I'm not entirely sure what point was intended here: that some subjective list is evidence that humans did not evolve? That there is some kind of qualitative gap between humans and great apes? That we've actually lost something that is important for our survival? Or what?
Whatever, but the "scenario" presented is grossly oversimplified and it is difficult to understand why it should be taken seriously as evidence of anything to do with biology.
Humans are primates, and primates (and in particular anthropoid primates) are generally smarter than other mammals of similar body size. Primates have increased manual dexterity, and color vision.
Hominoids (great and lesser apes and humans) are quite large for primates. They live in complex social groups and must maintain intricate social relationships in order to maintain their society. Their communication is likewise complex. we know that apes can understand abstractions, even if they cannot communicate them via linguistic symbolism. Great apes are self-aware.
Chimpanzees hunt co-operatively and preplan their strategy. They create tools out of their surroundings and can solve rather complicated problems. Orangs have elaborate and intricate mental maps of their three-dimensional environment and know exactly where they need to be and when in order to maximize feeding and mating. Orangs are consummate escape artists and are very difficult for zoos to keep in their enclosures.
Humans display all these necessary attributes. Of course, increased intelligence is bound to have enabled even better enhancements and permutations, and if a primate is smarter, taller, able to anticipate and plan, it probably can devise other ways of acquiring subsistence and avoiding predators than mere running away.
Humans are also pretty much generalists--we eat anything, and we have the ability to adapt our environment to us. This seems to have been the case even when extinct humans were only a bit smarter than modern chimps are now.
Of course, this too is oversimplified, but it at least has the merit of being based on some kind of evidence and not just personal amazement.
Whatever, but the "scenario" presented is grossly oversimplified and it is difficult to understand why it should be taken seriously as evidence of anything to do with biology.
Humans are primates, and primates (and in particular anthropoid primates) are generally smarter than other mammals of similar body size. Primates have increased manual dexterity, and color vision.
Hominoids (great and lesser apes and humans) are quite large for primates. They live in complex social groups and must maintain intricate social relationships in order to maintain their society. Their communication is likewise complex. we know that apes can understand abstractions, even if they cannot communicate them via linguistic symbolism. Great apes are self-aware.
Chimpanzees hunt co-operatively and preplan their strategy. They create tools out of their surroundings and can solve rather complicated problems. Orangs have elaborate and intricate mental maps of their three-dimensional environment and know exactly where they need to be and when in order to maximize feeding and mating. Orangs are consummate escape artists and are very difficult for zoos to keep in their enclosures.
Humans display all these necessary attributes. Of course, increased intelligence is bound to have enabled even better enhancements and permutations, and if a primate is smarter, taller, able to anticipate and plan, it probably can devise other ways of acquiring subsistence and avoiding predators than mere running away.
Humans are also pretty much generalists--we eat anything, and we have the ability to adapt our environment to us. This seems to have been the case even when extinct humans were only a bit smarter than modern chimps are now.
Of course, this too is oversimplified, but it at least has the merit of being based on some kind of evidence and not just personal amazement.
