Mammals had 65 million years more than the dinosaurs had in which to evolve sentience. Mammals and dinosaurs evolved at roughly the same time, and neither were intellectual giants by the end of the Cretaceous. Give dinosaurs another 65 million years, and who knows what might have happened. We already see that the descendants of one lineage (e.g., the aforementioned parrots and corvids) are pretty intelligent.
As for alien life in general…note also that the current cellular configuration is thought to be the result of a symbiosis of sorts: both plant and animal cells get their energy from other cell-like structures (chloroplasts and mitochondria, respectively). Such symbioses are the reason we have eukaryotic cells today. There is, of course, no guarantee of such symbioses on other worlds, nor would the energy producers necessarily have been of the same type as ours. That alone could likely result in very different evolutionary pathways.
WE don’t have multiple eyes (like spiders)? or super sticky fot pads (like geckos)?
I wonder if sentient creatures eveolved in the oceans, what would happen-with no way to work metal (or use fire, or electricity), what would happen to such beings?
As for the notion that intelligent aliens really would resemble bumpy-forehead humans, that’s laughable.
Think of the evolutionary pathway that humans have been through. Even if aliens were something resembling a vertebrate mammals, an intelligent cat isn’t going to look like a human in a cat costume. How could it?
We lost our tails long before we became intelligent. Our first tail-less ancestors were more like gibbons. Now, why would you assume that an intelligent vertebrate-like animal would have to lose it’s tail? Bipedalism at least has the “frees the forepaws” argument, but why wouldn’t an intelligent vertebrate-like animal look more like a velociraptor than a human? After all, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of bipedal organisms in Earth’s evolutionary history that looked something like a velociraptor, and only humans and our direct ancestors looked anything like a human.
I can imagine a vertebrate-like animal evolving on another planet…a wormy critter evolves fins, then a stiffening rod, then a skeleton, then more muscular fins, then adapts to the intertidal, and so forth. Lots of different types of creatures have independently colonized the land.
But in general, we shouldn’t expect alien life to resemble any terrestrial phylum. Especially since we can’t say anything about the environment where such hypothetical organisms would evolve, and whether that environment would be anything even remotely close to the physical environment of earth.
Note that squids and octopi, vertebrates, and most arthropods have only two eyes. Why? Perhaps there’s no significant evolutionary advantage to having more. Two is enough for depth perception.
I don’t think sticky footpads would be any use to any organism that weighs as much as a human.
I find that very difficult to belive, and would like to seesome evidence.
Offhand I can think of the sponges, the true animals, the Volvox like algae, the Ulva line algae and terestrial plants, all the other various colours of algae and the fungi as groups that are believed to have evolved multicelluraity independantly. Do you have any evidence that this is not the case?
Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this claim?
Ahh, no.
Firstly even when we exclude the energy demands of the brain then human actually consume more energy per pound of body weight than an average comparable sized mammal. I dont; know why you think humans have low metabolic rates.
Secondly low metabolic rates are invariably correlated with low intelligence, not high. Marsupials, sloths and monotremes all have exceptionally low metabolic rates and all are exceptionally stupid. Animals can only evolve low metabolic rates if energy is in such a short supply that quiscience is more profitable than exploration. Under those circumstances intelligence must also be detrimental and will be selected against.
IOW if humans had evolved alow metabolic rate they would also have evolved a limite dintelligence. There were several groups of robust herbivorous hominids that did indeed evolve low metabolic rates and ocncomittntly limited brains.
Not sure where to start with this. Probably easiest to say that it is incorrect on every point aside from “brains take energy”.
Firtsly that isn’t true. Only 200, 000 years years ago this planet was home to at least 5 different species of sentient species: H. sapiens, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis and H. floresiensis. Dependng on what auhority you use there may have been as many as eight.
Secondly you seem to be overlooking the fact that average species intelligence increases over evolutionary time. A clade that evolved more recently will almost inevitably be more intelligent. IOW amphibians are more intelligent than fish, reptiles are more intelligent than amphibians, birds and mammals are more intelligent than reptiles. IOW intellignce always increases with time. The fact that we are the one of the most recent species and are the most intelligent doesn’t tell us a damn thing except what we already knew: intelligence increases over time.
In terms of cites, not at the moment, but it seems pretty obvious to me. After all, if you have more mass than something else, then it requires more energy. Humans do eat more than hamsters.
