Gap in evolutionary logic.

[Anonymous No.9665754]

Guy I don't know about evolution anymore.

So, finches in different regions have bred into particular beak shapes due to the advantage of that shape.
That means that, lets take nuts for an example, had to have been a challenge so frequent, difficult, and so advantageous to overcome, that only those finches who had a slight advantage could breed. This would happen over and over until the trait becomes very defined so that most of the finches can breed, thus making more progress towards that trait much slower.

My question is: What the fuck bred super-intelligence?

What possible challenge in nature was so specific to primordial humans in the specific area where we evolved that we developed an adaptation like this?
And if we became the apex predator of the entire earth in the blink of an eye (in the relative time of carbon based life) how has nothing ever developed this before?
Why aren't other species breeding for super-intelligence if its so powerful?

I understand it could be a mutation, but why hasn't anything else mutated like this then?

>inb4 braindead wojacks
>inb4 anything that isn't a direct answer
>inb4 haha op infinite gay lol

[Anonymous No.9665762]

>>9665754
Even if evolution isn't an explanation of our origin, it's still an inevitable phenomenon. That's good enough for me

[Anonymous No.9665764]

>>9665754
I think you're overestimating "super intelligence." The difference between creating a wheel, a rock hammer, a spear, etc... and discovering Schrodinger's equation is marginal.

[Anonymous No.9665769]

It has nothing to do with challenges. It has to do with advantage.

An individual is born with some random mutation. That mutation allows the individual to outperform other individuals in some aspect, increasing his chances of reproduction - thus the mutation spreads.

But there are no challenges at all involved. Mutations can be intrascendental, useless, even harmful (think cancer). Or they can be useful, like an enlarged or more efficient liver or higher production of a certain enzyme, etc.

[Anonymous No.9665773]

>>9665764
I can see that, it has only been a few humans to make huge advances, but the rest of them have set up societies and governed themselves, and generally been able to communicate waaaay more than any other animals.

[Anonymous No.9665774]

>Be prehistoric human
>Get a boost to IQ
>Talk about stars and shit
>Women intelligent enough to admire your intelligence
>Get laid

>Be modern human
>Super intelligent
>Talk about stars and shit, too autistic. Brain gave up too much for analytical ability
>Die a virgin

[Anonymous No.9665776]

>>9665764
i agree with this, we "invented" our concepts of math, science, etc to represent natural phenomena. products of our own creation are widely in our understanding. unless you are a brainlet like op

[Anonymous No.9665777]

>>9665774
Revert to smashing rocks with your head, get laid

[Anonymous No.9665781]

>>9665773
Yes, one of the silliest arguments used against Native Americans and Blacks compared to whites is that their civilization was "primitive". But the difference between a primitive civilization and our civilization might only be a thousand years.

I'm not commenting anything on the African/Native debate, simply that this argument is null

[Anonymous No.9665789]

>>9665781
I'd say the blacks and NA had civilizations with equivalents to advancements in Europe that the Europeans just didn't recognize due to a superiority complex.

[Anonymous No.9665795]

>>9665789
Well what I'm saying is, the way there is a "singularity point" with AI, there was a singularity point with humanity. It's highly unlikely two isolated civilizations will hit the singularity point at the same time.

[Anonymous No.9665808]

>>9665795
Sure, but two civilizations could be past singularity at the same time, like how the Romans and Chinese existed functionally independent for hundreds of years.

Also, would you say the argument presented was at least enough that you could see why someone like me would be skeptical that humans were a product of evolution?

[Anonymous No.9665813]

>>9665754
the "easy" answers involve food acquisition. not dissimilar from finches.

a larger brain simply allowed human ancestors to manipulate the world better: better hunting, ability to get bone marrow or brain tissue that scavengers couldn't, understanding of grubs, roots, fish or general patterns in the environment. all that food enabled larger brained individuals to survive, but not only that, larger brained individuals would simply be more successful in life and procreation.

granted, brain tissue is the most expensive in terms of energy and nutritional need so its evolutionary enlargement can only proceed when environmental pressures line up properly.

[Anonymous No.9665815]

>>9665769
Okay, but an advantage is useless unless its used to overcome some challenge.
Also, intelligence correlates with genetics, how is it that the one or two humans who had this mutation didn't just mix in with everything else and lose the mutation?

> t. not a geneticist pls no hate

[Anonymous No.9665816]

>>9665813
That makes sense to me.

but the same question I posed in >>9665815 also applies

and I hope you are using "larger brain" as a figure of speech, lol.

[Anonymous No.9665820]

>>9665754
>only those finches who had a slight advantage could breed

[Anonymous No.9665821]

>>9665773
>set up societies and governed themselves
this is in essence the explanation for our current state of advancement. none of us are very smart on our own, but when knowledge and wisdom have permanence and we structure society around them, then we benefit greatly from all those who came before--much faster in fact than what evolution alone could provide.

[Anonymous No.9665825]

>>9665754
>primordial humans
Primordial homo sapiens sapiens coexisted and fought up to 4 other hominids such as neanderthals for resources. We aren't even the most successful so far since homo erectus has existed three times as long as we have before being wiped out.

