https://phys.org/news/2024-03-menopause-female-whales.html

"The study focused on five whale species that—along with humans—are the only mammals known to go through menopause. The paper, published in the journal Nature, is titled "The evolution of menopause in toothed whales."

"The findings show that females of these whale species that experience menopause live around 40 years longer than other female whales of a similar size.

"By living longer without extending their "reproductive lifespan" (the years in which they breed), these females have more years to help their children and grandchildren, without increasing the "overlap" period when they compete with their daughters by breeding and raising calves at the same time.

"This new research shows that—despite being separated by 90 million years of evolution—whales and humans show remarkably similar life histories, which have evolved independently.

***

"'The process of evolution favors traits and behaviors by which an animal passes its genes to future generations," said lead author Dr. Sam Ellis, from the University of Exeter.

"'The most obvious way for a female to do this is to breed for the entire lifespan—and this is what happens in almost all animal species. There are more than 5,000 mammal species, and only six are known to go through menopause.

***

"Menopause is known to exist in five species of toothed whale: short-finned pilot whales, false killer whales, killer whales, narwhals and beluga whales.

"As well as outliving females of other similar-sized species, females in these five species outlive the males of their own species. For example, female killer whales can live into their 80s, while males are typically dead by 40.

"'The evolution of menopause and a long post-reproductive life could only happen in very specific circumstances," said Professor Darren Croft, of the University of Exeter and Executive Director at the Center for Whale Research

"'Firstly, a species must have a social structure in which females spend their lives in close contact with their offspring and grand-offspring.

"'Secondly, the females must have an opportunity to help in ways that improve the survival chances of their family. For example, female toothed whales are known to share food and use their knowledge to guide the group to find food when it is in short supply."

***

"'This study is the first to cross several species, enabled by the recent discovery of menopause in multiple species of toothed whales.

***

"'Despite these differences, our results show that humans and toothed whales show convergent life history—just like in humans, menopause in toothed whales evolved by selection to increase the total lifespan without also extending their reproductive lifespan.'"

Comment: convergent evolution is two social organisms. It is important to note this correction.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fish-recognize-photo-self-aware

"Some fish can recognize their own faces in photos and mirrors, an ability usually attributed to humans and other animals considered particularly brainy, such as chimpanzees, scientists report. Finding the ability in fish suggests that self-awareness may be far more widespread among animals than scientists once thought.

***

"In a new study, cleaner fish that passed the mirror test were then able to distinguish their own faces from those of other cleaner fish in still photographs. This suggests that the fish identify themselves the same way humans are thought to — by forming a mental image of one’s face, Kohda and colleagues report February 6 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

***

"De Waal is quick to point out that failing the mirror test should not be considered evidence of a lack of self-awareness. Still, scientists have struggled to understand why some species that are known to have complex cognitive abilities, such as monkeys and ravens, have not passed. Researchers have also questioned whether the test is appropriate for species like dogs that rely more on scent, or like pigs that may not care enough about a mark on their bodies to try to touch it.

"The mixed results in other animals make it all the more astonishing that a small fish can pass. In their first mirror test studies, published in 2019 and 2022, Kohda’s team exposed wild-caught cleaner fish in separate tanks to mirrors for a week. The researchers then injected brown dye just beneath the scales on the fish’s throats, making a mark that resembles the parasites these fish eat off the skin of larger fish in the wild. When the marked fish saw themselves in a mirror, they began striking their throats on rocks or sand in the bottom of the tank, apparently trying to scrape off the marks.

"In the new study, 10 fish that passed the mirror test were then shown a photo of their own face and a photo of an unfamiliar cleaner fish face. All the fish acted aggressively toward the unfamiliar photo, as if it were a stranger, but were not aggressive toward the photo of their own face.

"When another eight fish that had spent a week with a mirror but had not previously been marked were shown a photo of their own face with a brown mark on the throat, six of them began scraping their throats just like the fish that passed the mirror test. But they did not scrape when shown a photo of another fish with a mark."

Comment: another evidence of self-consciousness in other than humans. A minor issue. There is is nothing like us.

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/qikiqtania-wakei-11017.html?utm_source=feedburner&...

"Qikiqtania wakei closely resembles Tiktaalik roseae — the important transitional animal considered a missing link between fish and the earliest limbed animals — but has features that made it more suited to life in the water than its famous cousin.

"Qikiqtania wakei lived in what is now the Canadian Arctic some 380 million years ago (Devonian period).

***

“'Mostly importantly, it also features a complete pectoral fin with a distinct humerus bone that lacks the ridges that would indicate where muscles and joints would be on a limb geared toward walking on land.”