I was using “low” in a relative sense and not making the claim based on comparisons with other animals.
Don’t forget reptiles. I seriously doubt that any intelligent life could be cold blooded.
Again, I was using “low” in a relative sense. Were our metabolisms as fast as say humming birds, I doubt we could evolve big brains.
Really? So you’re saying than elephants don’t eat a lot of food?
Yet none of them were smart enough to survive. Also, those are all branches from the same common ancestor AFAIK.
But why was it ape descendants that managed to develop sentience and not, say raccoons? Not saying that raccoons couldn’t become sentient, only that there was something about being an ape which allowed us to hit the mark sooner.
I guess I wasn’t clear: Alien life is going to have more of the same features as us than it is going to be different. Now, I’m not claiming that their DNA will be identical to ours, or that they’ll have evolved from apes only that they’ll resemble us in the same way two entirely different buildings resemble one another (i.e. you can look at them and know that they’re buildings).
Seen any Jedi knights running around lately?
Really? You have links to scientific papers published which show that FTL is possible? And that physicists have figured out that the laws of the universe allow for short beams of energy which can be controlled? Because everything I’ve ever read has said that those things are flat out impossible. And every time someone brings up transporters here on the Dope, the response by folks with knowledge of physics, etc. all have been that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle rule out transporters.
Tuckerfan, it seems to me you’re using a circular definition of intelligence: you seem to be defining intelligence to be “human intelligence” and then saying that it only arose once on Earth. But various aspects of what we could consider intelligence have arisen multiple times. For example, various birds and apes exhibit tool making and tool use behavior. Octopodes, squirrels, various birds and apes all exhibit problem-solving behavior. IIRC, some apes (baboons?) are able to recognize themselves in a mirror. And I think I’ve even read somewhere about parrots being able to work rudimentary math problems.
What is intelligence anway? It’s some amorphous blob of characteristics, and we can spend a lot of time arguing about what characteristics constitute intelligence. But whatever list we come up with, you’ll find a number of species which exhibit a range of those characteristics. And who knows, an alien species might be missing some characteristics on our list and have others that we haven’t thought of yet. I don’t see any particular reason to limit our definition of intelligence to solely being human intelligence (although I admit, I have trouble thinking of what additional characteristics an alien could bring to the table).
Well, for the purposes of this discussion, I’m limiting it to human intelligence. I’ll grant that animals show characterstics of intelligence (and certainly my cats are smarter than some people I’ve known), but let’s face it, the most interesting aliens will be the ones who’re closest to us in intelligence. I don’t doubt that there’s probably a bewildering array of life out there in the universe, but I think that anything which has intelligence we’d consider similar to our own, will physically resemble us to a great degree.
Of course, we’ve yet to establish that life has evolved anywhere but on Earth. It’s possible, but exceedingly unlikely, that we’re the only planet in the universe to have life on it at all. It’s also possible, but again, highly unlikely, that the Earth is home to the only intelligent life in the universe. There’s a science fiction story (I think it’s by Poul Andersen, but I could be wrong), it which it turns out that life on Earth evolved under a “stupid” field, so it wound up being smarter than everything else in the universe which didn’t have that field affecting it when it began evolving. One hopes that this is not the case.
You mean the 1954 novel Brain Wave. Earthly humans and animals (at least, those with sufficiently complex nervous systems for the field to make a difference) suddenly get much smarter when Earth, purely by chance, passes out of that field. A couple of scientists mount an expedition in a newly-invented FTL spaceship and find that on planets where life evolved outside the field, it does not appear to have evolved intelligence any higher on average than Earth’s life when it was inside the field – not sufficient survival value in the extra IQ, apparently – so Earth turns out to be a special case.
But sheep eat much more than humans depsite weighing less, while kangaroos eat much less than sheep depsite being considerably heavier. So your whole point fals down upon the most cursory examination.
But really my objection with your point is that you are confusing gross energy use with energy efficiency. Birds and bats consume vast amounts of energy. More than their own body weight daily inmany cases. That doesn’t mean that is impossible for flight to have evolved, it clearly did evolve and it was clearly a very successful adaptaion. Nor has that vast energy expenditure prevented birds and bats from remaining some of the most intelligent cretaures on the planet.
