Bipedalsom more useful than intelligence

[tansy]

I,m posting this in response to a comment made on another thread. am now rather curious.

Do you think bipedalsim is more useful than intelligence, or vice-versa?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ultimately, intelligence can compensate for a lack of bipedalism. But when bipedalism first evolved, it was far more beneficial than any boon intelligence brought. So there was (and indeed is) a greater selection pressure to perfect bipedalism than there was to boost our intelligence.

 

[tansy]

Ultimately, intelligence can compensate for a lack of bipedalism. But when bipedalism first evolved, it was far more beneficial than any boon intelligence brought.

So there was (and indeed is) a greater selection pressure to perfect bipedalism than there was to boost our intelligence.

Maybe so...but surely human bipedalism is pretty good nowadays...so I would have thought there ought to be more selection pressure to perfect other things..maybe including intelligence

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Maybe so...but surely human bipedalism is pretty good nowadays...so I would have thought there ought to be more selection pressure to perfect other things..maybe including intelligence

It isn't an issue of time. If we evolved bigger heads, our bipedalism would suffer as a result.

 

[tansy]

It isn't an issue of time. If we evolved bigger heads, our bipedalism would suffer as a result.

Yes, but I can't see why the rest of us could'nt evolve to compensate.

 

[Hespera]

It sure works for chickens. And they are not too bright.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, but I can't see why the rest of us could'nt evolve to compensate.

Because that requires forethought in our species' evolutionary path, which isn't possible. We can't evolve something that's detrimental now, but will be beneficial in the future. If it's not beneficial now, it won't be selected for.

Though we could envision any number of 'better' arrangements, but that doesn't mean we can evolve them.

It sure works for chickens. And they are not too bright.

Yes, but chickens lay eggs .

 

[tansy]

It sure works for chickens. And they are not too bright.

LOL...good point


And actually i reckon humans could do with a couple of extra arms, especially when they've got young children....extendable ones would be even better...in fact we could do with wings to fly, pouches like kangaroos to carry our little babies, gills so we could swim under water.

Is there anyone out there who can improve on the way the human body is?

Actually, it's a nuisance that hair grows long..there are probably other things that are a nuisance too.

 

[Hespera]

I like the way my hair grows long.

Here is a change i DONT want. i dont want a tail like a monkey. Imagine trying to make clothes fit. Imagine the ways it could get injured.

But worst, you know how it is when you are carrying a little kid like a 2 yr old, and they can reach and grab all kinds of things? Imagine there is a 2 ft tail back where you cant even keep an eye on it. Oh my...

 

[tansy]

I like the way my hair grows long.

Here is a change i DONT want. i dont want a tail like a monkey. Imagine trying to make clothes fit. Imagine the ways it could get injured.

But worst, you know how it is when you are carrying a little kid like a 2 yr old, and they can reach and grab all kinds of things? Imagine there is a 2 ft tail back where you cant even keep an eye on it. Oh my...

LOL...and imagine it getting caught in doors, especially car doors...it would have to have some sort of sensor

 

[AV1611VET]

I,m posting this in response to a comment made on another thread. am now rather curious.

Do you think bipedalsim is more useful than intelligence, or vice-versa?

God created us bipedal.

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

(Notice how the Bible refers to evolution as an "invention" --- not a "discovery"?)

Did you, by any chance, mean "plantigrade" in your OP?

 

[tansy]

Because that requires forethought in our species' evolutionary path, which isn't possible. We can't evolve something that's detrimental now, but will be beneficial in the future. If it's not beneficial now, it won't be selected for.

Though we could envision any number of 'better' arrangements, but that doesn't mean we can evolve them.


Yes, but chickens lay eggs .

Yes, but I,m talking potentially..unless I'm mistaken, I thought that genearlly, evolution proceeded by small incremental steps. Surely what you say would apply to anything that's already evolved..so why not in the future?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, but I,m talking potentially..unless I'm mistaken, I thought that genearlly, evolution proceeded by small incremental steps.

Yep.

Surely what you say would apply to anything that's already evolved..so why not in the future?

Because it's not advantageous now. The first small, incremental step is detrimental, and so isn't selected for.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

God created us bipedal.

Doesn't really answer the question, does it?

(Notice how the Bible refers to evolution as an "invention" --- not a "discovery"?)

Does it? Doesn't look like it's calling anything an invention .

Did you, by any chance, mean "plantigrade" in your OP?

Unlikely, since my original comment in another thread referred to bipedal (walking on two legs) rather than plantigrade (feet flat on the ground) motion.

 

[tansy]

Yep.


Because it's not advantageous now. The first small, incremental step is detrimental, and so isn't selected for.

Yes, but how can you tell what small incremental step WOULDn't be detrimental....I mean there must be endless possibilities...sorry if I seem dense, but am not up on these things

 

[Hespera]

Small incremental changes, harmful or not.... its a complex question!

