Forums → WEPR → Evolution
| 175 | 88816 |
Evolution!
People LOVE to "debate" evolution. But that's silly, and doesn't really solve anything. If you are in a debate about whether or not evolution is a valid theory, you are either debating someone who has little to no idea what what evolution is, or ARE the person who has little to no idea what evolution is. That doesn't sound like very much fun, so let's not do that, okay?
Instead, this thread will be about topics in evolution, because it is much more entertaining to talk about specific cases and ideas than one big overarching theory. The topics will be chosen by whoever has the best topic, with all "lesser" topics being ignored and forgotten.
Now, I'll start us off with what actually made me want to start this thread: randomness. I was reading Mage's post at the bottom of this thread, and immediately thought about genetic drift.
Here is a classic example of genetic drift in a fruit fly population:
Basically, genetic drift states that random sampling has a lot to do with the evolution of small populations. Think about it: say you have a population of four individuals, two males and two females. One female homozygous allele for blue fur, the others all have a homozygous allele for red fur. Mating between blue and red fur produces a heterzygous purple fur creature. We would therefore expect the next generation to have some purple and red individuals, and the one after that to have all three colors represented. Basic Mendelian stuff.
Now, it gets interesting. Lightening strikes the blue female. She's dead, and will never reproduce. Now, all individuals in this population will be forevermore purely red. Note that this is regardless of the fitness of these genes. Blue fur might have been much more beneficial (perhaps these creatures lived in blue grass, and it provided camouflage), due entirely to random events (as opposed to evolutionary pressures) it is RED fur that becomes fixed in the population.
Going back to and contradicting Mage's comment from before, due to genetic drift, having the same selective factors won't guarantee a particular evolutionary outcome, due to simple random events.
So.... Discuss?
- 175 Replies
Humans evolve from primates, which if compared with most other animal species have a disproportionately large brain in comparison with the whole body. In fact in human anatomy, the brain is the second largest internal organ losing only to the liver. So humans don't abnormally have small bodies, [...]
You just explained that they do, only to say that they don't.
They are a non direct consequence, but are still related to it. What does brain size and capacity do directly is intelligence, in our case it's more often called "sapience". In the long run, that intelligence can accumulate to make those that i had already mentioned.
If brain capacity is directly linked to intelligence, sperm whales are ~600% more intelligent than humans.
Most of them used instinct most of the time with only limited logic and rational decision making abilities.
No, they don't. That's purely assumed.
in most bony fishes, their logical making systems ( prefrontal cortex) are small and underdeveloped.
No. Simple/small â underdeveloped.
So how do birds and other mammals compare to humans? well, they did badly, because so far the most developed prefrontal cortex belongs to humans, which gave us an unbeatable rational and logical reasoning.
No, it didn't. That's just a flattering, and thus widely held, belief.
Only the Chimpanzee and the bonobos can reasonably be compared to us in terms of logical reasoning abilities, and even they still lost to us.
No, they didn't.
the crow have problem solving abilities, but it loses to us in a way that it can't create tools, it just use one from the environment.
They do create tools, but their toolmaking abilities are limited to bending and cutting twigs with their beaks and feet.
Chimps may have a photographic memory, but it in some degree loses to us in a way that it can't override instinct with logical reasoning.
Where does this idea come from? As we have no actual knowledge of their mental processes, this cannot be more than speculation.
dolphins, they have "languages", powerful memory capability, but they lose to us in the form of creating a new "language".
Not really. New languages are created by merging different cultures and dialects over periods of usually several hundred generations, which exceeds any experimental timeline I'm aware of.
Pigs can use a decent logical reasoning, but lose to us in the form of self-recognition.
This doesn't even make sense.
Complex tool making from scratch or just combining simple ingredients?
Do you expect a crow to mine some ore, assemble a lathe, build a forge, and cast a set of tools just to pick a grub out of a hole?
Can animals have multiple communication "languages"? i don't think they have those
Why would they need more than one? All you are doing here is moving the goalposts.
1) As I said I think brain size is not related to specialisation. Now we know that by specialisation you actually meant our 'abilities'. This of course I cannot dispute; but then my comment on brain sizes and cognitive abilities was not so misplaced in the end, was it?
