What bothers me about the evolution of Man

There are many many animals whose language is 'higher' that a few grunts.This leaves you with an overly simplistic idea that technology is the sole identifier of intelligence.But I doubt if you want technology to be a measurement of intelligence - unless you want to claim that these people are less intelligent...

they are not too smart they life in the frigging desert, as to why they dont have sophisticated technology cmmon who wants to build a castle in that heat, who wants to be locked in a room in that heat and ponder and experiment on electricity cmmon be real in that heat all you want to do is lay in the shade

True.
But my main objection is to the claim that ("real") intelligence has not developed elsewhere in nature.(Sorry to skip so much of your post, but I am mainly in agreement with what you wrote.)

What you can't see in that photo is that they are actually queuing for a cocktail bar...

Reread my posts. I never claimed or agreed that human-level intelligence "only evolved once." I've only pointed out that human-level intelligence is vastly out of proportion with extant species, and specifically is absurd overkill for "normal" environmental challenges in terms of selection pressure, particularly with the downsides of growing and fueling a human brain. I've been talking about the specific, likely selective pressure that would cause human-level intelligence to evolve. You're confusing my arguments for other people's statements. Not really. It's the ability to acquire and process knowledge that provide advantages, not knowledge itself. 3-year-old human brains aren't fully grown yet. The human brain finishes it's primary development around 20 years after birth.Comparing immature humans to animal intelligence is patently absurd. One could argue that a 1-week-old horse is smarter than a 1-week-old human child because the human child doesn't even have full control of its limbs yet, while the horse will be walking. Insects are mobile from birth, while newborn humans can't even crawl.An adult human is incredibly more intelligent than an adult chimp. It's not even a close comparison, despite them being some of our closest extant relatives.

Technology is an excellent measure of intelligence - obviously. Ask SETI.
The guys in your picture use technology extensively, from their manufacture of weapons, cooking equipment, clothing, jewellry, housing, agrictulture, music etc. They have advanced language and communications, a theory of mind, can plan ahead, imagine their own deaths and work in groups. You can't name a single species that comes even close to their level of intelligence. Prove me wrong.

That's a very narrow definition of intelligence you have, mate.When it comes to brain power we win but only at what we are good at. Being able to infer causality is not a skill only we have.And about language being clicks and pings. If they hold meaningful information where is the beef?Some African language have 'stops'. They sound like clicks to me.

i'll happily accept whatever mainstream definition of intelligence you prefer. Then all you have to do is find an animal that comes even close to H.sapiens.Good luck

You might be surprised to discover Neanderthals had larger brains than us.What may have contributed to their decline more than a lack of smarts, was their arm joints not being well suited to throwing. Thus they could not make use of ranged weapons as well as we could.ABE: ninja'd by jarEdited by Larni, : No reason given.

Are you talking about processing power or skills on an IQ test?

To be pedantic, more recent reconstructions of Neanderthal brain size suggest that is not, in fact, the case. Although your wider point still holds since they are damn close in size.If I was to hazard a guess, I would suggest that the advantage we had over them was entirely down to physical form rather than mental capabilities.

Hi Catholic ScientistI believe you are closest to a real answer here. The question is what the selection is for, then to see what came along for the ride. So we look at who are considered the best choices for mates: rock stars or nobel prize winners? Entertainers vs thinkers?Long hair, large breasts, large penises, youthful appearances are all "abnormal" compared to other primates thus they are evidence of selection pressures for those traits. These traits have no survival advantage to speak of, and may even result in lower survival rates on their own. This leaves sexual selection and the competition for mates and reproductive success. This is one part of sexual selection: males compete with males for domination in order to have more mating opportunities. This does account for the sexual dimorphism in size (personally I believe this is becoming less, but that is my thoughts on the matter). Indeed. These people are definitely NOT the sharpest tacks in the box, yet they appeal to many people as leader types.This again shows that intelligence is NOT what is being selected for in mates\leaders. The size of the brain came along for the ride: what was being selected for that benefited from increased brain size\power? Again: look at sexual selection in operation in our society today -- who are the sexiest women\ men? Compare them to who are the most intelligent women\men. Bingo. When you see a trait that has evolved to the point where it can go no further without overly impacting the survival rate of the carriers, when you see a trait that is not distributed in a bell curve, but a skewed curve pushed up against one end, where further development is not beneficial to the species, then you are looking at a run-away feedback loop selection -- Fisherian Runaway Sexual Selection:

quote:

---

Fisherian runaway is a model of sexual selection, first proposed by R.A. Fisher in 1915,[1] and expanded upon in his 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection,[2] that suggests an explanation for sexual selection of traits that do not obviously increase fitness of survival, based upon a positive feedback "runaway" mechanism.

​

Fisher's explanation is that selection of such traits is a result of sexual preference; that members of the opposite sex find a trait desirable. This preference makes the trait advantageous, which in a circular fashion makes having a preference for the trait advantageous.

​

The process is termed "runaway" because over time, it would facilitate the development of greater preference and more pronounced traits, until the costs of producing the trait balance the reproductive benefit of possessing it.

​

By way of example, the peacock's tail requires a great deal of energy to grow and maintain, it reduces the bird's agility, and it may increase the animal's visibility to predators. Yet it has evolved, indicating that birds with longer tails have some advantage.

---

Also see Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution for additional thoughts I have on this topic.Fisherian Runaway Sexual Selection explains:

• large brains
• apparent bareness
• long head hair
• year round large breasts (while fertile)
• large penises
• etc

It is apparent to me that what is selected for in mates is creativity and youth, rather than intelligence, and that brain size came along for the ride.Sex made us what we are.Enjoy.added by edit: Add extended development outside the womb as a means for even larger brains to evolve The extended childhood is also longer than any other primate, with a human child not able to fend for itself until ~9 years old, just a few years short of sexual maturity (and hence the neotenty is also linked).Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : added end comments

No worries, happy to learn something new . I agree to a large extent: our more rotatable shoulders would let us 'project force' over a much larger area so our 'kill range radius' would be larger.I also expect our need to deal with the cold more (due to being less robust and cold adapted) would almost certainly been a profound selective pressure.I do remember reading something abiut humans making more use of jewery and icons than Neanderthals, though.I suspect that is significant for social interactions and that seems a significant driver of brain size and morphology..

No, I'm trying to tell you that you're talking past the people you're responding to. We know that above, we don't disagree with it, we were responding to the claim that intelligence only evolved once. Its both. There weren't any skyscrapers 10,000 years ago not because man was less intelligent back then, but because man had less knowledge. Then why do biologist do it when assessing a chimps intelligence? (by saying they're as smart as a 3 year old) Now that's absurd. Yeah, so you compare them to less developed humans. I guess its just a little nicer to use immaturity than, say retardation. This chimps 'bout half-retarded

But their technology is so far behind ours (in the developed world) that their intelligence must be equally as far behind ours.
So, by your definition, they are considerably less intelligent than us in the west.Many Amazonian tribes use tools that are little more than pointed sticks, so do you think that their intelligence is on a par with chimpanzees?
Shall we put them in a zoo? You need to abandon technology as a measure of intelligence. Lack of technology does not indicate lack of intelligence.
Plato lacked most of our technology, but I am sure you would not think him any less intelligent than us. Well, since that is not what I was arguing for, I see no reason to.
Your claim that "Real" intelligence has not occurred elsewhere in nature is false. Changing it to "Close to human intelligence" does not make it true.Anywho...
Us being the most intelligent species only makes other animals less intelligent. But they are not non-intelligent.
Real intelligence has evolved throughout nature.