YOU cnat tell what is going to be helpful or harmful perhaps but nature does sort these things out.

A very small change can be a disaster, say, melanism in an arctic fox. Arctic owl spots him five miles off.
Well, too bad for that one. Not likely to pass those genes on.

A series of small changes can take you from an animal something like a lizard to T rex. Looked good for a while, but, extinction was the end result of that series of small changes.

Maybe you have some frogs, they all have spots in different patterns, like no two puppies are identical. THIS one has spots that look kinda like two big eyes. Might just save him.... a lot of animals have fake eye spots, they are an effective defense, so they have evolved over and over in fish, amphibians, birds, insects etc.

One little mutation makes a housefly immune to DDT. But it also makes their metabolism less efficient. But.... as long as there is DDT, they do better than the ones who are not immune. Out of the countless billions of flies, the mutation shows up but the flies carrying it dont do well unless there is DDT. Then they will dominate until the DDT is gone, and soon they are back where they started.

Anyhow, not to go on and on but those are some of the things that happen...

 

[tansy]

Small incremental changes, harmful or not.... its a complex question!

YOU cnat tell what is going to be helpful or harmful perhaps but nature does sort these things out.

A very small change can be a disaster, say, melanism in an arctic fox. Arctic owl spots him five miles off.
Well, too bad for that one. Not likely to pass those genes on.

A series of small changes can take you from an animal something like a lizard to T rex. Looked good for a while, but, extinction was the end result of that series of small changes.

Maybe you have some frogs, they all have spots in different patterns, like no two puppies are identical. THIS one has spots that look kinda like two big eyes. Might just save him.... a lot of animals have fake eye spots, they are an effective defense, so they have evolved over and over in fish, amphibians, birds, insects etc.

One little mutation makes a housefly immune to DDT. But it also makes their metabolism less efficient. But.... as long as there is DDT, they do better than the ones who are not immune. Out of the countless billions of flies, the mutation shows up but the flies carrying it dont do well unless there is DDT. Then they will dominate until the DDT is gone, and soon they are back where they started.

Anyhow, not to go on and on but those are some of the things that happen...

But doesn't this prove the point I was making to Wiccan Child? Or not?

 

[Bombila]

Tansy, perhaps you're not keeping in mind that evolutioary steps are not planned. There's never an end goal for a change in some attribute. The only way we could plan for something like extra arms or non-growing hair would be to manipulate the genes ourselves, artificially, and that isn't evolution.

On tails: Robert Silverberg's novel Winter's End has tailed monkeys that have evolved into intelligent, human like people. Their tails have a sensory organ at the tip which allows them to experience a form of telepathy which operates when they twine their tails together.

 

[tansy]

Tansy, perhaps you're not keeping in mind that evolutioary steps are not planned. There's never an end goal for a change in some attribute. The only way we could plan for something like extra arms or non-growing hair would be to manipulate the genes ourselves, artificially, and that isn't evolution.

On tails: Robert Silverberg's novel Winter's End has tailed monkeys that have evolved into intelligent, human like people. Their tails have a sensory organ at the tip which allows them to experience a form of telepathy which operates when they twine their tails together.

HI, no, I do know that evolution isn't planned...all I'm saying is that surely there is the possibility of all kinds of things happening (some of the posts about hair and tails and things were jokey).

But, ok then...what are the LIMITS on evolution....are there any? PResumably, it's limited according to the chemical properties of the universe..but is there anything else?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, but how can you tell what small incremental step WOULDn't be detrimental....I mean there must be endless possibilities...

To an extent. Evolution is reproduction with variation, but there is only so much that can vary. A modern human will never give birth to something with fully functioning wings, even though that would count as 'variation'.

These small, incremental steps are just slight modifications to existing traits: slightly longer fur, slightly more porous bones, slightly larger brains, slight changes in how a particular protein folds, slight changes to a biochemical pathway, etc.

True morphological change (e.g., dinosaurs to birds), though, comes when these small steps add up via long-term natural selection.


Now, as to which variations are 'beneficial' and which are 'detrimental', the overarching principle is that a genetic allele survives if the trait it codes for promotes its own survival (direct or indirect).
That is, if a variation of a gene makes it harder for that gene to be spread throughout the population (i.e., the host organisms has a harder time reproducing), then that variation is detrimental. Obvious examples are mutations that cause severe and debilitating disease.


So our bodies can vary, but only by small changes in what already exists. Those small changes which are harm their chances of getting passed on will, on average, be lost in the sea of genetic change.

So though we could evolve some complex arrangement that allows us to be fully bipedal and give birth to offspring with ever larger heads, this is quite infeasible indeed; it would need a complete reworking of our skeletal and reproductive systems. Simply having bigger pelvises is immediately detrimental, while the larger heads that could then evolve aren't immediately beneficial

sorry if I seem dense, but am not up on these things

Never apologise for wanting to learn more!