“'Instead, Qikiqtania wakei’s upper arm was smooth and curved, more suited for a life paddling underwater.”

"The uniqueness of its arm bones suggest that Qikiqtania wakei returned to paddling the water after its ancestors began to use their appendages for walking.

“'At first we thought it could be a juvenile Tiktaalik, because it was smaller and maybe some of those processes hadn’t developed yet,” Dr. Shubin said.

“'But the humerus is smooth and boomerang shaped, and it doesn’t have the elements that would support it pushing up on land. It’s remarkably different and suggests something new.”

***

"Their analysis of where it sits on the tree of life places it, like Tiktaalik roseae, adjacent to the earliest creatures known to have finger-like digits.

"But even though Qikiqtania wakei’s distinct pectoral fin was more suited for swimming, it wasn’t entirely fish-like either.

"Its curved paddle shape was a distinct adaptation, different from the jointed, muscled legs or fan-shaped fins we see in tetrapods and fish today.

“'Tiktaalik is often treated as a transitional animal because it’s easy to see the stepwise pattern of changes from life in the water to life on land,” said Dr. Tom Stewart, a paleontologist in the Department of Biology at the Pennsylvania State University.

“'But we know that in evolution things aren’t always so simple.”

“'We don’t often get glimpses into this part of vertebrate history. Now we’re starting to uncover that diversity and to get a sense of the ecology and unique adaptations of these animals. It’s more than simple transformation with just a limited number of species.'”

Comment: another transitional fish form, which tells us some gaps are quite small.

https://bigthink.com/13-8/humans-universe/

"By life I mean any self-sustaining network of chemical reactions able to metabolize energy from the environment and reproduce, following the rules of Darwinian natural selection. So, no spiritual machines way more advanced than we are; no bizarre, star-dwelling intelligent clouds; and no wormhole-inhabiting swarms of nanobots endowed with some sort of collective self-awareness.

***

"So what can we expect to find as we scan the vast collection of worlds and search for living creatures? While no one can answer that, we can lay down a couple ground rules.

"Rule number one: Life will be carbon-based. Why? Because carbon is the easygoing atom, with a chemical versatility no other element can match. Carbon has four unpaired outer electrons. It can form tight chemical bonds by sharing these electrons with other chemical elements. A potential alternative is silicon, but its biochemistry would be severely limited in comparison, with bonds roughly half as strong as carbon’s. Life needs versatility to thrive.

"Rule number two: Life needs liquid water. Yes, you can find frozen bacteria in the permafrost, but they are not living. Since life is, in essence, a network of complex biochemical reactions that move compounds this way and that, it needs a solvent — a medium where the reactions can unfold.

***

"As a consequence, and despite life’s common carbon-water essence, there will not be identical life forms on different planets. The more complex the life form, the lower the odds that it will be replicated elsewhere, even approximately.

"If the flying spaghetti monster exists, it will exist on only one world. In the same way, we exist on only one world. We are the only humans in this universe. And if we consider what we have learned from the history of life on Earth, chances are that intelligent life is extremely rare. While intelligence is clearly an asset in the struggle for survival among species, it is not a purpose of evolution; evolution has no purpose. (my bold)

"Until it becomes intelligent, life is happy just replicating. With intelligence, it will be unhappy just replicating. This, in a nutshell, is the essence of the human condition.

"Putting all this together, we propose that we are indeed chemically connected to the rest of the cosmos, and that we share the same basis for life as any other hypothetical living thing. At the same time, we are unique, and so are all other living creatures. Life is an amazing force. Starting from a carbon-based code and a common genetic ancestor, it can create a staggering diversity of wonders — in this world, and possibly in others." (my bold)

Comment: the obvious conclusion is natural evolution cannot produce intelligence. We are unique, but it is possible other intelligent being exist elsewhere. Our specialness is we have consciousness with the ability for complex thought

QUOTE: "The cosmological arguments follow the same formal structure as any theory in science. They invoke evidence from nature (things change, things are caused, things exist), analyze the evidence on a logical framework, and arrive at an inductive conclusion.
The evidence for the cosmological arguments is massive, the logic is impeccable, and the conclusion is inescapable. God exists, with more certainty than we know of the existence of anything in science."

DAVID: Read in entirety for real understanding. Very long.

dhw: Then thank you for editing it. The whole thing would have been even more unbearable.

dhw: I can see absolutely no logical link between the known facts of change, causation and existence and the conclusion that God must exist. You might just as well say impersonal nature consists of materials and energy which are constantly changing and each change has a cause, and there is an infinite number of potential combinations. I much prefer your own logical analysis of the complexities of living organisms as evidence of a designer.