It is misplaced in some form, as in the start i never said anything about cognitive abilities. But that in itself cause my argument to become wrong, isn't it?
2) You say our brain capacity was the largest compared to other Homo species, "losing only to Neanderthals". How then do you explain that our abilities were more advanced than theirs?
This could be explained by your article on synaptic density. But if there is no such article, then i would say that we Homo Sapiens have both a lucky break to discover those things i have already mentioned and a more refined social abilities.
You just explained that they do, only to say that they don't.
What i really trying to imply is that because "abnormal" literally meant "not normal" or "out of place", then in order to say Humans have abnormally small bodies, you will also have to reasonably imply that the whole primate family tree to also have abnormally small bodies as well, which is pretty far fetched to me
If brain capacity is directly linked to intelligence, sperm whales are ~600% more intelligent than humans.
Hmmmm.............. maybe i mistyped my argument, i forgot to add "in comparison to the whole body", so it's my mistake.
No, they don't. That's purely assumed.
Most of invertebrates have a weak logical thinking processes in the brain. . Most Sponges, cnidarians, coelenterates, worms, arthropods, Molluscs and echinoderms obviously have a very primitive brain if compared to the rest of vertebrates and with it the prefrontal cortex that controls logical reasoning in us. There are some exceptions like the octopus, but because most of the animals that are present in this planet are invertebrates that already implies "most" animals
No. Simple/small â underdeveloped.
You are right, but this was never to imply that simple brains or small ones=underdeveloped brains. so i used the term "and" as just a connection adjective, rather than a causal adjective.
No, it didn't. That's just a flattering, and thus widely held, belief.
Do you really expect me to believe that there ARE other animals with more refined prefrontal cortex than us?
No, they didn't.
Yes, they did. they can't solve complex puzzles that are designed for us, or solve lateral thinking puzzles, yet we can. so we still won.
They do create tools, but their toolmaking abilities are limited to bending and cutting twigs with their beaks and feet.
you are right, so they can't create tools that we make.
Where does this idea come from? As we have no actual knowledge of their mental processes, this cannot be more than speculation.
This idea comes from a fact that in captivity they can hurt other humans even when they live surrounded by people due to unclear reasons. their society is also ones more violent than ours, so they tend to rely on instinct to solve problems with others and to show whose boss ( using violence )
Not really. New languages are created by merging different cultures and dialects over periods of usually several hundred generations, which exceeds any experimental timeline I'm aware of.
So you are implying that dolphins can have multiple languages right? then explain to me why does a dolphin caught in different bodies of water ( like atlantic and pacific oceans) can still communicate with each other
This doesn't even make sense.
Pigs can't recognize itself in a mirror. now does it makes sense?
Do you expect a crow to mine some ore, assemble a lathe, build a forge, and cast a set of tools just to pick a grub out of a hole?
I expect any animals with a complex tool making ability as good as ours to be able to at least capable at creating tools that rival ones from Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus.
Why would they need more than one? All you are doing here is moving the goalposts.
They wouldn't need more than one, but our multiple languages obviously wasn't created because we need more languages.
they can't solve complex puzzles that are designed for us, or solve lateral thinking puzzles, yet we can
Most humans can't solve a Rubik's Cube so...
Pigs can't recognize itself in a mirror.
"Pigs are able to utilize visual information seen in a mirror to find food, and show evidence of self-recognition when presented with their reflection. In an experiment, 7 of the 8 pigs tested were able to find a bowl of food hidden behind a wall and revealed using a mirror. The eighth pig looked behind the mirror for the food."
-wiki
They wouldn't need more than one, but our multiple languages obviously wasn't created because we need more languages.
Some animals do have dialects that differentiate them from the same type of animal from a different region.
So you are implying that dolphins can have multiple languages right? then explain to me why does a dolphin caught in different bodies of water ( like atlantic and pacific oceans) can still communicate with each other
People can scream at foreigners too. Doesn't mean they understand each other. Bees from differing regions won't understand a foreign dance, but could gradually learn.
