Yes
Are Humans the first evolution of Intellegence on the Earth?
- Thread starter Meredith
- Start date
Yes
^^Well, you won't prove human intelligence that way...
Advanced intelligence such as ours seems to require many things beyond just evolving a large brain. If we didn't have thumbs for example, we wouldn't have gotten very far. If we didn't have natural resources to use for tools, we would have another problem. As smart as a Dolphin or Raven might be, their ability to put that intelligence to work is limited by their physical tools particularly.
I think it is very possible that creatures millions of years ago such as small predatory/scavenging dinosaurs or the like could have been very intelligent and potentials for developing culture and civilization, but if they ever made it beyond sticks and stones, we've yet to see it and so must assume it didn't happen, even if we hope it did and will keep on looking for as long as we're on this planet. If we're dealing with 65 million years, or even a lot more than that, the likelihood of finding any evidence of tool use by a dinosaur (without far more advanced technology than we have) is 'very very small number' into 'very very large number' to the power of 'very very large number', even if they happened to live in areas best suited to preserving fossils.
Essentially, there is no way to tell if we are the first intelligence, only that we're the first civilization (as we define it).
I think it is very possible that creatures millions of years ago such as small predatory/scavenging dinosaurs or the like could have been very intelligent and potentials for developing culture and civilization, but if they ever made it beyond sticks and stones, we've yet to see it and so must assume it didn't happen, even if we hope it did and will keep on looking for as long as we're on this planet. If we're dealing with 65 million years, or even a lot more than that, the likelihood of finding any evidence of tool use by a dinosaur (without far more advanced technology than we have) is 'very very small number' into 'very very large number' to the power of 'very very large number', even if they happened to live in areas best suited to preserving fossils.
Essentially, there is no way to tell if we are the first intelligence, only that we're the first civilization (as we define it).
Yes, but evolution does not imply increasing intelligence.
Evolution seems to most effectively produce new bacteria.
Yes, but evolution does not imply increasing intelligence.
Evolution seems to most effectively produce new bacteria.
Yes that's true and that comes from the association of the word "evolve" with the concept of improving or advancing. In fact many people talk about evolution as something that implies ever more complex forms. In fact there is nothing to suggest this and it might be equally likely that we might evolve to become even more stupid than we already are.
We are currently limited to the extant example of our own civilization from which to draw conclusions and admittedly that is not enough. Still since the history of the earth is so long and man's time on it so tiny by comparison it seems at least a possibility that some other relatively advanced tool using creature may have developed and died out. Remember that in our early history which was not that long ago there were several distinct humanoid groups living at one time and we are the children of the one that made it..
I'm less interested in the possibility of ancient, non-homo sapiens than I am in the possibility of ancient and unknown civilizations that may have existed between 30,000 and 5-6,000 BC, and also more information about the societies we do know about. There are several coastal, oceanic architectural novelties combined with a lot of earth that has been left unexposed and a lot of verbal tradition telling interesting tales. There are several holes in the linguistic and technological evolution of our species. It doesn't necessarily seem like what we know is full of "wrong" pages and chapters, just missing ones. I'm not talking about aliens building the pyramids of shit like that BTW.
I'm also interested in stories that demonstrate what we thought we know about a culture (technology, arts, their range or territory) may be significantly different than what we previously thought. The oceanic range and influence of certain asian and polynesian cultures for example, or that the builders of the pyramids might not have been slaves. Also, ancient structures whos builders we know little about, like some of the mounds in Britain. It's also interesting when myths and architectural styles and art share similarities across time and continents. Coincidence, design, some kind of manifestation of what it is to be human? All great questions. Just rambling.
I'm also interested in stories that demonstrate what we thought we know about a culture (technology, arts, their range or territory) may be significantly different than what we previously thought. The oceanic range and influence of certain asian and polynesian cultures for example, or that the builders of the pyramids might not have been slaves. Also, ancient structures whos builders we know little about, like some of the mounds in Britain. It's also interesting when myths and architectural styles and art share similarities across time and continents. Coincidence, design, some kind of manifestation of what it is to be human? All great questions. Just rambling.
A lot of that would relate to the issue of transportation, as a means of communication and cultural exchange as well as a means of obtaining rare resources. Today, we tend to think of pre-classic civilizations as very limited in those means - tied to the turf, essentially. But a lot of that thinking comes from comparisons with the medieval times when people were tied to the turf by factors other than mere limitations of transportation technology.
