Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Animal Intelligence and Evolution/Creation
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 46 of 102 (185315)
02-14-2005 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by New Cat's Eye
02-14-2005 7:13 PM


gotta stick with quality
The quantity of humans' qualities is what makes them unique.
I don't see how quantitative differences make for "different uniqueness".
Animals show the abilities to do the things humans do, but on a different scale, not just size but complexity.
We are not the largest, or the fastest, or the strongest; nor do we have the most powerful sensory abilities.
Is any animal that has a "world record" characteristic "differently unique"?
Plus, you usually get one animal doing one quality (with exeptions), but we do them all. Humans have all the qualities of the animals, with the use of technology.
First - we don't have all of the qualities of animals with technology. Non-human animals still surpass human technology in sensory abilities.
Second - if you define the human species based on modern technology, then you are also define modern humans as a separate "animal" from humans living just a couple of hundred years ago.
That is, simple "technology use" can be a characteristic of the human species, but "iPod use" cannot, otherwise humans from five years ago would not be human. "Habitat building" can be a species characteristic, but "New York City building" cannot, otherwise humans from five hundred years ago would not be human.
Hopefully that makes sense - and also explains to some degree why I find quality defining rather than quantity.
We are special/unique.
Not based on technology, given my statements above. We are unique in the sense of being not completely like any other species, but that is true for all species.
They taste good.
So does the flesh of human infants - that doesn't mean I'm going to eat it. Do you do anything that causes pleasurable sensation?
Do you think this something natural/evolutionary happening or did something go wrong? I mean, Is the spreading of these ants a benefit or their evolution, or are we mucking things up by spreading them around?
I don't know the details of the global ant colonization (that was posted by someone else), but I can speak theoretically. It sounds like the ants have a trait that makes them more fit to widespread colonization in the sense that they recognize each other and work cooperatively. If humans spread around other ant species, they kill other members of their own species from other colonies, and thus at the species-level they thrive less.
It doesn't matter if a species interacts with humans to be successful (such as grasses) - it is still successful, having adapted to a situation involving another species. There are many symbiotic relationships between organisms, and none violate the principles of evolution. The aphids taken care of by the ants in the example I mention above are not an example of "something going wrong", they are an example of success by adaption to an interspecies relationship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2005 7:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 9:16 PM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-24-2005 7:31 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 47 of 102 (185324)
02-14-2005 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by mike the wiz
02-14-2005 8:11 PM


pooper scoopers
link writes:
No other animal has such an extensive and expressive communication system.
Quantity, not quality.
Pertaining to my dog point;
link writes:
Not surprisingly, domestic animals can read our intentions better than wild animals, because we humans have bred them to be somewhat like us.
How does this pertain to your "dog point"? Anyway, this contradicts your previous claim:
That's because God made them [dogs] loyal, to be under the dominion of man.
Did humans breed dogs, or did God make them?
link writes:
Humans seem to be far superior to other animals in their mindreading and manipulation abilities
Again, quantity, not quality.
link writes:
Humans are a notably cooperative and altruistic species. Apart from the social insects, like ants and some bees, humans are individually less selfish toward each other than other animals.
Not a qualitative difference.
Humans are the only species to have developed complex codes of morality.
Not a qualitative difference, since non-human primates have morality. I recommend Frans de Waal's Good Natured for review of the subject. Here is an example from recent primary literature:
Nature. 2003 Sep 18;425(6955):297-9.
Monkeys reject unequal pay.
Brosnan SF, De Waal FB.
During the evolution of cooperation it may have become critical for individuals to compare their own efforts and pay-offs with those of others. Negative reactions may occur when expectations are violated. One theory proposes that aversion to inequity can explain human cooperation within the bounds of the rational choice model, and may in fact be more inclusive than previous explanations. Although there exists substantial cultural variation in its particulars, this 'sense of fairness' is probably a human universal that has been shown to prevail in a wide variety of circumstances. However, we are not the only cooperative animals, hence inequity aversion may not be uniquely human. Many highly cooperative nonhuman species seem guided by a set of expectations about the outcome of cooperation and the division of resources. Here we demonstrate that a nonhuman primate, the brown capuchin monkey (Cebus apella), responds negatively to unequal reward distribution in exchanges with a human experimenter. Monkeys refused to participate if they witnessed a conspecific obtain a more attractive reward for equal effort, an effect amplified if the partner received such a reward without any effort at all. These reactions support an early evolutionary origin of inequity aversion.
Here is a short review with free full-text online:
PLoS Biol. 2004 April; 2(4): e101.
Peace Lessons from an Unlikely Source
Frans B. M de Waal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 8:11 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 9:11 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 48 of 102 (185327)
02-14-2005 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by pink sasquatch
02-14-2005 9:00 PM


