[Antares]

Go Raelians

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I think human evolution has really went towards evolution of behaviour and intelligence, anyways......

I doubt that is as true now. While I deplore social darwinism they do have a point in that by protecting the inferior we do allow their genes to propogate. And since stupid people tend to breed more quickly than smart ones there is quite a pull towards stupidity becoming a more common trait.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


I doubt that is as true now. While I deplore social darwinism they do have a point in that by protecting the inferior we do allow their genes to propogate. And since stupid people tend to breed more quickly than smart ones there is quite a pull towards stupidity becoming a more common trait.

Ah, but that's cos the smart people know to hide until after the nukes fly

[Bobboau]

/*digs hole*/

[kasperl]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Ah, but that's cos the smart people know to hide until after the nukes fly

but where? nuclear bunkers are quite expensive, you know....

When the nukes start to fly, the best i can hope for that they either pass over Europe in it's entirety, or that they it me strait on the noggin', rather a quick fireball then cancer/accute radiation disease.

[Rictor]

With the proper environment, anyone (excluding the ones with a serious and real mental handicap) has the potential to be what you would consider smart. True, if both your parents are very smart, the chances of you actually having a larger mental capacity than most if there (read: being a genius). So, if you get the right mix, there is such a thing as "smart" genes, but there is not such a thing as "dumb" genes. Its just the environment that the people were brought up in.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Goober5000

*some quote trying to discredit the article*

The chances of many of the evolutionary changes that led to the species that exist today are vanishingly small, true. But that is really because there are an unlimited number of paths that evolution can take. The chance of any one path being taken is VERY small, but one of them is bound to be taken. If we were to set the clock back two billion years and let evolution run its course from microbes to men again, there would be NO telling what would be there at the end of the 2,000,000,000-year period.

Ever consider God the ultimate genetic engineer?

Then he ought to be fired. A lot of human features are far inferior to those of other animals and are only there because of the evolutionary line we sprung from. For example, a bipedal posture is far less efficient than a quadrupedal posture and bipedal movement is slower than quadrupedal movement. The only reason we have two legs is because the creatures we evolved from had only four limbs and two of them had to be converted into arms to allow prehumans to carry objects and use tools for extended periods of time. Four legs and two arms would be a much better design.

Another piece of evidence for your supposed deity being a ****ty engineer is our eyeballs. The nerves in our eyes are arranged backwards. That's why we have a blind spot. Squid have properly "wired" eyes and thus lack a blind spot. Too bad we can't get squidlike eyeballs with the visual acuity of birds of prey because we didn't come from the evolutionary path that led to squid or the one that led to raptors.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Setekh


Naturally, I was taking the view that Humans are higher and in notable ways distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Humans aren't that special, their brains are just extremely refined. We have four or five times the intelligence of even the most intelligent primates and cetaceans and a far greater sense of self-awareness. Chimpanzees are also self-aware, thinking creatures, just not to the extent that we are. There used to be several species, which were hominid primates just like humans, which also had very high intelligence and advanced self-awareness. Don't expect to find one because they either died out naturally or another hominid species wiped them out. In fact, that's what happened to Neanderthals: we killed them all.

[jdjtcagle]

I got a question.
Why does your brain have to be big to be smart?
As I understood it, it depends on you neurons or something like that.  I'm just saying we don't know how smart a small brain could be.

[kasperl]

actually, a larger brain mass connects to a lower IQ.

[Rictor]

Pfft. IQ is not really an indicator or overall intelligence, since we can't even really agree on the definition of the word. Einstein was intelligent in math, but I'm pretty sure he couldn't write a book to save his life. On thr other hand, Tolkein (or say, Douglas Adams) was great at writing, but I'm assuming crap in physics.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by kasperl
actually, a larger brain mass connects to a lower IQ.

Then why, in the evolution of hominids, has brain size vastly increased at the expense of stuff like large teeth and jaws?

[Kazan]

kasperl: i doubt the validity of that statement

as for larger brains - to make a processing unit faster one of the following must be done

1) more ciruits
2) faster circuits

you can only do 1 with humans - which requires increased brain mass since we cannot shrink the circuit size

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool

 In fact, that's what happened to Neanderthals: we killed them all.

In fact, it's very likely Neanderthals weren't wiped out as a result of human intent. What is more likley is that they were outcompeted for resources and retreated into ever smaller territories. Once the Homo s. Neanderthalensis populations in these regions got isolated from other populations of Neanderthals their demise was guaranteed. No premeditation is likely.

BTW, there is still the discussion wether or not Neanderthals and Homo s. s. interbred. I don't know how long that discussion has been going on (think it's at least 20-30 years) but it seems it'll go on for a while yet.

You have to keep in mind that we're speaking about small populations. Less than a 100.000 for Neanderthals and Sapiens Sapiens combinded iirc. (in the region that is: Europe, North-Africa, Middle-East and parts of Russia/Caucasus).

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool

Originally posted by Goober5000
*some quote trying to discredit the article*

[/b]

Woolie - that quote was FROM the article.

Four legs and two arms would be a much better design.

What, like centaurs?  How flexible do they look?  All those joints would get in the way.

The nerves in our eyes are arranged backwards.

Because if they were arranged frontwards, they would burn out after several years' exposure to light.  Since they're arranged backwards, they can be replenished.  Otherwise humans would go blind before middle age.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Goober5000
What, like centaurs?  How flexible do they look?  All those joints would get in the way.

4 legs does actually make more sense (more stability, faster). Centaurs, however, are just poorly designed. Insufficient air intake and all that. Of course, the only way we would have 6 limbs is if our ancestors had 6 limbs, and our amphibian forebears only had 4.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Woolie - that quote was FROM the article. :lol:What, like centaurs?  How flexible do they look?  All those joints would get in the way.

Nah, more like Pierson's Puppeteers
*Realises Goober is a potential threat, puts an engine on his planet and flies out of the galaxy. Then he remembers the universe is eventually going to be torn apart by negative energy and panics!*

[Goober5000]

Ace:

I'm curious.  How would you guys design a four-legged, two-armed human?

[Ace]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Ace:

I take it you never read Ringworld or any of Niven's stuff with the Pupeteers

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Woolie - that quote was FROM the article.

It seemed like you were trying to discredit the point of the article.

What, like centaurs?  How flexible do they look?  All those joints would get in the way.

No. Centaurs are a terrible design, especially with that big curve in their back where it goes from vertical to horizontal (where would you put the muscles holding the front part of the creature up?). Something more like a quadrupedal Shivan might be better.

Because if they were arranged frontwards, they would burn out after several years' exposure to light.  Since they're arranged backwards, they can be replenished.  Otherwise humans would go blind before middle age.

Hmmm. I never knew that. But there's still the fact that we don't have hawk-like vision because we didn't come from the same evolutionary branch as birds of prey. But wait--when nerves are destroyed by untreated diabetes or macular degeneration, they don't grow back. Why not?