Cockroaches

[Drosera]

Hello.

 

you should not try to put words in my mouth. i do not think evolution is linear,

 

I did not. So far, this is eactly how it seemed to me. I also allowed for the possibility I was wrong by starting off with saying, "I think."

 

I realize I am over-explaining things, and I'm sure you know most of it already, but I'm new to the group, and beyond what I'm seeing you write here in this thread, I don't know exactly what you already know. Better at least to get my point through clearly, just to be on the safe side.

 

neither do i think we have explained the processes that occur to cause evolution.

 

I agree.

 

i think there are other forces, reactions and changes which we have not yet discovered

 

I agree there too.

 

...however there seems to be , at least in man, that drive toward intelligence. why not for other animals ?

 

I have already answered that. Because there is no need for that drive in most other animals. (Primates, dolphins, pigeons, etc *may* be exceptions to this though) They fit into their niches and social structures without the need to increase their intelligence.

 

Intelligence is only one of a great many ways to adapt to new or existing pressures. Would it be clearer if I said that morphology and instinct satisfy the needs of many species to cope within their niche?

 

Take care!

[questor]

Drosera, your quote:

 

''I have already answered that. Because there is no need for that drive in most other animals. (Primates, dolphins, pigeons, etc *may* be exceptions to this though) They fit into their niches and social structures without the need to increase their intelligence.

 

Intelligence is only one of a great many ways to adapt to new or existing pressures. Would it be clearer if I said that morphology and instinct satisfy the needs of many species to cope within their niche?''

 

you say there is no ''need''. how is a need expressed? what actuates a need?

is not an increased intelligence important to all animals in that it increases their ability to cope with the environ ment? why does man alone show increasing intelligence and neural competence when he already commands his environment ? i think the real answer is that we do not know, but i would think it points to man as a very special creature.

[Drosera]

Answers to questions I have not already replied to follow:

 

is not an increased intelligence important to all animals in that it increases their ability to cope with the environ ment?

 

No, this is not what I believe the theory of evolution espouses.

 

i think the real answer is that we do not know, but i would think it points to man as a very special creature.

 

I'm getting the idea that this might be the crux of your arguements. That man is a very special creature is an opinion. One you are free to have with no arguement from me.

 

I on the other hand, do not share that opinion. Statiscally I suppose, man is a special creature in having developped the intelligence he has. But in the same sort of way, the cockroach is also special, for having been able to survive as long as it has without dying off. Many species show unique qualities that can be found in no other species. Whether those qualities make them "better" is a matter of endless debate.

 

Don't forget that man has given up much in the way of survival traits due to relying more and more on our intelligence. We have no fur, diminished senses, we are weak compared to most other larger animals, and our instincts, though believed to be present, are not strong enough to guide us alone. While intelligence certainly helps us to cope with those loses, by making and wearing winter clothes for example, if we lost our intelligence, or it no longer served us in our environment (I can't imagine that being possible, but who knows?), we would become scavenger food real fast.

 

But again, it comes down to opinions. I say best to agree to disagree, and leave it there.

 

Take care!

[pgrmdave]

To put the premise of this idea, that intelligence is the most important characteristic and thus all evolution should point in some way to greater intelligence, into a different context:

 

Ant colonies are more successful, and more efficient than our cities - why have we not evolved to be more like ants?

 

Birds have an advantage over predators, because they can fly away - why have we not developed wings?

 

Elephants' large size protects them in large part from predators - why have some species stayed smaller?

 

Also, keep in mind that intelligence, while it is more useful in the end, is not useful in the beginning of a creature's life, because information must be learned. Instinct is much more useful than intelligence at most stages of a creature's life. Thus, it is less likely for intelligence to be developed than instinct, and is in fact very unlikely. For intelligence to exist, you need a creature which has few predators, is either an omnivore or carnivore (I don't think that herbivores have enough time to develop intelligence, because so much of their day must be devoted to consuming), and most likely has to be a social animal (intelligence doesn't provide too much of a benefit if one cannot learn from a previous generation).

[questor]

if you don't agree that the mind of man is nature's greatest achievement, then we have no basis for discussion.

[pgrmdave]

Nature's greatest achievement, in terms of evolution, is anything that works. If a species survives, it has been successful, if a species dies, it has been unsuccessful, it is no more complex than that. Are humans successful? Of course, we're very successful - however, in terms of numbers, biomass, and longevity we are beaten by ants. How else would you measure the success? I will agree that we became very successful quickly, but it is possible that we are just a flash in the pan. The human mind is amazing, it is incredible, it is astounding that nature evolved something that complex, but it is not "nature's greatest achievement [in terms of evolution] "

[Doctordick]

Also, keep in mind that intelligence, while it is more useful in the end, is not useful in the beginning of a creature's life, because information must be learned. Instinct is much more useful than intelligence at most stages of a creature's life. Thus, it is less likely for intelligence to be developed than instinct, and is in fact very unlikely. For intelligence to exist, you need a creature which has few predators, is either an omnivore or carnivore (I don't think that herbivores have enough time to develop intelligence, because so much of their day must be devoted to consuming), and most likely has to be a social animal (intelligence doesn't provide too much of a benefit if one cannot learn from a previous generation).

I love your response! And it explains a lot more than is implied by the post. I am an old man and spent most of my life out there in the business world. Believe me, good instinct is much more valuable than intelligence when it comes to survival even today. I would even go so far as to say "intelligence" is almost worthless in itself. Instead, I would say what has really allowed us to dominate the animal kingdom is being a "social animal" able to learn from those few truly successfully intelligent humans who have occasionally existed. :)

 

Have fun – Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[questor]

what then is nature's greatest achievement ? when does man develop

instincts ? would his instincts be developed separately from his intelligence?

would his early instincts help him in the business world ?