Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,495 Year: 6,752/9,624 Month: 92/238 Week: 9/83 Day: 9/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Animal Intelligence and Evolution/Creation
Aximili23
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 102 (185007)
02-13-2005 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
02-13-2005 6:25 PM


Re: scale
this would have to do with the relative benefit of intelligence from an evolutionary point of view: are very intelligent creatures necessarily better adapted than ones just more intelligent than their {predator\prey} relationship requires?
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.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2005 6:25 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2005 7:10 AM Aximili23 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1660 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 102 (185045)
02-14-2005 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Aximili23
02-13-2005 11:51 PM


Re: scale
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Aximili23, posted 02-13-2005 11:51 PM Aximili23 has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 33 of 102 (185071)
02-14-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by pink sasquatch
02-13-2005 10:49 PM


Re: Moses could use your ipod aswell
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 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)?
Gee whiz, I'm sorry... I totally misconstrued your argument when I used the word "special", when I should have said "uniquely different". (Have you looked up the meaning of the word "special" lately?)
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"?
Not unique. It may be "obvious" to you, but I don't see city-building as making humans "uniquely different".
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.
These chimps do not develop tool use unless taught. Technology is not uniquely human.
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.
Dogs engage in interspecies pack behavior, to the point that they will sacrifice their own life for a member of another species.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-13-2005 10:49 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-14-2005 1:14 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 35 by Aximili23, posted 02-14-2005 1:25 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 62 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-16-2005 10:17 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6278 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 34 of 102 (185141)
02-14-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by mike the wiz
02-14-2005 9:28 AM


Re: Moses could use your ipod aswell
If we taught Moses to make or work an Ipod or Pc's etc..(like your chimps do) - he would be able to.
I'm not sure if you are saying that chimps could or could not use a computer. Just in case it is the latter:
The keyboards now in use contain a few hundred symbols, and the linguistic capability of these two [apes] is quite good. They are able to recognise not only digitised and spoken speech, but also the use of solely lexigrams from the keyboard. Kanzi (Panbanisha's brother) can even understand instructions from people using a telephone, and can associate a voice with a person without having to be able to concurrently see and hear that person.
Panzee and Panbanisha
I know, but that's your own slothful induction.
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.
We infest the planet on a scale that is beyond belief.
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:
A difference we have, which no other organism shares equivalently, is that we create a world in which other animals live in.
This means we are a unique species.
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:
There is no way a dunghill is the equivalent of New York city. I urge you to stop desperate rationalization.
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.
Also, even the science shows that we have the biggest brain to body ratio. In this way we are uniquely different.
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:
Notice that the human and mouse ratios are roughly identical and the horse and elephant ratios are also roughly identical. In addition, the ratio of E/S in small birds is much larger than for humans. Does this mean birds (whose brains are comparatively larger than that of humans) are more intelligent or less intelligent than humans??
From here.
Dogs engage in interspecies pack behavior, to the point that they will sacrifice their own life for a member of another species.
That's because God made them loyal, to be under the dominion of man.
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 9:28 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Aximili23
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 102 (185142)
02-14-2005 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by mike the wiz
02-14-2005 9:28 AM


Re: Moses could use your ipod aswell
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)?
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.
We infest the planet on a scale that is beyond belief. There is no way a dunghill is the equivalent of New York city.
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).
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.
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.
Also, even the science shows that we have the biggest brain to body ratio. In this way we are uniquely different.
Umm, not true. Small birds have a higher ratio - see here.
Pink Sasquatch writes:
Dogs engage in interspecies pack behavior, to the point that they will sacrifice their own life for a member of another species.
That's because God made them loyal, to be under the dominion of man.
No, it's because humans bred them that way. Wolves certainly would not have sacrificed their lives for humans.
Remember I specifically said, "What does a dog do which is overwhelmingly unique compared to other animals"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 9:28 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 3:18 PM Aximili23 has not replied
 Message 53 by Quetzal, posted 02-15-2005 7:09 PM Aximili23 has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 36 of 102 (185182)
02-14-2005 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Aximili23
02-14-2005 1:25 PM


Re: Moses could use your ipod aswell
The only thing you've mentioned that I don't think animals do is worship God,
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Aximili23, posted 02-14-2005 1:25 PM Aximili23 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-14-2005 3:27 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2005 3:29 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6278 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 37 of 102 (185188)
02-14-2005 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by mike the wiz
02-14-2005 3:18 PM


Panzee's iPod
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.
Meanwhile, God let the animals be sacrificed, and we eat them with no worries.
I do not eat animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 3:18 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 3:50 PM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2005 7:13 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1722 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 38 of 102 (185191)
02-14-2005 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by mike the wiz
02-14-2005 3:18 PM


because humans are obviously living conscious beings - able to design and create, like God.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 3:18 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 39 of 102 (185208)
02-14-2005 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by pink sasquatch
02-14-2005 3:27 PM


Re: Panzee's iPod
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-14-2005 3:27 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-14-2005 4:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 41 by Asgara, posted 02-14-2005 5:45 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6278 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 40 of 102 (185213)
02-14-2005 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by mike the wiz
02-14-2005 3:50 PM


extremes not unique
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 3:50 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2558 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 41 of 102 (185250)
02-14-2005 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by mike the wiz
02-14-2005 3:50 PM


No room for another one
Because 1+1+1 = 3 for the chimp, aswell as the human, aswell as the same time in the race.
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 > 0
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 3:50 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 6:50 PM Asgara has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 42 of 102 (185277)
02-14-2005 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Asgara
02-14-2005 5:45 PM


Re: No room for another one
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Asgara, posted 02-14-2005 5:45 PM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Asgara, posted 02-14-2005 7:08 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2558 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 43 of 102 (185281)
02-14-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by mike the wiz
02-14-2005 6:50 PM


Re: No room for another one
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 > 0
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 6:50 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 8:11 PM Asgara has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 102 (185283)
02-14-2005 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by pink sasquatch
02-14-2005 3:27 PM


quantity/quality
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.
I do not eat animals.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-14-2005 3:27 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-14-2005 8:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 45 of 102 (185302)
02-14-2005 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Asgara
02-14-2005 7:08 PM


Re: No room for another one
To get back onto what we're saying about humans being unique;
Link writes:
Only humans have complex language. No other animal has such an extensive and expressive communication system. Human adults typically have vocabularies of around 50,000 different words. Each of these words is individually learned. This capacity to learn tens of thousands of words is one thing which makes humans unique in their language ability. Another thing about language which makes humans unique is our ability to compose long complex sentences, using rules in our heads which we have also learned during childhood. No other animal species gets anywhere near us, when it comes to complex communication. This is something of a mystery for evolution, because usually we can see clear continuity between species and their predecessors.........................................
........ Even ancient dead languages like Latin were just as complex as modern languages, and had comparable vocabularies. The earliest language of which we have any record is Old Akkadian, dating from around 2500 BC. It was spoken in Mesopotamia, and is now dead. The human capacity for language goes much further back than that, probably at least 100,000 years
Evolution of language box
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.
Also;
link writes:
Humans seem to be far superior to other animals in their mindreading and manipulation abilities
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. Humans are the only species to have developed complex codes of morality

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Asgara, posted 02-14-2005 7:08 PM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-14-2005 9:00 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