Deeply thoughtful folks like Ed Feser agree with all of this. He started his adult life as an agnostic/atheist!!! Is now Catholic. Website:

https://duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=https%3A%2F%2Fedwardfeser.blogspot.com%2F

dhw: We had a similar exchange under “Revisiting language”:

DAVID: …how did cells find that intelligence which implies the ability for abstract thought?

dhw: […] in the context of the source of the intelligent cell….nobody knows, and we can only guess. One guess is a mysterious, unknown being you call God. How did God find that intelligence which implies the ability for abstract thought, not to mention the knowledge and power to create a whole universe and life itself? Oh, “first cause” – intelligent cells must have a source, but an unknown and almighty intelligence doesn’t have to have a source.

DAVID: Same old response. We exist. There is something. It cannot have come from nothing. Something has to be first cause which is eternal ..

dhw: And the same old response to your same old response: of course there has to be a first cause. And the alternative to God is eternal matter and energy forever forming new combinations until eventually they hit the jackpot. No more and no less unlikely than the God theory.

I like Feser and some of his St. Thomas discussions. They make sense to me.

DAVID: Read in entirety for real understanding. Very long.

Then thank you for editing it. The whole thing would have been even more unbearable.

I can see absolutely no logical link between the known facts of change, causation and existence and the conclusion that God must exist. You might just as well say impersonal nature consists of materials and energy which are constantly changing and each change has a cause, and there is an infinite number of potential combinations. I much prefer your own logical analysis of the complexities of living organisms as evidence of a designer.

We had a similar exchange under “Revisiting language”:

DAVID: …how did cells find that intelligence which implies the ability for abstract thought?

dhw: […] in the context of the source of the intelligent cell….nobody knows, and we can only guess. One guess is a mysterious, unknown being you call God. How did God find that intelligence which implies the ability for abstract thought, not to mention the knowledge and power to create a whole universe and life itself? Oh, “first cause” – intelligent cells must have a source, but an unknown and almighty intelligence doesn’t have to have a source.

DAVID: Same old response. We exist. There is something. It cannot have come from nothing. Something has to be first cause which is eternal ..

And the same old response to your same old response: of course there has to be a first cause. And the alternative to God is eternal matter and energy forever forming new combinations until eventually they hit the jackpot. No more and no less unlikely than the God theory.

https://mindmatters.ai/2020/03/gods-existence-is-proven-by-science/

"Proof of God’s existence is and must be the same: it must be inferential—it must come from evidence. Natural science uses exactly the same inferential structure: evidence-logic-inference

***

"natural theology, which is the science of demonstrating God’s existence using evidence and logic. Natural theology may be contrasted with revealed theology, which is the study of God via revelation in Scripture.

"Natural theology has a massive history—it goes back at least to the ancient philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) (the Prime Mover argument). A high point in natural theology was Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways, which are scientific (i.e. evidence-based) arguments for God’s existence. In fact, the cornerstone of Aquinas’ metaphysics is that essence (what a thing is) is utterly distinct from existence (that a thing is).

***

"Here’s Aquinas’ First Way:
1) Change exists in nature (evidence)
2) Change is the actuation of potentiality and an essential chain of actuations cannot go to infinite regress. A fully actual Prime Mover is necessary (logic)
3) That Prime Mover is what all men call God (conclusion)

***

"There are four (explicit and implicit) components to Aquinas’ First Way (Aquinas at right).
First the evidence:

1) Evidence for change in nature. This is obvious. Things change all the time—atoms vibrate, water flows, leaves turn yellow, men get older. Change is everywhere, and the evidence part of Aquinas’ First Way is ubiquitous and more extensive than the evidence for any other scientific theory.

"Then the logic:
2) Change is actuation of potency.
3) Instrumental (essential) causal chains exist in nature, and they cannot go to infinite regress.
4) The law of the Excluded Middle: a thing cannot be, and be its contrary, in the same respect at the same time. Something is either A, or not A, but not both simultaneously.

***

"2) Change is actuation of potency: This is perhaps Aristotle’s most fundamental metaphysical insight. Aristotle observed that there are three ways of describing existence: there is non-existence, there is actuality, and there is an intermediate state he called potency. ...When Aristotle and Aquinas say that change is actuation of potency, all they mean is that when something changes in nature, it goes from potentially something to actually something. A green leaf goes from potentially yellow to actually yellow in the fall. An acorn goes from potentially an oak tree to actually an oak tree when it grows.

***

"3) Instrumental (essential) causal chains exist in nature, and they cannot go to infinite regress: This is the part that is most subtle but it is true and vital. Causal chains exist in nature—things cause other things. Causal chains mean that potency is elevated so that it acts sequentially in things. A thing is in potency to be something, and it actually becomes that something because something else acts on it.