If your theory were correct then birds and bats would have to be far less intelligent than their immediate forebears and the alternate branches on the same evolutionary tree. In fact exactly the oposite seems to be true, which flasifies your position immediately and irrefutably.
What does that mean? What could you possibly have been making your claim relative too if not to other animals? Are you perhaps suggetsing that humans use relatively less energy then wheelbarrows or rocks or other non-animal objects?
I’m totally mystified.
I can’t see why not. It’s hard to imagine how a “cold-blooded” intelligence could evolve in competition with warm blooded creatures in a Earth type environment. However in an environment in which all animals are cold blooded, or an environment where the tmeperature never falls below 100oF there are no such limitations.
Again, relative to what if not to other species of animal?
And how do you explain that corvids and parrots are strong contenders for the second most intelligent species on the planet depsite having amazingly high metabolic rates? Do you have any evidence at all that having a high metabolic rate precludes high intelligence? My educated WAG is that we would find excatly the opposite reltaionship: the higher the metabolic rate the higher the intelligence.
I already explained above why this should be so. You OTOH don’t seem to be able to provide any evidence or reasoning to support your contention.
[/quote]
Really? So you’re saying than elephants don’t eat a lot of food?
[/quote]
Of course they do, but then so do cattle. What exactly is your point?
The fact is that there is no simple relationship between size and energy consumption. A large kangaroo is larger than a human, eats low quality feed, yet consumes far fewer calories. A bat that is less than 1/4 the weight of a hamster will consume half again as much food.
Now you are blatantly begging the question. We know that animals have to be just like H. sapiens to be intelligent because only H. spaiens ever evolved intelligence, and we know that only H. sapiens ever evolved intelligence because only H. sapiens had the intelligence necessary to survive.
All organisms on Earth are branches from the same ancestor. Once again, what point are you trying to make? This is yet another non sequitur.
[/quote]
But why was it ape descendants that managed to develop sentience and not, say raccoons? Not saying that raccoons couldn’t become sentient, only that there was something about being an ape which allowed us to hit the mark sooner.
[/quote]
Read “Wonderful Life” by S. J. Goul, or “Science of Discworld”. The answer is almost certainly “happenstance”. Someone had to do it first, it happened to be our ancestors.
Once again you are blatantly
begging the question. "It must be essential for intelligences tolook humanoid because the first intelligence on Earth to look humaoid, and we know it needed otlook humanoid because the first intelligence on Earth looks humanoid.
If it had been tha ancetsor of the slime mould that had evolve dintelligenc first then the slime mould version of you would be making excatly the same argument, and it would be excatly as flawed.
WTF? Seriously. WTF?
Aside from simply repeating the same assertion with no evidence I can’t make any sense at all out of that bit about buildings. You seem to be arguing fr intelligent design.
Or are you perhaps claiming that if I show you a photograph you will always be able to tell whether it is of a building rather than of a sculpture, a pile of ebris or other similar agglomeraton? If so I’d like to put that to the test.
Are you trying to be obtuse?
Then indulge my request for such evidence.
IOW:
CITE!
Yes, really!
Much of your posts conist of non sequiturs. They come from nowhere, they go nowhere. What isn’t non sequitur is often circular or begging the question. What isn’t a blatant logical fallacy often directly contradicts the observed evidence, and what isn’t factually incorrect has no evidential suport.
Seriously, your posts are just a poor rehashing of the weak anthropic principle. It’s been done much better by folks that are much more knowledgeable and it still doesn’t impress too many people. The fact that we are self-aware and happen to fill a man-shaped hole in the universe isn’t evidence that universe was made with a man shaped hole for us to fill, nor is it evidence that you need to be man-shaped to be self aware.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, if a puddle of water were to suddenly evolve self aware it would doubtless notice the many ways that its physical form either accentutaes or exploits the intelligence that it has evolved. An instinctive reaction might be “Gee, you need to have these features in order to be intelligence”. Of course it’s all bollocks. The evolution of the intelligence and the physcial form occured in tandem, of course the are synchronised ot alarge degree. That doesn’t mean in any way that there aren’t billions of other physical forms that intelligence could evolve in tandem with.
But without begging the question what is that based on?
Why for example couldn’t an intelligent quadripedal elephant-like creature ever evolved. Being bipedal it would require far less enegry for maintenance than a human (which you seem to think is amajor plus). It would also be able to free up large areas of brian from the task of co-ordinating the tricky task of walking on two legs.
