Mediterranean climate, shelter in caves, the diet would consist of fruits and carcass.
Every mammal have some sort of intelligence, but we are talking about HUMAN intelligence. You don’t need that to learn simple things.
Most animals don’t need to be taught anything about the environment they inhabit, as they rely mostly on instinct. Unless they are intelligent enough.
All these examples are shit. Animals live in a suitable environment because they wouldn’t be living there if it wasn’t suitable. If the environment changes enough the species will either go extinct or adapt to the environment through evolution.
And if the environment doesn’t change, evolution will also occur, which means that evolution doesn’t need environmental change.
ummm… they are saying the same thing, I dont see your point.
you realize present times are only so easy because of our intelligence, right?
I already said that 
Except not as clearly.
Saying the same thing as Darwin was kind of my intention, you know… Whoever that was a response to said something else. Unless I misunderstood or something.
Yeah, I know that was your intention. I just don’t understand why this guy quoted Darwin and you in the same post. I just checked and he doesn’t seem to be responding to anyone.
ooooh, I missed Cham’s quote box
either he was backing me up or he misunderstood something because of the language barrier… or he’s just wrong
I don’t know how that relates to my post. My point was that a lot of animals aren’t as intelligent as humans and despite that they are able survive in the wild. And yes, a lot of animals need to be taught certain things to survive, unless you are telling me that a bear raised in captivity could do something like this when released into wild.
Primitive humans MUST have lived in some environment, so it’s logical that there must have been an environment suitable for not-so-intelligent humans in the past. People have no fur so it’s also logical that they must have lived in a warm climate, preferably rich in food - in that case a subtropical climate suits well, and Mediterranean one even better. I also remind that according to studies our intelligence came AFTER our physical appearance. You can’t fight with logic.
Any evidence to back up your claim? My reasoning goes as follows: you need to reduce the size of a population in order to make the mutations more likely (reduced genetic pool) and allow for the mutated individuals to compete with non-mutated ones. Change of the environment in most cases leads to reduction of the size of a population, so, as a results, change of the climate triggers the evolution.
Yeah, so? I only presented my own opinion, that people would be able to survive in the wild in a suitable climate even if we hadn’t got a superior intelligence to other animals. I’ve never said that we would be as numerous as we are now. The basic role of the evolution is to prevent extinction, so we haven’t evolved just to make our life easier.
Animals can survive in the wild despite a lack of much intelligence because they have other things to help them survive. Animals that learn things have intelligence, like that bear.
Yes, humans used to be able to survive without intelligence. Then they involved to be more intelligent and started taking over the world.
A decrease in population is not absolutely necessary for a mutation to spread. If a mutation is beneficial and increases chances of survival it can cause an increase in population instead of requiring a decrease.
:fffuuu:
Hey! I was backing you up!
Did I say you’re wrong?
Yes
If dolphins are so smart, why do they live in igloos?!? (E.C.)
I hope that this isn’t incredibly stupid but it’s something I’ve never understood. I always hear that water is necessary for life and stuff like that but wouldn’t it be possible to have life without it? With how large the universe is you’d think it’d be possible for other forms of “life” to exist without water.
That’s actually just generalizing, but it’s hard to avoid. Every living thing on this planet has one thing in common: dependence on water. It’s not just animals, but plant life, too. (There may be some examples of living critters around that survive on zero water, but I can’t think of any.) The only time we’ve seen examples of environments with liquid water that don’t wind up with something living – even just single-cell organisms – they’re totally sterile, and even then it tries to happen anyway.
Astronomers recently confirmed the presence of a planet sitting right in the center of the ‘Goldilocks zone’: not too hot, not too cold. If that planet also has liquid water in any amount, the chance of it having some form of life (the way we define it) is pretty high.
Sci-fi enthusiasts will happily point out that there’s the possibility for something other than plants and animals to develop consciousness and sentience, and could therefore be considered ‘alive’. I don’t think it’s unfeasible to consider that something might be out there that’s self-aware, but inorganic, or even lacking a physical form.
Until we actually run into something like that, all we really have as a reliable model is what we see every day.
Recommended reading:
Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction
Intelligence (same series)
May be some life have chlorosilicon food instead of hydrocarbon food, drink hydrogenbromine instead of water, get sulfurdioxide solution instead of air.
Did you just watch the latest SVU episode? The one with the water guy?
Nope, I just read too much. My wife’s worse; she can speed-read a standard paperback novel in about 4 hours, and recall about 90% of it. Our bookshelves rival some small-town libraries.
Doesn’t help that I remember debating this topic (the possibility of non-organic life) with friends when I was in 5th grade. I was one of those kids that tended to skew grading curves.
Comment Removed
we are probably von neumann probes of an advanced civilization who were sending von neumann probes to every star system in Milky way without knowing what they were doing.
[COLOR=‘black’]/sarcasm