" But no matter which way it came about, the human brain and perception, intuition, feeling and sense are unique." Not really. Apes can do most of what we do. We are unique in some ways, but it's a matter of degree. The transition to human consciousness was not unlike other transitions in the past- from ground dwellers to flying creatures, from dumb lizards to smart mammals, from smart mammals to intelligent monkeys, from intelligent monkeys to thinking apes, from thinking apes to whatever we are.
"If any single calculation where different, life wouldn't exist. " But there was no calculation. Someday we will find the symmetry, the inevitability of our universe. You assume there could be a choice between "variables", I question that.
It is beleived by some, that reality has a single equation that describes it. So, if there is some rule, then there is a blueprint, and if there is one of those, then we have a precise calculation, which for any statistical probability were to change, would be disasterous for life -- such as a missing dimension, or even an extra time dimension. As for Apes, and other intelligent lifeforms, like elephants, they are very intelligent, but humans out-class them for being able to do long division. We have social barriers that are well-developed, and sense of consciousness, and perhaps a collective consciousness or unconsciousness. We know that there cannot be any superintelligence in an animal, unlike a human, because there isn't any advanced existence. Elephants are wonderful creatures, but they are not physically or mentally developed to be anything like a human being.
Spidergoat, here we have a scale of intelligence: Fish - We will use salt water because they are likely a little smarter\aware than fresh water species. Ape Human Is the apes intelligence closer to that of a fish or a human? Now consider all things including brain size. Fish can remember their territory, recognize echother, recognize different creature, sense danger, know where to find food and return to that exact same spot. Apes- Not really all that more advanced than the tiny brain of the fish. If you think so then tell me where it even comes close to that of a human but the reality is it is closer to a fish in intelligence. Humans- Build a space shuttle, Computers, store encyclopedias worth of data on a device the size of a thumb. Spell checking web browsers. Develop language...the list goes on and on. Where is the connection?
Apes are much, much closer to humans. They have culture, they have a social life, they hold grudges, they have wars, they use tools, they can learn sign language... Humans have invented language which is a great development, and it's led to many innovations, but the difference is not so great that evolution cannot account for it. In fact we see in the fossil record a transition from apes to bi-pedal apes, and then a gradual increase in brain size.
* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * * (But not the Moderator of this subforum so this is only a respectful suggestion.) This thread started out as a sociological discussion. But it has now turned into the tired old antiscientific argument of religionists trying to convince us that we should respect their extraordinary assertions despite the lack of extraordinary supporting evidence. All anti-evolutionist arguments by far more disingenuous orators than John have been demolished by far more learned scholars than us, so nothing new on the subject is going to turn up on a website devoted to tertiary and quaternary research. In the unlikely event that it does, we have a thread devoted to arguments for and against evolution, and ALL arguments on that subject are supposed to be directed to that thread, so SciForums doesn't have to deal with what it's dealing with here: the same anti-evolutionist arguments posted by the same religionists, hoping they can connect with some impressionable young members before they get shut down, and the same scientists debating politely against them. The result is the exact same information posted twenty times in twenty places. I recommend that the Moderator restrict this thread to the subject in the OP. However, until that happens... John, you are one of the prime offenders I was talking about above because I know we have had this exchange before. You feign the naivete of a sixth-grader and ask, "Why isn't the museum full of fossils of every species that every lived, daddy?" And I point out that the conditions must be absolutely perfect for fossils to form. For starters the remains must be protected from oxidation and decay, which occur both aboveground and underwater. Then they must go undisturbed by predators, running water, and all other natural forces, while water nonetheless flows through slowly and deposits minerals. Then geologic activity has to leave them--in recognizable form--in the pitifully shallow portion of the earth's crust that we can excavate. The miracle is that there are any fossils at all, not that there aren't more. There are probably more organisms "fossilized" as fossil fuel--peat, coal, petroleum and natural gas--than as recognizable bits of organism. The fossilization process can go too far. I'll give you a break and assume I'm wrong about you having asked this question at least once before. But if you ask the same question again--without offering good evidence against my rebuttal which no one has ever done in all the times I've posted it--it will violate the SciForums rule against trolling. This is a crock. Mutations are always occurring, occasionally by sheer chance giving rise to an organism that is even better adapted to its environment than its parent. Furthermore, no environment is that stable. There will always be mild famines that kill off the bloodlines with the less efficient metabolism or the less successful hunting or grazing capability. We've had this discussion too. Most people can't comprehend the concept of a process that takes place over tens of millions of years. For the typical species of animal or plant, a hundred million years equals a hundred million generations. That's a whole lot of mutations and a whole lot of natural selection. For bacterial species it could be many billions of generations! Viruses are even more problematic. We have to change the definition of life from "all of these characteristics" to "any of these characteristics," in order to count viruses as lifeforms. John, once again you're going back over old ground. By now we all expect you to remember the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution is the development of new types of organisms from preexisting types. Abiogenesis is the development of living matter from non-living matter. You're arguing against abiogenesis, which is not under discussion and is distinct from evolution. Since I know you've been party to this discussion before, this is trolling. Now please stop it. That's because you're not a scientist. If you actually think the way you write, you don't even think like a scientist. You don't respect (or perhaps don't fully understand) its principles of empirical evidence, testing, peer reviewing, and the passing of a hypothesis to a theory and then eventually to a canonical theory based upon being "true beyond a reasonable doubt." You don't respect (or perhaps don't fully understand) the Rule of Laplace (as it's now stated): Extraordinary claims must be supported by extraordinary evidence. You repeat claims that you have not been able to substantiate in the past, i.e., your claims have been peer-reviewed and failed, usually for lack of evidence but often for invalid reasoning. You argue against canonical theories without acknowledging that such a claim is extraordinary--especially in an academy of tertiary scholarship--and without providing even a link to new supporting evidence that might possibly be extraordinary--violating the Rule of Laplace which, if we were rude enough, would allow us in good faith to completely ignore your posts. You argue disingenuously, pretending not to have the education you obviously have, and even pretending that you have not already been defeated in this very same debate against science itself--again violating the basic principle of science that a hypothesis cannot be resubmitted without new evidence. So I know why these arguments don't meet with your satisfaction. It's not because they're not scientific enough. It's because YOU are not scientific enough. Be that as it may, speaking as a moderator, you are welcome to post here. But you MUST start following the rule against trolling. We are observant enough to notice when someone reposts an argument that has already been refuted. Perhaps my sexuagenarian memory is addled and that wasn't you those other times. But it is you this time and the next time will be noted.