Re: pooper scoopers
Dear Pink S', I think at this stage the readers really would like to know what would qualify as a qualitative difference.
I'll assume you're just jesting? (I've done similar things in the past, so I suspect you are).
If you're not, then please put us all in the picture, we really want to know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-14-2005 9:00 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-14-2005 9:54 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 49 of 102 (185328)
02-14-2005 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by pink sasquatch
02-14-2005 8:35 PM


Re: gotta stick with quality
Second - if you define the human species based on modern technology, then you are also define modern humans as a separate "animal" from humans living just a couple of hundred years ago
Haven't I said that Moses and biblists have the same ability?
We could teach Moses how to do things, and increase his knowledge. Also - I have shown with that link that there is the unique aspect of language, and written.
But what would make a qualitative difference to you?
Space travel, examining our DNA make-up, cloning? We could teach the fist sapien to do these things.
Are you going to just ignore these points?
Oh, and on another note, I think that's an achievement to refrain from eating animals willfully, and I think that shows good character. (not that my opinion is worth much around here ) I won't say it's a unique trait to the species though.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-14-2005 21:18 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-14-2005 8:35 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-14-2005 10:14 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 59 by Tusko, posted 02-16-2005 7:57 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 50 of 102 (185347)
02-14-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by mike the wiz
02-14-2005 9:11 PM


rude
I'll assume you're just jesting?
No. I'll assume you're jesting.
Don't be rude just because you haven't come up with a decent point yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 9:11 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 51 of 102 (185351)
02-14-2005 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by mike the wiz
02-14-2005 9:16 PM


worship and cannibalism
Haven't I said that Moses and biblists have the same ability?
We could teach Moses how to do things, and increase his knowledge.
Yes, you've claimed that Moses could be trained to use a computer. Chimps, bonobos, and orangutans also can be trained to use a computer (see my ref in a post above) and increase their knowledge.
Moses and his peeps did not have the ability to conceive, design, or build a computer. They did not even have a rudimentary understanding of the electricity that would be used to power a computer.
Do you really not see the problem with using "we've built computers" as a characteristic of the human species? It is a historical characteristic, not an innate one.
Also - I have shown with that link that there is the unique aspect of language, and written.
This is the best you've come up with - but this depends much on your definition of language, and whether written language makes communication qualitatively different (I'll have to think on this point).
Since you asked for what I consider a qualitative uniqueness of the human species, my strongest feeling is towards the quality of "religious worship"; since as of yet we have no evidence for such in other animals - though that doesn't mean it isn't occurring. Now, depending on how you feel about "worship", this could be considered a great "unique" quality, or simply an aberrant psychological response to the unknown (which may not be so unique to humans).
Space travel, examining our DNA make-up, cloning? We could teach the fist sapien to do these things.
Well, chimps have served as astronauts; and I really doubt that the first human, whether by evolution or creation, could have begun to understand DNA and cloning, let alone practice molecular genetics.
Are you going to just ignore these points?
No, since this is the dozenth time I've addressed them. You in turn ignore my rebuttals, and simply list another example of modern technology as a species characteristic (even though I asked you to cease and desist example-based characteristics several posts ago).
Oh, and on another note, I think that's an achievement to refrain from eating animals willfully, and I think that shows good character.
There's little will involved, really, so don't pat me on the back too hard.
Honestly, it is like me congratulating you on refraining from cannibalism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 9:16 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Chiroptera, posted 02-15-2005 9:25 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 102 (185481)
02-15-2005 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by pink sasquatch
02-14-2005 10:14 PM


Re: worship and cannibalism
quote:
Honestly, it is like me congratulating you on refraining from cannibalism.
Well, if we lived in a society where cannibalism were accepted and the vast majority of dishes in the resteraunts and recipes in the cook books included human meat or broth made from human meat, I think that congratulations would be in order.
But that's just the opinion of someone who is having a hard time finding vegetarian fare here in Oklahoma (outside of a pizza parlor -- fortunately, I love pizza).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-14-2005 10:14 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 53 of 102 (185676)
02-15-2005 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Aximili23
02-14-2005 1:25 PM