I was rather surprised and delighted to read in the latest National Geographic about an Alpine body found buried at Stonehenge, telling not just of the ability of one man to traverse great distances but of the ability of a location's reputation to do so. Thor Heyerdal's wilder theories strike the same exciting note about relatively practical long distance travel as a means of exchange within a man's lifetime rather than as the result of glacial-paced exchange along great movements of entire peoples. And speaking of glacial, there has been a lot of talk about the ability of peoples to cross the North Atlantic via arctic means to reach North America before glaciers withdrew to allow for the Bering Straits connection, too.
A lot of the putative "pre-culture cultures" could have been less urban in nature than the classic civilizations would have us believe. The "critical mass" for culture might have emerged not from close packing of skilled people, but more from the free movement thereof. Less artifacts left behind, too (as even road networks would quickly disappear).
As for non-human civilizations of any technological note, those would probably have to be from the deep dinosaur era: far enough in the past for a sufficiently incomplete fossil record, for sufficient degradation of other evidence, and for sufficiently exotic forms of life and thus civilization to hinder recognizability of the signs. Whether any Devonian land lifeform would have had the required complexity is debatable; we'd need "diversity of complexity" like Triassic-Jurassic before such speculation could start in earnest.
Timo Saloniemi
I was rather surprised and delighted to read in the latest National Geographic about an Alpine body found buried at Stonehenge, telling not just of the ability of one man to traverse great distances but of the ability of a location's reputation to do so. Thor Heyerdal's wilder theories strike the same exciting note about relatively practical long distance travel as a means of exchange within a man's lifetime rather than as the result of glacial-paced exchange along great movements of entire peoples. And speaking of glacial, there has been a lot of talk about the ability of peoples to cross the North Atlantic via arctic means to reach North America before glaciers withdrew to allow for the Bering Straits connection, too.
A lot of the putative "pre-culture cultures" could have been less urban in nature than the classic civilizations would have us believe. The "critical mass" for culture might have emerged not from close packing of skilled people, but more from the free movement thereof. Less artifacts left behind, too (as even road networks would quickly disappear).
As for non-human civilizations of any technological note, those would probably have to be from the deep dinosaur era: far enough in the past for a sufficiently incomplete fossil record, for sufficient degradation of other evidence, and for sufficiently exotic forms of life and thus civilization to hinder recognizability of the signs. Whether any Devonian land lifeform would have had the required complexity is debatable; we'd need "diversity of complexity" like Triassic-Jurassic before such speculation could start in earnest.
Timo Saloniemi
We simply don't have enough information. The fossil record as it is can only ever be incomplete due to the complexities involved in the mineralisation of organic matter and the remote odds on it surviving intact for millions of years. There may well have been non-human technological civilisations that we simply haven't found traces of yet (or nothing jarring enough to indicate that we already have but didn't recognise them as such).
Human consciousness really seems like an evolutionary fluke; it arguably has no real evolutionary advantage, but then again, without entering the mind of another animal we cannot really judge the level of animal consciousness or it's use.
Brain size is clearly irrelevant to actual intelligence or complexity of action so dismissing swathes of the fossil record due to the lack of available space for an animal's brain indicates more a lack of understanding of brain function than the intelligence of the animal. Very small animals like insects and spiders are clearly capable of complex action including problem-solving and they don't have anything we would properly regard as a brain, so the number of synapses or neural connections seems more important in that regard.
It's important to recognise that there aren't a lot (if any) generalisations you can make about human beings that cannot be applied to other animals. Our consciousness appears to be the only thing, but without getting into another animal's head, even that may be untrue.
Human consciousness really seems like an evolutionary fluke; it arguably has no real evolutionary advantage, but then again, without entering the mind of another animal we cannot really judge the level of animal consciousness or it's use.
Brain size is clearly irrelevant to actual intelligence or complexity of action so dismissing swathes of the fossil record due to the lack of available space for an animal's brain indicates more a lack of understanding of brain function than the intelligence of the animal. Very small animals like insects and spiders are clearly capable of complex action including problem-solving and they don't have anything we would properly regard as a brain, so the number of synapses or neural connections seems more important in that regard.
It's important to recognise that there aren't a lot (if any) generalisations you can make about human beings that cannot be applied to other animals. Our consciousness appears to be the only thing, but without getting into another animal's head, even that may be untrue.
So who says building a civilization is the only valid use of intelligence? We assume that because it's how we use our intelligence, but it's just plain egocentric to assume that the way we do things is the only meaningful way it can be done. Who's to say that, ohh, developing an incredibly intricate oral culture, great works of music and poetry and literature and abstract mathematics, and an advanced and involved spiritual life and philosophy (all things an intelligent species without toolmaking ability might achieve) isn't an equally worthwhile application of intelligence? Indeed, such a species might argue that it's a superior application because it's more pure and doesn't damage the environment.