And such gaps are being continuously filled in; there are numerous transitional series, some of which also incorporate sequence information. I expect you recognize that the field of evolution as such has only been around about 150 years?
Are you kidding? I've worked with fish. They are staggeringly stupid. Their behaviour is a light-year leap from apes, to say nothing of the massive difference in brain organization between fish and primates - and the staggeringly small difference in brain organization between apes and humans.
And how in the hell are you judging freshwater species as dumber than saltwater species? This is a preposterous argument.
They are not much, much closer to humans as it relates to intelligence. Their intelligence is closer to that of a fish. Fish cannot learn sign language- they dont have fingers. Simple perception, based on assumption and familiarity on the part of the humans. And i have worked with and researched fish behavior and intelligence. It is just a matter of them recognizing you and trusting you then they reveal just how smart they really are. It is just a matter of trust, thats all. Same for crustaceans. I have had shrimp get escited at my presence whereas they swim and hide when someone else appears. When they really trust you they let you hold them and they will grab onto your finger and let you give them a ride. You can test their intelligence as you would a child's- by playing games with them and this way you are testing their memory. Which is remarkable because days later they will remember what happened and in quite intricate detail. This is amazing, when you consider their brain size and its ability to store data. I make the comparison between humongous computers from decades ago to tiny microchips we have today. And what do they do? Essentially they store and retrieve data. http://www.all-creatures.org/aip/nl-24oct2003-fish.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ish03.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/03/ixhome.html Nevertheless, you don't want to believe me then don't. The fact is that both you and spidergoat have seriously underestimated their intelligence and if you read my posts, directly above, you will see how this fits together. I wont say much more about this because the time is not right but the answer lies in the ocean. That will provide clues to which have yet to be discovered. In reference to the third quote - Saltwater fish are just slightly more sophisticated. This is to environmental factors but i suppose it is not that big of a difference. First HD circa 1956: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Apes do many of the things we once considered unique to humans. To name a few: they count, they plan, and they use tools. Apes even outdo humans in some mental activities that we once considered uniquely human. It appears that we gave up some short-term associative memory capabilities while developing the one mental activity that is uniquely human (language). Apes retain this ability and outdo us in it. It is our language that distinguishes from other apes. Not a huge difference, and it is language that enabled us to build airplanes, the space shuttle, and the computer on which I composed this post.
Various species of ape have demonstrated all manner of mental capacity that fish have not. I'm not even certain if fish have been observed recognizing themselves in a mirror.
Developing a language is quite a ways from building an airplane, thousands of years away. Also, a child can speak but there is no way children would have the capability and intellect to build an airplane. Put another way: Picture yourself as a child on a planet identical to Earth with no knowledge at all. Naked and not one single advancement aside from rudimentary impulses that were basically staring points for survival. You know you should eat but thats really it. Your going from that to the space shuttle? And there is much much more than the space shuttle. just look at what humans have accomplished. Not only is this incredible but it is incredibly lucky. There are many variables, mainly the number of humans and not to mention the environment...it is a hostile one. In your estimation how long would the process take? you have never seen a piece of paper, a pencil and you would not even know what to do with them if you did? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbgaJvaGUnk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBx6WnHrl2c&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEg7qBNwhWs&feature=related
All that argues is that we are more advanced in some ways than other animals. It means no more than that. It's about time someone put paid to the argument that a change in some physical constant would mean that life in the universe would be impossible.That only makes sense if we believe that life has to be in a form that we would recognize, something we have no reason to believe.
It took us 100,000 years to get where we are. All of our significant accomplishments have come in the last .02% of our existence or so. For the large part of our existence, we were glorified apes.
That is not correct. First of all i am not even sure what you mean by significant? You need to look at it incrementally. Once the advancement is known then refining it and making changes is just a matter of time. make a fire without a match- you dont even know what fire is. now give me a light bulb. its just a simple process??? no.
I have actually worked with fish, and reared them seven days a week for about a year and a half at a go, and your conception of "trust begetting intelligence" is a crock. Sheer memory does not indicate advanced cognition, period.
