Animal Intelligence and Evolution/Creation

I don't see how quantitative differences make for "different uniqueness". We are not the largest, or the fastest, or the strongest; nor do we have the most powerful sensory abilities.Is any animal that has a "world record" characteristic "differently unique"? First - we don't have all of the qualities of animals with technology. Non-human animals still surpass human technology in sensory abilities.Second - if you define the human species based on modern technology, then you are also define modern humans as a separate "animal" from humans living just a couple of hundred years ago.That is, simple "technology use" can be a characteristic of the human species, but "iPod use" cannot, otherwise humans from five years ago would not be human. "Habitat building" can be a species characteristic, but "New York City building" cannot, otherwise humans from five hundred years ago would not be human.Hopefully that makes sense - and also explains to some degree why I find quality defining rather than quantity. Not based on technology, given my statements above. We are unique in the sense of being not completely like any other species, but that is true for all species. So does the flesh of human infants - that doesn't mean I'm going to eat it. Do you do anything that causes pleasurable sensation? I don't know the details of the global ant colonization (that was posted by someone else), but I can speak theoretically. It sounds like the ants have a trait that makes them more fit to widespread colonization in the sense that they recognize each other and work cooperatively. If humans spread around other ant species, they kill other members of their own species from other colonies, and thus at the species-level they thrive less.It doesn't matter if a species interacts with humans to be successful (such as grasses) - it is still successful, having adapted to a situation involving another species. There are many symbiotic relationships between organisms, and none violate the principles of evolution. The aphids taken care of by the ants in the example I mention above are not an example of "something going wrong", they are an example of success by adaption to an interspecies relationship.

Quantity, not quality. How does this pertain to your "dog point"? Anyway, this contradicts your previous claim: Did humans breed dogs, or did God make them? Again, quantity, not quality. Not a qualitative difference. Not a qualitative difference, since non-human primates have morality. I recommend Frans de Waal's Good Natured for review of the subject. Here is an example from recent primary literature: Here is a short review with free full-text online:

Dear Pink S', I think at this stage the readers really would like to know what would qualify as a qualitative difference.I'll assume you're just jesting? (I've done similar things in the past, so I suspect you are).If you're not, then please put us all in the picture, we really want to know.

Haven't I said that Moses and biblists have the same ability?We could teach Moses how to do things, and increase his knowledge. Also - I have shown with that link that there is the unique aspect of language, and written.But what would make a qualitative difference to you?Space travel, examining our DNA make-up, cloning? We could teach the fist sapien to do these things.Are you going to just ignore these points?Oh, and on another note, I think that's an achievement to refrain from eating animals willfully, and I think that shows good character. (not that my opinion is worth much around here ) I won't say it's a unique trait to the species though. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-14-2005 21:18 AM

No. I'll assume you're jesting.Don't be rude just because you haven't come up with a decent point yet.

Yes, you've claimed that Moses could be trained to use a computer. Chimps, bonobos, and orangutans also can be trained to use a computer (see my ref in a post above) and increase their knowledge.Moses and his peeps did not have the ability to conceive, design, or build a computer. They did not even have a rudimentary understanding of the electricity that would be used to power a computer.Do you really not see the problem with using "we've built computers" as a characteristic of the human species? It is a historical characteristic, not an innate one. This is the best you've come up with - but this depends much on your definition of language, and whether written language makes communication qualitatively different (I'll have to think on this point).Since you asked for what I consider a qualitative uniqueness of the human species, my strongest feeling is towards the quality of "religious worship"; since as of yet we have no evidence for such in other animals - though that doesn't mean it isn't occurring. Now, depending on how you feel about "worship", this could be considered a great "unique" quality, or simply an aberrant psychological response to the unknown (which may not be so unique to humans). Well, chimps have served as astronauts; and I really doubt that the first human, whether by evolution or creation, could have begun to understand DNA and cloning, let alone practice molecular genetics. No, since this is the dozenth time I've addressed them. You in turn ignore my rebuttals, and simply list another example of modern technology as a species characteristic (even though I asked you to cease and desist example-based characteristics several posts ago). There's little will involved, really, so don't pat me on the back too hard.Honestly, it is like me congratulating you on refraining from cannibalism.

quote:

---

Honestly, it is like me congratulating you on refraining from cannibalism.

---

Well, if we lived in a society where cannibalism were accepted and the vast majority of dishes in the resteraunts and recipes in the cook books included human meat or broth made from human meat, I think that congratulations would be in order.But that's just the opinion of someone who is having a hard time finding vegetarian fare here in Oklahoma (outside of a pizza parlor -- fortunately, I love pizza).

