Intelligence

[Nithin]

Why is it that no other known species comes close to humans in intelligence?

Could it be because as species evolved, more intelligent beings wiped out lesser beings?

N.

 

[maluckey]

One could argue that intelligence is not as much of a survival factor when compared to adaptability, and sometimes sheer luck at finding an unmolested location or niche. After all the Coelacanth is primitive, yet almost 400 million years later is still around as a species, and until man came around and got interested in it, it was doing fine.

 

[CycloWizard]

Just conjecture, but I would guess it's because our highly evolved brain is what sets us apart from other species. Almost any other creature you think of has some special ability that we do not (size, strength, smell, what have you). However, due to our superior intellect, we are able to compensate for our shortcomings in these other areas and more. Those with the evolved brains probably bred out/killed off those with less evolved brains.

 

[Nithin]

ya thats a good point.

 

[glugglug]

Dogs and other animals are a lot smarter than people give them credit for. The reason humans have advanced so much more technologically is not because of larger brains but because of our ability to communicate knowledge to successive generations (not many other animals can make complex vocalizations), and because of hands well-adapted to environmental manipulation with far more precision than most animals can achieve.

Ever been to the DMV? I'm quite certain there is overlap between humans and other animals on the intelligence front.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: glugglug
Dogs and other animals are a lot smarter than people give them credit for. The reason humans have advanced so much more technologically is not because of larger brains but because of our ability to communicate knowledge to successive generations (not many other animals can make complex vocalizations), and because of hands well-adapted to environmental manipulation with far more precision than most animals can achieve.

Ever been to the DMV? I'm quite certain there is overlap between humans and other animals on the intelligence front.

On the point regarding communication: changes (mutations) in the FOXP1 gene seem to be one major difference between humans and chimps. FOXP1 also seems to play a crucial role in linguistic functions. so... yeah.

 

[Powermoloch]

so the key words of today is:

Evolution:
- Communication
- Brain Matter
- Mutation !

 

[interchange]

There is significant competition among intelligent species. During our evolutionary progress, there is evidence of other intelligent branches of human-like species (e.g. neanderthal). It is believed that competition between species drove others to extinction. I don't think two competitively intelligent species can coexist on this planet. We have a hard enough time getting along with other cultures within our own species. Just because society has avanced to a point where we can rationally think at a level above this mentality doesn't mean we have in any way abandoned it.

 

[Nithin]

Originally posted by: interchange
There is significant competition among intelligent species. During our evolutionary progress, there is evidence of other intelligent branches of human-like species (e.g. neanderthal). .

this is exactly what prompted my question. homo habilis, our ancestor wiped out the australopithecus who were not intelligent enough to defend themselves, i suppose when competing for food.

 

[interchange]

There is evidence that Neanderthal man was smarter than homo-sapiens and that they were the first species to make art. Some scientists believe that Neanderthal man was actually assimilated into our species instead of just being wiped out.

Competition wasn't all about intelligence.

 

[Vee]

My guess would be that species that had a type of intelligence that resembled ours, were competititors and were simply exterminated.

Otherwise, I think we're inclined to underestimate other species intelligence. Simply because it's not an intelligence that is similar to ours.
There's a lot going on right now. With really exciting discoveries about parachites, elephants and the old favorites dolphins and great apes.

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: interchange
Some scientists believe that Neanderthal man was actually assimilated into our species instead of just being wiped out.

I'm afraid these are old speculations. We now know, for sure, that there was no assimilation whatsoever. The evidence is in DNA, and IIRC, mitochondry DNA.

Either mating couldn't produce any offspring, or any fertile offspring, or the idea was simply completely repulsive to both species.

 

[DrPizza]

Who knows? Maybe elephants are actually have the capability of being intelligent than humans.

They lack an opposable thumb, (although their trunk is pretty controllable) and don't need to rely on their intelligence to survive. Beside, if they invented a car, how would they drive it?

How many predators does an adult elephant have? Right now, we believe that comparitively, we're much more intelligent. But, I believe that if an alien dropped by the planet a few thousand years ago, before we actually got around to figuring out how to use written communication, maybe an alien would have come to a different conclusion?

We're just the first (and only, I suppose) species that figured out written communication.

Do any researchers have any conclusive proof that, say, dolphins don't "orally" communicate some sort of creation myth?

 

[SirPsycho]

Originally posted by: Vee
My guess would be that species that had a type of intelligence that resembled ours, were competititors and were simply exterminated.

Otherwise, I think we're inclined to underestimate other species intelligence. Simply because it's not an intelligence that is similar to ours.
There's a lot going on right now. With really exciting discoveries about parachites, elephants and the old favorites dolphins and great apes.

"Parachites"? What is that? Do you maybe mean parakeets or parrots? Most parrots, and in particular African Grey parrots, corvids (crows and ravens), and yes, even parakeets are all very intelligent birds. I think the prevailing school of thought is that their increased intelligence and memory helped them find food in the wild and avoid predators.

My wife did cognitive research with Alex at the University of Arizona, and we have a very smart, cute, and evil Grey parrot of our own named Kinsey, so I might be a little biased. They did research on parakeets there as well.

