Animal Intelligence and Evolution/Creation

Warning: Somewhat off-topic post follows. 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

Ya know, mike, you just put your finger on the whole point of what PS has been saying to you: the reason we're having a hard time coming up with a qualitative difference here is that it simply may not exist. All the arguments and examples you've put forward on this thread are quantitative (differences, sometimes extreme, of degree rather than kind). Unfortunately, since you're the one who is instisting that there's a difference in kind between humans and "animals", you're stuck in the position of finding support for the claim. Best of luck, but I think you're going to be disappointed.

Thanks for the insult, mikey. You know, you've really become a jerk recently. What's up with that?However, to address your "point", the reason everything you've presented obvious as "quality" - a measurable or quantifiable difference - over "quantity" - a matter of degree as on a continuum, is because they are NOT equivalent, in spite of your continued assertion to the contrary. Try thinking of it this way: a qualitative or categorical trait is one which you can use for classification of individuals (or populations or species or whatever) based on some attribute or characteristic. A quantitative trait allows a numerical or unique identifier to be applied to the population. IOW, it can be counted. A more germane use of qualitative in this context means a fundamental, functional difference (say, like between a house and a sidewalk). If humans ARE so different (i.e., not animals) and unique, a quantitative difference would be how you would approach it. No, it's a quantitative difference, as animals can and do engage in niche construction and modification of their environment for their own purposes. Just like humans. You seem to keep harping on our ability to use technology to transcend limitations as being a qualitative difference. Since there are numerous examples of animal species using tools of various sorts to overcome personal limitations, your examples are indeed quantitative, not qualitative. Oh, give me a break. I used "kind" not in the idiotic biblical sense, but in the sense of apposition to "degree", hence the expression: "difference in degree, not kind". Stop being deliberately obtuse, it doesn't become you. I wear clothes in large measure because my ancestors evolved in an environment where they didn't have to. Clothing allowed us to move into unoccupied "large primate" niches unavailable to those without it. My dog, on the other hand, evolved in a much colder area, and therefore isn't REQUIRED to wear clothes for survival. She's got fur, after all. As far as "pressing reply", that's just technology - quantitative vice qualitative. Your argument from personal incredulity is failing here, mike. However, there have been "animals" over time that HAVE developed just as much chocolate-ness as we have. I give you the hominids (both ancestral and not) who manufactured tools, some used fire, almost all were cooperative hunter/foragers, etc. So basically although you continue to ASSERT that quality=quantity, you have neither made a cogent argument for us to accept it NOR have you provided any evidence to back up your claim.edited to clarify, and to remove gratuitous insults.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-16-2005 16:18 AM

Yes, they can, and you've been given numerous examples of this by many people, including me. In case you missed it: ANIMALS MAKE AND USE TOOLS. They do this naturally to overcome limitations of their morphology. JUST LIKE HUMANS.You have not only been refuted, your argument has been obliterated.

Okay, mike. You win. Tomorrow I'm going to throw out all my science books to make room for bible exegesis, Chick tracts, and self-help books. Then I'll cancel my subscriptions to Conservation Biology and Skeptical Inquirer (I assume I can keep my Military History Quarterly subscription?). Finally, I go in and clean out all those old peer-reviewed article files clogging up my computer.Your wisdom and brilliant rhetoric has made my journey to the Dark Side complete.