The human brain and evolution?

Originally posted by shahenshah
It it were just prevalence over space and time, then the bacteria and roaches would win.
But clearly compared to all the life forms, Humans are the dominant species.
Humans can kill the roaches and bacteria. As we know, bacteria also kills a number of humans, but they don't hold us under subjection for long.
So I would suggest that a species "wins" wh ...[text shortened]... o.. they keep domesticated animals in farms, etc and wild animals in zoos, forest reserves.

Humans can kill the roaches and bacteria. As we know, bacteria also kills a number of humans, but they don't hold us under subjection for long.

All depends on your point of view.

Bacteria can kill the humans. As we know, humans also kill bacteria, but they don't hold them under subjection for long.

Originally posted by shahenshah
Agreed, for 2 out of 3.
As regard E.coli and other bacteria... they are in "our bodies", our labs and can be eliminated by the right antibiotics.

Some bacteria, I think it was small-pox have been eradicated except for a small sample kept by WHO.

But there are some bacteria we could not live without.

But I really don't know why you came up with your 3. at all. Why should keeping other species in zoos be considered a measure of success?
If man eventually makes it to other planets but doesn't take other species with him and doesn't have zoos there, will he be a failure /'looser'?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But there are some bacteria we could not live without.

But I really don't know why you came up with your 3. at all. Why should keeping other species in zoos be considered a measure of success?
If man eventually makes it to other planets but doesn't take other species with him and doesn't have zoos there, will he be a failure /'looser'?

1) Name some bacteria that we can't live without?
2) Keeping other species in zoos, farms, forests, is part of DOMINATION... POWER. The ones outside the fence has power over the ones inside the fence. Two species cannot occupy the same niche forever.
3) If man did go to another planet AND he didn't take the earthly species with him. Then he would be only master of the new planet, not master of the universe/galaxy.

How many species of early Man are living nowdays?.... that's right Just One.

Originally posted by shahenshah
2) Keeping other species in zoos, farms, forests, is part of DOMINATION... POWER. The ones outside the fence has power over the ones inside the fence. Two species cannot occupy the same niche forever.

But why is domination / power a measure of success? And why must two species occupy the same niche?

3) If man did go to another planet AND he didn't take the earthly species with him. Then he would be only master of the new planet, not master of the universe/galaxy.
Well we aren't masters of the universe/galaxy now, and never will be.

How many species of early Man are living nowdays?.... that's right Just One.
And how is that relevant?

Originally posted by shahenshah
1) Name some bacteria that we can't live without?
2) Keeping other species in zoos, farms, forests, is part of DOMINATION... POWER. The ones outside the fence has power over the ones inside the fence. Two species cannot occupy the same niche forever.
3) If man did go to another planet AND he didn't take the earthly species with him. Then he would be ...[text shortened]... verse/galaxy.

How many species of early Man are living nowdays?.... that's right Just One.

As humans are changing constantly, "Early Man" is very subjective. Also, Homo sapiens are a specific species, so you would only get one species by definition.

Different species are genetically different enough that cannot reproduce with each other naturally. If you were to isolate some Homo sapiens on an island long enough so they can't reproduce with people off the island, they will eventually become genetically diverged enough to become a new species, so humans will still be "Just One", just not the ones on the island.

If you were talking about apes, there are a number of species, which include humans.

Originally posted by galveston75
I wonder why we didn't evolve better brains then apes? Did evolution screw up?

I wonder this myself every time I read one of your posts.

Originally posted by shahenshah
1) Name some bacteria that we can't live without?
2) Keeping other species in zoos, farms, forests, is part of DOMINATION... POWER. The ones outside the fence has power over the ones inside the fence. Two species cannot occupy the same niche forever.
3) If man did go to another planet AND he didn't take the earthly species with him. Then he would be ...[text shortened]... verse/galaxy.

How many species of early Man are living nowdays?.... that's right Just One.

1. There are over 1,000 species of bacteria living on/in our bodies many have a highly beneficial effect (almost symbiotic).

2. two species can occupy the same niche. SYMBIOSIS

3. ?

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
I wonder this myself every time I read one of your posts.

Zing!

Originally posted by lausey
As humans are changing constantly, "Early Man" is very subjective. Also, Homo sapiens are a specific species, so you would only get one species by definition.

Different species are genetically different enough that cannot reproduce with each other naturally. If you were to isolate some Homo sapiens on an island long enough so they can't reproduce with peop ...[text shortened]... nd.

If you were talking about apes, there are a number of species, which include humans.

"Different species are genetically different enough that cannot reproduce with each other naturally"

This is not necessarily so. In fact it's pretty difficult to come up with a straightforward definition of the word 'species'.

I just found out that the science forum is discussing evolution.
You should take your questions and comments about it over there.
Maybe, there will be some real scientist over there that can tell you
everything you would like to know about evolution.

Basically the goal of any species is to perpetuate itself. This isn't, of course, something individuals of a species are consciously thinking (not necessarily), but from the standpoint of natural selection and how it functions, that is what it comes down to. Survival of the species as a whole. Geographical prevalence of a species is conducive to survival.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Basically the goal of any species is to perpetuate itself. This isn't, of course, something individuals of a species are consciously thinking (not necessarily), but from the standpoint of natural selection and how it functions, that is what it comes down to. Survival of the species as a whole. Geographical prevalence of a species is conducive to survival.

Basically the goal of any species is to perpetuate itself.

Dawkins would disagree. Species is a man made classification system created so we can categorise the biological kingdom.

It is the goal of any 'gene' to perpetuate itself.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It is the goal of any 'gene' to perpetuate itself.

Even that can be disputed. It is much clearer to simply say "those that perpetuate themselves survive, those that do not, do not.".
Once we use words like 'goal', 'success' etc we are bringing in a value system that is not really there.

If I drop a ball bearing and a feather from the same height, the ball bearing will reach the ground first. The item with the highest mass to air resistance ratio will get to the ground first. But is it the 'goal' of either of them to do so? Does either 'succeed'? Does the ball bearing 'win the race'?

Likewise, a gene does not have a 'goal' and does not 'succeed' unless we first invent a 'race for survival'.

The idea of attaching a value system to evolution and natural selection is what results in people mistakenly using it to justify a moral system (such as radical Eugenics).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Even that can be disputed. It is much clearer to simply say "those that perpetuate themselves survive, those that do not, do not.".
Once we use words like 'goal', 'success' etc we are bringing in a value system that is not really there.

If I drop a ball bearing and a feather from the same height, the ball bearing will reach the ground first. The item ...[text shortened]... ople mistakenly using it to justify a moral system (such as radical Eugenics).

You are correct. I'll think of a better term.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Even that can be disputed. It is much clearer to simply say "those that perpetuate themselves survive, those that do not, do not.".
Once we use words like 'goal', 'success' etc we are bringing in a value system that is not really there.

If I drop a ball bearing and a feather from the same height, the ball bearing will reach the ground first. The item ...[text shortened]... ople mistakenly using it to justify a moral system (such as radical Eugenics).

Excellent post - thankyou