This idea comes from a fact that in captivity they can hurt other humans even when they live surrounded by people due to unclear reasons.
Humans can hurt other humans due to clear reasons.
their society is also ones more violent than ours, so they tend to rely on instinct to solve problems with others and to show whose boss ( using violence )
*insert mafia*
*insert police brutality*
*insert cold war*
Yep, we're soooooo above violence.
This could be explained by your article on synaptic density. But if there is no such article, then i would say that we Homo Sapiens have both a lucky break to discover those things i have already mentioned and a more refined social abilities.
I would expect higher social abilities to come with a bigger brain. Unless as you said the synaptic density was different. But for this latter point, I see no evidence; we humans are not like ants where some have a completely different life- task than others. Before we can speculate about different synaptic densities, we will have to understand how the situation is for example across modern primates. Then maybe we can infer such hypotheses on our ancestors.
But yeah, it's an interesting approach^^
Most of invertebrates have a weak logical thinking processes in the brain. . Most Sponges, cnidarians, coelenterates, worms, arthropods, Molluscs and echinoderms obviously have a very primitive brain if compared to the rest of vertebrates and with it the prefrontal cortex that controls logical reasoning in us.
Sponges have no brain, just FYI.
Besides, most of the other animal groups don't have a comparable brain to ours, with several ganglions rather than one central brain. But that does not exclude logic; maybe not conscious logical reasoning, but they don't need that; logical processes, however, certainly.
Back to the Homo issue, I found another link that might be interesting in this topic. I don't guarantee that it is totally up to date, but it's nice. I also add the first study again as a comparison.
http://www.becominghuman.org/node/homo-sapiens-0
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2014/04/30/neanderthals-were-not-inferior-modern-humans-says-cu-boulder-study
Most humans can't solve a Rubik's Cube so...
But some can, right? While there have been no animals i know of that can solve the Rubik's cube
"Pigs are able to utilize visual information seen in a mirror to find food, and show evidence of self-recognition when presented with their reflection. In an experiment, 7 of the 8 pigs tested were able to find a bowl of food hidden behind a wall and revealed using a mirror. The eighth pig looked behind the mirror for the food."
Ok then, you are right. But they still fail in tool making and using part to solve puzzles.
Some animals do have dialects that differentiate them from the same type of animal from a different region.
Ok then, i have to agree on this due to my argument being invalid.
People can scream at foreigners too. Doesn't mean they understand each other. Bees from differing regions won't understand a foreign dance, but could gradually learn.
In this case, bees are proven to have different dialects, maybe even languages altogether. So with my point being not invalidated, i have to agree to this.
Humans can hurt other humans due to clear reasons.
But they hurt people due to unclear reasons. I think this is a strawman fallacy
*insert mafia*
*insert police brutality*
*insert cold war*
Yep, we're soooooo above violence.
We have morality systems and other non-violent ways to resolve problems. They don't.
I would expect higher social abilities to come with a bigger brain. Unless as you said the synaptic density was different. But for this latter point, I see no evidence; we humans are not like ants where some have a completely different life- task than others. Before we can speculate about different synaptic densities, we will have to understand how the situation is for example across modern primates. Then maybe we can infer such hypotheses on our ancestors.
That's the problem with this hypothesis, there is no way of proving that synaptic density in homo sapiens is bigger than homo Neanderthals. you would have to have samples of homo neanderthals brains, which would be impossible to get. So this is still an open question, i guess
Besides, most of the other animal groups don't have a comparable brain to ours, with several ganglions rather than one central brain. But that does not exclude logic; maybe not conscious logical reasoning, but they don't need that; logical processes, however, certainly.
Which is my point. So you do agree that we humans have an extremely better logical reasoning than them, right? in a way, logical processes ARE instinct, right?
About your links, i have to ask what do you really meant with them, because i got the idea that those have conflicting points with each other
Which is my point. So you do agree that we humans have an extremely better logical reasoning than them, right?
