Evolution of Intelligence More Complex Than Once Thought 453
palegray.net writes "According to a new article published in Scientific American, the nature of and evolutionary development of animal intelligence is significantly more complicated than many have assumed. In opposition to the widely held view that intelligence is largely linear in nature, in many cases intelligent traits have developed along independent paths. From the article: 'Over the past 30 years, however, research in comparative neuroanatomy clearly has shown that complex brains — and sophisticated cognition — have evolved from simpler brains multiple times independently in separate lineages ...'"
Linearity in Complexity???!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious, assuming you really don't "believe in evolution," what do you believe stops it? Leptons and quarks organize themselves into atoms, atoms into molecules, molecules into amino acids and peptide chains. All of this has been observed in nature or laboratory facsimiles thereof. So what magical force prevents organization from continuing to higher and higher levels, especially once rudimentary feedback loops form?
I've seriously never understood the classical religious position on this stuff. I don't believe it would take a God to steer evolution; based on all available evidence, it would take a God to stop it.
The hard work is just around the corner... (Score:3, Insightful)
As people who work with computers, we already know that the hard work is never done. What we often forget is that new, exciting changes in our field, whilst just stepping stones, are progress nonetheless.
I wouldn't make any big predictions for the future of our understanding, I think it's many years further off than we all hope. But I am always heartened to hear of progress, and optimism, in the field of scientific advancement.
I am feeling particularly uncynical today. Let's enjoy each new step.
Re:Intelligent Design proof... (Score:2, Insightful)
This proves that the Intelligent Designer:
An interesting post to be sure, but it proves nothing. You simply offer a list of alternative possible explanations, many of which are unlikely to hold in conjunction with the others. Allow me to suggest that it is perfectly possible to postulate other explanations, none of which could be remotely considered proof, which do not support your suggestion that there is no intelligent designer.
What this research suggests, but not proves, is that there is a non-intelligent system at work in the formation of intelligence. Personally, I think it would be a lovely twist if this non-intelligent system turned out to have been set up by an intelligent designer.
I suppose it would be not so very different to a heuristic computer program, in that respect.
I don't believe it. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't believe is the "many have assumed" bit.
Parallel evolution is evident in all kinds of animal and plant features. I can't imagine why intelligence would be any different.
I strongly suspect that most evolutionary scientists don't consider these findings to be surprising. Still, it makes a better headline if you pretend it's a shock discovery.
Re:Linearity in Complexity???!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
The article doesn't mean 'linear' in the sense of 'linear dependence on a set of variables', but rather 'linear' as in 'sequence of events that follow one another as a direct consequence of the previous one'.
I know, and even there I still maintain that any assumption of a simple causal relationship in a complex system with so many interconnected parts is also silly. Simple causal relationships are the exception, not the rule.
Re:You kid, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
You kid, but this is pretty good support for the intelligent design theory. Here we have multiple organisms evolving human traits independently... as if following some pre-determined path to a completed, human state.
Wrong, unless that "completed, human state" also looks like a super-intelligent squid capable of toppling the feeble empires of man.
The only reason there isn't a super-intelligent, man-eating squid race is because we beat the squids by a few evolutionary epochs, and their ancestors (who are currently living but less than super-intelligent) will probably go extinct before they have a chance to grow a better brain and develop an oceanic civilization of their own.
But rest assured, I'm sure they would have hypothesized an intelligent designer of their own. Only their intelligent designer would have tentacles on its face, and he would live under aquatic heat vents in heaven while sending the unfaithful to those hellish clouds way above the water.
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
However, we deny that species evolve into other species. For example, fish do not become horses and cats do not become giraffes.
Do you understand the idea behind "common ancestors?" Nobody has ever claimed that fish become horses and other such absurdities. Burning a straw man without an EPA permit is likely to result in a hefty fine, unless, I guess, if you do it out in the middle of the desert.
You are aware that speciation -- divergence of one species into two incompatible ones -- has been demonstrated, right? What barriers do you propose might exist that prevent one ancestral population from diverging into two arbitrarily-different ones? Be specific.
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
However, we deny that species evolve into other species. For example, fish do not become horses and cats do not become giraffes.
Fish and horses are quite a bit more than a species apart. That doesn't just require speciation (what you Christians call "maroevolution"), but it requires the jumping of genus, family, order, perhaps more depending on your comparison.
There is not one single science paper stating that this happens. Nobody says "Fish become horses". This is a typical creationist (read: Christian) misstatement and misunderstanding. It shows you really don't know what evolution means or says.
