evolution of humans and animals

[qwerty]

Some people say "a parrot who can mimic doesn't advantage itself, so it will not attract other mates, be smarter...." thats true but thats probably exactly the same as us when we were millions of years old, and now look where we are?

[Hellbender]

Some people say "a parrot who can mimic doesn't advantage itself, so it will not attract other mates, be smarter...." thats true but thats probably exactly the same as us when we were millions of years old, and now look where we are?

 

communication is important for social animals. Traits are not always just selected for "attracting mates" or "finding food". Although these are important selecting factors, they are not the only ones.

[AzurePhoenix]

Some people say "a parrot who can mimic doesn't advantage itself' date=' so it will not attract other mates, be smarter...." thats true but thats probably exactly the same as us when we were millions of years old, and now look where we are?[/quote']

But we didn't get where we are through "mimicry," we got where we are thanks to our reasoning skills, ingenuity and insightfulness, and the ability to imagine the abstract. We probably started off with body-language. Spoken language just sort of smoothed the edges of communication

[-Demosthenes-]

Who says that as time goes on gastropods won't eventually become endothermic? It's already happened twice, why not again? They're certainly more derived than other invertebrates. Given a few hundred million years, or a couple billion, I don't it'd be too far a leap. Not even much of a skip.

Entirely possibly, with the proper selective pressures. Of course where would these pressures come from?? Evolution isn't stearing everything towards inteligence, most of the time there are more important things being selected for. If the ones that survive and reproduce aren't necissarily the smartest, they are the fastest or most efficient, then there is little hope. I don't see any pressure towards becoming endodermic or becoming intelligence to the point that it is comparable by human standards.

[AzurePhoenix]

Where did the pressures that drove our evolution come from? The evolution of dolphins? Parrots? They weren't always there, but face it, circumstances change, and that is what causes rapid adaptation in a species.

 

Nothing stays the same. Sure, at the time octopus are relatively predator-free, and aren't social, but anything could occur to change those facts. Part of their success is due to their brains. If some deadly new octopus-eating predator evolved, they'd have to adapt to survive the threat. They could either re-evolve shells or evolve some new defense, or they could do what primate's did, and come up with defenses based on sheer intellectual power. Suppose that by huddling in groups and mobbing potential predators together was a good defense mechanism? Or they learn to attack predators with lumps of sharp coral or shells?

[Kleptin]

We are too arrogant. Just because we got to this state and dominated he world first seems to mean that everything else is too far behind to catch up. ::looks at pet squid with fear and paranoia::

[Deified]

Behind? I would say that we are chasing many many species ourselves. The only true measure of evolutionary success, imho, is quantity or prevalence. A creature is evolutionarily great if it is dominant within it's own species and found in great numbers everywhere. Sound like humans? Think again. How many humans live in a cubic inch of seawater? My point is: intelligence is just another means of survival, no more or less valid than the next technique.

[Kleptin]

That's a totally different point to argue, but i'll play ball.

 

Humans currently dominate the world. If an alien race comes to sign a peace treaty with earth, they will address us, not kangaroos. And where did you pop that definition of evolutionary greatness out of?

[Deified]

I realize that it is totally different. My point was simply that intelligence is NOT necessarily the best way to survive. I didn't really think about that definition too much. In fact, I pulled it right out of my ass.

 

You're not looking at it on a level plain. Humans compete with other intelligent creatures, so naturally if intelligent aliens come to earth, we are the ones who respond. What if a new type of bacteria were to enter the ecosystem, would we be the ones to respond to it? Unless it was deadly to us, it would just be another organism living in the same environment as us. However, to pre-existing bacteria the new bacteria presents serious competition and they must respond or gradually die out.

 

Certainly not perfectly analogous but it should be enough to show that your scale is flawed.

[Lestat V]

Just a quick question. NOw evolution takes place gradually over millions of years correct. Now theres a problem. Cause why aren't the rest of the apes evolving. If there was pressure to evolve dmatically iether they would of had to do it or go extinct. Now supposing that there was no pressure where are the transitional species. they in actuality would be better adapted that the present day apes so why would they go extinct. they couldn't have all evolved because the others would of had to start evolving also.

As for intelligence, how much do you think a bird could tell us. They don't even see the world the same way we do. They wouldn't have the same emotions, the same ideas about life. You need to accept that the only human intelligence that is, or more than likely ever will be is humans and possibly a few of the primates.

[-Demosthenes-]

If some deadly new octopus-eating predator evolved, they'd have to adapt to survive the threat.

Or they could simply be wiped out and another species can evolve to take it's place.

Cause why aren't the rest of the apes evolving.

Why aren't they evolving to be smarter like us?? Why would they, we (humans) already have the "higer-cognitive" niche. Of course they are still evolving, but only to better fit there own niche, if some related specied goes extinct then part of their population might evolve to it, but that's about it.

I think given time wild parrot species might, might naturally develop the higher cognitive abilties necessary for true communication, being highly social creatures. My vote goes out for Keas.

They do have a very fast motabolism, but this is largely dedicated to flight.

[Mokele]

NOw evolution takes place gradually over millions of years correct.

 

Not correct. The rate of evolution can vary from extreme changes over just a few dozen generations to little or no change over millions of years. It all depends on the selective forces acting on a species. If you look at the fossil record of well-preserved species (clams are a favorite), you see long periods of stasis, followed by a rapid change in a isolated sub-population, which then spreads throughout the rest of the species. When the environment is stable, evolution tends to be very slow.

 

Cause why aren't the rest of the apes evolving. If there was pressure to evolve dmatically iether they would of had to do it or go extinct

 

They are, just not in overt physical ways. In fact, recent studies show strong selection for parasite resistance and tumor supression.

 

Now supposing that there was no pressure where are the transitional species. they in actuality would be better adapted that the present day apes so why would they go extinct. they couldn't have all evolved because the others would of had to start evolving also.

 

There were pressures in the past (and still are) at varying intensities, as well as being different pressures.

 

As far as transitional forms, look into the fossil record; there's so many I can't even remember all of them and that's just from vertebrates.

 

Mokele

[Kleptin]

I've always been very worried about that macroevolution argument the christians bring up, it scares me. Can anyone expand and reassure me that evolution is right?

[Mokele]

Macroevolution simply refers to any evolution above the level of species, including speciation (in which a species diverges from another one). Since only a total moron would deny microevolution (since it's frequently and easily directly observed), they resort to denying macroevolution. But there are problems...

 

1) microevolution and macroevolution are only superficially distinct, and the factuality of one *proves* the factuality of the other by logical necessity

 

2) "Species" is a bit of a dodgy term anyway. We've got rough definitions, but none that *really* work for *everything*. This further highlights the artificiality of the distinction between "micro" and "macro".

 

3) Quibbles about definition aside, we have definitely observed speciation occuring. See here.

 

4) Since speciation has been observed, as well as microevolution, that effectively proves macroevolution, since microevolution results in the accumulation of differences between reproductively isolated populations.

 

For more evidence, see here.

 

Mokele

[Kleptin]

Well, they lost that battle, what else can they pull out of their sleeves? I can't think of any other arguments against evolution...