Cite.
How do you know how unlikley that is? We have absolutely no idea how life appeared on Earth and as such have no idea how likely it is. It is entirely plausible that the appearance of life on Earth was effectively impossible and shouldn’t be expected to occur again in the lifetime of a billion other universes. We just have no idea.
No, because you’re misunderstanding me. What happens if you double the human metabolic rate? Do we not then have to spend twice as much time gathering food? Our metabolic rate is such that we have ample time to do other things besides gather food. It was that free time which put us on the road to intelligence.
Again, it’s simple: Our metabolic rate enabled us to have free time. If we’d had a higher metabolic rate, our free time would have been reduced, thus making it harder for us to evolve intelligence.
Simple. If intelligence could evolve in a reptile, we would have seen examples of it. Dino brains should have been vastly larger (not necessarily large enough for them to be considered intelligent) by the time they disappeared, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. “Walnut-sized” seems to be the standard unit of measure as far as dino brains go.
I’ve not seen anything which puts any species of birds above whales and dolphins.
You don’t seem to want to listen.
And pandas wouldn’t be in such dire shape if the bulk of their diet wasn’t bamboo. The type of food consumed is just as important as the amount.
No, that’s not waht I’m saying at all. I’m saying that intelligence on Earth evolved in the humanoid form (this includes the various branches of the now extinct human family) because that form was what required for intelligence. I am saying that if rats were to have become intelligent, and not monkeys, the rats would walk upright as we do and be relatively hairless.
The common ancestor between modern humans and neanderthals is a helluvalot closer than the common anscestor between humans and slugs. You’re nitpicking to absurdity for no logical reason.
“Happenstance” doesn’t cover it. There has to be a reason why our ancestors were the first to evolve intelligence. “Happenstance” might explain the environment in which they were in that was favorable to aiding them to evolve, but “happenstance” doesn’t explain the form that it took, namely bipedal and hairless.
To be as nitpickery as you were earlier, our ancestors were slime mold at one point.
No, but form tends to follow function, does it not? At least as far as evolution’s concerned.
No, but I am saying that if someone show’s you a photograph and shows you a building, you’ll know the difference between the two.
No, I’m asking where all the cool shit in the universe is. Sci-Fi stories have, for centuries now, shown us all kinds of amazing things like thoats on Mars, planet destroying spaceships, and warp drive. Yet those things don’t exist and can’t exist.
Are you not familiar with E=MC[sup]2[/sup]? That states what the speed limit of the universe is and in all the years of trying no one has been able to toss Einstein’s equation out the window. You are making the extraordinary claim that this is somehow not the case, therefore it is incumbent upon you to provide cites to the contrary.
To go back to your level of nitpickery a puddle of water did evolve intelligence. I am not claiming that aliens will be identical to us in every way. I am saying that aliens will be bipedal and hairless. Of all the planets in the solar system only this one has evolved intelligent life, were it an easy nut to crack, we would have seen it on Mars, but Mars is devoid of intelligent life (and quite possibly devoid of life at all). Europa may have life on it, and it may be as intelligent as whales/dolphins, but we don’t know. We can, however, be reasonably certain that whatever life there might be on Europa, it’s certainly not capable of punching through it’s frozen shell and sending probes to Earth.
[quoteBut without begging the question what is that based on?
Why for example couldn’t an intelligent quadripedal elephant-like creature ever evolved. Being bipedal it would require far less enegry for maintenance than a human (which you seem to think is amajor plus). It would also be able to free up large areas of brian from the task of co-ordinating the tricky task of walking on two legs.[/quote]
Actually, bigger bodies (in mammals, at least) require bigger brains for some reason. Elephants have roughly the same number of neurons as human beings, but certainly aren’t as intelligent as us (according to you, they’re not even as smart as crows). Adding a bigger body requires a bigger brain, which in turns requires more food, which reduces the free time a species has.
I’ll just punt this one and point out that Carl Sagan thought that it was highly unlikely we were the only intelligent life in the universe.
No. You appear to be refusing to read what I have posted numerous times. The human metabolic rate is already well established to be much, much higher than that of a horse, yet a horse spends about 16 hours a day gatheirng food and a human even in the harshest environment spends about 3.5.
