The Evolution of Human Thinking

[SelfSim]

1. From stone axes to Raman spectroscopy, from cave dwellings to the International Space Space habitat, from stone carvings to the representations of string theory math, there is abundant evidence for the continued evolution of human thinking.

2. From evidence of the co-existence of Neanderthals with anatomically modern humans, (and genetic evidence of intermixing), there is evidence for an overlap in time, and intermixing, between them.

Does Creationism and Evolution then represent more evidence of overlap and intermixing between distinct stages in the evolution of human thinking?

 

[NBB]

The human spirit/mind has creativity and intelligence, yet it can't create something even remotely close to the humans themselves, now a bit of random change and a survive/dead selection process did better? it has no intelligence or creativity, *crazy stuff* only if you are bewitched in your thoughts you could believe that process did all they claim it did.

 

[Shemjaza]

1. From stone axes to Raman spectroscopy, from cave dwellings to the International Space Space habitat, from stone carvings to the representations of string theory math, there is abundant evidence for the continued evolution of human thinking.

2. From evidence of the co-existence of Neanderthals with anatomically modern humans, (and genetic evidence of intermixing), there is evidence for an overlap in time, and intermixing, between them.

Does Creationism and Evolution then represent more evidence of overlap and intermixing between distinct stages in the evolution of human thinking?

Homo sapiens might have been more creative and imaginative then Neanderthals... but it's archaic and misleading to think of humans and Neanderthals as sequential stages of evolution.

Also with the development of human culture and technology, I don't think there's much evidence of significant genetic change in the species between the first cities and the modern world. Just a change in education and opportunity.

 

[JackRT]

Our closest living relatives in the family of the great apes are certainly capable of producing a range of vocalizations. I am not a physiologist but I am told that are differences in their throat structure that renders them incapable of anything close to human speech. However, they are capable of learning a sign language consisting of several hundred words, of teaching it to their young and even of inventing signs for new words. Unfortunately our throat structure consists of soft tissue that is not preserved in the fossilization process. I think that at some point in the very distant past there was an evolutionary adaptation that enabled humans to produce a much wider range of vocalizations thus enabling a much larger vocabulary of words rather than signs. This facilitated the communication of information and ideas over time and space from person to person and even from generation to generation. We were capable of becoming much more fully human. Speech was the key.

 

[Shemjaza]

Our closest living relatives in the family of the great apes are certainly capable of producing a range of vocalizations. I am not a physiologist but I am told that are differences in their throat structure that renders them incapable of anything close to human speech. However, they are capable of learning a sign language consisting of several hundred words, of teaching it to their young and even of inventing signs for new words. Unfortunately our throat structure consists of soft tissue that is not preserved in the fossilization process. I think that at some point in the very distant past there was an evolutionary adaptation that enabled humans to produce a much wider range of vocalizations thus enabling a much larger vocabulary of words rather than signs. This facilitated the communication of information and ideas over time and space from person to person and even from generation to generation. We were capable of becoming much more fully human. Speech was the key.

Birds can make more varieties of noise then humans and are pretty bright to boot... the important step in humanities development was upright locomotion that didn't cost us our manipulators. Made technology even more advantageous then it already is for primates.

 

[JackRT]

Birds can make more varieties of noise then humans and are pretty bright to boot... the important step in humanities development was upright locomotion that didn't cost us our manipulators. Made technology even more advantageous then it already is for primates.

Good points.

 

[JackRT]

I was browsing in a pet store once when someone spoke to me from the next aisle. We had a brief conversation before I realized I was talking with a myna bird.

 

[Shemjaza]

I was browsing in a pet store once when someone spoke to me from the next aisle. We had a brief conversation before I realized I was talking with a myna bird.

I once saw a flock of seemingly wild sulfur crested cockatoos fly over me and heard:
SQUARK! SQUARK! SQUARK! HELLO! SQUARK! SQUARK!

