gcameron

Most adaptations, it seems to me, are likely to come about in some species or other -- or at least some group of species or other -- first. Wings developed several times but one group (insects I presume?) got them first.

So, presumably some group would get high intelligence first. It happened to be the primates. Here's the rub: whichever species first *gets* high intelligence would also be the first species in earth's history capable of asking the question "how come we are the only intelligent ones?" It would *unavoidably* be confronted by that problem, which actually is no problem at all. Someone had to be first. If the tigers had beat the apes by 500,000 years, there would have been man-tigers asking themselves "how come apes didn't develop intelligence like we did?"

Now, whether other lineages will evolve high intelligence *after* the hominids, is an interesting question. I think it is hard to say how significant an impact the development of intelligence will have, over the *very* long term (i.e. millions of years), on the rest of a planet's life. If humans go extinct today, our impact on the earth will have been rather minor, and life will continue to wend its merry way until the sun explodes. On the other hand, perhaps within a mere 1-10 thousand years (a microblip on the evolutionary scale) we may have caused the entire planet to be covered in grey goo... or we may have engineered many other intelligent species... or created a computerized AI that supplants us... or any number of other bizarre possibilities.

Pop_Quiz

Isn't it the hippocampus that separates us from the other species? If I recall my psych 101 well enough, aren't we the only species with the ability to LEARN and USE what we've learned from our experiences? Because of the hippocampus, a uniquely human chunk o' brain?

Wolves have always hunted the same and while they may occasionally pass on the knowledge of claw trap-avoidance onto progressive generations of pups, that just implies they have learned to avoid a particular object (just as the pups grow up knowing it's not wise to tackle a bear for food's sake). They don't go out and make steel-lined booties. Their hunting has never gone into the realm of anything beyond tactic, some packs better at bringing down elk and moose than others (I sounded like Boris in my mind repeating that). Blinds aren't part of any pack mentality.

Chimps won't use sticks to gather termites or ants unless taught by their elders...whereas a toddler can take what he/she learned from lining up blocks to building tinkertoy or lincoln log objects. I don't recall my parents showing me how to make a car from a cardboard box but I managed (this was just last week...I'm so proud!)

As far as protein being important in the development of smarter brains (as most predators have as an advantage over their herbivorous prey), wouldn't social interaction have something to do with smarts as well? Coming to mind are elephants and parrots. While not exactly "smart" in every sense of the word, parrots have enough intuition, if you will, to treat us a "parrot kindred spirits". Because of their social structure, they can do a good job at mimicry of sounds (which, yes, shouldn't be mistaken for "intelligence") and understand we're not there to harm them, when kept as pets. I would safely say they're smarter than a sparrow or finch because of their social group requirements. Elephants the same...and both species live into human years-of-age. We're not even solitary animals, unless you count the occasional loner who ends up going wacko. (Why is it that African bush elephants tend to be the ones who go bonkers in captivity as opposed to Asian, the species closest to being tamed as opposed to trained?)

Just as great white sharks and orcas consume the same basic food items (the shark even less finicky than orca), isn't it the social behavior of the mammal that allows/requires it to be smarter than the much older shark? I'm not saying great whites are idiots, but on a level playing field showing which can comprehend we're not prey food and can be taught human-induced actions, I give the nod to the killer whale. I haven't even seen a dogfish, a yard/meter-long shark, leap through hoops or perform military maneuvers (guess that one only applies if you consider the orca to be a species of dolphin...which I have no idea where/when I heard that).

In the name of fairness, not all mammals have the upperhand in the smarts arena. I'd be willing to bet an octopus is more intelligent than, say, an armadillo.

Is it coincidence chimps are the most carnivorous of non-human primates? Sure, not every chimp consumes meat but that's like saying a vegetarian is somehow less intelligent than an omnivorous person who consumes animal protein over plant protein. Notice we need protein in one form or another. Does every plant contain protein...iow, do deer and antelope obtain minute amounts of protein in their diet ? Does every living thing require protein in one form or another and is it just a matter of how you get it that separates herbs from carns? (Because my last biology class was 15 years ago I have long since forgotten if that was even covered). I'd really like to know.