We also have friends who run a raptor rehabilitation center with a couple ravens: one very sweet female, Sarah, and one very evil male, Poe; both are very intelligent.

 

[emilyek]

A 'Cognitive Arms Race' in our evolutionary history that included the development of an infinitley complex language.

To me, all this talk about other species being bright is always interesting; but just ask a gorilla to split the atom or go to the moon, and the staggering degree of difference between us instantly becomes pretty clear.

Human beings can imagine, describe, and plan for events that may happen far into the future-- to outsmart the climate and other predators this was necessary for our survival.

An animal's consciousness is, by comparison, fixed in a perpetual present.

Pre-frontal cortex FTW

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: SirPsycho
"Parachites"? What is that? Do you maybe mean parakeets or parrots?

Oh I'm so embarrassed. Of course I do.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: emilyek
To me, all this talk about other species being bright is always interesting; but just ask a gorilla to split the atom or go to the moon, and the staggering degree of difference between us instantly becomes pretty clear.

Most humans have no hope of grasping such things either. This shows the gap between the average and the brilliant, NOT the gap between humans and other animals.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Vee

Originally posted by: SirPsycho
"Parachites"? What is that? Do you maybe mean parakeets or parrots?

Oh I'm so embarrassed. Of course I do.

correct spelling is not required in science as much as good information and sound logic. you are definitely fine no need to be embarassed.

 

[emilyek]

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: emilyek
To me, all this talk about other species being bright is always interesting; but just ask a gorilla to split the atom or go to the moon, and the staggering degree of difference between us instantly becomes pretty clear.

Most humans have no hope of grasping such things either. This shows the gap between the average and the brilliant, NOT the gap between humans and other animals.

The difference between 'Koko love dolly' and a retarded human being is still, typically, enormous.

And indeed the difference/variation between regular people is large, and not just in intellect.

One of my favorite Shakespeare quotes lately has been: "O the difference between man and man!"

I can't remember what play it's from though.

 

[interchange]

There are other highly intelligent species on this planet -- able to grasp language and many concepts.

I think the dividing line is fairly simple. An advanced species is one that can expand its knowledge from generation to generation. Early human was likely every bit as smart as us, but they are considered highly primitive. There is a divide for which a species intelligence allows it to adapt faster than its genetics. We are the only species on the planet that fits this description currently. In the past, it is evident that this was not the case.

P.S. Thanks for the info on Neanderthal not being genetically compatible. That is very interesting.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: emilyek

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: emilyek
To me, all this talk about other species being bright is always interesting; but just ask a gorilla to split the atom or go to the moon, and the staggering degree of difference between us instantly becomes pretty clear.

Most humans have no hope of grasping such things either. This shows the gap between the average and the brilliant, NOT the gap between humans and other animals.

The difference between 'Koko love dolly' and a retarded human being is still, typically, enormous.

And indeed the difference/variation between regular people is large, and not just in intellect.

One of my favorite Shakespeare quotes lately has been: "O the difference between man and man!"

I can't remember what play it's from though.

King Lear, methinks.

 

[emilyek]

Yep. I must admit I had to google. It's Goneril.

I just checked on the Neanderthal thing. At another forum, someone was arguing that this study that claimed no interaction between early moderns and Neanderthals was flawed, since it only tested Asians for neanderthal genetic markers. It was done in the late 1990s I think. I didn't pursue it further.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: emilyek
The difference between 'Koko love dolly' and a retarded human being is still, typically, enormous.

Koko is estimated to have an IQ around 85.

The 2 standard deviations below the mean considered the border for retardation is 70.

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: emilyek
I just checked on the Neanderthal thing. At another forum, someone was arguing that this study that claimed no interaction between early moderns and Neanderthals was flawed, since it only tested Asians for neanderthal genetic markers. It was done in the late 1990s I think. I didn't pursue it further.

There have been more than one study I think.
But: Caramelli 2003.

http://emdb.lettere.unige.it/congressi/2005_16aai/articoli/caramelli1.htm

And: Currat and Excoffier 2004

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlser...ument&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020421

http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive...pdf/10.1371_journal.pbio.0020421-L.pdf

And: Serre 2004

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlser...ument&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020057

http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive...pdf/10.1371_journal.pbio.0020057-L.pdf

However, as always in science it takes a long time before things are certain, (if they ever are). There are people arguing that Neanderthal assimilating into modern man still cannot be excluded. Sample size and uncertainty about DNA details.

But modern man possess a genetic unity that is remarkable for any species.
And the Neanderthal assimilation theory is void of supporting evidence. Some people happen to like that theory a lot, that's all.

Edit: Link to dissenting opinion deleted :evil: because it's, frankly, irrelevant and outdated.

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

i find it hard to believe that competition from humans filling the same niche could have put neanderthals and austrolopitheses out of buisness. there is a lot of room on this planet, with a lot of room for these species to exist in livable and separate environments. we know the neanderthals could move around, and there weren't very many of either species around compared to what the environments could support. look at the native american cultures, I think their population densities were much more than those of neanderthals/humans in their time.