Ants are as ants do
Warning: Somewhat off-topic post follows.
I can't speak for dogs, but Argentine ants are taking over most of earth's landmasses as one allied society. What the article I posted doesn't elaborate (I learned this on the Discovery channel, I don't have a link) is that different argentine ant colonies cooperate rather than compete, and are able to recognize each other universally. Thus, two nearby colonies will cooperate to fight any enemy ant species. And if you take an Argentine ant in the US and take it to Australia, it would be recognized and accepted by the colonies that are there. Humans don't even come close to this kind of worldwide cooperation. I'd say that counts as overwhelmingly unique.
Although I agree with your overall point, the specifics are inaccurate. A fascinating article on the Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) is Tsutsui ND, Suarez AV, 2003, "The Colony Structure and Population Biology of Invasive Ants", Conservation Biology 17:48-58. I don't have a handy computer version, so I'll have to paraphrase their findings:
1. This species acts like most other ants in its native range with one small exception: each colony has two modes of "reproduction" (i.e., founding new colonies). In one, it uses the standard Hymenopteran method of a sole queen flying off to found a new colony with a few workers. In the other, the colony "buds" to a nearby area where either the resources or abiotic factors are amenable, using multiple queens and hundreds-thousands of workers.
2. Each of the "supercolonies" founded by the latter method are apparently genetically linked, to the point that the new colony is, as you noted, completely "at one" with the parent colony. The supercolony is territorially aggressive - including to conspecifics - but individual colonies within the supercolony are altruistic towards the parent colony and each other. However, these supercolonies are usually less than a few hundred meters across.
3. Introduced colonies of the ant have produced immense supercolonies of hundreds of kilometers in extent by the latter method. They remain, however, just as aggressive against conspecific colonies not budded from the main supercolony (IOW, possibly founded through secondary invasions) as they would be in their native range. These invasive supercolonies are highly aggressive against native species, unlike some of the "tolerant" behaviors observed by colonies in their native range.
The most interesting conclusion from the study is that it appears the size and aggressiveness of the newly invasive supercolonies is something of a social evolution, rather than a genetic one. Population genetic studies reported in the ref using microsatellite markers have shown that introduced populations in California possess only about 50% of the alleles and one-third the expected heterozygosity of native populations. Additionally, introduced populations in California are genetically homogeneous over large distances (up to 1000 km), whereas native populations possess
genetic structure over tens to hundreds of meters. So, if social evolution is a human trait, it is one shared with an ant, and thus is another example of a quantitative rather than qualitative distinction.
edited to add: To clarify, this means that an Argentine ant from California taken to Australia would get its butt whipped by the Australian supercolony. Sorry. It was a good point, anyway.
This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-15-2005 19:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Aximili23, posted 02-14-2005 1:25 PM Aximili23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Aximili23, posted 02-16-2005 6:46 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 54 of 102 (185712)
02-15-2005 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aximili23
02-12-2005 7:29 AM


Question
Question, if Humans on a scale of 1-100 were 100, and the amoeba was a .01, where would the most intelligent animal/mammal fall on that scale?
Secondly, I always wondered if animals go to heaven(I never really researched it all that much, I hoped they do). I was always under the impression that they didn't. Then I remember reading somewhere, and them backing it up biblically that yes animals do go to heaven.
Then I found this on the internet, not sure how true this is, but it raises some questions.
Bible Study - You Have Questions. The Bible Has Answers!
Another point is, why would the intelligence of animals be a threat to us? It is written in the bible:
1 Corinthians 6:3
Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
That makes me feel pretty important, and animals have a long way to go.
But the gap in intelligence between humans and other species, makes me wonder about evolution. Why are we the only ones so advanced? A lot of time has elapsed since the begining, but only one makes it this far?
Why don't monkeys talk without our help? How come they don't drive pink cadillacs? Why aren't they wearing clothes?
Even more suspicious are alligators, why aren't they using tools or other intelligent ways of surviving out of necessity?
I'm sure someone here will explain it all, and they will have pretty good explanations, but you still have to wonder.
A little further research, and I found this essay:
Do Animals Go to Heaven?
I agree with the author, I want to see my dead dog sox again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aximili23, posted 02-12-2005 7:29 AM Aximili23 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2005 2:12 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 102 (185746)
02-16-2005 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by riVeRraT
02-15-2005 11:31 PM


Re: Question
But the gap in intelligence between humans and other species, makes me wonder about evolution. Why are we the only ones so advanced?
Clearly, being intelligent isn't all that great an adaptation. The most successful species on Eath, after all, do just fine without it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by riVeRraT, posted 02-15-2005 11:31 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by riVeRraT, posted 02-16-2005 6:11 AM crashfrog has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 56 of 102 (185755)
02-16-2005 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by crashfrog
02-16-2005 2:12 AM


Re: Question
I bet you could be that species right now, don't you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2005 2:12 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2005 11:44 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Aximili23
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 102 (185761)
02-16-2005 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Quetzal
02-15-2005 7:09 PM


