What made us live in a house?

[juvenissun]

That for it to survive and propagate it must not have been an impediment to survival. It was either no difference either way that somehow spread or a benefit. Most likely a benefit, seeing as how humanity works nowadays. Lol.



What do you mean? I mean, what we consider ‘higher’ thought generally requires certain cortexes in the brain to be active. If they have not developed... no higher thought.



Nothing really. It happened. It apparently was a benefit in the environment of our ancestors. It survived and propagated. Now humans have it.





No, it is not. There are other factors. They include the cortexes of the brain, the surface area of the brain (one reason human brains are wrinkly), and a few others that escape me right now.



Well, I’m afraid I can’t help you there. Tho I will say... given the way a lot of them act it’s hard to think everything is instinctual. But a zoologist I am not. Sorry.

Metherion

See, I think morphological difference, or even genetic difference between human and apes does not explain the obvious difference between the two (e.g. house build). We can compare human brain with a chimp brain and describe the difference of the cortexes. But that does not explain anything we see at all, for example, we build house, but chimp does not. I guess a neurologist could study human and chimp and concluded that we basically functioned the same way.

 

[juvenissun]

That is a really good question and the suggested answers are really controversial. A lot of them centre around the ability of apes (like Kanzi the bonobo and Koko the gorilla) to express themselves in human language. (They don't speak but they do use conventional signs of some sort to convey their thoughts.)

So the controversy is over whether they "really" understand what they are doing and what is being said to them. Kanzi--who learned to communicate with humans without being specifically taught to do so---is really impressive. The researchers who work with him (Sue Savage Wambaugh, et al) are convinced that Kanzi really understands and uses language at least as well as a human child of about 3 years of age. But she is having a hard time convincing some of her colleagues.

Their book "Apes, Language and the Human Mind" covers the whole controversy quite extensively.

This illustrate another problem. In biological science (and geological science) , having exception to a rule is not an exception. Any idea can find some examples that against it. I don't care how much Kanzi can really "think", I would like to see thousands of chimps all behave like Kanzi. Then I will take the example of Kanzi seriously.

May be evolutionist would say: Aha!, Kanzi. The chimp is evolving. Now, Kanzi died (right?). Is the chimp evolution dead too?

 

[juvenissun]

We lost our fur coats and moved out of nice warm central Africa, we also have much larger brains and can think up new ways to build more and more complicated forms of shelter.

More room for all our junk. Impress the neighbours. More comfort.


Neither would we if we had to build a new house every evening.


We want somewhere for our microwaves, computers, furniture, TVs, clothes, crockery, cutlery, carpets and toilet paper where we can use them in comfort and safety. Can you think of any reason this might not apply to gorillas?

It is probably the result of all the genes that gave us larger brains, as well as the genes that lost us our fur.

You think it is just a matter of gorillas thinking up new building techniques? I though you were claiming building techniques had to evolve? You don't think animals plan how they can evolve do you?

Ha ha ha ... Fun. You have a good day. Sir.

 

[metherion]

See, I think morphological difference, or even genetic difference between human and apes does not explain the obvious difference between the two (e.g. house build). We can compare human brain with a chimp brain and describe the difference of the cortexes. But that does not explain anything we see at all, for example, we build house, but chimp does not. I guess a neurologist could study human and chimp and concluded that we basically functioned the same way.

Genetic->morphological -> behavioral-> ‘house build’ (sic)
And it depends how basically you go. ALL organisms go stimulus-> response. And just looking at a brain doesn’t tell you how the being functions, just what nerves it uses for what.

Metherion

 

[juvenissun]

Genetic->morphological -> behavioral-> ‘house build’ (sic)
And it depends how basically you go. ALL organisms go stimulus-> response. And just looking at a brain doesn’t tell you how the being functions, just what nerves it uses for what.

Metherion

Agree. I think you are saying that all biological, physiological, genetic studies could not explain the differences between human and ape.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, of course. Natural selection is controlled by the environment the species lives in and the environment changes over time.

But it is difficult to detect a pattern in environmental change, especially when you remember that other species, and even other organisms in one's own species are part of one's "environment". And at a gene level, other genes are part of the environment of a specific gene.


On a large-scale some environments (deep-sea) have changed little over time, but one can also have drastic and sudden changes (asteroid hits earth significantly affecting climate for several years) or drastic changes that occur more slowly (build-up of oxygen in the atmosphere by photosynthesizing bacteria). Co-evolution occurs because other species are also part of the environment of any one species: so changes in flowers evoke evolutionary changes in pollinating insects and vice versa as each adapts to the other.