Compared to the animal groups you mentioned? Yes, clearly. But as I wanted to say, it makes no sense to compare a human brain with the ganglions of a worm. More interesting is the comparison within vertebrates or even mammals. I would argue that dolphins, crows, elephants etc. have similar capacities than humans - at first. After a certain age, compared to chimps for example, a human child will go on learning and developing a more complex consciousness. This is mostly what separates our mind of that of other animals. But I wouldn't say that this makes us so extremely better because as we showed you there are plenty of very intelligent animals. We are just a foot higher than the other trees in the forest, even though many think we are the only tree in the desert.
About your links, i have to ask what do you really meant with them, because i got the idea that those have conflicting points with each other
They do conflict about certain points, which is why I posted them both. The paper which I already posted before is precisely saying that the neanderthals were not as inferior as we thought.
The problem with the current situation is that the paper, while saying cognitive superiority was likely not the reason, cannot give any explanation for what the actual reason was. Basically the question about why neanderthals went extinct is completely open again.
Our brain size is the largest in the animal kingdom, unrivaled in any way.
Actually, Human Frontal Cortex is Nothing Special
"The size of our frontal lobes, including specific frontal regions such as the prefrontal cortex, is nothing special relative to the size of our other brain structures. Even more humbling for humans, they also found that once we diverged from chimpanzees about 6 million years ago, the speed with which our frontal cortex volume increased relative to our other brain structures was âunremarkableâ. In fact, other species showed faster rates of change than us!"
To sum things up it may be more about how our brain functions more than what it's size is.
Hmmmm.............. maybe i mistyped my argument, i forgot to add "in comparison to the whole body", so it's my mistake.
This is like saying that obese people have poor cognitive abilities in comparison to small thin people. The size of the body is not a significant factor within the range we're talking about.
Most of invertebrates have a weak logical thinking processes in the brain. .
I say again that they don't.
[...] and with it the prefrontal cortex that controls logical reasoning in us.
Actually, this isn't true. The prefrontal cortex is involved primarily in social behaviour and concentration, not logic.
You are right, but this was never to imply that simple brains or small ones=underdeveloped brains. so i used the term "and" as just a connection adjective, rather than a causal adjective.
It was still to explicitly state that they are underdeveloped, which they aren't.
Do you really expect me to believe that there ARE other animals with more refined prefrontal cortex than us?
No, because that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Yes, they did. they can't solve complex puzzles that are designed for us, or solve lateral thinking puzzles, yet we can. so we still won.
This is incorrect on all three counts.
This idea comes from a fact that in captivity they can hurt other humans even when they live surrounded by people due to unclear reasons.
Essentially meaning that, because we can't identify their reasons just from observation, whatever reasons they have must be completely irrational. Many people hurt people for unclear reasons; sometimes they don't even understand their own reasons, so I don't see why we should be claiming the cognitive high ground on this matter.
their society is also ones more violent than ours, so they tend to rely on instinct to solve problems with others and to show whose boss ( using violence )
Instinct has no correlation with violence. Organized warfare is the most extreme and irrational form of violence, and one which is orchestrated entirely by humans.
So you are implying that dolphins can have multiple languages right?
That is not at all what I am imlpying.
Pigs can't recognize itself in a mirror. now does it makes sense?
Actually, they can. The studies used to arrive at those conclusions are flawed and frequently subject to experimenter bias.
I expect any animals with a complex tool making ability as good as ours to be able to at least capable at creating tools that rival ones from Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus.
By which you mean the pointy sticks, the stones with sharp edges, and the stones with flattish bottoms? The problem with this mode of thinking is that virtually all man-made tools can only be weilded, let alone constructed, by a creature with hands or hand-like appendages. Your expectations are therefore totally unreasonable.
They wouldn't need more than one, but our multiple languages obviously wasn't created because we need more languages.
That's right. They were created because the groups of migrant settlers who would develop them had already dispersed themselves over at least four continents, where they had no input from other groups.
Ok then, you are right. But they still fail in tool making and using part to solve puzzles.
You're moving the goalposts again. Furthermore, the argument is completely illogical. Pigs don't have hands. They don't have complex vocal capabilities. None of this is related to their intellect.
We have morality systems and other non-violent ways to resolve problems. They don't.