Now I have heard an example of modern evolution that defines a new species like this: suppose you have a fish that is normally green, but occasionally a mutation occurs and a blue fish is born among the green fish. Suppose these fish live near some green coral where the green fish blend in and thus survive more than the blue fish. Then, say that several of the green and blue fish migrate away from that area several miles to where there happens to be a lot of blue coral. Now, the green fish die off and the blue fish survive. Over time these two populations no longer breed amongst each other. By my understanding, evolution defines them as two separate species and state that MACRO-evolution has occurred. I call that a convenient definition to suit evolutionist agenda. Utterly ridiculous.
That is what is known as speciation. This is when one species becomes two. Again, what you Christians call "macroevolution", or evolution of one species into another. What you have described above is evolution... you have random mutation (your blue fish), natural selection (the green coral environment and the predators within), genetic isolation (a group of these fish move to a different environment), natural selection once again (the blue coral environment and its predators), and this results in speciation (the green and blue are separate and will no longer breed with one another).
One species is now two. Evolution. Now, do this process six-hundred-million times.
I have a hard time accepting evolution in general due to the wild leaps it makes. For instance, Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins about the origins of life in the universe and the possibility of intelligent design. The best answer that a practiced scientist and atheist can give on the spot is that some higher form of life evolved and then populated the earth with life. That is, aliens evolved & put life on earth. But, the aliens themselves would have had to evolved through some natural process. THAT is his answer to intelligent design. He answered NOTHING, but merely moved the issue to another planet. It is circular reasoning. I simply do not understand this die-hard attitude towards something that many reputable scientists have abandoned and continue to abandon to this day.
Yes, that is Dawkins' answer to Intelligent Design. This is not a reference to anything pertaining to evolution. Stein asked how ID could be applied to science, and the ONLY way is if alien life (intelligent) seeded Earth (design). Why is this the only answer? Because a deity is not science. Your God is not scientifically verifiable. Therefore it (and anything pertaining to it... your Bible, creationism, cdesign proponentists, etc.) cannot be a scientific answer to anything.
And for further reference, Stein was referring to life on Earth, not life in "the universe", something that IDists do not believe in either.
Re:More complex? I'd have thought less complex if. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, I could tell *you* knew what you were talking about. But if you're not precise with your words, the ID crowd get funny ideas.
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
That's actually true, isn't it? Fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> mammals.
Sure it's true. It's true in the same way that you can go from California to Brazil to the UK to Japan. You're simply leaving out the travel time and stops in between, and quite often that is more important than the destinations.
Philosophy 2.0 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a bit like us when we can simply immediately point to an intercept between two curves on a graph.
When we do that, there is some maths happening in our brains, it just isn't conscious. You're right, that is exactly what is happening in the spider's case. However to "just point" to an intercept seems like an incredibly simple thing to us, but to do it with the amount of brain cells a spider has is quite a trick. Bear in mind this all has to come from sensory data - it has to find branches, blades of grass or whatever and make a decision whether it is feasible to spin a web there, using very rough input from it's eyes. Try writing software for a robot to do that - if you manage it you might get a nobel prize. Even in a very simplified virtual world with perfect data, there would be a fair bit of maths, even if it's just basic trig.
Re:What inhibits intelligence, then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe clever creatures get too clever for their own good, such as putting brain-good before gene-good. ie: a smart male praying mantis may avoid murderous females.
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
.
Hardly, more like
Proto-fish
Intermediate fish . Proto-amphibian
Intermediate fish . Intermediate-amphibian . Proto-Reptile
Intermediate fish . Intermediate-amphibian . Intermediate-Reptile . Proto-Mammal
__ Current Fish _ . __ Current Amphibian _ . __ Current Reptile _ . _ Current Mammal
.
Most modern fish are as far from the common ancestor as modern amphibians, reptiles, and mammals; barring archae that live in relatively unchanging, low mutation ecologies.
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
As Dawkins himself answers here [richarddawkins.net], the entire question at that point was nonsensical. Stein was asking a man who emphatically believes that Intelligent Design is nonsense to construct a scenario in which Intelligent Design might have happened. And as ID proponents so often point out when asked about the religious implications of their position, "they're not necessarily talking about a deity." Well, what does that leave, apart from aliens? The entire exchange in question is basically a believer getting a scientist to describe Intelligent Design's own belief structure, and then crucifying him because he didn't mention God. It's ID that's nonsensical, Dawkins was merely repeating your own words back to you.
