Why did people advance past animals?

[loki504]

Isn't it obvious? An old man with white beard and magical powers decided to make us intelligent so he did.. nothing more to it.

but dolfins got a higher iq. yet i don't see them build stuff.

so this means intelligent is only part of what makes us more advance.

---------- Post added 2012-07-13 at 03:57 PM ----------

Not sure how it all started, but I think the abilty to store & pass on knowledge is a big reason why.

yet dogs learn from other pack members to.

but its probebly because we are the most greedy race/animal on earth.

[Liara]

yet dogs learn from other pack members to.

but its probebly because we are the most greedy race/animal on earth.

The point there is the storage part. If other species could share information as well as humans, then they'd probably evolve as well (not necessarily to our level, maybe less, maybe more).

[Mayhem]

after reading a few books related to the topic this isn´t just as simple as people seem to think it is

just as an example

fasmide, are bugs that evolved to look like a twig, or a leaf or alike

so, this is an example of evolution that is very hard to explain, because even if the bug has influence on his look he needed to know 1. that the predators hunting him don´t eat twigs, and 2. what does a twig look/behave like ... and the bug or the whole species had to survive a bunch of decades to evolve to this twiglikelook... the thing that boggles science is "how do the cells know what to do"

there are a bunch of other examples that simple "evolution" doesn´t explain, still the absence of explaination doesn´t mean that the theory of evolution is wrong, there are just a few pieces left in the puzzle

[Dezerte]

yet dogs learn from other pack members to.

but its probebly because we are the most greedy race/animal on earth.

Didn't realize dogs wrote books

[Reeve]

after reading a few books related to the topic this isn´t just as simple as people seem to think it is

just as an example

fasmide, are bugs that evolved to look like a twig, or a leaf or alike

so, this is an example of evolution that is very hard to explain, because even if the bug has influence on his look he needed to know 1. that the predators hunting him don´t eat twigs, and 2. what does a twig look/behave like ... and the bug or the whole species had to survive a bunch of decades to evolve to this twiglikelook... the thing that boggles science is "how do the cells know what to do"

there are a bunch of other examples that simple "evolution" doesn´t explain, still the absence of explaination doesn´t mean that the theory of evolution is wrong, there are just a few pieces left in the puzzle

The bug/the bugs cells don't have to "know" anything. The ones that look more like the foliage were more likely to survive, and their genetic material was more likely to create offspring with similar genetic material that would make them look more like the surrounding foliage. It has nothing to do with a plan, or knowledge. It's just chance and the way it affected the populations over many many generations.

[Mayhem]

The bug/the bugs cells don't have to "know" anything. The ones that look more like the foliage were more likely to survive, and their genetic material was more likely to create offspring with similar genetic material that would make them look more like the surrounding foliage. It has nothing to do with a plan, or knowledge. It's just chance and the way it affected the populations over many many generations.

this is a topic where my english knowledge simply ends it, i could discuss it with you in my first language, but damn it, i know what you mean still that is not a sufficient explaination, because some kind of knowledge must be passed from generation to generation, and this involves somepart of the species to learn from it´s surounding, i hope you get my point, if not, ef it i need to get better at english

[Sealed Shut]

obviously no one has watched Starship Troopers

[starlord]

we arent more advanced, just different. how long it takes to mature generally has more to do with lifespan, which generally coincides with metabolism.

[Shiny212]

Well...apes tend to invest alot of time in their children as well, maybe not as much as humans, but then again, our social structure formed AFTER we were already...human, physiologically speaking. And what made us advanced is a large brain.

[Vanyali]

Also we have a gene that allows us to be able to empathize and work better with other members of our own species that other great apes just do not have.

Not true.

Many animals (including all primates) have the ability to empathize and work together. Many monkeys (and gorillas) are able to work together to get prizes, or enact revenge on a team member that is stealing or not doing the work for a reward both get. Interestingly, if an outside force takes from one monkey and gives to another the first will not take revenge on the second, though they do if the second takes it themselves. This indicates not only that they know when something is unfair, but where that unfairness is coming from and who to blame. In addition, if there's a fruit one monkey can't reach, but is reaching for, and another CAN reach there are record instances of the second monkey spontaneously getting the fruit and giving it to the monkey that can't quite reach it.

