Does intelligence have long-term survival value?

There seems to be a view (unspoken) that Man is the pinnacle of the evolutionary process. I am not sure of this assumption. The creationists certainly see Man as something special.A short-term (4m years?) view of the evolutionary process suggests that developing intelligence enhances an organism's DNA survival chances. Homo Sapiens has certainly done well, with extensive toolmaking capability, sufficient to alter the environment in all sorts of micro ways.But a lot of simulations of evolutionary development - the development of the eye springs to mind - suggest that it does not take long for quite complex structures to develop. Intelligence could therefore have developed in life-forms much earlier than the present era.So - has it or hasn't it? If it hasn't, why not? What is so special about this period when intelligence has just been created?If it has, where is the evidence? Gone without trace? Possible - fossils do not give detailed evidence of how intelligent an organism is? If intelligent creatures have existed before and have died out, what does that mean for us - that we are due for the chop? How long might we have?Just wondered![This message has been edited by Me, 08-23-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
yes it does seem that humans are somehow alien to this planet

​

---

Impressive! This raises a completely new thread for the whole debate! We have a third possibility. Humans were not created to fill the highest position on the Earth, nor did they evolve to become the most powerful creature. Instead, they were delivered here from some other place.It's a lovely idea. A pity that the cell and skeletal morphology, and the DNA similarities with other animals do not bear it out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

Probably our alien forebearers altered the genetic structures of their offspring to provide adaptive value within the climate of Earth.

​

---

This sounds very like James Blish's book 'Seedling Stars', where humans spread throughout the galaxy by adapting their DNA to create life-forms which will flourish in each individual environment. It has the classic 'Surface Tension' story in it, where microscopic 'humans' struggle to move from one puddle to another.Of course Hoyle et al are finding that the theory of complex organic molecules being created in space and landing on our planet via meteorites still has some mileage left in it!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Possibly intelligence normally presents a negative influence on the reproductive rate of it's carrier, but by special effort of the intelligence it can contribute a lot to reproductive rate. So then life is reproduced by a contingent effort of the intelligence, and less so by intelligence as a hertiable quality.

---

This sounds much more like the kind of comment I was hoping for, though I don't understand its implications. Are you saying that intelligence almost automatically leads to extinction, but if it realises this then it can avoid extinction by an act of will?I tend to associate intelligence with the ability to manipulate the environment - the two are not synonymous, but intelligence gives you the ability to do it if you want to, and eventually most groups want to.When you can adapt the environment to suit you, evolution would seem to stop. I would expect to find evidence of this if it has happened before on Earth, and because I can't, I suspect that intelligence is rare, and self-defeating.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
If life & evolution has no other function than to keep its existence, then I presume that intelligence do have a survival value. Intelligence permits its owner to know what might be coming. If an intelligent life-form realized that it is driving itself into extinction, then it can stop whatever it had been doing. Sounds like sustainable development?

---

Yes, this seems to be an obvious position. Intelligence, once developed, enables its possessors to transcend evolution. So my original question still stands - why havn't we seen this before?

Thanks, Quetzal, you have brought a lot of ideas to the thread!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
...the evolving physiology of the brain that facilitated the emergent property called "mind") are fairly rare.

---

I am not so sure of this - it looks like post hoc theorising. In all other areas we marvel at the way evolution seems to investigate all strategies for living comprehensively. As you can see earlier, I am drawn to the idea that intelligence is not, as it seems, a great advantage to its possessor, otherwise we would all have it!

quote:

---

I wouldn't go so far as to say unique, however. An intriguing question (at least to me ) is what were the environmental factors that brought the evolution of chimp intelligence to a halt?

---

I hadn't thought about the chimps, but I would take them as similar evidence of the questionable benefits of intelligence. I have not looked at the details of the species' history, but we have uncovered several humanoid species (presumably with some level of intelligence)which did not have a long existence. Have the chimps, and their ancestors, got a longer span of species existence?

quote:

---

Our nearest cousins are not only really close to us genetically, but are also almost frighteningly close to us mentally. A tiny increase in brain-body mass ratio and some cultural evolution, and Pan could be as smart as we are.

---

Though the chimps are very close, I think that most mammals are not that far away. And several currently existing species have evolved sizeable brains - the whales and the octopuses, for example.
Why did they not go further? Did they, in the past? Would we know if a race of intelligent octopuses lived and died a few million years ago? Why aren't they here now?

quote:

---

So IMO it looks like the rudiments of intelligence arose in our primate lineage, but stopped in the lineage that produced the great [edited to add "apes" here] at some point after the split between them and humans.

---

As you have pointed out, this raises more questions than it answers! Surely there were similar environmental pressures on both proto-apes and proto-men?[This message has been edited by Me, 09-02-2002]

'Sorry, old boy, I can't understand your banter'(Monty Python - RAF sketch - circa 1966)