Originally posted by sonhouseGoing back to a hunter gatherer society sounds excellent to me...... better than the issues we face now thanks to a largely ignorant surplus population. I would be happier if this actually happened.
Well there's surviving and then there's surviving. Is it surviving if 99.99 percent of the human race is killed and the rest of the 6 million or so are living like cavemen?
Originally posted by scottishinnzDo you believe that advances in medicine, nutrition, food supplies etc, (which are basically the ability of the human race to manipulate its environment and itself), are not a result of mans brain / intelligence evolving?
It's just not that simple. If increasing longevity will not increase our fecundity, or the survival of our progeny in some way it will not be selected for. There is even a hypothesis that death of old individuals is good for their offspring, since it frees up resources.
Your question is akin to asking "which is better, the annual plant wheat, or a ...[text shortened]... uch as abundant nutritious food supply, medical advances, good hygiene, and things like that.
Originally posted by timebombtedNot in recent times, no. More technological than evolutionary.
Do you believe that advances in medicine, nutrition, food supplies etc, (which are basically the ability of the human race to manipulate its environment and itself), are not a result of mans brain / intelligence evolving?
Originally posted by mrstabbyDo remember that our current longevity is not as a result of our biochemistry or genetics. If we use allometric scaling laws, we should live to about 30 - which most of our ancestors did for most of existence. Our current longevity is more to do with societal advances in nutrition and healthcare than anything else.
I couldn't say that's wrong, it may be true, but I wouldn't say it's a driving evolutionary force. I don't think any DNA repair system, even for bacteria, is perfect, in fact, it's the imperfection in DNA repair systems that allows evolution to occur in the first place. There are mammals who are less sociable than us, so for them an extended longevity would be a bonus, but this is rarely seen in nature.
Originally posted by timebombtedAre you saying that the reason we didn't invent say the lightbulb 100 years earlier is because at the time people had less intelligence?
Do you believe that advances in medicine, nutrition, food supplies etc, (which are basically the ability of the human race to manipulate its environment and itself), are not a result of mans brain / intelligence evolving?
Originally posted by XanthosNZI believe that resource manipulation can be an intelligence indictator, one of our distinct features is a large brain which increased in size and complexity throughout vertebrate evolution. It gives us increased capacities for learning, cognition, and insight.
Are you saying that the reason we didn't invent say the lightbulb 100 years earlier is because at the time people had less intelligence?
There is evidence to show genes regulating brain size continue to evolve in humans today......
So I dont believe it is unreasonable to think that larger and / or more evolved brains can lead to new inventions / discoveries / different ways of thinking / problem solving etc all of which directly or indirectly can lead to an increase in longevity.
Without increased brain capacity I dont believe we would have had the intelligence to understand medicine (for example) in as much depth as we do today.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ100 years is a very small amount of time to witness evolution (in some cases), especially in humans as this may only be a few generations. However I would be more confident that the reason we didn't invent the (place modern day invention here) 100,000 years ago is more likely due to brain size.
Are you saying that the reason we didn't invent say the lightbulb 100 years earlier is because at the time people had less intelligence?
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut humans created that technology it didn't magically appear........ or are you saying that our early ancestors also have the knowledge and the ability to create tools to perform open heart surgery for example? but just choose not to.....
Not in recent times, no. More technological than evolutionary.
Maybe specifics are not the way to go here, but the reason we can make, understand and do more than other species is because we have increased brain capacity.
1 edit
Originally posted by timebombtedI am certainly not saying that. What I am saying is that people from 2000 or 5000 years ago had the mental capacity to do the things that we do now, they just didn't have the specific mindset, knowledge or training.
But humans created that technology it didn't magically appear........ or are you saying that our early ancestors also have the knowledge and the ability to create tools to perform open heart surgery for example? but just choose not to.....
Maybe specifics are not the way to go here, but the reason we can make, understand and do more than other species is because we have increased brain capacity.
[edit; if your point of view is valid, then I have a task for you. I'll pay you quite alot of money if you can do it. Just this; Find the gene for lightbulbs.]
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo the believe the brain has not evolved at all within the last 5000 years?
I am certainly not saying that. What I am saying is that people from 2000 or 5000 years ago had the mental capacity to do the things that we do now, they just didn't have the specific mindset, knowledge or training.
[edit; if your point of view is valid, then I have a task for you. I'll pay you quite alot of money if you can do it. Just this; Find the gene for lightbulbs.]
Obviously there is no lightbulb gene (excellent pointless task), but a gene that has enhanced the brain to a point where we have developed the correct mindset, knowledge and tool use to invent (said invention), is perfectly rational.
1 edit
Originally posted by timebombtedI'm not saying it hasn't evolved at all, I'm saying is that there is no physiological or historical evidence that it has changed in the slightest. Of course, the increase in life expectancy has really happened in the last couple of hundred years. For example, the life expectancy of a person of Northern Africa was 42 in 1950, and it's currently over 65. Has the average brain size of a North African gone up in that time?
So the believe the brain has not evolved at all within the last 5000 years?
Obviously there is no lightbulb gene (excellent pointless task), but a gene that has enhanced the brain to a point where we have developed the correct mindset, knowledge and tool use to invent (said invention), is perfectly rational.
From Wiki
"Life expectancy increased dramatically in the 20th century, especially in developed nations. Life expectancy at birth in the United States in 1900 was 47 years. At the end of the century it was 77 years, an increase of 57%. Similar gains have been seen throughout the world. Life expectancy in China was around 35 years in 1950. At century's close it had risen to around 71 years.[1] Life expectancy in India at midcentury was around 32, by 2000 it had risen to 64 years."
And yet no physiological changes have happened over this time as far as we know.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm not saying that every new invention has to be correlated to the development of the brain at that exact point in time. All I say is that its feasible to correlate the evolution of the brain to increasing intelligence. Thus that increase in intelligence has led to developments in areas such as medicine which have facilitated the longevity of our species (what this discussion is about not light bulb genes).
I'm not saying it hasn't evolved at all, I'm saying is that there is no physiological or historical evidence that it has changed in the slightest. Of course, the increase in life expectancy has really happened in the last couple of hundred years. For example, the life expectancy of a person of Northern Africa was 42 in 1950, and it's currently over 65 ...[text shortened]... ars."
And yet no physiological changes have happened over this time as far as we know.
There is evidence to suggest that the 2 genes that controlled the brain size in humans throughout the last 60,000 years is still rapidly evolving and being selected for (check out Bruce Lahn).
Originally posted by scottishinnzNot disagreeing with you, but thought I would chime in.
I'm not saying it hasn't evolved at all, I'm saying is that there is no physiological or historical evidence that it has changed in the slightest. Of course, the increase in life expectancy has really happened in the last couple of hundred years. For example, the life expectancy of a person of Northern Africa was 42 in 1950, and it's currently over 65 ...[text shortened]... ars."
And yet no physiological changes have happened over this time as far as we know.
I wonder about the "better nutrients result in longer life" argument, since experiments with mice and rats show that the reverse is true -- that reduced calorie tends to prolong life. No argument about the effect of medicines, though.
Giant tortises have also been selected for longevity for some reason. Is there a parallel with humans?
Second point: evolution can act without producing physiological changes. My favorite is the oyster, which people say has not changed in millions of years. Yet I bet the immune response of today's oysters (if oysters have such a thing) is different from those of the Jurassic era.