The only difference in humans is that it becomes a much more emphasized part of our groups rather than something that happens, but doesn't make the family bonds themselves. This is more tied to the fact that we're monogamous rather than in a harem-structure rather than an ability to empathize with each other, though. Being monogamous encourages the male to stick around and help raise an infant that would otherwise probably die, as it essentially sets up the first prostitution - food and protection and infant care = sex! And lots of it, since humans are the only primate where a "heat" isn't displayed at all.

I wish I could grab links for the primate studies, but unfortunately i don't have them at the moment

[Necrotan]

Being bipedal (walking on two legs) was one of key mutations for us. It let us travel farther without resting, it freed our hands for carrying things and using tools longer, it was the keystone mutation for us our ancestors to migrate across the world. It gave us a distinct advantage which then allowed for mutations for increased intelligence and social skills to help us win out over other advanced human like species like homo neanderthalis.

[Dezerte]

Not true.

Many animals (including all primates) have the ability to empathize and work together. Many monkeys (and gorillas) are able to work together to get prizes, or enact revenge on a team member that is stealing or not doing the work for a reward both get. Interestingly, if an outside force takes from one monkey and gives to another the first will not take revenge on the second, though they do if the second takes it themselves. This indicates not only that they know when something is unfair, but where that unfairness is coming from and who to blame. In addition, if there's a fruit one monkey can't reach, but is reaching for, and another CAN reach there are record instances of the second monkey spontaneously getting the fruit and giving it to the monkey that can't quite reach it.

The only difference in humans is that it becomes a much more emphasized part of our groups rather than something that happens, but doesn't make the family bonds themselves. This is more tied to the fact that we're monogamous rather than in a harem-structure rather than an ability to empathize with each other, though. Being monogamous encourages the male to stick around and help raise an infant that would otherwise probably die, as it essentially sets up the first prostitution - food and protection and infant care = sex! And lots of it, since humans are the only primate where a "heat" isn't displayed at all.

I wish I could grab links for the primate studies, but unfortunately i don't have them at the moment

Found a cool video from TED http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_wa...ve_morals.html

[Albert the fish]

but many other animals have longer "child periods" in relation to their lifespan.

the main thing was us being tool-users.
not using just our bodies means we had to adapt higher levels of intelligence to make our tools cover the difference..
intelligence builds on intelligence however and it wasn't long before we progressed even further.


a more interesting question would be why some other, non-tool using animals are as intelligent as they are.
Dolphins for example, or Ravens, or Elephants, or Rats, or Wolves. all considered extremely intelligent and most use tools sparingly if at all.

[Necrotan]

Time invested in offspring is just a ratio of how many offspring a species has. Orangutan spend around 8 years on a single child before having a second, the first child stays even longer, especially if it is female (to learn how to be a mother). Fish on the other hand can have thousands of eggs and spend very little to no time with them after they hatch. The high numbers is a strategy to help ensure that some make it to adulthood on their own.

Primate are more vulnerable when they are born because they still have more development to do where as species that don't care for their young are all set to go from birth/hatching.

[Vanyali]

we arent more advanced, just different. how long it takes to mature generally has more to do with lifespan, which generally coincides with metabolism.

It has little to do with lifespan or metabolism.

It has everything to do with how screwed up our bodies are compared to other species.

First, the brain. It's barely developed at birth. Even if the legs were able to support a newborn baby it literally would not have the right brain wiring to do so. Or the muscle system, for that matter.

Second, bipedalism. We're so used to it that it seems normal, but it's a fairly big anomaly. It's a lot harder to balance, a lot less efficient, and reduces the speed we can go to a lot slower than most predators. It takes a lot of time to master this, which is why babies start crawling first. And crawling won't get you away from anything as an infant.

Third, the body. To be born we have to be tiny. The brain isn't anywhere near done. Nor are all the bones. It takes a TON of resources to stimulate the kind of brain and skeletal growth we need. This generally takes ~12 years for physical maturity. Our 18/ 21 age limit isn't anything related to being mature physically or mentally, but rather culturally - we've decided that physically mature isn't good enough anymore.