That's an invalid assumption.
Which is my point. So you do agree that we humans have an extremely better logical reasoning than them, right?
I disagree.
in a way, logical processes ARE instinct, right?
Wrong. Instinctive behaviour is one type of logical process.
After a certain age, compared to chimps for example, a human child will go on learning and developing a more complex consciousness. This is mostly what separates our mind of that of other animals.
Complexity of consciousness being identified by what, exactly? Given that the best observations we can make of their mental processes are through brain imaging and basic level communication, I consider this claim to be highly dubious.
Complexity of consciousness being identified by what, exactly? Given that the best observations we can make of their mental processes are through brain imaging and basic level communication, I consider this claim to be highly dubious.
Basically just how well they do in tests. Simple games like putting the object in the right form, or something similar. Except memory games of course, where they are way better. But for most others, the chimps stay at the level of a few-years-old human when they grow up, while we start being able to do more complex tasks.
But maybe "complexity of consciousness" was not the right word for that, I concede.
This is like saying that obese people have poor cognitive abilities in comparison to small thin people. The size of the body is not a significant factor within the range we're talking about.
No, variation around species level should not be very much.
I say again that they don't.
I say again that they are. if you wanted to prove me wrong you can at least try to quote links like mage, which shot down a primary part of my argument by casting it off as invalid
Actually, this isn't true. The prefrontal cortex is involved primarily in social behaviour and concentration, not logic.
ok then. having my point invalid, i had to agree with this
It was still to explicitly state that they are underdeveloped, which they aren't.
compared to us, i think they are way way more undeveloped. i get this conclusion from wikipedia and my biology textbook. if you really think otherwise, at least prove it, because i can go like this for forever if you wanted to.
No, because that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
well, it has everything to do with it if i was right. but because i'm wrong, i had to agree with this. but if i had to say something in response beside this, then i would say that we have much more complex frontal lobe to do complex logic reasoning
This is incorrect on all three counts.
Can a monkey or a chimp solve the Rubik's cube? can any animal find the solution to a lateral thinking puzzles? i know not all humans can solve either one, but there are some that can solve it, at the very least i'm on those list. so my point is proven
Essentially meaning that, because we can't identify their reasons just from observation, whatever reasons they have must be completely irrational. Many people hurt people for unclear reasons; sometimes they don't even understand their own reasons, so I don't see why we should be claiming the cognitive high ground on this matter.
most animals have a more violent way of living than humans. their reasons to beat up each other can be pretty irrational, such as showing who's boss or "tribal warfare" in the case of chimps.
Actually, they can. The studies used to arrive at those conclusions are flawed and frequently subject to experimenter bias.
I have already agreed with this, so why are you bringing up the same mistake that i make?
By which you mean the pointy sticks, the stones with sharp edges, and the stones with flattish bottoms? The problem with this mode of thinking is that virtually all man-made tools can only be weilded, let alone constructed, by a creature with hands or hand-like appendages. Your expectations are therefore totally unreasonable.
No, not literally like those. i said "tools that rival" not "tools that mirrors" ones from homo habilis or homo erectus
That's right. They were created because the groups of migrant settlers who would develop them had already dispersed themselves over at least four continents, where they had no input from other groups.
Your point?
You're moving the goalposts again. Furthermore, the argument is completely illogical. Pigs don't have hands. They don't have complex vocal capabilities. None of this is related to their intellect.
as i stated earlier, it is NOT literally using tools that mirror that we humans make. but rather ones that can rival it, also i have never heard a pig solving complex puzzles designed for humans. which proved my point
That's an invalid assumption.
Are you seriously saying that animals have morality systems and non violent ways to solve problems? because what i see is they don't have those, they only showed intimidation and the like as non-violent way.
Wrong. Instinctive behaviour is one type of logical process.
So? it is one type right? which is why i said "in a way"
I disagree.
well, i agree. most animals have only ganglions of brain cells to form "brains". i infer you are saying that ganglionic brains beat full sized brains which i disgress, so how do you expect me to believe your claims?