Oh, it's well known that the "pyramids built by slaves" thing is a Hollywood myth. The pyramids were built by impressed labor, to be sure, but the laborers weren't owned property, they were the ordinary subjects of the kingdom, who spent the fertile season farming but spent the rest of the year impressed into monument-building so that they'd be too busy and exhausted to rebel against the state. It wasn't slavery, it was mandatory employment.
Don't tell that to a Gorn!
Don't tell that to a Gorn!
And don't tell that to the Reptilians who live underground either, they are pretty touchy about such statements.
Highly possible.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
I think it's more than possible that long before the time of ancient Egypt etc there could have been a mass cataclysm that wiped out an advanced human civilisation. Just imagine how possible it could be to happen.
What if we right now got struck by a huge meteor shower that brought our civilisation to it's knees and to the brink of extinction, the ordinary folk who survived probably wouldn't even know how to generate electricity. Civilisation would have to start from scratch and after several thousands upon thousands of years the history of all of it could be lost.
For all we know we didn't visit the moon for the first time in 1969, we could have landed on it thousands of years ago.
I think a great example for this type of scenario is in 'The Matrix' where Zion regularly gets wiped out by the machines but when Zion is repopulated the people there have no record of Zion existing before or any previous inhabitants.
What if we right now got struck by a huge meteor shower that brought our civilisation to it's knees and to the brink of extinction, the ordinary folk who survived probably wouldn't even know how to generate electricity. Civilisation would have to start from scratch and after several thousands upon thousands of years the history of all of it could be lost.
For all we know we didn't visit the moon for the first time in 1969, we could have landed on it thousands of years ago.
I think a great example for this type of scenario is in 'The Matrix' where Zion regularly gets wiped out by the machines but when Zion is repopulated the people there have no record of Zion existing before or any previous inhabitants.
There are reason that's rather impossible, at least a technologically "advanced" civilization like ours with large cities and buildings and advanced metallurgy and chemistry. For one thing, any society that was capable of putting people on the moon would have left a lot of evidence behind, not even an asteroid strike would have wiped out their chemical traces. There are also considerations for population size, rates of technological growth, climate, etc., that makes an advancement to anything close to our level of a society before ours more than unlikely. A few thousand or even a few hundred thousand people can't physically advance themselves to our level, there is just not enough man power and brain power and enough people to do every job that would be necessary.
Now, a relatively scientifically sophisticated society with moderately sized cities, a form of formal governance, etc. like the Egyptians or the Mayans or the Romans or even medieval Europe? Possible. If they were concentrated in a particular area we've never excavated or that is now underwater, any traces they've left might. But there's no sign of them in the archaeological records we do have.
One reason it would have been difficult for a really old civilization (millions of years, dino-men, etc) to become really technologically advanced was the lack of fossil fuels. If they couldn't accomplish it with steam or wind or water, they were out of luck.
Not really, as there would have been plenty of fossil fuel available during the time of the dinosaurs. Coal would have been available back to 300 or 350 million years, and oil and gas back to 450 or 500 million years. There is even some earlier oil, including oil dating back to several billion years, but it's in very small quantities. Fossil fuels are constantly being produced, uplifted, and weathered/eroded, so although the plentiful Jurassic oil from the Middle East wouldn't have been available in the Paleozoic, there are almost certainly older oil fields that have been completely destroyed through natural tectonic uplift and seepage/weathering.
Actually, the fact that the plentiful and easily accessible fossil fuels are available to us today is pretty good evidence against the existence of industrial civilizations in pre-history (say 10 or 20 thousand years ago)! If there were, they would have taken all of the oil like we will.
-MEC
Look at how little fossil remains there are of hominids in general compared to dinosaurs and yet these are geologically very recent organisms.
Comments about the certainty of finding traces of an advanced civilisation from hundreds of millenia ago seem greatly overstated; forgetting about older non-human civilisations.
Besides I don't think anyone is actively looking for chemical or trace evidence of this, so how do we know it isn't there? I'm not arguing that it is or anyone should be, but I like to keep an open mind given that we'll never have a a definite idea of what the distance past was like due to natural imperfections in the geologic record.
We do look for chemical evidence, indirectly. Scientists do it all the time when looking at soil layers and ice cores, etc. They're not directly looking for ancient civilizations, they're just looking for anomalies. A sudden change in soil chemistry is notable and begs explanation. While the bulk of our civilization would long have turned to dust in 100,000 years, items would remain. Purified metals leaves traces and unnaturally concentrated pockets in the ground, and some compounds would be around for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.
Again, this isn't an argument against the possibility of an ancient civilization, just against an ancient, highly industrial civilization like ours. But very little is impossible, just unlikely.
Again, this isn't an argument against the possibility of an ancient civilization, just against an ancient, highly industrial civilization like ours. But very little is impossible, just unlikely.