So while yes, it has a small amount to do with lifespan for humans it's a little more than that, since we mess with it a bit more than was originally intended. Orangatangs also have a maturity of ~14 for birth in females, but they live about half as long as we do.

[Thelxi]

Humans are still very much animals, with a slightly more developed brain and a giant ass ego.

[Necrotan]

but many other animals have longer "child periods" in relation to their lifespan.

the main thing was us being tool-users.
not using just our bodies means we had to adapt higher levels of intelligence to make our tools cover the difference..
intelligence builds on intelligence however and it wasn't long before we progressed even further.


a more interesting question would be why some other, non-tool using animals are as intelligent as they are.
Dolphins for example, or Ravens, or Elephants, or Rats, or Wolves. all considered extremely intelligent and most use tools sparingly if at all.

Other primates use tools as well. Apes, monkeys and pro-simians all can use some form of tool. Intelligence comparisons between species is a tricky endeavor because there are a lot of factors to consider. Did you know that cats have better long term memory and problem solving skills than dogs? Does that make them smarter? Then consider that cats live, for the most part, by themselves and have to depend on themselves where dogs (and wolves since they are genetically the same species) live in social packs where the pack works together to solve a problem.

Rats and ravens may exhibit high skill in some areas of intelligence but other areas are non existent, like the ability to know that someone else may not have all the same knowledge you have. Or recognizing self in the mirror. It is all very complicated.


We are animals, we gained an advantage in being bipedal that let us exploit our thumbs and minds better, which then let us expand across the world and further our tools to adapt to new environments. Our social structure was also a key attribute to our success because it let us hunt larger things and accomplish more complicated tasks that we could not alone.

[Vanyali]

Being bipedal (walking on two legs) was one of key mutations for us. It let us travel farther without resting, it freed our hands for carrying things and using tools longer, it was the keystone mutation for us our ancestors to migrate across the world. It gave us a distinct advantage which then allowed for mutations for increased intelligence and social skills to help us win out over other advanced human like species like homo neanderthalis.

Actually, the main thing that most people think was the reason is either to be able to see farther or to keep the body off cold ground, though it's of course still debated. But there are recorded instances of primates that live in snowy areas suddenly spending most of their time upright, though it's fairly unnatural for them, seemingly to expose less of their body to the cold! It also reduces the area that is directly hit by the sun.

Also, neanderthals were just as "human" as we were. They had the same level of culture, or higher, as sapiens at that time. The main problem working against them as body structure - they were VERY VERY adapted to a cold environment and a specific method of hunting. They traded more of the finesse of their arms for strength, which made throwing difficult and forced them into more dangerous hunting styles. Other than that they were just as intelligent as humans.

The only thing that allowed us to "win out" was body differences... and even then it might not have been "winning out" as much as breeding them out or killing them all. There are hundreds of homonids that were just as human, but specialized to eating something different or living somewhere different that simply couldn't adapt or adapted eventually into something completely different.

[Kalyyn]

It's hilarious how many people in this thread are wrong. Guess what, OP? You win today. Modern science says that you are 100% correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...n_intelligence

[Necrotan]

this is a topic where my english knowledge simply ends it, i could discuss it with you in my first language, but damn it, i know what you mean still that is not a sufficient explaination, because some kind of knowledge must be passed from generation to generation, and this involves somepart of the species to learn from it´s surounding, i hope you get my point, if not, ef it i need to get better at english

There are instinctual behaviors and learned behaviors, the instinctual behaviors are hard coded into the DNA of the species, they are preset and present at birth. Learned behaviors are things an organism learns after it was born. Insects rely pretty much on instinct and have little to no learned behaviors. The one's that blend in to surroundings (either by looking like a leaf, stick or even the ground) are that way because over time the ones that looked that way already got eaten less often and were able to breed, thus passing on the traits, more complicated animals adapted different strategies for success. The more complicated the brain the learned behaviors can be added to increase the likelihood of surviving and breeding.