Animal Intelligence and Evolution/Creation

At the risk of being slightly off-topic, isn't the obvious answer "yes"? Very intelligent creatures are more capable of manipulating their environment to suit their own survival. The most obvious example is humankind itself; the development of agriculture and medicine have allowed us to attain ridiculously high population levels for animals of our size. (Granted, considering what we're doing to the global ecology maybe this isn't such a great long-term survival trait after all.)

I think you make all my points about the question you asked, and my answer is no, it is not obvious: this could be just a temporary blip of some 3-4 million years out of 4.5 billion.It is obvious to someone (like Mike here) that has an extreme homo-centric bias, but give the world another extreme event like the meteor\asteroid\comet that ended the age of the dinosaurs and see if we are really better able to survive: us or the bacteria?Then consider that we are capable of making our own event, or even (apparently) unable to keep from making our own event ....enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

But they were able to write, believe in God, shape the world around them and build arks and such. Also - you missed my point. My point was that, the human, is the only species to have produced such technological advancements after a long period of time. But evolutionits say that we have an ancestry with chimps, yet I don't think they're ready for space travel.(What about the pyramids - are you saying the chimps could have built them? Weren't they made in the biblical era)? Irrelevant. I choose my own words. YOU want to use a specific word, "special", so that you can progress to a point in your argument. I know what the word means, I just haven't used it. I've used "different" and "unique", so the question is - why do you want me to usethe word "special"? I know, but that's your own slothful induction. We infest the planet on a scale that is beyond belief. There is no way a dunghill is the equivalent of New York city. I urge you to stop desperate rationalization. Yet you say; " Right. According to your logic, not a single person in the Bible was uniquely different from other animals, because they were unable to produce "a PC, television, or even one piece of technologically advanced equipment."BUT - If we taught Moses to make or work an Ipod or Pc's etc..(like your chimps do) - he would be able to. Like if that chimp was taught to smash a rock on a stone or whatever the silly suggestion is. Anyway - according to my logic - the biblicans were uniquely different to animals because of what I have previously stated - belief in God, writing etc. But that's moot because my point is, that now we are clearly uniquely different, and even in bible days we were, but before our evolution, it obviously wouldn't matter if we weren't, as we would be evolving, and still not be conscious. Is it homo Erectus whom had a baby brain equivalent?PS. The biblists were clearly consciously endowed by looking at what they wrote - which no animal has done, except for in rudimentary small-brained confusion. Indeed - chimps are quite clearly stuck at rudimentary level, if after all these millions of years, they still have the smashing rock on stone technique.Also, even the science shows that we have the biggest brain to body ratio. In this way we are uniquely different.Also, we play god - and mess with our genetic makeup, can any other species do this? Please answer. That's because God made them loyal, to be under the dominion of man. But that still is not the equivalent of building cities, and humans sacrifice themselves aswell.Remember I specifically said, " What does a dog do which is overwhelmingly unique compared to other animals "This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-14-2005 09:45 AM

I'm not sure if you are saying that chimps could or could not use a computer. Just in case it is the latter: You cannot simply refuse to supply any real qualitative difference argument and blame my slothful induction. It is you being "slothful" at coming up with a qualitative difference. Yep. But bacteria do a much better job of "infesting" the planet. They are everywhere, from deep sea vents to X-ray machines. In any case, other animals "infest" the planet, so this is another quantitative difference.To quote your argument exactly: I refuted this point by referencing the fact that many ants build complex dwelling, and keep aphids as livestock within those dwellings.Now you counter by saying: I never said a dunghill was the "equivalent" of NYC, thus you are changing the argument once refuted. You gave me a characteristic that was uniquely human and I've shown that other animals also have that characteristic.I'm not "desperately rationalizing", I'm simply asking for a single qualitative difference. Nice try. First, even if true, this wouldn't make us uniquely different, it would just put us at one end of a spectrum of many animals with a brain to body ratio. Being the best or biggest at something doesn't make a qualitative difference, it is simply a quantitative difference.Second, it is absolutely false: What kind of argument is that? So dogs are "uniquely different", but God made them that way, so it doesn't count?This is silly. Come up with a qualitative difference, and give it to me in a form that doesn't include examples (like NYC).

