'>>4775636
>all these are the answers that apply to great apes, it may look different for other animals
>every single generation in the chain of evolution has to be a viable specimen in its own right.
>we would not see just how crazy the human build is until they started getting really far from their origin. It is possible there is a breed much more impressive than we think who still could not find the conditions to shine
>intelligence takes a ton of calories in the first place, not to mention, bipedalism is a speed buff
Two important things to note is that there might be already very intelligent creatures whi we simply can not communicate with because our brains work differently and we have not figured it out, and that we do have a standout trait that pushes us in the direction we know today, the traiy of curiosity';

'>>4775636
Going the human route is next to impossible today.
Our ancestors were already incredibly smart compared to most animals, and bipedalism was another important factor that pushed us to speciate from chimps, perhaps the most important one.
Bipedalism, by the way, was developed because the biggest and strongest apes took all the treetops and we, the weak ones, were forced to hang out at the bottom or even at caves, wich were often raided by big predators like bears or sabertooths, that meant we also had to reinforce and refine a lot our social behavior, since we can't just scram like most prey animals do, because we were originally arboreal, which meant we were very slow compared to our predators.
There are not many animals that have those traits, raccoons are somewhat like our earliest ancestors but they're not social and entirely adapted to live on ground, which means that even if they developed a hierarchical society, and even if the weakest got pushed into an environment they're not suited to (coons are adapted to pretty much everywhere to begin with), they will not have any pressure to refine their societies and will most likely abandon them.';

'>>4775745
Probably more likely that a random change in hip or shoulder morphology made brachiation less desirable so a growing population of apes just HAD to spend more time on the ground. Not this weird cuck fetish thing you have going on. This would have made them stronger, for what little brachiation it did (and we know, because they preserve adaptations to it over time), it lacked foot support and had to make up for it with its arms.

Early hominids were also evidently, not just logically, quite strong. They clubbed giant babboons to death for fun. We, today, are the weak ones. All the adaptations to being pack hunting apex predators slimmed us out. The earliest human ancestor just leaving the trees was probably one of the strongest apes and very able to fend for itself.';

'>>4775750
>Shoulder
Don't know why I mentioned shoulder, it was hips first

Maybe they had a niche because they could get across clearing faster';

'>>4775745
>>4775750
>>4775752
it's actually the advent into shallow waters filled with cheap food, thats also why we so good at swimming
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819487/';

'>>4775636
I think a lot of people blamed it on human child development. Like our pelvis got smaller baby got smaller longer development required to sexual maturity, longer period with more neuroplasticity, allows more learning and information inheritance. The you have the physical changes language has on the brain in those phases but that might not be new we might have had non-verbal language well before that stage in our evolution. But it developed to the point we can learn without having to experience something first.';

'>>4775636
Language and the ability to clearly communicate is probably the key factor in human development. Lots of animals communicate but I think none can do it so unambiguously as humans.

In combination with a good memory this allows rapid sharing of ideas and collaboration. That's what other animals are missing.

Crows come pretty close to having these things but they lack the manual dexterity to build complex things and are limited to basic tool usage. They have everything else - a good ability to communicate, long term memory and ability to imagine and plan for the future. Their evolution is more stunted by their form.';

'>>4775745
>>4775750
You don't consider the environment. Hominids didn't develop in forests but sparse woodland and savannahs. Scarcity of trees makes arboreal adaptations nigh on useless, and instead bipedalism grants you the ability to see farther and be able to spot predators easily.';

'>>4775896
What about neanderthals and denisovans? They have genetic traces in modern humans so they met up to bonk at some point.';

'>>4775893
Which is why i rejected this particular spec-evo theory about intelligent dinosaurs being overgrown crows. They don't have the dexterity to make weapons, armor, satchels, coats, or looms with just their beaks, therefore they're unrealistic.';

'>>4775900
So what's the consensus on the human exodus from africa theory? Is it still valid?';

'>>4775900
They didn’t show up until a few million years after';

'>>4775904
I think the current common science is that homo sapiens came out of Africa, found these other hominids and fucked them, cross breeding a bit until they ceased to exist as separate species, and as more homo sapiens kept coming out of Africa those genes just got more diluted.

From where came the neanderthals and denisovans? I guess Africa too but earlier, far enough earlier that they evolved into different species of homo, from even earlier species, but still shared a common ancestor with sapiens.';

'>>4775904
Yes, but keep in mind it’s still a theory and in a constant state of flux and revision so it’s subject to change, it’s just the likeliest one that we have to go off right now, this chart is a basic summary of the various groups that emerged from it but I can go into more detail later';

'>>4775904
>human exodus from africa theory? Is it still valid?
Yes. There is no credible "theory" that accounts for parallel evolution of different hominid species. Everything originates from one ancestral genetic pool, located in Africa about 7 million years ago. All the other retarded shit you see is people asspulling about modern humans from 30 to 100 thousand years ago. Different species that experience parallel evolution cannot interbreed, no matter how much Star Trek they watch. All identified hominids on planet Earth (as far back as we can do genetic analysis with modern techniques, which is over 3 million years) share a nearly identical genome. Every hominid originated from an "Eve" more than 7 million years ago, and she probably lived in central-ish Africa as best as anthropology & paleontology have been able to fix.';

'>>4775636
>what do we have that they lack?
rizz';

'>>4776336';

'>>4776345';

'>>4776347';

'>>4776349';

'>>4776350';

'>>4776356';

'>>4776359';

'>>4775636
>then why didn't other mammals develop like humans did?
because humans dont allow it
we have meddled with every biome on earth to guarantee no species have enough resources or time alone to develop';

'>>4775761
this, we evolved to be eternal babies, no other species has that';

'>>4775893
We should invent prosthetic arms for crows';

'>>4777047
Plenty have, its called neoteny. Some theories even suggest that's the reason fish exist.';

'>>4775761
Ding ding ding, humans can owe their intelligence mostly to their parents imparting information onto them. Teaching is what made human jump heads and bounds above the competition when it comes to intelligence. Just look at any case of feral children where they immediately replicate the behavior of the animals they're raised by while not seeming far more intelligent than them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child';

'>>4777057
but does their neoteny include a never maturing brain? or just retaining a neotenic appearance?';

'>>4775636
El dun';

'>>4777081
That I don't know, granted, the examples I can really think of off the top of my head are axolotls and the aforementioned proto-fish, not much brain activity in either case';

'>>4775636
time';

'>>4775636
>why didn't other mammals develop like humans did?
They did. We murdered them.';