|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Human
|
This evolution related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Intelligence[edit]
The phrase: Critically Endangered due to it being paradoxically too stupid to handle its high intelligence. masks an interesting point which I have heard before. the question is, "If intelligence is such a really fantastic trick - why haven't other animals evolved it?". In other words, is there some overwhelming cost to being intelligent that has sent all other intelligent hominids into extinction?--Bobbing up 13:01, 13 November 2007 (EST)
- The overwhelming cost of being intelligent is
putting up with creationist fuckwitsthe enormous amount of energy used by the brain.[1] It burns up calories like an SUV. Even on Monday morning. Totnesmartin 13:39, 13 November 2007 (EST)- Remember also that while today intelligence means we can do pretty much anything, at one point the only thing we could do with it was hit stuff with rocks and other primitive stuff. Dunno what was our differences with the other hominids though. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 09:23, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
- Not true. Early humans were hunter gatherers. Some still are. That is a very difficult way of life that requires a lot of brains. Knowing each type of plant and animal in your environment, where to find it, when to find it, if you can eat is, and how to prepare it for eating all takes a lot of thought. Modern hunter gatherers have knowledge that would rival that of a trained botanist or zoologist. When you think about it that way, it's easy to see why having such a big brain would be an advantage, even for ancient people or pre-human hominids. Paradox 00:23, 28 November 2008 (EST)
- Humans are cool :) Early humans were... well, whatever they were. Smart enough to escape predators and alter their environment. In the earliest days, our ridiculously large nervous system provided two benefits: the ability to map our environment, and the ability to learn rapidly from experience - and teaching. It wasn't just the brain that did it, it was the congruent development of a way to teach - our vocalization system surely evolved in parallel with our ability to absorb information, and perhaps pushed it. IE, the mutation that led to our species was not the grossly giant brain so much as the vocal cords and associated structures. ħuman
02:13, 28 November 2008 (EST)
- Actually all the advantages discussed so far didn't emerge until well after the explosive development of the human brain. Also the areas that developed most rapidly and changed the most are not areas associated with navigation, memory, learning, associations, etc. The evidence seems to be pointing to something else being the selective pressure for the expansion of human intelligence.
- My two favorite hypotheses both share one thing in common, the selective pressure was other humans. One is the social navigation hypothesis, which views brain expansion relating to an evolutionary arms race in the social dynamic elements. The other one is that the human brain is akin to the Peacock's tail, and was driven by sexual selection. tmtoulouse 02:24, 28 November 2008 (EST)
- Everything I need to know about the evolution of intelligence I learned in kindergarten, and from reading William H. Calvin's The Cerebral Symphony. It has been a while, but I remember him saying that both speech and throwing things accurately may both use the same bits of nervous tissue, preparing the activity subconsciously by pruning a tree of possibilities, and then launching the selected utterance or toss. Need to read more... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Humans are cool :) Early humans were... well, whatever they were. Smart enough to escape predators and alter their environment. In the earliest days, our ridiculously large nervous system provided two benefits: the ability to map our environment, and the ability to learn rapidly from experience - and teaching. It wasn't just the brain that did it, it was the congruent development of a way to teach - our vocalization system surely evolved in parallel with our ability to absorb information, and perhaps pushed it. IE, the mutation that led to our species was not the grossly giant brain so much as the vocal cords and associated structures. ħuman
- Not true. Early humans were hunter gatherers. Some still are. That is a very difficult way of life that requires a lot of brains. Knowing each type of plant and animal in your environment, where to find it, when to find it, if you can eat is, and how to prepare it for eating all takes a lot of thought. Modern hunter gatherers have knowledge that would rival that of a trained botanist or zoologist. When you think about it that way, it's easy to see why having such a big brain would be an advantage, even for ancient people or pre-human hominids. Paradox 00:23, 28 November 2008 (EST)
- Remember also that while today intelligence means we can do pretty much anything, at one point the only thing we could do with it was hit stuff with rocks and other primitive stuff. Dunno what was our differences with the other hominids though. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 09:23, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Hu, may we continue with the book agreement "preamble"?[edit]
Or you went to different parts of RW and forgot the book since I'm not funny enough according to your standards? I thought you are, and that's why I selected you as a possible partner. Should I look elsewhere? JimJast (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Or I should shut up since I'm takling to wrong Human? JimJast (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Try here. Although I doubt that this plan will go anywhere. Röstigraben (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
East African Plains Ape[edit]
A most awesome and better title for this article? ħuman 08:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Endangerment[edit]
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ classifies Homo sapiens as "Least concern",[2] though the classification is probably based mainly on population numbers. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oooh oooh oohh!!!! I know exacty where to put this link!
...I'll coax your leukemia! 15:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- This page was written by an alien, I'm sure of it...oh I'm just kidding. It just looks so distinct as to seem alien. — Unsigned, by: 134.228.163.30 / talk 21:18, 29 June 2015
- Congratulations to whoever wrote this article. It's quite snarky and is begging for a Fun counterpart. Panzerfaust (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Urban evolution[edit]
How much have humans evolved in response to development of the urban environment (towns and cities - ie from the point where 'any one person' is not likely to know 'everybody else in the collection of housing and other units')? Wikipedia gives 3000 BC for the earliest cities, and towns are probably somewhat older: so, assuming 3-5 generations a century 'a couple of hundred generations' for some groups of (mobile) homo sapiens urbans. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)