***

"An instrumental (essential) causal chain is different. In an instrumental causal chain, each cause must continue to exist for the effect to continue to exist.

***

"Infinite regress is impossible for instrumental (essential) causal chains. The reason is that an instrumental chain of causes (a chain of sticks used to push a rock) can’t get started by itself. Causation entails elevation of potency to act, but potency is not something that fully exists so it must be caused by something that does actually exist.

***

"To cause itself, the universe must potentially exist and actually exist at the same time. The universe can potentially exist, or actually exist, but it cannot simultaneously potentially and actually exist. It is logically and metaphysically impossible for something to cause itself. It is logically impossible for a chain of instrumentally ordered causes to cause itself.

***

"His Third Way—the proof from Necessary Existence—has a similar structure.

***

"The cosmological arguments follow the same formal structure as any theory in science. They invoke evidence from nature (things change, things are caused, things exist), analyze the evidence on a logical framework, and arrive at an inductive conclusion.
The evidence for the cosmological arguments is massive, the logic is impeccable, and the conclusion is inescapable. God exists, with more certainly than we know of the existence of anything in science."

Comments: Read in entirety for real understanding. Very long.

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-evolutionary-analysis-mammalian-vertebrae.html

"'The classic body plan of many mammals is built on a mobile back and this body plan is conserved regardless of running speed," explains New York University anthropologist Scott Williams, the paper's senior author. "More specifically, we find that a particular type of locomotor behavior—suspensory locomotion, which involves hanging below tree branches, rather than speed—is associated with increases in variation in numbers of vertebrae across mammals."

"The work centers on an effort to better understand why certain aspects of mammals remain consistent over time—a phenomenon known as evolutionary stasis.

"Despite the diversity evolution has yielded, there remain consistencies across a wide range of distantly related organisms. Of particular note is the number neck (cervical) and back (thoracic and lumbar) vertebrae of mammals.

"'Nearly all mammals have the same number of cervical vertebrae, no matter how long or short their necks are—humans, giraffes, mice, whales, and platypuses all have exactly seven cervical vertebrae," explains co-author Jeff Spear, an NYU doctoral student.

"In fact, the majority of mammals possess 19 or 20 thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, for a total of 26 or 27 "CTL" vertebrae (for "cervical, thoracic, and lumbar" vertebrae). There is little variation in these numbers, either within species or across different species—or even different species separated by over 160 million years of evolution. Humans, with 24 CTL, are one of the exceptions.

***

"In their study, they counted the vertebrae of thousands of individuals for nearly 300 species of mammals. The researchers then compared variation in the number of CTL vertebrae to traits such as speed, habitat, locomotion, spine mobility, posture, and limb use.

"The analyses did not seem to show an association between vertebrae count and running speed. Rather, this trend was primarily driven by animals adapted to suspensory and other "antipronograde" behaviors, where limbs are held in tension during slow climbing, clambering, and suspension.

"This observation led the researchers to hypothesize that the classic body plan of certain mammals—therian mammals, which give birth to live young—is built on a mobile back and that this body plan is conserved regardless of running speed.

***

"Changes in types of vertebrae are determined by Hox genes—the genes that organize animal bodies along the head-tail axis, ensuring that your eyes go on your face and your legs go at the base of your torso," explains Spear. "But changes in Hox gene expression sometimes creates vertebrae that are intermediate in type, which can impinge the mobility of the spine."

"For animals following the ancestral body plan, from possums to tigers, departures from the ancestral types of vertebrae in the back creates a risk of inefficient locomotion and are weeded out by natural selection, he adds.

"'Mammals that depart from this body plan, however, such as apes adapted for antipronograde behaviors, are more free to vary in their number of CTL vertebrae," says Williams. "Our own atypical number of CTL vertebrae, then, may be the consequence of our evolutionary history as antipronograde climbers.'"

Comment: Our running speed is due to pelvic changes, an arched lumbar spine and how our feet are built to propel us. Our long distance running is allowed by the fact that we sweat and lose heat while furred animals cannot do that. We are different in kind for many reasons, not just our giant brain.

https://mindmatters.ai/2019/04/transhumanism-the-lazy-way-to-human-improvement/

"Transhumanism would shatter human exceptionalism. The moral philosophy of the West holds that each human being is possessed of natural rights that adhere solely and merely because we are human. But transhumanists yearn to remake humanity in their own image — including as cyborgs, group personalities residing in the Internet Cloud, or AI-controlled machines.

