same fella ...
there may be as many causalities suggested here as there are interested observers, and there may be no foolproof way to distinguish 'correct' from 'erroneous' suggestions.
since the publication of jerison's evolution of the brain and intelligence (1973). the two main hypotheses advanced to answer the question of why encephalization (refers to the tendency for a species toward larger brains through evolutionary time) has occurred focus on foraging strategies and social intelligence. the two are not necessarily exclusive, but both claim dominion over the arrow of causality. the ecological and the social arguments in a hypothesis about the evolution of group size proposed a notion that brain evolution has proceeded along multiple, parallel paths, but the interaction between various socio-ecological factors has yet to be determined.
encephalization are comparative studies, lack of standardization in brain size measurement can undermine the validity of the field. hypothesis clearly implies that the more energy an animal can invest in her offspring, the larger brains they will have. primates devote more of their energy resources to their brains than do most other mammals, brain size correlated with home range size in the cercopithecines (old world primates like macaques, mandrill) and that of monogamous species have significantly smaller brains than polygynous ones.
brain size has increased over evolutionary time, and behavior has become more complex. the two are undeniably linked, more stimuli become important, as a species niche broadens. there will be selection for enhanced ability to cope with an increased amount of information.
certainly only an extreme adherent of either an ecological or social hypothesis would claim that an animal's foraging strategy depends solely upon the nature of the food resource or upon its maneuvering within a social context. which came first ? can we know ? what is the evolutionary relationship between the mechanisms responsible for interpreting and instigating social behavior ?
13 Comments:
Can we have some plain English please?
When the social context IS the food, the two are combined, such as in the mother's breast.
Considering spiritual (awareness, awakening) evolution, the Judaic-Christian holy book claim by the Source to have known us since we were in the womb becomes evolutionary relevant, since our spiritual food is the Source and our truest deepest relation is as the manifestation (manifesting) of the Source.
Mala is right Suresh, some times it gets too abstract for me.
Humans take care of their offsprings for longer periods, some times very very long periods,
I am 58 and my parents are no more but the younger generation has taken over the duties of my parents
I am still under their care.
SWEET!
neethu ... wonderfull seein u again, am glad u like it ! take good care.
mala ... will answer u in a short bit ...
george, in the social context, the food is there but its first primal need is the source again.
i agree with the judaic christian book on that. our spiritual need arises out of the elimination of the source in the first place which was always there.
manifestion is a process in the making, sure whatever the source is that evolves too ...
thanks jill ... hope u clickin lots a pics ...
thanks for droppin by rachel ... cheers !
yes rauf ... that posting was a bit heavy, but reading it a few times gives some fantastic insights. try it , if u are studyin comparison ... this is how it is done. it was not easy for me sorting all that research either !
as far as am concerned, nobody grows up inside, just complicate their needs, fears and fancies. the effects of experiences have to be sorted with maturity.
ayse ... some interesting piece of info there, thanks for that, got some cool facts to complement that, will post them soon ...
why dint the mother evolve to accomadate a large headed baby ?
meanwhile think what an elephant might be doin with its 6kg or so brain ?
brain weight as % of body weight
human 2.10
bottlenose dolphin 0.94
african elephant 0.15
take care ... cheers !
on a tangent - i have noticed that a lot of very successful, intelligent, talented people have chosen not to have children. how does this fit into the brain-theory in evolution?
good question chinna ... i like it tangent, have some ready made answers but will answer u with some interesting facts soon.
Post a Comment
<< Home