Does the "complexity" of consumed proteins have anything to do with intelligence? Crows, consumers of just about every type of food there is, are smarter than those poor fly-catching sparrows. Rats seem to have more smarts than an herbivorous mouse. Mermaids eating sailors are smarter than plant-eating manatees....

And just what am I trying to make a point/offer an opinion on? I dunno, it's late and way too hot in Denver lately to function properly, especially with a nonfunctioning swamp cooler on the 8th floor. Besides, I really doubt anyone will read this as it's in response to an older post. Ah, the desolation. And there's an infommercial showing how I can make millions, gotta go. (If nobody reads this, did I really write it?)

ps418

Nope. All mammals and birds have hippocampi. I assume that all tetrapods have them, but I'm not sure. Fish do not have hippocampi, but they are capable of learning. Some forms of learning and memory do occur in essentially all animals, even the lowly sea-slug Aplysia, though the the near-universality of learning is not always easy to believe when you watch a bird try for the 50th time to fly through a glass window.

Patrick

pz

No, you remember incorrectly. I think what you have there is a distorted recollection of one of the more famous debates in the history of evolution, between Huxley and Owen.

Owen claimed that humans possessed a unique cerebral structure, the hippocampus minor, which is a small region of the hippocampus. Huxley mopped the floor with Owen in a public dissection of an ape brain that showed that yes indeedy, the hippocampus minor is not a uniquely human organ.

Aside from the wrong structure and the wrong answer, though, you came close...

Chiron

This thought about meat-eaters' intelligence just occurred to me: given that both having a stomach for digesting cellulose (e.g. the sloth uses up most of its energy in digesting leaves) and having a brain for complex thought are expensive, resource-wise, would it not make sense that herbivorous species tend to be less intelligent than carnivorous species? That is, it seems to me that herbivores devote most of their resources to eating, whereas carnivores can freeload off of the herbivores and so free up resources that are devoted to more complex brains.

Does this sound like truth or tripe?

-Chiron

Doubting Didymus

Yes, thats one of the most prominent theories out there.

HRG

AFAIK, they are related to Samojed languages spoken in north-eastern Russia and in the Ural region. This language family in its turn is related to Turkish, Azeri etc. to make the larger group of Ural-Altaic languages.

Regards,
HRG.

DMB

I would have thought that intelligence would be an advantage to a predator. In the case of humans it seems to have compensated for our not-very-efficient basic physical equipment when it comes to hunting. We can't put on a turn of speed like a cheetah and our natural weapons are puny compared to those of a tiger. Chimps hunt much smaller monkeys, whereas our homo sapiens ancestors devised means of killing mammals much larger than ourselves by means of tools and sophisticated strategies.

excreationist

Well language allows us to quickly pass on the skills we have learnt. Before that there were just things like learning through imitation, which can't really deal with abstract knowledge. (e.g. what colour things are, the far future, the distant past, etc)
According to people like Chomsky, our ability to learn language is quite instinctual. Apes on the other hand, mightn't have this instinct and so not be able to appreciate grammar (word order in sentences), which is needed for complex statements. (And complex statements are needed to fully explain modern technology, etc) The language abilities of an ape might be as good as a 1 or 2 year old at best.
For an example of ape language see Koko's internet chat transcript. Koko the gorilla uses sign language. Some other apes like bonobo chimps (Kanzi?, etc) use a keyboard with symbols.

Pop_Quiz

"Aside from the wrong structure and the wrong answer, though, you came close..."

Sorta like using a rock in a game of horseshoes...

I guess my main idea was the fact that we seem to be the only species to expound upon what we learn. To say a lab participant can "learn" to avoid electric shock or find its way around a maze...these are things already ingrained in its own particular survival skills. I don't see too many prey animals rushing in to be consumed by their predators on purpose (though those gnus in Africa sure seem to dispell that--the power of reproduction. When will they ever learn).

As intelligent as mammoths may have been, based on modern elephants' own intelligence as we understand it to be, they seemed to keep falling (no pun intended) for that cliff trick our ancestors used. Whether there was actual herding done by people is still in debate I suppose.

So is there a particualr brain structure only humans possess? I was psyched to hear this (wherever/whenever it was) because it left out any "divine intervention" and expained how we are "more special" than the other animals without evoking omnipotent influence.