***

"If the distinction between us and fauna is just a matter of degree — which I dispute, it is also of kind — then that difference is akin to the Matterhorn versus a small hill in the flatlands of Kansas.

"After all, what other species in the known history of life has attained the wondrous capacities of human beings? What other species has transcended the tooth-and-claw world of naked natural selection to the point that, at least to some degree, we now control nature instead of being controlled by it?

"What other species builds civilizations, records history, creates art, makes music, thinks abstractly, communicates in language, envisions and fabricates machinery, improves life through science and engineering, or explores the deeper truths found in philosophy and religion? What other species can ponder “seizing control” of its own evolution, as transhumanists do? Which has true freedom? Not a one.

"It seems to me that human exceptionalism is as close to a self-evident truth as one can find.

"Transhumanism goes so badly wrong by hubristically claiming that we have the ability — not to mention, the wisdom — to remake ourselves into something “better,” that we can somehow “improve” on what evolution, intelligent design, or Creation — take your pick — produced.

"That is eugenics, plain and simple. The movement’s fatal flaw can be found in its rigid mechanistic beliefs, that sees us basically as the sum of our materialistic parts.

"The movement swoons over increasing intelligence. If I had to choose between increasing the intelligence of the human race to beyond Mensa levels versus enhancing our capacity to love, I can say unequivocally that the human race would be far better off embracing the latter than the former.

"There is no brain implant for that. There is no pill. It is a virtue toward which we have to consciously strive–in the way we behave toward others, in the charity we exhibit, in the humility we attain. Only human beings have the capacity to pursue virtues. It is part of what makes us exceptional."

Comment: In answering the philosophy of Transhumanism he is echoing Adler's main point .

dhw: Thank you for this delightful post, which had me chuckling all through. If the authors would produce an illustrated book on the subject, I reckon they’d earn enough not to need grants for at least another ten years.

And it is drawing viewers!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2019/03/06/why-do-humans-have-breasts/#.XIMPgHdFyze

"In other primate species, only pregnant or lactating females have bosoms. The animals stay flat-chested for the rest of their lives. In humans, pubescent girls accumulate fat around their milk glands, which stays for life and seems to hold sex appeal in every culture. Those permanent, alluring mounds of fat on women’s chests are indeed an evolutionary anomaly, begging for an explanation.

***

"Whether or not breasts first served as energy banks or handle bars for mothers and infants, they eventually caught the attention of males. This is why most researchers assume sexual selection has been at work: They argue that over the course of human evolution, permanent breasts helped females attract mates. Like the ostentatious feathers of male peacocks, breasts served as a message to the opposite sex, “Hey, look at these! Reproduce with me!”

"And in the case of peacock feathers, and potentially breasts, there’s truth in advertising. The more spectacular the feathers, the healthier the bird, and therefore this trait is what evolutionary biologists call an honest signal: a reliable indicator of an animal’s quality as a mate or parent. It’s a feature potential suitors can assess before deciding, “Oh yeah, I want to make babies with this individual.” As for breasts, some hypotheses in the sexual selection camp contend the fat mounds are an honest signal of a woman’s mate-worthiness.

:In Western populations, some studies have shown that most men prefer women with narrow waists and large breasts

***

"The researchers measured two female sex hormones — progesterone and a form of estrogen (E2) — from spit samples, collected from 119 healthy Polish women every morning for the duration of one menstrual cycle, or roughly one month. Not considering waists, breast size alone related only to E2 levels. Because estrogen plays a crucial role in girls developing their womanly figures, this may suggest that breasts are just a side effect of gaining healthy voluptuous fat overall.

"But the study also found that women with large breasts and narrow waists had higher values for both hormones — and the combo of these hormones predicts pregnancy success. This led the researchers to conclude that at least among these Polish women, “the cultural icon of Barbie as a symbol of female beauty seems to have some biological grounding.”

***

"As for men’s taste in breasts, numerous studies have tried to uncover universal preferences, which may be biologically programmed.

***

"Men’s preferences seem influenced by number of factors, including: culture (says one study, “Brazilians preferred larger breasts and buttocks than Czechs”), socio-economic status (larger breasts for lower status men), sexual habits, (larger for men in short-term, non-committal relationships), body image, (larger for men who rated themselves more attractive), sexist attitudes (larger for men hostile toward women) and even hunger (hungry British men liked bigger breasts than fed participants). And some experiments focused on other qualities than size, such as how perky or symmetrical breasts are.

