=' or cats would be smarter than they already are.

 

Mokele[/quote']

I agree with everything you said about metabolic expenditure. I am saying that intelligence is almost always beneficial but its opposing force is metabolic expenditure and in some cases genetic drift. So intelligence will improve in the cases where the push for intelligence overcomes its price. In a great deal of large mammals I think that this is the case. Also, improved intelligence doesn't always require great expenditures of energy. Look at birds. They pack alot of intelligence into very small efficient brains.

[jorge]

As I was lying in bed' date=' I thought of this....Lets say some scientific satellite experiment in space went wrong and sent a human killing pulse thru the planet earth which killed [b']every single human[/b] on the planet. Not one was spared and humankind was 100% gone.

 

Now we have a planet that has oceans, blue skys, beautiful sunsets, trees, animals, plant life, etc, but no humans.

 

Since there are presently some 15 million to 100 million species on earth but only one species able to post this question, what do you think would be the chances of humans ever populating the planet again.

 

Bettina

 

This is my firstpost on this forum so I say traditional: "Hello World"!

 

Your question:

- chance that humans will re-evolve in same or very similar form: is almost zero. This would require millions of mutations to happen in the same way. It is impossible. Also, from the life history on the planet we know that no extinct species re-evolves.

 

- chance that another intelligent species will evolve:

I think are pretty big. Great apes and possibly monkeys and dolphins are self-consious. So they are very close to be human-intelligent. Their past evolution show a trend towards bigger brains. So in few millions of years they could well evolve further into full consiousness. Pity for them that humans were first to cross the line!

[zyncod]

My point was just that intelligence is one of those things that's only interesting to itself. And to take your example of cats, metabolic expenditures aside, would they really benefit from an increase of 25% in intelligence? For most animals, life consists of "Hey look, there's something to eat!" and "Hey look, there's something to have sex with!" Until they evolve intelligence to the point where they can start building traps for mice, I don't think that moderate increases in intelligence would benefit cats. A 25% in eyesight would probably be much more beneficial.

 

And, Mokele, it is true that evolution acts in the short term. If, to go back to cats, a group of cats on an island evolved lightning-quick speed, all other cats on the island would have to evolve in the same direction in order to keep being able to find something to eat. But if this speed meant that the cats ate everything on the island, this would, in the end, be a self-destructive tendency for the species as a whole. The very fact that sentience has only evolved once whereas other complex structures such as wings have evolved multiple times indicates to me that this is another self-destructive tendency, on the order of a too-successful supervirus.

 

And my point about "suicide" and "nuclear weapons" was that one of the horrible, and wonderful, things about sentience is the ability to contemplate abstract concepts. And, to take human history as a guide, any abstract concept that sentient beings consider will eventually be put into action, or at least attempted. And having the ability to contemplate suicide I would think cannot be a good thing for any species. And self-destructive tendencies, like 100% fatality rates for viruses or, presumably, sentience, do not tend to evolve very often.

[Mayflower]

- chance that humans will re-evolve in same or very similar form: is almost zero. This would require millions of mutations to happen in the same way. It is impossible. Also' date=' from the life history on the planet we know that no extinct species re-evolves.[/quote']

 

The reason for a species not re-evolving usually has to do with loss of a usable habitat. This would not be the case in this imagined scenario of all humans suddenly dying in a 'one time only' occurance.

 

And my point about "suicide" and "nuclear weapons" was that one of the horrible' date=' and wonderful, things about sentience is the ability to contemplate abstract concepts. And, to take human history as a guide, any abstract concept that sentient beings consider will eventually be put into action, or at least attempted. And having the ability to contemplate suicide I would think cannot be a good thing for any species. And self-destructive tendencies, like 100% fatality rates for viruses or, presumably, sentience, do not tend to evolve very often.[/quote']

 

So... why haven't humans already killed each other off thousands of years ago, if this sentience is so destructive?

[LucidDreamer]

My point was just that intelligence is one of those things that's only interesting to itself. And to take your example of cats' date=' metabolic expenditures aside, would they really benefit from an increase of 25% in intelligence? For most animals, life consists of "Hey look, there's something to eat!" and "Hey look, there's something to have sex with!" Until they evolve intelligence to the point where they can start building traps for mice, I don't think that moderate increases in intelligence would benefit cats. A 25% in eyesight would probably be much more beneficial.

[/quote']

We really haven't defined what a 25% increase would mean for our subject, the cat. So I will define it as something that will be very generous to my argument. Let's say said cat is 25% smarter in everything he does. So in the case of a house cat he is 25% more likely to avoid getting hit by a car and avoid cat-haters. He is also 25% more likely to outsmart his rivals for the neighborhood females and spread his smart genes. He is 25% less likely of getting lost while on the prowl and he is 25% more likely of figuring out how to eat if he does. If I was a cat and I was given the opportunity of having all that or 25% improved eyesight, I know which one I would choose.

The very fact that sentience has only evolved once whereas other complex structures such as wings have evolved multiple times indicates to me that this is another self-destructive tendency' date=' on the order of a too-successful supervirus.

[/quote']

The fact that it has only evolved once doesn't tell you anything about whether it is self-destructive; it only tells you that it takes a long time and that it has been rare so far. And don't forget that the only species to develop sentience hasn't blown itself up yet.

And my point about "suicide" and "nuclear weapons" was that one of the horrible' date=' and wonderful, things about sentience is the ability to contemplate abstract concepts. [/quote']

It's also has allowed us to build a population of 6 billion and spread ourselves all over the globe.

[Psion]

I'd have to say that cockroaches would lead dominate either way you look at it.

 

I figure that anything that has lived for long periods of time since the dinosaur age will continue to dominate.

[rakuenso]

Just because we are the most intelligent does not by any means mean that we are the most fit for survival. Cockroachs, for example like the above poster had mentioned, are nearly freaking impossible to get rid of.

[Royston]

I know it's a little off topic, but is it true that cockroaches can survive a nuclear explosion, or is this just a myth ?

[rakuenso]

unless they have some insanely accurate DNA repair mechanism, I doubt it =) but then again if they did have an insanely accurate DNA repair mechanism I wonder how they mutated so that they had an insanely accurate DNA repair mechanism in the first place =)

[Psion]

Either cockroaches or ants.

I was talking to my dad and he said ants would be the dominate ones.

They have the most experience with combat.

Their structure of fighting is like humans with geurilla warfare and finding out how many enemies they have ahead of them.

 

Thier combat skills are intelligent.

[AzurePhoenix]

My vote is for scorpions. They were on land even before roaches. Plus, they're just plain badasses. I mean the stingers, the claws, truly wicked critters, and they eat Black Widows for FSM's sake!