3 ms·
Evolutionarily speaking, as was qualified, not really. They're more closely related to deer, pigs, camels and the like than anything else in the sea.
by phonypc 6y ago
Evolutionarily speaking, as was qualified, not really. They're more closely related to deer, pigs, camels and the like than anything else in the sea.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoThey can't live on land ergo they are sea creatures. ISTM it's a daft claim.
- phonypc 6y agoOnly if you ignore context. The point is they have an evolutionary history of land-living. Fish don't. Nobody is trying to say they secretly sprout legs and spend most of their time on land.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoBeing evolved ultimately from fish, we have an evolutionary history of sea-living. Therefore humans are sea creatures by your logic.
- phonypc 6y agoNo. The argument being made in the article is that living on land provides stimulus for developing intelligence that living in the ocean doesn't. Dolphins and humans have a history of land-living. "Sea creatures," in context, do not. Maybe it was a poor choice of words, and maybe the argument doesn't work. But it doesn't fall apart simply because dolphins live in the sea.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoSo Intelligent seagoing mammals evolved their wit on land and kept it when they went aquatic, is how I read what you're saying. However whales have been around for a very long time, so I can't accept that argument. If intelligence was of little use in the sea, it would have died out quite quickly I'd expect. I can't see it being incidentally preserved for 45 million years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
- phonypc 6y agoHypothetically, some level of intelligence could still be useful in the ocean despite the ocean not providing sufficient pressure for that intelligence to develop.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoDoes that sound likely? Can you make a stronger case for or against that proposition?
- phonypc 6y agoIt's just speculation on my part, assuming the idea put forward by the study is true. Like if humans were to start living underwater, I don't think there would be evolutionary pressure on us to lose our intelligence. More speculation: maybe it's not ocean vs. land itself, but the process of moving from one to the other. The smartest ocean-goers have the best chance at thriving on land; the smartest land-goers have the best chance at thriving in the ocean.