Complexity of consciousness being identified by what, exactly? Given that the best observations we can make of their mental processes are through brain imaging and basic level communication, I consider this claim to be highly dubious.
defined by tests that test this parameter, obviously.
I say again that they are. if you wanted to prove me wrong
He doesn't need to prove you wrong. You presented a claim without evidence.
most animals have a more violent way of living than humans. their reasons to beat up each other can be pretty irrational, such as showing who's boss or "tribal warfare" in the case of chimps.
Haven't looked at Africa lately?
So? it is one type right? which is why i said "in a way"
I think his point was that you seemed to have it backwards.
Instinctive behavior is a logical process
But all logical processes are not instinctive
if you wanted to prove me wrong you can at least try to quote links like mage, which shot down a primary part of my argument by casting it off as invalid
Excuse me, but where exactly are your links? I feel like we've been over this before.
compared to us, i think they are way way more undeveloped. i get this conclusion from wikipedia and my biology textbook. if you really think otherwise, at least prove it, because i can go like this for forever if you wanted to.
To be under-developed is to suffer some developmental malfunction, id est, growth defect which causes development to be stunted. As this is not the case for the organisms in question, they do not have underdeveloped brains.
Can a monkey or a chimp solve the Rubik's cube? can any animal find the solution to a lateral thinking puzzles? i know not all humans can solve either one, but there are some that can solve it, at the very least i'm on those list. so my point is proven
1 Quite probably.
2 Yes.
3 Why do the rest get to ride on the success of those who can?
4 Your point is scarcely even supported at this point.
most animals have a more violent way of living than humans.
What do you mean by most? Ants are probably the most numerous animals, and they only have disputes with other colonies.
their reasons to beat up each other can be pretty irrational, such as showing who's boss or "tribal warfare" in the case of chimps.
You have no sound reason to conclude that their behaviour is irrational.
I have already agreed with this, so why are you bringing up the same mistake that i make?
I was interrupted for over an hour and didn't bother to edit that out.
No, not literally like those. i said "tools that rival" not "tools that mirrors" ones from homo habilis or homo erectus
In which case, they have already succeeded.
as i stated earlier, it is NOT literally using tools that mirror that we humans make. but rather ones that can rival it, also i have never heard a pig solving complex puzzles designed for humans. which proved my point
How, then, would you design an experimental apparatus to effectively determine the puzzle-solving abilities of a pig? It can't involve complex communication or anything that requires precise manipulation of objects. If your point was that the resources currently invested in the study of porcine cognition are woefully insufficient for any definite conclusion to be made, I'd have to agree.
Are you seriously saying that animals have morality systems and non violent ways to solve problems? because what i see is they don't have those, they only showed intimidation and the like as non-violent way.
I'm saying that you have no grounds upon which to assume that they don't. For example, what act of violence have you seen committed by a clam, a gecko, or a cricket? How many problems need to be resolved by the average service dog in a typical day?
i infer you are saying that ganglionic brains beat full sized brains which i disgress, [...]
From what do you infer that? Have I at any point even implied that one brain is definitively better than another?
[...] so how do you expect me to believe your claims?
I don't. I expect you to disregard them and go on believing whatever appeals to your ego.
defined by tests that test this parameter, obviously.
As a measurement of what? Foot size? Unless you discover a means of quantifying the abstract complexity of an animal's consciousness directly, there must be some kind of criterion.
Excuse me, but where exactly are your links? I feel like we've been over this before.
Try this
He doesn't need to prove you wrong. You presented a claim without evidence.
ok then. my mistake, but promise me that you will also present your evidence too if i showed mine. Try this, or this.
Those are where i get my assumptions from plus by biology textbook, which i can't quote of course, as it's in indonesian. your turn.
Haven't looked at Africa lately?
What's wrong with it?
I think his point was that you seemed to have it backwards.
Instinctive behavior is a logical process
But all logical processes are not instinctive
And? i think i never said that all logical processes are instinctive. i only said "in a way", not "all".
To be under-developed is to suffer some developmental malfunction, id est, growth defect which causes development to be stunted. As this is not the case for the organisms in question, they do not have underdeveloped brains.
