I think, it is sure, recently we are becoming more mentally strong, more consicious and more intelligent. I do not know whether it is due to some evolutionary change or it is an environmental change which may cause evolutionary change, later. But we need to better understand, how we are getting it.
Biological Energy Redistribution?
- Thread starter KUMAR5
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
What evidence do you have that we are becoming more intelligent? I see none - rather the reverse, in fact. We may know more, but that does not make us more intelligent than those who built the pyramids, for instance.
Don't we see modern developments of both creative and destructive nature currently? These were not there in old times. One or few super or specific developments should not be taken as common developments which are happening only recently. Computers, machines, planes, space crafts, nuclear power etc. all can suggest we are becoming more developed, mentally. We may even note, our childern look to be more intelligent than older time children. Yes however, what justify real and natural intelligence and conciousness, is a different thought. Probably secondary natural or evolutionary changes always have advantages but also with disadvantages. So today same is apparent.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No I think you are confusing state of technical development with intelligence.
Last edited:
I feel higher technical development should not possible without higher intelligence and consciousness(mean higher mental power).
We need to understand, if modern sedentary lifestyle has caused or necessitated higher mental power?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Is that a question or a statement?
Question pls. Pls also read last post about projecting human evolution which suggest future human can be physically weaker. Mentally stronger is not mentioned but look logical.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Ah OK. Then I'd say we don't need to understand whether sedentary lifestyle necessitates higher mental powers. It obviously doesn't necessitate it.
What I think you need to keep in mind is that natural selection works by the favoured adaptation having more offspring and thus becoming more dominant in the population over generations. I see no mechanism in operation in modern society that causes people with higher mental powers to have more children than those that don't. In fact on the contrary, those with limited mental powers are perhaps less likely to control their fertility and may have more children than those with higher mental powers!
Yes, then how brain size is increased?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Because that did not take place in modern society, did it? It occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago, when we were just like the other apes. At that stage, natural selection processes could well have favoured improvements in cognitive capacity, once the priority was no longer getting enough nutrition.
Or probably, more offspring and better survival may not be only goal of evolution. Furthur all which we sre trying to do today, main intention can be more offsprings with better survival and lifestyle. But simply individual selfish interests has created many odds.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You misunderstand: the mechanism of evolution is natural selection. If a trait does not lead to more offspring, it is not selected for and will not lead to evolutionary change.
Stop trying to make stuff up. Science does not work that way.
Do you mean sole purpose of evolution is to encourage more offsprings?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No. Evolution does not have a "purpose". It is a natural process, like erosion. What is the "purpose" of erosion, eh? See what I mean?
The mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which works by replicating most the traits of those organisms that reproduce the most. It's a perfectly simple idea. If a giraffe with a longer neck survives a drought by reaching leaves to eat that nothing else can reach, it will be able to reproduce, when shorter necked giraffes die of starvation. And so its offspring will inherit the longer neck, so that advantage is passed on to future generations. So long as the environment has limited leaves to eat, a longer neck will thus be favoured. But there is no purpose to evolution here. It is just a response to the prevailing environmental pressure.
Is that mean need to survive is passed to next genaration is passed as evolution? Taking cooked food was not a need for survival but still humans are evolved to it. How?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It is not a need to survive. Things that can survive and hunt better can have more offspring than their rivals who don't hunt as well. The population of the species is eventually dominated by offspring of the better survivors. A few generations later, the same species is a better survivor than its ancestors.
As for cooking: it breaks down the food and releases nutrients not available in raw form. Humans cannot digest cellulose, which is what plant material is. Cooking it disrupts the cells, releasing all that nutritive goodness. That means they have better nutrition, better health, better survival, more offspring. They can outcompete rivals, (such as, say, Neanderthal).
Does all or most, environmental, social or personal constant interactions in once life do not pass to offspring, genetic or phynotypic?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No.
How? Whatever creative, destructive, med and greed related modern introductions which we are doing now a days can not be taken as traits in our better survival and maintainance and so get evolved in our offsprings? Do not we pass environmental, natural or social, to our offsprings? To compete and surrvive in future our offsprings may need more advanced technology.