Re: Ants are as ants do
Thanks for the clarification. In my defense, the whole "Argentine Ant from US to Australia" example was explicitly given in the Discovery channel show that I saw; I just don't remember if it was those two countries. It just goes to show; popular media is not the best way to learn about science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Quetzal, posted 02-15-2005 7:09 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 58 of 102 (185773)
02-16-2005 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
02-13-2005 8:47 PM


Re: special vs. different
Hi there. I just wanted to make a simple point really. You have been citing human technology (747s, cities etc..) as something utterly different and unreachable by animals. I agree, but isn't it also true to say that for 99% of the existence of the human race, these things were utterly unreachable by humans too? Its easy to forget that for that human societies that use agriculture and undergo industrialisation are not necessarily representative of the majority of human societies that have existed (and still exist).
If we look at prehistoric/pre-agriculture humans, then they are probably still capable of more cultural complexity than crows, but I think it is more of a quantitative difference than a qualitative one.
I think a lot of the things that we would think of as characteristically human are actually culturally aquired rather than innate. Of course, this prompts the question, where did the culture come from, and I'm not sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 02-13-2005 8:47 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 59 of 102 (185776)
02-16-2005 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by mike the wiz
02-14-2005 9:16 PM


Re: gotta stick with quality
You say that we could teach Moses to use an Ipod, and this demonstrates that humans are pretty special. My (very speculative) response is this: - if a sufficiently complex crow culture was allowed to evolve in the future, couldn't they take a modern day crow forward to use their ipods? Okay. That sounds sillier than it was meant to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 9:16 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by mike the wiz, posted 02-16-2005 9:31 AM Tusko has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 60 of 102 (185803)
02-16-2005 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Tusko
02-16-2005 7:57 AM


What is quality from the dimension of time?
Tusko, thanks for your input, I like you already. (I remember your name but I don't think we've had many exchanges).
.
I agree, but isn't it also true to say that for 99% of the existence of the human race, these things were utterly unreachable by humans too? Its easy to forget that for that human societies that use agriculture and undergo industrialisation are not necessarily representative of the majority of human societies that have existed (and still exist)
That's true and I concede it. I've been thinking about this from a logical perspective, for some time and I think that there's something not in the equation at the moment, and that is ability.
We have to take the human species as a whole, and all the other species as a whole, with visualizing the fourth dimension of time aswell. This is because abilities humans have in the present would still represent abilities in the past, but without any technological advancement, these abilities would still exist - they just wouldn't show.
Also, the quality of any differences can still be recognised because we know that life, and all species must take time to develop. (Think about this a bit)
So the question becomes, if we are judging between species, then shouldn't we ask what that species is capable of?
Final thought;
We are, best described, as a WHOLE - as uniquely different from other animals.
Other organisms may well have unique differences - but we are uniquely different unlike any other organism, because other organisms are not - as a whole, uniquely different and also, their abilities have been shown to not be of equivalent value/quality to that of homo sapiens. To explain what I mean; A hammer head shark may well have a unique difference from other sharks, and all other none-sharks. The former it's hammer-head, the latter - it's a shark. And this can be said about all species.
But humans are uniquely different from all other organisms in a way that other animals aren't.
Example; Animals might be unique in what they can do. But we are unique in what we can't do. I think this fundamental difference is a big example of how we are uniquely different. If a shark cannot fly - then that's the end of that. If a rat can only run fast, then that's the end of that. But when it comes to what we can't do, then we have an ability to defy our very natural limits, and do it anyway. Example, if we can't fly - we make planes. If we can't go fast, we build vehicles. This is our invisible ability, and it is evidenced through the fourth dimension of time, because it is not tangeable. It is essentialy, our ability to think/design like no other organism, and THEN put it into the practicle, and mold the shapes in our heads, from the world around us. This is the clincher for me. Our minds can overcome our nature. Is that a qualititive difference? If not - then nothing will ever qualify for this illusive title.
Example; All homo sapiens can be taught to use advanced technology, and all homo sapiens, and/or 99%, have
the ability to do so, even if 99% haven't the means.
I shown this with the painter's analogy. Another example is time limitation, or not having the means to show your ability for lack of material/time.
Example; The first homo sapien could be as great as Leanardo Davinci, but his ability is rendered moot at that time in history, for lack of means/time and essentially knowledge, which is not an ability but rather an accumulation of gained information.
Einstein would have been just as brilliant thousands and thousands of years ago. His abilities might not have shown back then though, through lack of means. Our abilities don't change, but the times do. Time doesn't mean we don't have unique qualitative ability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Tusko, posted 02-16-2005 7:57 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by CK, posted 02-16-2005 9:42 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 63 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-16-2005 10:23 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 65 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-16-2005 11:51 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 66 by Tusko, posted 02-16-2005 12:08 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 68 by Quetzal, posted 02-16-2005 2:33 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024