 

[Jok]

1. From stone axes to Raman spectroscopy, from cave dwellings to the International Space Space habitat, from stone carvings to the representations of string theory math, there is abundant evidence for the continued evolution of human thinking.

Going back how far? I don’t think we are any smarter than humans from 5000 BC, we just enjoy the benefits of accumulated technology. The ancients going back as far as we have records were impressive with their intelligence based on what they had to work with. I think if we uprooted them with a time machine then threw them into our public schools they would do just fine. If you keep going back further & further it becomes a matter of us just not having information to go on, except rock structures, and they surely don’t look like they were designed by humans of reduced intelligence.

 

[SelfSim]

Homo sapiens might have been more creative and imaginative then Neanderthals... but it's archaic and misleading to think of humans and Neanderthals as sequential stages of evolution.

There is evidence of the appearance of preserved Neanderthal genetic sequences appearing in our own. Perhaps this points more to a previous common ancestor, (I'm not sure), however, its only in that sense I'm suggesting serialisation - we may well have inherited their wisdom by means other than sexual inheritance too, and that is still in a sense 'serialisation' of thinking.

Also with the development of human culture and technology, I don't think there's much evidence of significant genetic change in the species between the first cities and the modern world. Just a change in education and opportunity.

All of human culture and technology, education and opportunity have visibly evolved in distinct stages, however.
All of that incorporates evolution in thinking - our thinking must be evolving .. and maybe, more rapidly than just the physical anatomy of our brains!?

 

[SelfSim]

I was browsing in a pet store once when someone spoke to me from the next aisle. We had a brief conversation before I realized I was talking with a myna bird.

Language is certainly a key indicator of evolution in thinking .. I don't see how that could possibly be interpreted otherwise(?)

Our capacity for innovative models which more closely approximate our observations, also intersects with language ... (those models have to be expressed somehow).

The concept (or model) of say, miracles in modern day life, I think, might be regarded as being reflective of more primitive origins (?).. (nonetheless we're pretty clearly still attached to that way of thinking, I might add) ... but as we innovate, more insights about our observations appear to us, which tends to reinforce the notion of progressive evolution in thinking(?)

 

[SelfSim]

Going back how far? I don’t think we are any smarter than humans from 5000 BC, we just enjoy the benefits of accumulated technology.

The accumulation of technology may have been inevitable due simply to population increases in the sheer bulk numbers of thinking humans over time .. but 'miraculous creations' (being performed by gods) seems to have diminished over those same periods(?) Is this evidence of a process of evolution in thinking?

The ancients going back as far as we have records were impressive with their intelligence based on what they had to work with.

Yes .. the nature of the record itself, also represents evidence of evolution of thinking in the very aspects it also serves to record, which is almost always overlooked (eg: stone carved runes evolving to web forum posts).

I think if we uprooted them with a time machine then threw them into our public schools they would do just fine. If you keep going back further & further it becomes a matter of us just not having information to go on, except rock structures, and they surely don’t look like they were designed by humans of reduced intelligence.

I'm not sure I'm necessarily confining myself to addressing the nebulous (and controversial) concept of 'intelligence' in this thread .. more like I'm addressing the continuous process of the adoption of discrete notions (or mind models) by the masses, over time: the miracle of Creation or the gradual Evolution in thinking, towards models of greater usefulness to humans(?) - The challenge of constructing of rock structures was very much left up to human innovations in thinking concepts .. and not miracles by beings thought to exist independently of the minds doing that thinking.

 

[Shemjaza]

There is evidence of the appearance of preserved Neanderthal genetic sequences appearing in our own. Perhaps this points more to a previous common ancestor, (I'm not sure), however, its only in that sense I'm suggesting serialisation - we may well have inherited their wisdom by means other than sexual inheritance too, and that is still in a sense 'serialisation' of thinking.

It's both to some extent. They do share a recent common ancestor, but also most current humans show signs of mixed parentage of normal African Homo sapiens and European/Middle Eastern Neanderthal... but it's usually a less than 5% Neanderthal.

