The "reptile" designation is not a particularly good class, because it's essentially "any terrestrial vertebrate that's not a mammal, bird, or amphibian." Crocodilians, for example, are more closely related to birds than to any other living reptile order.
Interesting. I have for years recognized that "ape" is a bad term scientifically, since humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas or orangutans -- yet the term "ape" is generally recognized to include all of these types of creatures except for humans. I see now that "reptile" may be in a comparable category as not being particularly useful in defining evolutionary relationships.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "reptile" designation is not a particularly good class, because it's essentially "any terrestrial vertebrate that's not a mammal, bird, or amphibian." Crocodilians, for example, are more closely related to birds than to any other living reptile order.Interesting. I have for years recognized that "ape" is a bad term scientifically, since humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas or orangutans -- yet the term "ape" is generally recognized to include all of these types of creatures except for humans. I see now that "reptile" may be in a comparable category as not being particularly useful in defining evolutionary relationships.
The same is true for "amphibian" and for "fish." Humans are more closely related to coelecanth than the coelecanth are to trout. Trout likewise are closer to humans than to sharks. Similarly, "lizards" really means "all lizards except snakes," "crustaceans" really means "all crustaceans other than insects", and "arteriodactyls" (even toed ungulates like cows) excludes whales.
If you go back far enough, some prokaryotes (single-celled life forms without cell nuclei) are more closely related to eukaryotes than they are to (some) other prokaryotes.
Paraphyly is probably more common than not in classic taxonomy.
The "reptile" designation is not a particularly good class, because it's essentially "any terrestrial vertebrate that's not a mammal, bird, or amphibian." Crocodilians, for example, are more closely related to birds than to any other living reptile order.Interesting. I have for years recognized that "ape" is a bad term scientifically, since humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas or orangutans -- yet the term "ape" is generally recognized to include all of these types of creatures except for humans. I see now that "reptile" may be in a comparable category as not being particularly useful in defining evolutionary relationships.
Further to previous -- it's not "bad." The idea that all taxa should consist of everything-descended-from-a-single-species is one of those ideas more appealing for its OCD-like theoretical purity than for any actual usefulness.
The more technical term for great ape would be hominidae, which is a fairly accurate grouping. It includes humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans. Hominid would refer to modern humans and any relatives more closely related than (and excluding) chimps, all of which are extinct.
Hominoidea would be lesser apes, which are gibbons. Bonobo's, the smallest hominidae are still around 30-40kg, while the largest gibbon is around 15kg.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're kind of missing the point I was making. The way that human beings evolved towards tool use and sentience is not the only way it could be possible. Just because things are not human-like doesn't mean that these things would impossible for them. Intelligence and culture often allow workarounds to compensate for anatomy, they definitely do for humans.That's why octopi feature heavily on people's lists for 'next race to inherit the Earth'.
They don't have opposable thumbs, but they have multiple limbs, each of which is far more flexible than a human arm, and covered in multiple suckers.
Learning to hold complex tools should come far more easily to them, than to other potential contenders.
The question then becomes, what would an octopus want to build?
Do they need to build anything?
is this the prehistoric kraken Mona Lisa?
I'm sure there's an explanation, but damned if I know what it is.
You're kind of missing the point I was making. The way that human beings evolved towards tool use and sentience is not the only way it could be possible. Just because things are not human-like doesn't mean that these things would impossible for them. Intelligence and culture often allow workarounds to compensate for anatomy, they definitely do for humans.Chimpanzees don't have a third metacarpal styloid process.
Which is why I kinda didn't exactly get into the "true/untroe opposable thumb" spiel.
Velociraptors kinda had a garden claw at the end of their forelimbs. Not too useful when making mud huts or practicing pterodactyl falconry.
No, I get that.
I'm not sure if evolving a big ass brain without the means to interact with the environment would be much of an evolutionary advantage.
Putting an advanced brain in a body without a functional hand or tentacles or whatever is like putting a jet engine in a VW beetle. If it's not in a F-16 chassis or something, it's just not going to fly. Doesn't lead to any kind of evolutionary advantage that will make the VW beetle with the jet engine in it get more girls than the VW beetle with the standard 1.8 litre engine. In fact, since it costs more glucose metabolism than a stupid brain, it's actually a net loser.
Was reading the Engels piece which I haven't done in years, chuckled over the reference to Lemuria (which I doubt I would've done years before; I got into Marx and Engels before I got into Howard and Carter) and got to the part about white cats with blue eyes being deaf. Wtf?!?
The "reptile" designation is not a particularly good class, because it's essentially "any terrestrial vertebrate that's not a mammal, bird, or amphibian." Crocodilians, for example, are more closely related to birds than to any other living reptile order.Interesting. I have for years recognized that "ape" is a bad term scientifically, since humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas or orangutans -- yet the term "ape" is generally recognized to include all of these types of creatures except for humans. I see now that "reptile" may be in a comparable category as not being particularly useful in defining evolutionary relationships.
No, humans are included with the group of orangutans, gorillas, bonobos, and chimpanzees. Hominidae.
No, humans are included with the group of orangutans, gorillas, bonobos, and chimpanzees. Hominidae.
The "reptile" designation is not a particularly good class, because it's essentially "any terrestrial vertebrate that's not a mammal, bird, or amphibian." Crocodilians, for example, are more closely related to birds than to any other living reptile order.Interesting. I have for years recognized that "ape" is a bad term scientifically, since humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas or orangutans -- yet the term "ape" is generally recognized to include all of these types of creatures except for humans. I see now that "reptile" may be in a comparable category as not being particularly useful in defining evolutionary relationships.
Let's argue about it for a week.
The more technical term for great ape would be hominidae, which is a fairly accurate grouping. It includes humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans. Hominid would refer to modern humans and any relatives more closely related than (and excluding) chimps, all of which are extinct.