No, exactly the opposite is true. Our high intelligence allowed us to exploit extremely energy dense foods. It was that ability to exploit energy dense foods that put us on the road to the exceptionally high metabolic rate that we have today. We can tell this by looking at the gut structure of other apes and of earlier hominids.
I repeat: this statement flies in the face of the facts.
Humans have high metabolic rates, not low.
Humans have a large amount of free time depsite this high metablic rate becasue we exploit extremely energy dense foods.
We can exploit extremely energy dense food sprcisely because of our intelligence.
With that in mind please provide evidence for you claims that humans have a relatively low metabolic rate. Also stop ducking the questions and tell us low relative to what.
Then provide evidence to support your claim that haumsn spend less time foraging as a reuslt of metabolic rate rather than because of the enegry density of the foods we consume.
Your argument hinges entirely on those two assertions. Neither is supported by evidence and both of them contradict the known facts.
I hope this is a joke.
This is like someone in the triassic claiming that if flight could have evolved in mammals we would have seen examples of it. Of course the argument is absolute piffle. Mammals are perfectly capable of evolving flight as we now know. The fact that they hadn’t done so in 20 million year sprior to the triassic tells us nothing whatsoever about tehir ability to evolve that trait.
We could have made the same argument in the carbonifierous about the ability of vertebrates to live on land, or in the earlier tertiary about the ability of mammals to evolve inteligence or a million other instance where groups failed to evolve an obvious and widely dispersed trait depsite hundreds of millions of years of existence. The factthat all such exmaples are wrong shows us the obvious flaw in the “REASONING”.
Sigh.
No, they shouldn’t. No more than bats should ahve evolved in the triassic , or terrestrial vertebartes should have evolved in the early carboniferous. Evolution doesn’t have goals. Even immensely useful and succeful evolutionary steps like flight and terrestrail living are not things we can say “should” have happened, much less tarits like intelligence.
Once again you are arguing fom a position that evolution has a preordained goal that it is driving towards and thatif that goal isn’t achieved in some arbitrary time it is impossible. Of course such an argument is nonsense and has no basis in science or logic.
You haven’t seen very much on this topic then and probably hopuldnt; be attempting to debte me base don nothing but assertion. This is hardly novel or controversial.
“Crows as Clever as Great Apes, Study Says
corvids may be even cleverer than we think. A new study suggests their cognitive abilities are a match for primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas.”
Yes, that is why I respond at length to every statment you make and answer every quetsion explicitely and clearly. :rolleyes:
Yes, that’sright. What is your point?
An I am pointing out that you have absolutely no evidence to suport such an assertion, and that the “reasoning” used to rech the conclusion is flawed and flies in the face of the known facts.
No, I’m not nitpickiog, I am highlighting a major and glaring flaw in your argument.
Cite. I will reference Gould to suport mycontention that there doens;t need to be any reaosn whatsoever.
What refernce do you use to support you claim?
You apparently also don’t realise that hominds evolved bipedalism when they were still slightly dim chimps. Intelligence didn’t take the form of bipedaism. The species that evolved intelligence happened to already be bipedal.
CITE!
More gross ignorance.
Our ancestors were never slime molds. The myxomycotina and the animalia share a common ancestor, Nothing more. Never at any stage were any human ancestors slime molds or anything remotely resmebling slime molds.
Look dude, do you actually now anythuing about evolutionary biology at all, or are you just makinga ll this up onthe fly? If the latter then I suggest you desist now and stop promulgating your ignorance.
No, absolutely not. Form follows preexisting form and mutational novelty, nothing more, nothingless. If that were not the case then pandas wouldn’t have the form of a bear and mudskippers woudln’t have the form of fish. Form follo
WTF?
Again, seriously, WTF? What point are trying to make here? If someone shows you a chimpanzee and a raven I’m sure you will spot the difference between them too, depsite both being contendors for the second most intelligent species on the planet. Doesn’t that prety much destroy your argument that all intelligent species must look humanoid?
Don’t exist: sure. Can’t exist; bollocks.
Science fiction 150 years ago showed us cool shit like flights to the moon and submarines. What does that tell you?
Sigh, in 1900 you woyuld have been arguing thatin 150 years of trying bnobody had been able to toss Netwon out the window. Have you never been taught that a single point smaple has no predictive power?
No, I never claimed that anyone had tossed Euinsteins equations out the wondow, and I ask that you retract that lie.