I agree with PS on this point; all you've convincingly demonstrated is that the uniqueness of humans is a matter of degree. No one's arguing that humans aren't vastly more intelligent, technologically advanced, or socially complex than other creatures. But animals DO exhibit intelligence, technology, and complex social interaction; and there's no evidence to suggest that they couldn't advance in these areas in the millenia to come. The only thing you've mentioned that I don't think animals do is worship God, but from an atheist's point of view, this just demonstrates the superiority of animals, not humans. So do rats, mice, and cockroaches. And each of those is infested by tiny mites by orders of magnitude. And each of those mites are colonized by millions of bacteria. If you're going to argue that these aren't global societies, consider the argentine ant (click here and here), which is taking over the world as one giant supercolony. And we haven't even begun to talk about the aquatic species (remember, the earth's surface is three-fourths water). I doubt that animal behavior scientists would phrase it quite so desparagingly. But more to the point, there's nothing to indicate that chimps are stuck at anything. In fact, the links that PS and Razd have posted indicate that chimp culture is quite dynamic, and vary both across regions and over time. But the degree of intelligence that you are looking for must take literally millions of years to evolve, and would only take place if the conditions are right. For example, human intelligence evolved because of the disappearance of jungles/forests that were the habitats of social, dextrous tree-dwelling mammals. Umm, not true. Small birds have a higher ratio - see here. No, it's because humans bred them that way. Wolves certainly would not have sacrificed their lives for humans. 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.

Show me another animal that has played God with it's genetic makeup -and that of other organisms.Show me why the chimps haven't built a pyramid, or why they can't qualitively learn rocket science.Genesis said we would become as Gods. How more accurate can you get? We mess with DNA and can clone. Show me how anything is equivalently as bizarre as that in nature.I think I'll refrain from positing now as you missed my points, and didn't address the bulk of my truths.The fact is that qualitively, Moses could be taught how to make a plane train or automobile, but a chimp couldn't. Moses could assimilate vast informations pertaining to information theory, while chimps could improve their rock on stone technique.There's no convincing you, and NosyNed said that nobody would budge so I'll be wise and refrain.PS, I am not insulting you when I say slothful induction- if you click the link you'll see that's what the site calls it. I certainly think that this is a fallacy of induction though, because humans are obviously living conscious beings - able to design and create, like God. Meanwhile, God let the animals be sacrificed, and we eat them with no worries.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-14-2005 15:20 AM

I'm not missing your point.Still no qualitative arguments. Only quantitative ones. If you come up with a specific qualitative argument let me know, otherwise I agree that this exchange has reached its limits. I do not eat animals.

Really? I don't find that in the least obvious, not least of which because I see so few humans actually designing or creating anything. I appear to be conscious to myself; can you prove that anyone actually is conscious?

I have came up with many quality arguments. All basically ignored.Has any other organism split the atom?Can any other organism blow up the world?quality = quantity in this case I'm afraid. Because 1+1+1 = 3 for the chimp, aswell as the human, aswell as the same time in the race.Unless you can tell me how to confirm or falsify this illusive "qualititative difference", then what does it mean? Would space-travel qualify? If not - what would to you? Have I not said that Moses could also learn nowaday technology? Time has to happen, and things take time. Unique quality differences, might take time to show.My analogy; An artist may well not be that skilled in the beginning, but in the end, he has mastered his skill. Many qualities are seen in the fourth dimension.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-14-2005 15:53 AM

I don't see them as quality arguments because you are simply listing examples that are quantitative extremes of a set of traits. Just because the elephant is the largest land animal, does not make it "uniquely different", it simply means that in the characteristic of body size in land mammals, it falls at one end of the range.Non-human animals have the ability to learn, reason, use technology, and pass knowledge from generation to generation culturally. Most of your examples fall under the general realm of "science", which I believe are made up of the above traits. Humans simply define the limits of the range of these traits that can be found in other animals to a lesser degree.

How much room do you honestly think there was on this planet for more than one "intellegent" species? There are only so many niches for mammals of our size, and let's face it, we wouldn't have let any other intellegent species move in on our niche.At one time in the not so distant past, there were two intellegent hominids. Only one survived, there wasn't room for two in the niche available.This message has been edited by Asgara, 02-14-2005 16:46 AM

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Hi Queen. (For now)Why did the other hominids not survive? Remember 2001? The part where the hominid becomes conscious when smashing the bones?Ofcourse - that's assuming this saga of hominids happened. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-14-2005 18:51 AM

Why did they not survive? Maybe because we out reproduced them and didn't leave them enough space and/or resources?As for the 2001 reference...I don't think so Dav...er..Mike.This message has been edited by Asgara, 02-14-2005 18:12 AM

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

The quantity of humans' qualities is what makes them unique.I agree that animals share the qualities of humans but at a different quantity. (ie NYC vs anthill, or PC vs hammer/anvil [roughly the same thing though very different]) Animals show the abilities to do the things humans do, but on a different scale, not just size but complexity. 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. We are special/unique. They taste good.Anyways, on the subject of those ants taking over the world, I have a question. 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 could reword this a couple times if my question isn't clear.Please respond to my original thought and not just the ant thing.

To get back onto what we're saying about humans being unique; Evolution of language boxPertaining to my dog point; Also;