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

Question, if Humans on a scale of 1-100 were 100, and the amoeba was a .01, where would the most intelligent animal/mammal fall on that scale?Secondly, I always wondered if animals go to heaven(I never really researched it all that much, I hoped they do). I was always under the impression that they didn't. Then I remember reading somewhere, and them backing it up biblically that yes animals do go to heaven.Then I found this on the internet, not sure how true this is, but it raises some questions.
Bible Study - You Have Questions. The Bible Has Answers!Another point is, why would the intelligence of animals be a threat to us? It is written in the bible: That makes me feel pretty important, and animals have a long way to go.But the gap in intelligence between humans and other species, makes me wonder about evolution. Why are we the only ones so advanced? A lot of time has elapsed since the begining, but only one makes it this far?
Why don't monkeys talk without our help? How come they don't drive pink cadillacs? Why aren't they wearing clothes?
Even more suspicious are alligators, why aren't they using tools or other intelligent ways of surviving out of necessity?
I'm sure someone here will explain it all, and they will have pretty good explanations, but you still have to wonder.A little further research, and I found this essay:
Do Animals Go to Heaven?I agree with the author, I want to see my dead dog sox again.

Clearly, being intelligent isn't all that great an adaptation. The most successful species on Eath, after all, do just fine without it.

I bet you could be that species right now, don't you.

Thanks for the clarification. In my defense, the whole "Argentine Ant from US to Australia" example was explicitly given in the Discovery channel show that I saw; I just don't remember if it was those two countries. It just goes to show; popular media is not the best way to learn about science.

Hi there. I just wanted to make a simple point really. You have been citing human technology (747s, cities etc..) as something utterly different and unreachable by animals. I agree, but isn't it also true to say that for 99% of the existence of the human race, these things were utterly unreachable by humans too? Its easy to forget that for that human societies that use agriculture and undergo industrialisation are not necessarily representative of the majority of human societies that have existed (and still exist).If we look at prehistoric/pre-agriculture humans, then they are probably still capable of more cultural complexity than crows, but I think it is more of a quantitative difference than a qualitative one.I think a lot of the things that we would think of as characteristically human are actually culturally aquired rather than innate. Of course, this prompts the question, where did the culture come from, and I'm not sure.

You say that we could teach Moses to use an Ipod, and this demonstrates that humans are pretty special. My (very speculative) response is this: - if a sufficiently complex crow culture was allowed to evolve in the future, couldn't they take a modern day crow forward to use their ipods? Okay. That sounds sillier than it was meant to.

Tusko, thanks for your input, I like you already. (I remember your name but I don't think we've had many exchanges).
. That's true and I concede it. I've been thinking about this from a logical perspective, for some time and I think that there's something not in the equation at the moment, and that is ability.We have to take the human species as a whole, and all the other species as a whole, with visualizing the fourth dimension of time aswell. This is because abilities humans have in the present would still represent abilities in the past, but without any technological advancement, these abilities would still exist - they just wouldn't show.Also, the quality of any differences can still be recognised because we know that life, and all species must take time to develop. (Think about this a bit)So the question becomes, if we are judging between species, then shouldn't we ask what that species is capable of?Final thought;We are, best described, as a WHOLE - as uniquely different from other animals.Other organisms may well have unique differences - but we are uniquely different unlike any other organism, because other organisms are not - as a whole, uniquely different and also, their abilities have been shown to not be of equivalent value/quality to that of homo sapiens. To explain what I mean; A hammer head shark may well have a unique difference from other sharks, and all other none-sharks. The former it's hammer-head, the latter - it's a shark. And this can be said about all species.But humans are uniquely different from all other organisms in a way that other animals aren't.Example; Animals might be unique in what they can do. But we are unique in what we can't do. I think this fundamental difference is a big example of how we are uniquely different. If a shark cannot fly - then that's the end of that. If a rat can only run fast, then that's the end of that. But when it comes to what we can't do, then we have an ability to defy our very natural limits, and do it anyway. Example, if we can't fly - we make planes. If we can't go fast, we build vehicles. This is our invisible ability, and it is evidenced through the fourth dimension of time, because it is not tangeable. It is essentialy, our ability to think/design like no other organism, and THEN put it into the practicle, and mold the shapes in our heads, from the world around us. This is the clincher for me. Our minds can overcome our nature. Is that a qualititive difference? If not - then nothing will ever qualify for this illusive title.Example; All homo sapiens can be taught to use advanced technology, and all homo sapiens, and/or 99%, have
the ability to do so, even if 99% haven't the means.I shown this with the painter's analogy. Another example is time limitation, or not having the means to show your ability for lack of material/time.Example; The first homo sapien could be as great as Leanardo Davinci, but his ability is rendered moot at that time in history, for lack of means/time and essentially knowledge, which is not an ability but rather an accumulation of gained information.Einstein would have been just as brilliant thousands and thousands of years ago. His abilities might not have shown back then though, through lack of means. Our abilities don't change, but the times do. Time doesn't mean we don't have unique qualitative ability.