Re:What inhibits intelligence, then? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's the paradox? The dumber you are, the more you need to reproduce for your genes to survive.
Smart genes can survive on half a child per parent.
Re:How can this be? (Score:4, Insightful)
We're constantly being told that scientists have it all hammered-out; they know all there is to know. About everything.
By whom?
If that's the case why don't all the scientists pack it in and do something else?
Fact is, science distinguishes itself from religion by NOT having it all hammered out. There's always more to find out.
Newton was a mystic... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes yes, and Newton was a mystic and an alchemist, but that doesn't mean we should abandon calculus and classical physics. We don't dismiss all of psychology because of the quirks of Freud and Jung.
The map is not the territory. The part is not the whole. Evolution is not "Darwinism", relativity isn't "Einsteinism", and physics isn't "Newtonism". But engaging in an ad-hominem attack on a man centuries dead is sheer "Bozoism".
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Further, a belief like creatio ex nihilo, for example, is not Biblical. It takes some serious stretching of scripture to argue that point. The clearest reference to it is in 2 Maccabees, which is not generally considered canonical scripture by most Christians.
In any case, you can accept parts of the Bible as allegorical or poetical (although I'd argue that those are very few) without accepting the whole Bible as allegorical or poetic. I do not believe the creation story is simply allegorical or poetic, I just believe that it is not a fully accurate description of what happened (however, it's no more simplistic than most textbook descriptions of evolution - the issue is much more complex than can be described in a few sentences).
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:2, Insightful)
Genesis is not a retelling of anything. It is just as truthful as the Australian Aboriginal "Dream Time" and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's story of drunken creation [wikipedia.org].
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Over time these two populations no longer breed amongst each other. By my understanding, evolution defines them as two separate species and state that MACRO-evolution has occurred.
So, here we have two different varieties of fish that look different, have different genes, and cannot inter-breed. Species is a classification system that is subjective in nature, so there is no truly objective definition of whether they are two different species, but where would you draw the line? What else would need to happen before you could say they were different species?
The hard part is this; When you say I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution, you are really saying "I believe in evolution, but with some exceptions". The broader your definition of species is (I.E. the more differences that are needed to declare something a new species), the fewer exceptions you are allowing. The narrower your definition, the more exceptions you are allowing (and the more credit you are giving to a god), but also the more difficult it is to make a claim that hasn't already been disproved.
I have a hard time accepting evolution in general due to the wild leaps it makes. For instance, Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins about the origins of life in the universe and the possibility of intelligent design. The best answer that a practiced scientist and atheist can give on the spot is that some higher form of life evolved and then populated the earth with life. That is, aliens evolved & put life on earth. But, the aliens themselves would have had to evolved through some natural process. THAT is his answer to intelligent design.
In this interview, Richard Dawkins was asked for a scenario in which ID would be feasible. He answered "Aliens" because the theory that a god existed seemed unfeasible to him. But of course, if you believe in a god, then he is an alien. Dawkins merely repeated ID's claim and suggested an answer to the question "where did god come from".
If you want to criticize Richard Dawkins for having ridiculous ideas, then please criticize him for the moments in which he describes his own beliefs, not yours.
:-( sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh how I wish it were possible to have a discussion of biology on Slashdot without discussing mythology. Having to explain/defend the basic principles of evolution over and over to the the hordes of deliberately miseducated really is a tiring exercise.
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
evolutionist agenda
Huh? What agenda is that? What really bothers me about religious thought is that they (you?) see everything in terms of agendas. Because religious people have no method for understanding whether something is true or not but only an understanding of competing faiths, they see science as merely a competing faith. Well, it's not. It is a method for refining the understanding of data, improving knowledge, repeatedly analysing and perfecting what we know. There is no agenda. There is only a search for truth.
Of course, that's the ideal. In practice we're all human, filled with petty pride and whatnot, and politics comes up in science too. But no matter what the politics, the fact remains that truth can be tested. Science works.
But compare that with religion. You have a set of "truths"--things that are not subject to investigation. If you don't believe that Jesus or Mohammad or Hermes is the true messenger of God(s), you are cast out from the circle of people who have chosen--CHOSEN--to believe some nonsense. Based not on reason, but on a hunch. In the intellectual world of religions, the best you can ever hope for is to make an argument based on wishful thinking. Science could show you which variety of Christianity or Islam or Zoroastrianism or Hinduism or whatnot is correct, but of course admitting the possibility of finding out that truth is never admitted, for obvious reasons.
