Seeking Theories As To How Human Beings Acquired Individually Unique Faces Over Time

[Safetyhit]

Not many other species have the reach we do, and thus there is less reason for variation

Tuna fish, sharks, albatross, chameleons, rats, whales, etc, have lived worldwide for millions of years.

Humans are pretty new on the scene. Birds, crocodiles, etc have had a far longer evolutionary history than us.

Which is exactly the point, why are we so privileged after so very long? Or is that part of my biased viewing context too?

[SteyrAUG]

Sure it is to an extent, but can you provide examples of other species that have individual faces or is that somehow irrelevant? If it is irrelevant, or possibly comparable in some way to another life form can you elaborate?

The more valuable the trait of a given species, the more variation of that trait you are likely to see. For example birds may not all have unique faces, but plumage is valuable for communicating many things so you see the same kind of wide, varied range.

[Belmont31R]

Tuna fish, sharks, albatross, chameleons, rats, whales, etc, have lived worldwide for millions of years.



Which is exactly the point, why are we so privileged after so very long? Or is that part of my biased viewing context too?

Yes, but under the water its pretty much a singular environment. Those species tend to have migration habits. If you look at sea going species who live in one type of environment such as arctic waters they tend to be adapted for the cold. On land there is not only temperature variation but everything from arctic lands to deserts.


But also, again, those species have been around a lot longer than we have. Hominids are young in comparison, and we've had far less time to hone our DNA. If you look at something like a Nile crocodile, they are bound to the river and live in a vary narrow geographic area. Then they've tens of millions of years to hone their DNA. If something is so perfect then theres not really much of a reason to change it. If we gave humans the same amount of time would there be something much closer to perfection?

[Safetyhit]

All great replies, even better than I expected. But with that very practical input it still seems to me that we have a few too many things going our way too soon. I would compare something like relatively subtle plumage variants among a species to be significantly more basic then a 5'8" man with blonde hair having a son who is 6'2" with brown hair, and again each having possibly similar but still unique faces as well as personalities.

Also Belmont I mentioned not only marine creatures but a species of bird, reptile and mammal as examples. Certainly at the very least rats have adapted to life in a wide variety of surroundings as well as climates but mentally and physically they're as redundant as can be.

[ALCOAR]

In no scientific manner could one say that Homo sapiens are the most widely diverse species on Earth. More over Homo sapiens aren't the only species to become self aware...Chimps, Bottlenose Dolphins, Orcas, Elephants, Gorillas, Magpies, etc. all are self aware.

Humans love believing they're special little snowflakes, or the master species for whatever reason/s.

Man's best friend has more diversity than Man himself if you ask me...

[Safetyhit]

Humans love believing they're special little snowflakes, or the master species for whatever reason/s.

Man's best friend has more diversity than Man himself if you ask me...

I have no idea how one can interpret awareness of blatant unique physical and mental differences as a sense of entitlement. Seems to me it's only acknowledging the obvious. Also if you take two Jack Russels and mate them you get another Jack Russel, likely of similar stature with a slightly varied hair pattern. Adding a mutt to the mix is getting somewhere, but bottom line is that to act as though you can easily tell two black labs or golden retrievers apart by their faces, which is possible to an extent falling far short of humans, is disingenuous because with people it's easy to do. Deem it irrelevant or egotistical (which is really the last thing I'd like to imply) if you want but it's still true.

Maybe next you'll add that humans aren't at the top of the intellectual food chain as well and I'm conceited for thinking so.

[Belmont31R]

All great replies, even better than I expected. But with that very practical input it still seems to me that we have a few too many things going our way too soon. I would compare something like relatively subtle plumage variants among a species to be significantly more basic then a 5'8" man with blonde hair having a son who is 6'2" with brown hair, and again each having possibly similar but still unique faces as well as personalities.

Also Belmont I mentioned not only marine creatures but a species of bird, reptile and mammal as examples. Certainly at the very least rats have adapted to life in a wide variety of surroundings as well as climates but mentally and physically they're as redundant as can be.

Well I generally think a member of a species is much more well suited to picking out individuals of the same species than across species. Like a crocodile doesn't really distinguish male vs female of a prey species but we can pick them out in our own species very well (usually).

Something like a rat is mostly a scavenger so they have to be suited to survive in many conditions, and some species are more adaptive than others. Like the crocodile I mentioned. They are bound to the river and don't have much geographic range. A rat is not bound to something like a river. So the crocodile is not as adaptive as a rat.

Our biggest differentiator isn't so much physical but mental ability compared to other species. Something clicked in humans to have a much higher learning capacity than even other hominid species. They weren't exactly stupid but our mental ability gave us adaptability beyond basic physical limitations. Like creating clothing, tools, and controlling fire.

What I was talking about with the age or the age of a lineage of a species is basically they've had more time to weed out less desirable traits we see as diversity in humans, and now with modern medicine plus being able to rapidly transit the globe we've set ourselves up to carry on undesirable traits + spread diseases. We also have a lot more criteria in choosing a mate which leads to more diversity. If you look at many species where males challenge each other for breeding rights theres a lot less going on than with humans. If you take male lions competing for breeding the size of the animal is a key factor. Thus a mane makes a male appear larger, and causes another male to be more likely to back down. In humans almost all members are breeding; even those with undesirable traits or with genes that affect survivability.

Another factor is not many species have a single off spring. Multiples in humans are rare but common in most other species. There are also differences in gestational length which affects the ability of newborns. Some species need offspring that are on their feet and walking shortly after birth. Humans have a very slow growth rate compared to most species...even other apes. This is one of the key factors in our mental ability. Our infants can spend a lot of time developing mentally compared to other species. A human is not really at full mental maturity for nearly 20 years which is much longer than the vast majority of species.

[SteyrAUG]

All great replies, even better than I expected. But with that very practical input it still seems to me that we have a few too many things going our way too soon.

That is the nature of being the dominant predator. Remove humans from the equation and what some other species make rapid evolutions. This has been the pattern following every significant extinction event.

The greater the event, the greater the evolutionary expansion. The Ordovician–Silurian extinction event gave rise to the Cambrian explosion. Th K-T extinction removed reptiles as the dominant predator and allowed for the evolution of mammals. Mastery of fire and tools changed the nature of our evolution from a physical adaptation to a psychological adaptation to our environment.

[halmbarte]

That is the nature of being the dominant predator. Remove humans from the equation and what some other species make rapid evolutions. This has been the pattern following every significant extinction event.

The greater the event, the greater the evolutionary expansion. The Ordovician–Silurian extinction event gave rise to the Cambrian explosion. Th K-T extinction removed reptiles as the dominant predator and allowed for the evolution of mammals. Mastery of fire and tools changed the nature of our evolution from a physical adaptation to a psychological adaptation to our environment.

Even more so than fire, evolution of abstract language exploded our adaptability.

Every other species* can only learn one individual at a time, and when that individual dies it takes that lifetime of knowledge with it.

Humans can listen to stories told by others and learn from them, and pass that learning down to our children.

H

*As much as I'd like it to be true there just isn't a lot of evidence for dolphins and whales having abstract language abilities.

[SteyrAUG]

Even more so than fire, evolution of abstract language exploded our adaptability.

Every other species* can only learn one individual at a time, and when that individual dies it takes that lifetime of knowledge with it.

Humans can listen to stories told by others and learn from them, and pass that learning down to our children.

H

*As much as I'd like it to be true there just isn't a lot of evidence for dolphins and whales having abstract language abilities.

Correct. But mastering tools and fire laid the groundwork for things like abstract thought and language. That is all I was saying.