"Suffice to say, if there are underlying, biologically evolved preferences for certain breast qualities, cultural and individual factors can override them. More research is certainly needed. "

Comment: Biologically speaking, human breasts are modified sweat glands surrounded by fat. Flat or full they all give enough milk when required. In this country padded bras and breast enhancement surgery attest to the visual importance of size, both for men, but also for women who want to improve their personal self image. As a physician I have been asked by female patients for a good plastic surgeon, and in one instance a patient was so grateful for the result, she made an appointment just to undress and show me! Black men here are well known to watch for big buttocks on first look. Therefore, we need a great just-so story to answer the issue of 'why' in each sub-culture..

QUOTE: "The studies are part of a broader effort to explain the existence of menopause, a rarity in the animal kingdom. The so-called “grandmother hypothesis” stipulates that, from an evolution standpoint, women’s longevity is due to their contributions to their grandkids’ survival, thus extending their own lineage. (David's bold)

DAVID’s comment: Followers of Darwin can make up all sorts of just-so stories. There is no clear evidence that grand motherhood evolved to keep another generation alive. Note my bold.
Menopause in another big way that humans differ from all other animals.

dhw: So why do you think your God specially designed the menopause?

DAVID: The theory in the past was early humans didn't live much longer than when the eggs disappeared. Menopause just a century ago was late 30's to early 40's and now is late 40's into mid 50's, which raises the interesting thought, do women have more eggs now? Sexual development starts earlier also. Why? Better nutrition? These are all modern changes.

As for God's reasons, all I can point to is God wanted humans as very different.

dhw: “Followers of Darwin can make up all sorts of just-so stories” for which there is “no clear evidence”. Do you not realize that folk like Dawkins can say exactly the same about you and your God and your fixed belief that you know what your God wants? There is no “clear evidence” for ANY of the hypotheses put forward by theists and atheists alike. If there was, they would no longer be hypotheses but facts.

As my books show, there is much more evidence for God and evolution than for natural evolution.

DAVID’s comment: Followers of Darwin can make up all sorts of just-so stories. There is no clear evidence that grand motherhood evolved to keep another generation alive. Note my bold.
Menopause in another big way that humans differ from all other animals.

dhw: So why do you think your God specially designed the menopause?

DAVID: The theory in the past was early humans didn't live much longer than when the eggs disappeared. Menopause just a century ago was late 30's to early 40's and now is late 40's into mid 50's, which raises the interesting thought, do women have more eggs now? Sexual development starts earlier also. Why? Better nutrition? These are all modern changes.

As for God's reasons, all I can point to is God wanted humans as very different.

“Followers of Darwin can make up all sorts of just-so stories” for which there is “no clear evidence”. Do you not realize that folk like Dawkins can say exactly the same about you and your God and your fixed belief that you know what your God wants? There is no “clear evidence” for ANY of the hypotheses put forward by theists and atheists alike. If there was, they would no longer be hypotheses but facts.

QUOTE: "The studies are part of a broader effort to explain the existence of menopause, a rarity in the animal kingdom. The so-called “grandmother hypothesis” stipulates that, from an evolution standpoint, women’s longevity is due to their contributions to their grandkids’ survival, thus extending their own lineage. (David's bold)

DAVID’s comment: Followers of Darwin can make up all sorts of just-so stories. There is no clear evidence that grand motherhood evolved to keep another generation alive. Note my bold.
Menopause in another big way that humans differ from all other animals.

dhw: So why do you think your God specially designed the menopause?

The theory in the past was early humans didn't live much longer than when the eggs disappeared. Menopause just a century ago was late 30's to early 40's and now is late 40's into mid 50's, which raises the interesting thought, do women have more eggs now? Sexual development starts earlier also. Why? Better nutrition? These are all modern changes.

As for God's reasons, all I can point to is God wanted humans as very different.

DAVID’s comment: Followers of Darwin can make up all sorts of just-so stories. There is no clear evidence that grand motherhood evolved to keep another generation alive. Note my bold.
Menopause in another big way that humans differ from all other animals.

So why do you think your God specially designed the menopause?

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/grandmothers-survival-evolution

"Grandmothers are great — generally speaking. But evolutionarily speaking, it’s puzzling why women past their reproductive years live so long.

"Grandma’s age and how close she lives to her grandchildren can affect those children’s survival, suggest two new studies published February 7 in Current Biology. One found that, among Finnish families in the 1700s–1800s, the survival rate of young grandchildren increased 30 percent when their maternal grandmothers lived nearby and were 50 to 75 years old. The second study looked at whether that benefit to survival persists even when grandma lives far away. (Spoiler: It doesn’t.)

