I have a questions regarding the origins of human intelligence. Somewhere along the lines of evolution some species species became as intelligent as a human and thus became human(?). Was this "event" a sudden mutation in a single individual or a series of mutations over the course of time in a population?
I guess a better way to put it is did some proto-human end up way smarter than its peers and thrived and reproduced because it was so much smarter? And then its descendants went on to out compete everything else? Looking at human history it looks like we kinda came out of nowhere when it comes to language, tradition, and mysticism. Could we all still be living in jungles of it wasn't for some lucky mutation in a single individual?
>>7687782
>Somewhere along the lines of evolution some species species became as intelligent as a human and thus became human(?)
what?
>>7687786
what i mean is was some proto-human born with a mutation that made him more intelligent than his peers. And did his species classification change as a result of a single mutation?
>>7687782
>I guess a better way to put it is did some proto-human end up way smarter than its peers and thrived and reproduced because it was so much smarter?
no he/she became a tiny bit 'smarter' (you could also call it more succesful, better-adapted, got eaten by other animals less often) and some of his/her kids even an additional bit more then, too, then the next generation again a tiny bit more, and so on and so on
>Could we all still be living in jungles of it wasn't for some lucky mutation in a single individual?
nah that same mutation would have occured again, hundred years later
>>7687782
I can't really defend this but I do remember reading something that suggested that although humans and a few other species were 'intelligent' that the intelligence we know today could have come roughly 60,000 years ago. What I was reading pointed out that the human population was low at that time and that cave paintings began to appear from about that point onwards.
This suggested the possibility of a single human, superior in intelligence and creativity could be a common ancestor to us all.
>>7687792
Ahh so its gradual. It just seems like there's some tipping point where we acquired language and handiness and then shit started to snowball.
>>7687791
no it wasnt like that
for some reason they had to leave the forest and became steppe-runners and then only the intelligent ones survived
>>7687797
>This suggested the possibility of a single human, superior in intelligence and creativity could be a common ancestor to us all.
again, there are more ancestors than only one
intelligence bases on more gene loci than one
Synthesis of food and human alters genetic expression in various degrees.
You're describing survival of the fittest dumbass.
>>7687802
tipping points or quantum leaps also occured
>>7687804
ok. Maybe i need to read more on evolution. So if im thinking this right if you have a population of humans and 10% of them have mutation that lets them retain water better. They would still be humans without a new species classification. But if something happened to the climate and water became way more scarce and the other 90% of the species died. Would the 10% that survived and thrived because of their mutation be considered a new species? And they would refer to homo-sapiens as the species that got shit on because they couldn't adapt? I guess that means species are not defined by their physiology but by their existence relative to the species that no longer exist as a result of not having the right mutations.
>>7687822
Ergo how's a species classified?
>>7687826
yes. That 10% are considered homo-sapiens if the other 90% exists? But if they don't exist then 10% becomes 100% and they get a new species classification?
>>7687822
I can't tell you what degree of difference would set species apart, however if it were down to every little difference such as retention of water we could probably split our species into sub groups based on race given the minor physical differences.
I would imagine the degree of difference has been determined by what evidence of past species we have found. That is to say the relatively small amount of fossils and bones dating back such large periods of time and what differences we can discover from those remains alone, given that we can't actually study a living example.
>>7687836
>I can't tell you what degree of difference would set species apart
what im saying is maybe the ONLY thing that sets species apart is extinction. Your right in your statement that by this logic the current human race could be consist of countless sub-species if you take into silly things like water retention, UV resistance, being right handed. But they only get a tittle if the others go extinct as a result of not having that niche/mutation. But if some far future race looked at these 2 as fossils they wouldn't be able to distinguish the two.
>>7687830
They might be classified as homo sapiens with genetic mutation 1.
never mind this cleared things up
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/Species.htm
>ere is a very important lesson to be learned from the problem of defining the word "species." Humans are driven to categorize and classify everything. We do it with everything in our lives. Unfortunately for our peace of mind, nature doesn't always go along with the game. The reality is that there are many "in between" situations when it comes to the distinctions between species.
>As if this problem weren't difficult enough with living species, it becomes truly overwhelming when we try to divide similar fossils into distinct species because, of course, we don't have any information about who could breed with who else. Paleontologists are forced to make species decisions based simply on the physical features of the fossil creatures they find. Naturally, since paleontologists are human beings, this leads to all kinds of disagreements. All species have diversity, and you have to decide just how much difference is enough to place two fossils into two different species. Paleontologists even have special terms for different approaches to species decisions. A "splitter" tends to take any little difference as enough to place a fossil into a brand new species, so they tend to want to name many, many species. A "lumper" tends to ignore a lot of differences, and to put many fossils together into the same species, so they tend to name relatively few species. Most agree that the middle path is probably the best approach.
>>7687830
>>7687851
>Two organisms that are able to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids of at least one sex, such as a mule, hinny or F1 male cattalo are not considered to be the same species.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
>>7687850
Good point.
Perhaps it's not based on extinction per se, even though all the other species did go extinct. Maybe it's based on the distinctively unique collective evolutionary traits that came to be in contrast to other species.
>>7687797
>60000 years ago
Blasphemy, the earth is only 6000 years old
>>7687908
for you
>>7687782
>>7687949
Gay ass penis "plants". Pls nuke, oh wait they can survive that somehow. Goddamn corpse eaters.
