Did man create himself?

[cladking]

Before the advent of complex language which gave rise to humanity the late proto-humans must have realized that some members of the tribe were less "intelligent" than others. Some individuals tended to understand and succeed and some tended to cause confusion and fail. Humans are (and were) a little more clever than most animals and could notice that this ability to succeed tended to run in families and breed true. Perhaps they attempted to breed humans for intelligence but their only parameters for measuring intelligence were closely related to the ability to communicate with nature and one another. The rise of the human speech center might not have been mutation but genetic experimentation by our animal forebearers. Proto-humans, humans, and hybrids without complex language would very very quickly fall by the wayside because they were at such a strong evolutionary disadvantage.

 

This same thing was impossible when the language changed about 2000 BC probably because there are natural limitations to the ability of a brain to process information. There are limits to biological intelligence and language had become so complex that even breeding would (or did) fail to keep up with the increasing complexity. The "nephilim" might have been the descendents of the attempt to preserve the language intact by artificial (or natural) means. There were also practical real world impossibilities to continued "evolution" to preserve the ancient language. The economies of the time had become suffiently complex as to require a large population.

 

The rest of history is simply the result of (confused) language.

 

Obviously if animals can invent dams (beavers) and air conditioned cities (termites) there is no reason they couldn't invent "animal husbandry" and apply it to themselves. The simple fact is that within only 30,000 years humans had gained enough knowledge to begin breeding animals and plants. Another 5,000 years and they invented writin which led to an explosion of knowledge and the collapse of the language.

 

There is as much logic to nature as there is to math. Our current view of our ancestors as sun addled bumpkins is nearly as laughably illogical as the concept that we are intelligent. Both of these non sequiturs arose from confused language.

[Dekan]

Before the advent of complex language which gave rise to humanity the late proto-humans must have realized that some members of the tribe were less "intelligent" than others. Some individuals tended to understand and succeed and some tended to cause confusion and fail. Humans are (and were) a little more clever than most animals and could notice that this ability to succeed tended to run in families and breed true. Perhaps they attempted to breed humans for intelligence ......

Perhaps they tried (because they instinctively recognized it was right) to do just what you suggest - breed for increased intelligence. And for other mind-related qualities. Such as forethought, initiative, inventiveness, and leadership. That could account for the origin of the social "class system", which seems to be a uniquely human phenomenon - not possessed by other species, such as dogs. Won't any dog enthusiastically mate with any other dog that it encounters? As long as they mutually detect species-specific canine body-smells during the pre-copulatory bottom-sniffing, the dogs go at it. They don't notice, or worry about quality of mind.

 

Whereas, we humans do notice mind-related qualities. And until recent times, that used to influence us when we bred. We saw that such qualities were valuable, and tend to be inherited - as you say "run in families". So we tried to preserve such families - by instituting a "class" system, which separated, and isolated, the superior families from the rest of the breeding population.

 

And thus was developed the historical concept of a class of "noble families", with their titles of "Patricians" "Dukes", "Lords" and so on - who only interbred with other "noble" families. That protected the nobles'.high-quality genes from potential pollution by inferior ones. It also probably explains the origin of the "caste" system in India. An inborn, quasi-instinctive urge to guard and foster human genetic development perhaps?

 

But all that was in the past. Nowadays, it's supposed to be completely different. We're told to disregard instinctive urges, and get enlightened and PC - so that anyone is free to mate with anyone, regardless of genes. Is that sound, from the viewpoint of human advancement?

[cladking]

Perhaps they tried (because they instinctively recognized it was right) to do just what you suggest - breed for increased intelligence. And for other mind-related qualities. Such as forethought, initiative, inventiveness, and leadership. That could account for the origin of the social "class system", which seems to be a uniquely human phenomenon - not possessed by other species, such as dogs. Won't any dog enthusiastically mate with any other dog that it encounters? As long as they mutually detect species-specific canine body-smells during the pre-copulatory bottom-sniffing, the dogs go at it. They don't notice, or worry about quality of mind.

 

Whereas, we humans do notice mind-related qualities. And until recent times, that used to influence us when we bred. We saw that such qualities were valuable, and tend to be inherited - as you say "run in families". So we tried to preserve such families - by instituting a "class" system, which separated, and isolated, the superior families from the rest of the breeding population.

 

And thus was developed the historical concept of a class of "noble families", with their titles of "Patricians" "Dukes", "Lords" and so on - who only interbred with other "noble" families. That protected the nobles'.high-quality genes from potential pollution by inferior ones. It also probably explains the origin of the "caste" system in India. An inborn, quasi-instinctive urge to guard and foster human genetic development perhaps?

 

But all that was in the past. Nowadays, it's supposed to be completely different. We're told to disregard instinctive urges, and get enlightened and PC - so that anyone is free to mate with anyone, regardless of genes. Is that sound, from the viewpoint of human advancement?

 

I believe most royal blood lines for a long time now are simply exclusionary and designed to keep out commoner blood so it doesn't dilute the blueblood. While some royals are fairly intelligent there is no attempt to prevent the slower ones from reproducing or even from assuming the crown.

 

Women have usually sought mates more intelligent than themselves but I'm not confident that this would necessarily lead to a general increase in the population for several reasons.

 

The long gestation period would make any breeding program difficult for the proto-humans to execute and the lack of complex language would impair their ability to maintain it. There are the interesting consistencies though like the difficulty of childbirth being virtually unique to humans due to the large brain. Perhaps it was some simpler process like the tendency to simply evict those who caused trouble or failure. When food was plenty there would be little loss in the eviction of adults because they could be easily replaced. Most evictees would probably never reproduce again.

 

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

While some royals are fairly intelligent...

 

http://xkcd.com/285/

[Fuzzwood]

Of course man made himself; everytime he got laid and the offspring survived long enough to get laid themselves.

 

Perhaps coarse language, but the point is that natural selection is based on the above. Eg. if you are intelligent enough to run from impending danger like from that grizzly bear who got angry at you for waking it, you live longer and are thus able to perform the act mentioned above.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Fuzzwood