"The studies are part of a broader effort to explain the existence of menopause, a rarity in the animal kingdom. The so-called “grandmother hypothesis” stipulates that, from an evolution standpoint, women’s longevity is due to their contributions to their grandkids’ survival, thus extending their own lineage. (my bold)

***

"The team found that when maternal grandmothers living nearby were aged 50 to 75, their 2- to 5-year-old grandchildren had a 30 percent higher likelihood of survival than children whose maternal grandmothers were deceased. Similarly aged paternal grandmothers and maternal grandmothers aged past 75 did not affect children’s overall survival.

"But when paternal grandmothers lived past age 75, their grandchildren’s odds of dying before age 2 was 37 percent higher than a child with a deceased paternal grandmother.

***

"In the second study, researchers wanted to know if the grandmother boost persisted even when families lived far apart. The team used data from 1608 to 1799, encompassing 3,382 maternal grandmothers and 56,767 grandchildren in Canada’s St. Lawrence Valley. As with the Finnish population, those early French settlers had large families and high child mortality, but they also moved around a lot.

"For every 100 kilometers of distance between mothers and daughters, the daughters had 0.5 fewer children, the researchers found. Older sisters whose moms were alive when the women started having children had more children, and those children were more likely to survive to age 15, compared with younger sisters who started having children after their mother’s death.

"Mathematically speaking, as grandma moved farther away, those survival and reproduction rates began to resemble those of the younger sisters with deceased moms. Once a maternal grandmother moved 350 kilometers away or more, her benefits ceased, says study coauthor Patrick Bergeron, an evolutionary biologist at Bishop’s University in Sherbrooke, Canada.

***

"Both studies provide an interesting peek at life in these North American and European communities, says Melissa Melby, a medical anthropologist at the University of Delaware in Newark. But she remains skeptical about the grandmother hypothesis because menopause may well have come about by accident. Maybe, she says, women live past their reproductive years because evolution favored men who could reproduce into old age, who then passed on those longevity genes to their sons and daughters. "

Comment: Followers of Darwin can make up all sorts of just-so stories. There is no clear evidence that grand motherhood evolved to keep another generation alive. Note my bold. Menopause in another big way that humans differ from all other animals.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-self-aware-fish-raises-doubts-about-a-cognitive-test-2...

"Alex Jordan, an evolutionary biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Germany, thinks this fish — a cleaner wrasse — has just passed a classic test of self-recognition. Scientists have long thought that being able to recognize oneself in a mirror reveals some sort of self-awareness, and perhaps an awareness of others’ perspectives, too. For almost 50 years, they have been using mirrors to test animals for that capacity. After letting an animal get familiar with a mirror, they put a mark someplace on the animal’s body that it can see only in its reflection. If the animal looks in the mirror and then touches or examines the mark on its body, it passes the test.

"Humans don’t usually reach this milestone until we’re toddlers. Very few other species ever pass the test; those that do are mostly or entirely big-brained mammals such as chimpanzees.

***

"The evolutionary psychologist Gordon Gallup thought up his field-defining experiment while shaving in a mirror one day as a graduate student. When Gallup took a position at Tulane University a little later, he had access to animals at the Delta Regional Primate Research Center he could test his idea on.

***

" In their reflections, aquarium dolphins studied their eyes and mouths, did flips and blew different kinds of bubbles. After being drawn on with black marker, the dolphins spent more time looking at the marked sides of their bodies in the mirror.

"Monkeys, for the most part, have continued to fail mirror tests...But Reiss and her colleagues have found mirror self-recognition in Asian elephants. Orangutans, bonobos and gorillas have all passed the test, too, Reiss said — along with one bird, the magpie.

***

"Jordan wants the world to know how smart fish can be. But, he said, “I am the last to say that fish are as smart as chimpanzees. Or that the cleaner wrasse is equivalent to an 18-month-old baby. It’s not.” Rather, he thinks the main point of his paper has more to do with science than fish: “The mirror test is probably not testing for self-awareness,” he said. The question then is what it is doing, and whether we can do better.

***

"Scientists also have mixed feelings about the phrase “self-awareness,” for which they don’t agree on a definition. Reiss thinks the mirror test shows “one aspect of self-awareness,” as opposed to the whole cognitive package a human has. The biologists Marc Bekoff of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Paul Sherman of Cornell University have suggested a spectrum of “self-cognizance” that ranges from brainless reflexes to a humanlike understanding of the self.

"Jordan likes the idea of a spectrum, and thinks cleaner wrasse would fall at the lower end of self-cognizance. He points out that moving your tail before it gets stepped on, or scraping a parasite off your scales, isn’t the same as sitting and pondering your place in the universe. Others in the field have supported his contention that the mirror test doesn’t test for self-awareness, he said. “I think the community wants a revision and a reevaluation of how we understand what animals know,” Jordan said.