Now go back to Willtor's post: as a species encounters a new environment--either because the environment changes or because it moves into a new one--an allele that was rare in the species may turn out to confer a benefit in the newer environment and so become more plentiful in the species. This is not a random process.

So, we can only look at the history of environmental change on the earth. The direction of evolution is controlled by it in a grand scale.

This will impose an unsurmountable problem to the theory of evolution.

 

[Mallon]

What did it do to human so we start to build houses?

Shielded them from the elements. Same reason why you live in a house.

 

[gluadys]

This illustrate another problem. In biological science (and geological science) , having exception to a rule is not an exception. Any idea can find some examples that against it. I don't care how much Kanzi can really "think", I would like to see thousands of chimps all behave like Kanzi. Then I will take the example of Kanzi seriously.

May be evolutionist would say: Aha!, Kanzi. The chimp is evolving. Now, Kanzi died (right?). Is the chimp evolution dead too?

The point is there is no reason to think that Kanzi is exceptional. We have no indication that Kanzi's achievements were brought about by a genetic difference with other bonobos. All we know is that he was raised in an environment that is unusual for bonobos. If all bonobos were raised in the same way, they might all show the same type of ability.

So it is not really about evolution because it is not an instance of an inherited difference. Rather it indicates what these animals are capable of if the environmental conditions encourage the development of the capacities they already have.

 

[gluadys]

So, we can only look at the history of environmental change on the earth. The direction of evolution is controlled by it in a grand scale.

This will impose an unsurmountable problem to the theory of evolution.

What insurmountable problem would that be?

 

[juvenissun]

Shielded them from the elements. Same reason why you live in a house.

Then why not chimps?

Horse does not need a house, but horse "likes" to stay in the barn. In the zoo, chimp DOES have a den. And obviously they "like" to stay in there. Why didn't they build something over so many millions of years of "evolution"?

 

[Mallon]

Then why not chimps?

I already answered that. You're just being difficult.

 

[juvenissun]

The point is there is no reason to think that Kanzi is exceptional. We have no indication that Kanzi's achievements were brought about by a genetic difference with other bonobos. All we know is that he was raised in an environment that is unusual for bonobos. If all bonobos were raised in the same way, they might all show the same type of ability.

So it is not really about evolution because it is not an instance of an inherited difference. Rather it indicates what these animals are capable of if the environmental conditions encourage the development of the capacities they already have.

May be. But where did the favorable environment come for human? If it was available for human, was it also available for apes? The same environment, given equal chance, why did human stand out?

Have you heard that anybody is raising the second Kanzi? I don't think so.

 

[juvenissun]

I already answered that. You're just being difficult.

What was your answer? You said chimp does not need a house. But they do like to live in a house. Would that be a strong enough motivation over millions of years? Why didn't cave dwelling give them enough stimulation like it gave human?

------

For you, I like to bring up the old hair/fur problem. Chimp does not need a house because they have fur. If so, why did we shed our hair/fur, then it made us in need of a house? Is that an evolution joke?

 

[Assyrian]

So you think species can choose how they want to evolve, and will therefore chose whatever changed will make them more comfortable?

 

[MattLangley]

What was your answer? You said chimp does not need a house. But they do like to live in a house. Would that be a strong enough motivation over millions of years? Why didn't cave dwelling give them enough stimulation like it gave human?

------

For you, I like to bring up the old hair/fur problem. Chimp does not need a house because they have fur. If so, why did we shed our hair/fur, then it made us in need of a house? Is that an evolution joke?

Because we are different species... If they had evolved the same then they would be us. The diversity of life is predicted in evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

Because we are different species... If they had evolved the same then they would be us. The diversity of life is predicted in evolution.

Why don't they evolved in a "similar' way?

 

[MattLangley]

Why don't they evolved in a "similar' way?

We have. Look at us compared to other apes vs. other mammals. Our DNA is actually pretty close to a mouse's DNA, though look at how much more like other apes we are. We did evolve very close.

 

[juvenissun]

So you think species can choose how they want to evolve, and will therefore chose whatever changed will make them more comfortable?

So far, we can not control how do we want to evolve (why not?). But we can certainly make what we want to become available.

Either chimp has no want , or chimp can't make what it wants. Either way, it is very unlikely that we evolved from chimp (ape).

 

[juvenissun]

What insurmountable problem would that be?

Environment changed back and forth, sometime in cycles. It happened in both short and long term. Do we see evolution make lives change in a similar pattern? How does a "back and forth" type of evolution look like?

 

[juvenissun]

We have. Look at us compared to other apes vs. other mammals. Our DNA is actually pretty close to a mouse's DNA, though look at how much more like other apes we are. We did evolve very close.

Then why do we build house, but chimps do not? Is that a significant change?