We technically may be successors to Neanderthals... but it is more accurate to associate us with the original Homo sapiens population who were peers/competitors with Neanderthals, rather than descendants.

(Not an expert opinion, but I wonder if the very low melanin variation found in white skinned European populations is actually a Neanderthal trait.)

All of human culture and technology, education and opportunity have visibly evolved in distinct stages, however.
All of that incorporates evolution in thinking - our thinking must be evolving .. and maybe, more rapidly than just the physical anatomy of our brains!?

I'd agree that ideas and culture have "evolved" vastly faster then our organic brains.

I think it's a good idea to avoid using the word evolution in this context as it can cause confusion about whether we are talking about biological evolution or not.

 

[SelfSim]

... (Not an expert opinion, but I wonder if the very low melanin variation found in white skinned European populations is actually a Neanderthal trait.)

More likely an environmental adaption related to its diminished production in those who migrated northwards during and prior to the ice age(s).

I'd agree that ideas and culture have "evolved" vastly faster then our organic brains.

'Evolved' must the correct term in that sentence then, when a direct comparison is being made with the development of brain physiology over long timeframes also.

I think it's a good idea to avoid using the word evolution in this context ..

.. and I don't because that's exactly what I mean in this thread.

.. as it can cause confusion about whether we are talking about biological evolution or not.

One cannot completely decouple human thinking from human biological evolution .. (even where they may produce evidence of evolving at different rates).

Any confusion resulting from usage of the term 'evolution of thinking', is indicative of the model held in mind, calling out for revision(?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Does Creationism and Evolution then represent more evidence of overlap and intermixing between distinct stages in the evolution of human thinking?

As concepts, I'd suggest they're stages in the evolution of human thought, i.e. the way humans think about things, rather than the mechanisms by which humans think.

IOW, I think it's more a cultural evolution than a genetic one. Once a highly sophisticated learning system has evolved that can pass on the results of its learning to subsequent generations, the 'machinery' itself need not change significantly (that's not to say it doesn't in practice).

 

[SelfSim]

As concepts, I'd suggest they're stages in the evolution of human thought, i.e. the way humans think about things, rather than the mechanisms by which humans think.

IOW, I think it's more a cultural evolution than a genetic one. Once a highly sophisticated learning system has evolved that can pass on the results of its learning to subsequent generations, the 'machinery' itself need not change significantly (that's not to say it doesn't in practice).

I think 'I can roll' with those ideas.
Yet 'culture' or 'civilisation' is still a recognised stage of human (homo sapiens) evolution in the Evolutionary sciences.
So, we are left with a different kind of model here .. I liken it to a multi layered model (are you familiar with the models for digital communications? -Ie: the seven layered model?)
At the highest level of our model here would be thinking. The lowest might be our physical anatomy (or even biochemistry). Each layer supports the one immediately above it.

Each layer can also be viewed as being independently subject to Evolution by NS(?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think 'I can roll' with those ideas.
Yet 'culture' or 'civilisation' is still a recognised stage of human (homo sapiens) evolution in the Evolutionary sciences.
So, we are left with a different kind of model here .. I liken it to a multi layered model (are you familiar with the models for digital communications? -Ie: the seven layered model?)
At the highest level of our model here would be thinking. The lowest might be our physical anatomy (or even biochemistry). Each layer supports the one immediately above it.

Each layer can also be viewed as being independently subject to Evolution by NS(?)

Yes; but although the OSI model layers are rather a mixed bag, they're a model of clarity compared to biological evolution, which can be seen as many different related models, from selection, through structural organisation, to competition, etc., with various layers of abstraction, and/or emergence, composition, and cooperation, etc. There's no single 'correct' way to view it; the question is which aspects & views are likely to be most productive for research purposes, which for academic understanding, and which for practical application. It's an incredibly complex set of interactions, and it's no surprise there is so much debate about whether the EES project is likely to be a 'better' way of proceeding - it may be as much a difference between pragmatists and puritans as about evolution per se.