UFO smoking gun?

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

From wikipedia " There is general agreement on the most ancient record, which shows that feliforms and caniforms emerged within the super-family Carnivoramorpha 43 million years before present(YBP).^[3] The caniforms included the fox-like genus Leptocyon whose various species existed from 34 million YBP before branching 11.9 million YBP into Vulpes (foxes) and Canini(canines). "   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_wolf    

 

 

Where is the reference to intelligence?

[mistermack]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Where is the reference to intelligence?

Best you work it out for yourself. I'm fed up with goalposts being shifted. Do a bit of reading.

[zapatos]

No need to get your undies in a twist. I read the article and didn't see any reference to intelligence.

When did I shift the goalposts? You talked about the relative intelligence of a long dead animal and I asked you to show me where you read about that intelligence. I'm unsure why you would take offense at such an obvious follow-up question.

[mistermack]

Seriously, you would be better off reading up on the subject, and getting some background knowledge. 

[zapatos]

Where did I shift the goalposts?

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

From wikipedia " There is general agreement on the most ancient record, which shows that feliforms and caniforms emerged within the super-family Carnivoramorpha 43 million years before present(YBP).^[3] The caniforms included the fox-like genus Leptocyon whose various species existed from 34 million YBP before branching 11.9 million YBP into Vulpes (foxes) and Canini(canines). "   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_wolf    

 

 

As far as I can tell this says nothing about their intelligence or brain size...

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Seriously, you would be better off reading up on the subject, and getting some background knowledge. 

 

mistermack, you made an assertion, the rules say you have to provide the source of that assertion, telling someone to read up on the subject is not how that works. 

[mistermack]

46 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

mistermack, you made an assertion, the rules say you have to provide the source of that assertion, telling someone to read up on the subject is not how that works. 

You need some background knowledge, or the answer is wasted on you. My "assertion" was that there's not much obvious sign of an intelligence increase for the wolf line from 34 million years ago to the present day. That's a pretty accurate assertion. There isn't much obvious sign. In fact, if you search the page that I linked, of the evolution of the wolf, you won't find the word intelligence at all. That's because they take it for granted that no signs of evolution of intelligence will be observable. There are lots of developments covered, but intelligence is not one of them.

The context is a comparison with humans, where there is HUGE and OBVIOUS signs of an extremely rapid process of brain enlargement. 

As far as I know, there is no record of any other creature undergoing such an increase in intelligence over just a few million years. The general rule is it takes many tens of millions of years for the slightest increase to show up in the fossils of any animals. Except for us.

[zapatos]

57 minutes ago, mistermack said:

... if you search the page that I linked, of the evolution of the wolf, you won't find the word intelligence at all. That's because they take it for granted that no signs of evolution of intelligence will be observable. There are lots of developments covered, but intelligence is not one of them.

So the link you provide to support your assertion regarding the change in intelligence over millions of years does not mention intelligence at all. Two questions on that:

1. How do you know they don't mention intelligence change because they are taking for granted there was none? Perhaps they don't mention it because there is no data available that would allow them to comment on intelligence in a 34 million old animal.

2. Do scientists typically "take things for granted"?

Let me try a similar argument regarding emotions and you tell me if it sounds reasonable.

Following is a link to support my assertion that emotions in humans have not changed since primates diverged from other mammals 85 million years ago. if you search the page that I linked for emotions, you won't find the word emotions at all. That's because they take it for granted that no signs of evolution of emotions will be observable. There are lots of developments covered, but emotions is not one of them.

Quote

The study of human evolution involves many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, paleontology, neurobiology, ethology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, embryology and genetics.^[2] Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago, in the Late Cretaceous period, and the earliest fossils appear in the Paleocene, around 55 million years ago.^[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

You need some background knowledge, or the answer is wasted on you. My "assertion" was that there's not much obvious sign of an intelligence increase for the wolf line from 34 million years ago to the present day. That's a pretty accurate assertion. There isn't much obvious sign. In fact, if you search the page that I linked, of the evolution of the wolf, you won't find the word intelligence at all. That's because they take it for granted that no signs of evolution of intelligence will be observable. There are lots of developments covered, but intelligence is not one of them.

The context is a comparison with humans, where there is HUGE and OBVIOUS signs of an extremely rapid process of brain enlargement. 

As far as I know, there is no record of any other creature undergoing such an increase in intelligence over just a few million years. The general rule is it takes many tens of millions of years for the slightest increase to show up in the fossils of any animals. Except for us.

 

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

So the link you provide to support your assertion regarding the change in intelligence over millions of years does not mention intelligence at all. Two questions on that:

1. How do you know they don't mention intelligence change because they are taking for granted there was none? Perhaps they don't mention it because there is no data available that would allow them to comment on intelligence in a 34 million old animal.

2. Do scientists typically "take things for granted"?

Let me try a similar argument regarding emotions and you tell me if it sounds reasonable.

Following is a link to support my assertion that emotions in humans have not changed since primates diverged from other mammals 85 million years ago. if you search the page that I linked for emotions, you won't find the word emotions at all. That's because they take it for granted that no signs of evolution of emotions will be observable. There are lots of developments covered, but emotions is not one of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

 Guys, let's drop this train of thought, it's off topic and unnecessarily diverts away from the topic at hand. 

[mistermack]

Well, before the diversions, the point I made was that human evolution of intelligence is completely unique in scale, and here on Earth, and without that happening, there would be little likelihood of an industrial civilisation arising for millions of years, if ever.

Our own species dropped in numbers at one point to as low as 2,000, according to some genetic studies, which identify signs of a population bottleneck from the lack of human genetic variation. 

All of the other human lines went extinct, and we nearly did too. So a large brain doesn't guarantee species survival, and it could happen on other planets that equally intelligent species come and go without ever reaching the industrial stage.

You could also get alien species that are more intelligent than us, but who don't have an equivalent of speech, and so are unable to pass on knowledge to others, or to act as one giant organisation, like we do. If people couldn't cooperate through communication as we do, we would be restricted to what each individual could achieve on their own.

So it's possible you could have all sorts of intelligent aliens evolving around the galaxy, but none of them get to the point where they can leave their own planets, or communicate via radio waves etc.