What made us live in a house?

metherion said:

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

Click to expand...

gluadys said:

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.

Click to expand...

Assyrian said:

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?

Click to expand...

metherion said:

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

Click to expand...

gluadys said:

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.

Click to expand...

Mallon said:

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

Click to expand...

gluadys said:

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.

Click to expand...

Mallon said:

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

Click to expand...

MattLangley said:

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

Click to expand...

Assyrian said:

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

Click to expand...

gluadys said:

What insurmountable problem would that be?

Click to expand...

MattLangley said:

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.

Click to expand...