And I have proved that you are grossly ignorant of the facts of evolutionary biology and that your reasoning to reach this position flies int e face of those facts.
You can keep repeating this claim a dozen times every post, it will still be a grossly ignorant claim made by someone provably ignorant of the facts and arrived at by logical fallacies.
CITE.
This is more ignorant bullshit, and farnly I’m getting tired of reading your posts where you print this drivel and refuse every request for evidence.
A kangaroo does not have larger brain than a cat. An echidna does not have alarger brian than a squirell, nor does a sloth. An antelope does not have a bigger brain than chimp. A bsion doe not have abigger brina than a dolphin. The claim that bigger bodies in mammals require bigger brains is total and utter codswallop.
This is more bullshit.
And I’ll just punt to Mayr who thought that Sgaan was completely wrong.
Honetsly dude, in your next post if you dont’ either provide the reference I requested for your claims, or acknowledge that you made them up from whole cloth then I’m done with your. You don’t appear to wnat to listen or acknowledge the facts and you are clearly incredibly ignorant of the science.
Again, you’re going off on a tangent that I’m not aiming for. I really don’t have time to thrash this all out, so I’ll explain it as best as I can in the time I have: If our demands for food were such that it required the bulk of our time to gather food, we would not have had the free time necessary for us to develop intelligence. I have been referring to that rather colloquially as “metabolism” because I haven’t the time to track down a more fitting descriptor.
Not according to what I’ve read (and damned if I can remember which Scientific American article it was), but the gist of it was that by having a ready source of meat (and later cooked meat) our bodies energy needs were met much better and this enabled us to develop larger brains.
See above, and see my previous posts.
And yet, there were tendancies towards that direction even then.
Yet I’m not saying that reptiles couldn’t eventually evolve into a species which had intelligence (because, quite obviously they did) only that once they got there, they’d cease to be reptiles.
Wait a minute, weren’t you the one claiming that as a species evolved it became more intelligent? And now you’re saying that doesn’t happen?
Yes, I’ve read that and I also note the key words “may” and “suggests” which means it is not a certainty.
Clearly? I don’t think so. You’ve just said “No, dude, you’re wrong!” and then followed with insults at some point or other.
Believe me, I’d love to hash this out, dig up cites to back up my position, but I simply don’t have the time.
Uh, yes you are. If you’re as well versed on the matter as you claim, then you would, in fact know that humans and neanderthals share a common ancestor much closer than humans and rats (or other non-primates) do.
So you’re saying that an energy dense environment isn’t a reason? And that without that energy dense environment we could have evolved intelligence?
And I’ve been saying that it’s bipedalism which has allowed human intelligence to evolve and that if we meet any aliens with the same level of intelligence as us that they will, in fact, be bipedal!
Weren’t you the one claiming that everything on Earth shares a common ancestor?
Huh? If a fish wasn’t streamlined, then it would have a tough time moving through the water, so the less streamlined fish would get eaten in greater numbers, thus selecting for those with the form which allows them to function in the water better than a fish shaped like a brick.
Uh, no, because I’m talking about human levels of intelligence, so far, no other species on the planet, other than those in the primate family have shown that kind of intelligence. When a bird demonstrates the indentical mental abilities of humans, call me.
Sorry. As much as I would like to believe in those things, we’ve been hammering away at the concepts for a very long time, using a variety of sophisticated techniques and so far, a serious crack in the laws of physics has yet to appear which would allow such things.
Actually, the tales go back even farther than 150 years, with people riding to the Moon using flasks of dew. You’ll note that we got there using means entirely different than what was predicted (by that story, at any rate). It does tell us the SF is a pretty poor predictor of the future.
And no one examined the problem like Einstein had, nor did anyone have the sophisticated technology we’ve been using to look at the matter. Note that I’m not saying it’s impossible, or that we shouldn’t look to see if there’s a loophole in Einstein’s laws somewhere (after all, we learn a great deal from failure), but the longer we look and don’t find anything, the more likely it is that there is nothing to find.
Huh? Did you just not say
Thus, are you, in fact, not saying we shouldn’t rely on his theory?
Okay, find me an intelligent alien quadraped and prove me wrong.
My source for this is an essay by Tom Rainbow in a mid-80s issue of Issac Asimov’s Science Fiction Magazine, sorry I don’t have the issue any more, so I could scan and post it, but I’ve got a feeling you wouldn’t care anyway.
