Why didn't other species evolve intelectually like we did?
- Thread starter meechz 024
- Start date
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
The answer is
Opposable thumbs
Opposable thumbs
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
It would be beneficial to you, i think, to be able to differentiate between a "theory" and a "scientific theory"
SnakeByte
Active Member
Let's just say around the same. Some are more sensitive about their age than others. haha.
Regardless whether or not we were around, 100 years ago, it's still the truth.
Opposable thumbs are the reason we evolved the way we did? We aren't the only ones with thumbs. Even raccoons have thumbs.ChesusRice said:
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[SUP]
[/SUP]A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[SUP]
[/SUP]
[/SUP]A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[SUP]
[/SUP]
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Opposable thumbs allowed us to grab things
grabbing things led to accidental tool use
Use of tools led to bigger brains
Give the racoons a 50-60 million years unimpeded and they too might be driving cars.
Going to have to walk upright first though
richinweed
Active Member
this question implies that evolution has stopped....homosapians in our capacity have been here a very brief time indeed......
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Definatly slowed considerably
Since we actually now take our mutations and stop them from breeding
Dislexicmidget2021
Well-Known Member
I would like to think that evolution has taken on a more subtle turn as far as homosapians are concerned.It still depends on our genetics,as we do not fully understand the entirety of our genetic code though scientific research gets ever closer,there still lies the strong chance we are evolving ever more on a neurological scale as oppose to physical IMO.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
We are still an evolving species. I have concrete scientific evidence.
P.T. Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute
150 years later and that is down to 39.75 seconds
P.T. Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute
150 years later and that is down to 39.75 seconds
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Why so hostile? Where did anyone claim you had some answer, what I'm trying to help you understand is that you aren't asking the right questions. Are you so really so clueless as to see how other apes, like chimps are actually very intelligent. Their brain formation is very similar to ours, we have a new feature called the prefrontal cortex that can be seen developing in the brain casts of fossilized early hominids. The amount of evidence that we have that chimpanzees are our first cousins is quite large and spans multiple scientific disciplines from behavior research, neurobiology and neuroanatomy, to genetic studies. Since evolution shows us that every living thing on this planet is related, you would have to have some extremely compelling evidence to make the case that we don't have the answers in this particular instance. We certainly have a lot of gaps to fill, but you seem to be implying that this foundation of biology could somehow be overturned.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Nice vid man!
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Slightly dissenting opinion. The hallmark of sapience isn't technology, even though many modern humans think just that. Imo the real mark of sapience is telling stories. That is the cornerstone of all our culture, technology and sense of species identity. cn
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
That's tough. You're asking to compare intelligence in two species when there are different traits that are all linked to intelligence and some species do better on different cognitive tests. Cetaceans like dolphins and orcas can be very high in certain areas. Humpbacks and other species have songs that are a very complex language, orders of magnitudes higher and layered than we could have suspected. There is actual syntax, there's no doubt they are communicating complex information across vast distances as sound travels faster and farther in water than air. Chimps communicate mostly non-verbally, can learn rudimentary sign language but don't have anything like that naturally. Self awareness, the mirror test is passed by all great apes but also dolphins and orcas, but not many other species. So again, they are somewhat comparable. However there might be some inherent flaws in that test.
There is some inherent bias that we automatically have that disfavors cetaceans because of their environment. It is so unlike ours and they don't have the ability to manipulate it and have and rely on different senses, so they could be almost as intelligent as we are but that would be hard to prove, unless we can crack their language code.
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
Evolution/natural selection = human animal. AWESOME!
SnakeByte
Active Member
LOL I want to see your math!