So this is where the hotspot is. i don't mean that under-developed. by "under-developed", i mean primitive.
1 Quite probably.
So, why haven't i hear about it?
2 Yes.
do you mean humans? as humans ARE animals in a way
3 Why do the rest get to ride on the success of those who can?
Why can't they? chimps and gorillas can in Mage's link
4 Your point is scarcely even supported at this point.
I use the last 3 sentence as it's support
What do you mean by most? Ants are probably the most numerous animals, and they only have disputes with other colonies.
invertebrates and vertebrates is what i meant with most. Ants don't only have disputes with other colonies, they have dispute with a lot of animals there is, like the prey they eat, us humans, and termite colonies. don't forget anteaters too, as they prey on them. And please don't say that you assumed they used non-violent ways to deal with that.
You have no sound reason to conclude that their behaviour is irrational.
Have you ever watched the channels that showcase life on earth? because i can find a lot of examples to make me believe they're behavior is irrational. take for example, chimp's "tribal warfare". as you have said yourself about "Organized warfare is the most extreme and irrational form of violence", and tribal warfare being a form of warfare and it was obviously organized, so why would it not be the most extreme and irrational form of violence like with the organized warfare?
In which case, they have already succeeded.
in what way? what tools that they made that can rival a homo habilis or homo erectus creations in complexity?
If your point was that the resources currently invested in the study of porcine cognition are woefully insufficient for any definite conclusion to be made, I'd have to agree.
Yes, it is my point.
I'm saying that you have no grounds upon which to assume that they don't. For example, what act of violence have you seen committed by a clam, a gecko, or a cricket? How many problems need to be resolved by the average service dog in a typical day?
1. a clam produces pearls by trapping anything that can irritate the organism, which would be equivalent to burying the foreign object ( the "anything". is this not a form of "violence"?.
2. a gecko eats a lot of mosquitoes and small flying bugs and it does this everyday. isn't this a form of violence?
3. a cricket in mating season would compete with each other. is this not a form of violence?
From what do you infer that? Have I at any point even implied that one brain is definitively better than another?
From your argument that human ability at logic is not superior to most animals. as most animals consist of invertebrates, and most of them having ranging from no brains in the case of sponges to ganglionic brains in the case of arthropods. from there i can get the idea that you think they're brains aren't more "under-developed" / primitive then ours
As a measurement of what? Foot size? Unless you discover a means of quantifying the abstract complexity of an animal's consciousness directly, there must be some kind of criterion.
I think HaHiha has done this explanation already
Maybe wikipedia can help solve one or two questions...
Primate cognition
Have you ever watched the channels that showcase life on earth? because i can find a lot of examples to make me believe they're behavior is irrational. take for example, chimp's "tribal warfare". as you have said yourself about "Organized warfare is the most extreme and irrational form of violence", and tribal warfare being a form of warfare and it was obviously organized, so why would it not be the most extreme and irrational form of violence like with the organized warfare?
But what is your point here? On one hand such tribal warfare already necessitates a certain cognitive level in chimps be present. And on the other hand humans do it all the same, whether it be actual warfare, or in more civilised situations mobbing and "showing who's the boss", to quote one of your posts.
And anyway, when you say irrational violence is one thing that separates primate cognition from human cognition, what do you call rational violence and how does it relate to having a more complex consciousness?
But what is your point here? On one hand such tribal warfare already necessitates a certain cognitive level in chimps be present. And on the other hand humans do it all the same, whether it be actual warfare, or in more civilised situations mobbing and "showing who's the boss", to quote one of your posts.
my point is that i'm trying to prove that they live a more violent lifestyle than us humans. it also serve as a response to his comment that i quoted.
And anyway, when you say irrational violence is one thing that separates primate cognition from human cognition, what do you call rational violence and how does it relate to having a more complex consciousness?
In my opinion, "rational violence" is a violence that served a well thought purpose and in situations when the purpose itself can justify the action. examples include a parent scolding their children when doing something wrong and a police shooting at a well armed criminal. it relates to a more complex consciousness because a rational violence is mostly well thought and planned by anything that planned it and not just emotionally driven
You must be logged in to post a reply!