So you’re telling me that the brain isn’t the most energy consuming organ of the human body? What is, then?
Well, that’s fine with me as I really don’t have time to be dicking around with this, as it’d probably take a doctorial level dissertation to lay out my points in a manner which would stop you from having a kneejerk reaction to everything I post. It makes no difference to me if you agree with anything I say or not, and even if I’m completely wrong (or right, for that matter) it changes nothing so far as the world is concerned.
You have still refused to provide the references I requested, so I claim victory on this one. You have just been making shit up. Just for amusement I will point out the more ridciulous flaws in your last post.
How silly.
Human intelilgence is the result of genetics, not effort. It doesn’t requirere free time for a species to evove a trait.
That is precislely what I just said several times: our ability to exploit high energy density foods is what enable sus to spend so little time foraging. It ahs nothing whatsoever to do with your bullshit claim that humans have alow metabolic rate.
That is in fact exactly what he said. I quote: " If intelligence could evolve in a reptile, we would have seen examples of it." He said outright that reptiles can not evolveinto an intelligent species becaus eif they oculd have we woudl have seen it.
So now he is also being dishonest about what he has posted.
]
Sigh. No. What I said is an indisputable fact: average intelligence for all species increases over time and the inteligence of the most intelligent species incraese sover time. The average intelligence of animal life right now is much higher than it was in the Triassic and them ost intelligent specie sis much more inteligent. Ditto when comparing the Triassic and the Carboniferous, or the Carboniferous and the Cambrian.
Get it?
Nothing is ever a fricken’ certainty in science. The point is that your entire bizarre belief flies int he face of the facts. We have countless examples that run counter tot what you claim, every general case suggests that you are wrong, you are clearly grossly ignorant of evolutionary biolgy, and you have no evidence at all that suggests you might be right.
Somehow I doubt you are winning over many converts here
Bullshit. Insults are againt the rule so fthis forum. Had I insulted you I can assue you that we woudl have a moderator’s warning.
So once agian you are being blatantly and provably dishonest.
:rolleyes:
He has time to repeat the same garbage ad nauseum fr a week solid, but when asked for references he suddnely has no time.
Sure, sure Ted.
So WTF is your point? How doe sthis in any way support your ludicrous claim that only one species heas ever evolved sentience?
WTF? How can you not understand the difference between energy dense foods and an energy dense environment? Do you honestly not understand that that the African savannahs were and are no more energy dense for humans than for the millions of other species that lived there before we existed and still live there today? Humans can eat an energy rich diet in that environment because of their behaviour, not because the fricken’ envrionemnt became magically energy dense as soon as human seveolved.
Sheesh.
And I have pointed out why this has no basis whatsoever, flies in the face of the the known facts, and has been dreamed up by a man grossly ignorant of the subject.
You can repeat it all you like, it will still be ignorant nonsense even after you’ve repeated it a dozen more times.
:rolleyes:
This is the strength of his position. A blatant arguemnt from ignorance.
Dude I think you justlost all credibilty on these boards.
No, it woudl only require that you provide the references I requested for those ridiculous claims that you made.
Seriously, if humans had evolved from slime molds then you woudl be able to find a cite establishing thatin about 30 seconds using Google.
:rolleyes:
You really are going to resposnible for a rolleyes smiley shortage, you know that.
This forum is for debates, not for posting baseless and ignorant material on subjects that you are totally ignorant of and that you feel are of absolutely no import.
I suggest you try MPSIMS next time, you might not look as bad there. When you make ridiculous and ignorant statements in this forum you are expected to be able to back it up with facts, knowledge or argument or argument. You can cleraly provide none of those.
Just a quick note in case the peanut gallery is still reading - you do realise there’s a difference between “humans and slime moulds share a common ancestor” and “slime moulds are ancestors of humans”, don’t you? Slime moulds are not anywhere on humanity’s direct cladastic pathway.
I keep picturing two ape-men on the prehistoric African Savannah
“Hey Jeff, you doing anything saturday?”
“Uh… let’s see… Sarah’s dragging me out foraging in the morning, but after that I’m free”
“Cool. Wanna drop by my cave and develop advanced problem-solving skills and a capacity for abstract thought?”
Seriously. WTF?