[Anonymous No.9665826]

>>9665821
Is the sharing of information (on this level) not a strange adaptation unique to humans?

[Anonymous No.9665831]

>>9665808
I don't believe the argument is convincing. Forming airtight arguments on complicated topics like these are really hard because there are so many possibilities that a person isn't capable of imagining.

What is clear to me is that evolution is a real phenomenon over time. Clearly genetic differences happen between generations and therefore arbitrarily large differences can accumulate given enough time. Even if humans were engineered to some point before being "set loose" to breed, it's still evolution that governs us now.

I suppose you could say alien rays from the stars control the genetics of all living organisms on Earth and no one could prove you wrong.

[Anonymous No.9665836]

>>9665826
Yes, an explanation of which is probably very in depth

[Anonymous No.9665837]

>>9665825
Hmm. I'd say the existence of four individual species of "humans" would lend itself to the idea of the existence of some issue "humans" needed to overcome. In the area, Africa, that they spawned from.

I just can't think of something that would cause this particular brand of mutation to be successful in humans but not in other animals when it has likely occurred.

Maybe it just stuck with us by chance?

[Anonymous No.9665844]

>>9665837
You are heavily overestimating your capacity to imagine scenarios

[Anonymous No.9665847]

Most interesting reason I've heard (and one I consider likely) is sexual selection.

That is, the human brain is basically a proverbial peacock tail, where the effort to impress the opposite sex drove the selection for abstract thought. Musical talent, artistic drive, and language being the surest ways to secure a mate in early intellectual development. It just turned out that things like tool use and problem solving used the same structures and developed along side.

Not to say that it is exclusively one or the other, but it makes sense that sexual attraction would benefit in the gaps where intelligence can be a burden.

[Anonymous No.9665853]

>This would happen over and over until the trait becomes very defined so that most of the finches can breed, thus making more progress towards that trait much slower.

I don't see how you are coming to that conclusion.

>Why aren't other species breeding for super-intelligence if its so powerful?

There is the question of utility compared to the strain on the individual and the toll it takes on a tribal type of animal. Being very smart, especially when it makes you perceived as an outcast, can cause a lot of stress. Otherwise pointless rumination and paranoia might overwhelm a creature that is simply in need of reacting to stimuli. It becomes an burden pretty fast not to mention a caloric waste.

A couple minutes into the lecture he starts talking the cost associated with producing certain traits.

https://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/eeb-122/lecture-8

[Anonymous No.9665859]

>>9665789
That would be a dumb thing to say then.

[Anonymous No.9665862]

>>9665815
>how is it that the one or two humans who had this mutation didn't just mix in with everything else and lose the mutation
part of this could be the power of sexual reproduction. in some cases it can effectively promote the spread of mutations. sexual reproduction is NOT guaranteed AND presents a huge burden. so a mutation which has a significant advantage to survival is far more likely to overcome those hurdles in ALMOST ALL generations. without the mutation advantage, maybe those hurdles are overcome in only SOME generations. you can go even further with this because when two people with the same mutation reproduce, they can have a super-mutation that is even better than the parents'. either way the point is you can end up with a mutation reproduction pattern that over time dominates all non-mutation reproduction patterns.

[Anonymous No.9665870]

>>9665859
Care to elaborate on this claim?

[Anonymous No.9665872]

>>9665826
yes and no. many animals pass down behaviors and knowledge that seem to last very long spans of time (for instance elephant migration). but humans are certainly above all others in manipulation of the world, "behavioral synthesis", and preservation of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.9666971]

The social brain hypothesis is a decent explanation for why primate neocortices exploded the way they did over other early African inhabitants; a handful of adaptations stemming from bipedalism (which, in turn, appeared to result from the unique knuckle-walking locomotion hominins used in conjunction with a period of global cooling that rendered traditional primate diets less accessible) such as adaptations for endurance aerobic physical activity (ie running/trekking) and overhead throwing have been shown to exert accumulating effects on neurological development on both individual and species-wide ie. generational levels; these adaptations get us to H. Erectus and the advent of hunting/gathering, which is implicated in the development of all sorts of "super-intelligence" significant shit ranging from theory of mind, deductive reasoning, cooked food diets, and paraperceptual thought (that's my prof's term for thinking about stuff beyond your immediate perceptual reality eg tracking the changing of seasons or the geography 50km away) - with all these features in play, cultural learning begins to really take off and bada bing bada boom here we are shitposting about pigtails in a Sudanese stamp-collecting dojo

[Anonymous No.9666993]

>>9665820
Any finch could breed.
But finches which were better adapted to the (current) environment, was better fed, lived longer, and (statistically) had more offspring.

Not being "the best" finch /= being sterile.
Evolution only biases the odds. A finch with a really good beak could still be eaten or die of disease. That's why Evolution is a slow process.

It applies to us too. Some proto-Newton who would have revolutionized everything and shaved 100,000 years off history -- fell off a cliff or was eaten by a dire-wolf.