***

"Dogs are lousy at recognizing themselves in mirrors. But Horowitz recently designed an “olfactory mirror test” for dogs. She found that dogs spent longer sniffing samples of their own urine when it had an extra scent “mark” added to it."

Comment: My dog seems to recognize me in the mirror when I am at the mirror and gaze at him. He appears to look back at me with a fixed gaze toward the mirror. Long interesting article with many examples of other animals in experiments but only a few have very clear awareness of themselves. Many implications, no proof.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187571-parrots-are-clever-because-their-brains-ev...

"Parrots are intelligent birds capable of complex cognition, and it turns out that the genes that play a role in their brain development are similar to those that evolved to give humans large brains.

“'It’s a surprise in the sense that these animals are so different from humans, but it’s also satisfying in that you might predict that since they evolved similar traits, they have some similar mechanisms,” says Claudio Mello at the Oregon Health & Science University. Parrots can produce complex vocalisations and they’re highly social, a lot like humans.

"To learn more how these birds’ brains develop, Mello and his team compared the genome of the blue-fronted Amazon parrot with that of 30 other birds. They found that regions of the parrot genome that regulate when and how genes for brain development are turned on are the same as those found in humans. These so-called ultra-conserved elements evolved in both species at different times, but with similar results.

“'These define how the brain grows and how many cells are built,” Mello says. “Humans ended up with bigger brains and more brain cells and more cognitive traits – including language – than primates. Parrots have bigger brains than other birds and more communication skills, and they have similar conserved elements that set them apart.”

"Mello says that when these regulatory regions of the genome are disrupted in humans, they are known to be associated with cognitive disabilities such as autism, developmental delays and language deficits.

"The team also found 344 genes associated with parrot lifespan. Parrots live far longer than would be expected based on their body size and metabolism, some even lasting into their 80s. The genes Mello and his team found that are associated with parrot lifespan support DNA damage repair, slow down cell death due to stress, and limit cell overgrowth and cancers.

“'Parrots seem to have taken advantage of a whole range of genes. That may be why they are so long lived,” he says."

Comment: This supports my point that God uses patterns in genes to advance evolution and it also would explain similar convergences that occur.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2018/11/28/chimps-didnt-evolve-small-talk/#.XAll...

"In chimpanzee societies, a whistle followed by a high-pitched hoot seems to mean, “I’m leaving.” Energetic grunts probably say “good food.” And a hip thrust could signal that chimp is ready to get frisky.

"These rough translations result from decades of research on chimp communication. In addition to revealing what apes are saying (big surprise: food and sex), the results also reflect why and how chimps communicate — and how this compares to human language.

"One of the biggest questions about chimp communication centers around the notion of intentionality. Why do chimps communicate the things that they do? The answer might seem obvious, but there’s actually an important distinction to be made between innate, involuntary reactions to stimuli and calls and gestures that are produced consciously in order to communicate internal things like thoughts and feelings.

"The first type of communication includes things like laughing and crying, and it doesn’t necessarily take consciousness to produce. The second requires something called theory of mind, or, the understanding that other beings have thoughts.

"Possessing an advanced theory of mind indicates a level of consciousness, and it’s helping researchers assess how intelligent and aware animals like chimps really are. Research so far indicates that they do comprehend that others have thoughts — at least to a degree.

***

"Chimps don’t have the vocal anatomy to produce as many sounds as humans. They rely on a limited set of calls, which have been classified into four call types — hoos, grunts, barks and screams — and dozens of subtypes. However, the apes have a much larger repertoire of non-verbal communicative gestures, such as the mouth stroke and exaggerated scratch. Over 70 such gestures have been observed in chimps and bonobos, combined. Together, gestures and calls provide enough substrates for potentially extensive communication.

***

"Recent experiments support chimps having first-order intentionality, by showing wild subjects could control their calls and use them tactically.

***

"But it’s unclear from these studies if chimps possess second-order intentionality, the desire to change the thoughts of others. Obviously we can’t ask the apes, “Did you alarm huu to get your friends to hide or to get your friends to know to hide?” But other experiments suggest chimps have more limited theory of mind than humans. Based on how they behave when food is hidden from group members, chimps seem to grasp that others can be uninformed, but not misinformed (probably).

"Differing degrees of theory of mind might contribute to differences between ape communication and human language. With high-order intentionality, people talk to bond, gossip and make agreements. Somewhere around first or second-order, most chimp messages are declarative imperatives like “good food” and “sex now.” They communicate the essentials — food, sex and imminent danger — but skip the small talk."

Comment: We may resemble them in body form but the minds are a million miles apart.