Hominoidea would be lesser apes, which are gibbons. Bonobo's, the smallest hominidae are still around 30-40kg, while the largest gibbon is around 15kg.
Homonin is the usual term for transitional, extinct and extant species that are human ancestors or close relations between the divergence of ourang-utans and homo sapiens sapiens. Everything from sahalanthropus tchadensis through anatomically modern homo sapiens sapiens is a homonin. Anything earlier than S. tchadensis that postdates the split from our common ancestor with the pongo genus is likley to be classified as such too.
From the very little I've seen about Sahelanthropus, it's quite possible it isn't hominin at all. If it is, it might not even be on our direct lineage at all. There's also the possibility that it's actually a chimp ancestor and not a human ancestor.
The evidence on Sahelanthropus is pretty scant, since we have a sample size of one to work with. It's difficult to date, since it's very likely that it's been reburied. The estimated date of 7m years is based on an in situ discovery, but there's strong evidence it wasn't discovered in situ at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're kind of missing the point I was making. The way that human beings evolved towards tool use and sentience is not the only way it could be possible. Just because things are not human-like doesn't mean that these things would impossible for them. Intelligence and culture often allow workarounds to compensate for anatomy, they definitely do for humans.That's why octopi feature heavily on people's lists for 'next race to inherit the Earth'.
They don't have opposable thumbs, but they have multiple limbs, each of which is far more flexible than a human arm, and covered in multiple suckers.
Learning to hold complex tools should come far more easily to them, than to other potential contenders.
The question then becomes, what would an octopus want to build?
Do they need to build anything?
{turns instructions one way, then upside down, curses, and flings key wrench across the room} Stupid Ikea furniture.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're kind of missing the point I was making. The way that human beings evolved towards tool use and sentience is not the only way it could be possible. Just because things are not human-like doesn't mean that these things would impossible for them. Intelligence and culture often allow workarounds to compensate for anatomy, they definitely do for humans.That's why octopi feature heavily on people's lists for 'next race to inherit the Earth'.
They don't have opposable thumbs, but they have multiple limbs, each of which is far more flexible than a human arm, and covered in multiple suckers.
Learning to hold complex tools should come far more easily to them, than to other potential contenders.
The question then becomes, what would an octopus want to build?
Do they need to build anything?
They need to build gardens.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, in the shade.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, in the shade.
So after mankind becomes extinct, an alliance of octopi and beatles will take over the Earth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're kind of missing the point I was making. The way that human beings evolved towards tool use and sentience is not the only way it could be possible. Just because things are not human-like doesn't mean that these things would impossible for them. Intelligence and culture often allow workarounds to compensate for anatomy, they definitely do for humans.That's why octopi feature heavily on people's lists for 'next race to inherit the Earth'.
They don't have opposable thumbs, but they have multiple limbs, each of which is far more flexible than a human arm, and covered in multiple suckers.
Learning to hold complex tools should come far more easily to them, than to other potential contenders.
The question then becomes, what would an octopus want to build?
Do they need to build anything?
Octopodes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Random musing of the day;
If an infinite number of monkeys, given an infinite amount of time, could eventualy type the complete works of Shakespeare, then
assuming they would be using one-finger typing;
and assuming octopi, using eight limbs, would be able to one-digit type at four times monkey speed;
Would you be able to rely on [infinity/4] number of creatures, to carry out the work by the same deadline,
or would an equal number of typists complete the task in [infinity/4] hours?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Random musing of the day;
If an infinite number of monkeys, given an infinite amount of time, could eventualy type the complete works of Shakespeare, then
assuming they would be using one-finger typing;
and assuming octopi, using eight limbs, would be able to one-digit type at four times monkey speed;Would you be able to rely on [infinity/4] number of creatures, to carry out the work by the same deadline,
or would an equal number of typists complete the task in [infinity/4] hours?
Depends on the size of infinity.
I kid you not.
[ot]By the way, can you tell the difference between text messages which are time-constrained, and those which are not? Your recent behaviour says not![/ot]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Random musing of the day;
If an infinite number of monkeys, given an infinite amount of time, could eventualy type the complete works of Shakespeare, then
assuming they would be using one-finger typing;
and assuming octopi, using eight limbs, would be able to one-digit type at four times monkey speed;Would you be able to rely on [infinity/4] number of creatures, to carry out the work by the same deadline,
or would an equal number of typists complete the task in [infinity/4] hours?
The octopuses would do it twice as fast.
They never run out of ink.
Australians... Think about it we have been living on the continent of death for 50,000 or more years. Nothing can wipe us out.
We have no reason to believe that the development of sentient life on this planet was nothing more than a random result. The first Human speices appeared about 2 million years ago. The Reptiles rules this planet for far longer without any evidence of developing sentience.
There is an argument that its not exactly random or it is but it'd happen again and again. Pretty much its the same argument as eyes...its utility is such that it will evolve repeatedly in the same way as eyes have evolved something like six separate times and just about everything around has them. They provide such an evolutionary advantage that having them almost always means out competing those without them in the long run.
Intelligence has obviously provided us with a large evolutionary advantage and it may be that it would eventually do so again for some other creature given enough time should we cease to be.
You heard it here folks: Australians are the cockroaches of humanity!
You should see our cockroaches!
The cockroaches of cockroachanity?
Tardigrades. They adapt to every environment it seems.
In some ways this is the planet of the tardigrades already.
- Their fossil record goes back some 500 million years.
- They can survive in temperatures from -400F to over 200F.
- They can survive a vaccuum.
- They can survive up to 1200 atmospheres of pressure.
- They live in water, but can survive up to 10 years without it.
- They can survive 500 times more radiation than humans.
- They can be found in both ocean sediment and at the tops of the Himalayas.