29 Sep '12 22:48>
Smaller brains actually. I read somewhere, might have been new scientist not sure, but human brains have become smaller and more streamlined over the years.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckThen you are misusing the word evolution. Even creatures headed for eventual extinction are evolving. I realize that your misuse is common place and that the world evolution usually carries connotations of improvement and success, but it is incorrect to use it this way in a scientific setting such as this thread. Whether humans get more intelligent or less, die out or survive, they are still evolving until the very last one dies off.
Personally, I do believe evolution = greater intelligence but that's just my opinion.
If human's are too stubborn and unintelligent to react accordingly to their environment
then eventually (and actually relatively quickly) they will get wiped out.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYeah, I know but you asked me what I believed.
Then you are misusing the word evolution. Even creatures headed for eventual extinction are evolving. I realize that your misuse is common place and that the world evolution usually carries connotations of improvement and success, but it is incorrect to use it this way in a scientific setting such as this thread. Whether humans get more intelligent or les ...[text shortened]... believe global warming spells major trouble and could potentially decimate the human population.
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Yeah, I know but you asked me what I believed.
Surely you agree that evolution leads to increasing complexity.
This being the case can we not equate complexity with intelligence?
Surely you agree that evolution leads to increasing complexity.
This being the case can we not equate complexity with intelligence?
Originally posted by Thequ1ckNo and no. Sorry, but it is that simple: your assumptions are both just wrong.
Surely you agree that evolution leads to increasing complexity.
This being the case can we not equate complexity with intelligence?
Originally posted by Thequ1ckEvolution usually evolves to higher complexity but not always:
Yeah, I know but you asked me what I believed.
Surely you agree that evolution leads to increasing complexity.
This being the case can we not equate complexity with intelligence?
Originally posted by sonhouseI wouldn't even go so far as to say that it 'usually' evolves into higher complexity. The vast majority of organisms on the planet remain single celled.
Evolution usually evolves to higher complexity but not always:
Originally posted by sonhouseCertainly there will always be a huge variation in complexity between species
Evolution usually evolves to higher complexity but not always:
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-evolution-meant-simpler-complex.html
Originally posted by Shallow BlueInteresting you say that.
No and no. Sorry, but it is that simple: your assumptions are both just wrong.
Evolution does not necessarily lead to increasing complexity - it only seems like that because it started with the extreme of simplicity, a single cell. Given a sufficiently evolved creature, there is no guarantee that its subsequent evolution will make it more comp evel of complexity, but complexity per se is not sufficient for intelligence.
Richard
Originally posted by humyOK, like I said this is a belief of mine. One that I had no intention of pushing on others.
The driving force of evolution has nothing to do with 'complexity'.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI see you have cleverly changed the equation. You have restricted your claim to 'animals' and 'higher in the food chain'. You have also dropped complexity and replaced it with intelligence.
But as a whole, the animals higher in the food chain will show an increase in
intelligence as time progresses.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've not changed my argument. Firstly you asked what I believed. I am not prepared
I see you have cleverly changed the equation. You have restricted your claim to 'animals' and 'higher in the food chain'. You have also dropped complexity and replaced it with intelligence.
I remind you once again that of all living things, the vast majority are single celled.
Of multicellular life, the plants generally do not have intelligence because ...[text shortened]... doesn't imply a continual increase, overall nor a continual increase in any given species.
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Interesting you say that.
I've always wondered why birds are so beautiful. I mean, I know the brighter
the plumes, the more elaborate the dance etc entices more females.
But why do birds like bright plumages? What forces make the hen able to
recognise beauty much in the same way humans do?
I should also point out that complexity in the genotype doe own that the key differences
between man and apes are down to a handful of base-pair changes.
But why do birds like bright plumages? What forces make the hen able to
recognise beauty much in the same way humans do?
I should also point out that complexity in the genotype does not automatically
translate to complexity of the phenotype.