There is NO AGENDA. Science seeks truth. Religion simply declares it. If there's an agenda, it is getting all those religious morons to understand the difference between data and wishful thinking.
. That is, aliens evolved & put life on earth. But, the aliens themselves would have had to evolved through some natural process. THAT is his answer to intelligent design. He answered NOTHING, but merely moved the issue to another planet. It is circular reasoning.
Huh. That seems odd. You're right--that's circular reasoning, and has no place in science (at least the version you presented; if Dawkins did the same thing you're right to be shocked). But of course, religious people perpetrate a more extreme version of the same thing: remove "aliens" and insert "god". Who created the universe? Who created Man? Which is more likely to have come about naturally and to put an end to this loop of "A created B": a simpler life form that somehow evolved naturally, or a life form at one time capable of breathing universes into existence (but now strangely capable of miracles on the order of drawing a picture of the Virgin Mary on a grilled-cheese sandwich)? Which is a more sensible hypothesis?
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a baptized, confirmed, signed, sealed, and approved Christian. It's my culture. A lot of it is pure voodoo, but there are some decent messages buried in there. Big man in the sky? Probably not. It looks to me like we're on our own, but I'll still put an angel on my tree, thanks.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with the bible basher on this one. I'm pretty sure if you're to claim you're a Christian, you need to believe at least:
All the other stuff, I think you can be flexible about. But that bullet list - you need that to be Christian. I know it all looks a bit unlikely. That's why it amazes me there's so many of them.
Now, I was brought up in a Welsh Presbyterian tradition (which doesn't the fundamentalist connotations it may have in the US) and like you, despite not believing in the mumbo jumbo aspects, I hold 'Christian values' dear - love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek, all that good stuff. I have a star atop my Christmas tree. But I'm still an atheist.
You, since you don't believe in a "big man in the sky", are either an atheist, an agnostic, or an "it's a bit more complicated than that". If anyone asks again.
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that by definition, anyone who tries to live by the teachings of Christ is free to call themselves a Christian. This is regardless of whether or not they live by all of them, or live by the rules of the religion his ideology grew out of.
Just splitting hairs. But I think it's important because otherwise you set up a polarizing environment, where you think all Christians actually believe everything you listed.
Some of them just want Christ Consciousness. You know, love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek.
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that by definition, anyone who tries to live by the teachings of Christ is free to call themselves a Christian. This is regardless of whether or not they live by all of them, or live by the rules of the religion his ideology grew out of.
Well, that's two of you, and I guess there might be plenty more. I'm surprised I must say - in 35 years this is the first time I've been exposed to what seems to a mainstream tendency to describe yourself as 'Christian' despite not believing in, you know, the basic tenets of Christianity. You live and learn.
Just splitting hairs. But I think it's important because otherwise you set up a polarizing environment, where you think all Christians actually believe everything you listed.
It only becomes polarised if you think that all non-Christians don't believe in the good stuff. The being a good person bit.
By reserving the Christian label for people who believe in the Christian faith, you can demonstrate that the rest of us are decent people too. I bet if you tell a real Christian that you're Christian, they're going to assume, as I would, that you believe all the God/Hell/Heaven/Sin stuff.
Some of them just want Christ Consciousness. You know, love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek.
There's already a perfectly good phrase to describe that kind of person "decent human beings". You don't need Christ to be a decent human being (though he did create some catchy slogans). Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. all manage to love their neighbours and turn the other cheek.
micro v. macro, flawed argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Evolution theory does not require that a new species be introduced in a single generation. The theory contends that small genetic changes from one generation to the next accumulate over time, eventually giving rise to a new species. At every point, organisms from any given generation could produce fertile progeny with members of several previous and several subsequent generations. But, if genetic lines are allowed to diverge enough, at some point the accumulation of genetic differences would provide infertile offspring or no offspring at all.
If, on the other hand, this creationist argument is correct and evolution theory is flawed, this would suggest that different species should not be able to breed at all. If two separate species since the beginning of time could never produce fertile progeny, it would be very surprising if there were an example of two species that could produce hybrid offspring of any kind regardless of that offspring's ability to reproduce. Unfortunately for the creationist, this argument offers no explanation for the existence of the mule or the many other sterile cross-species hybrids.
Addressing the micro- vs. macro-evolution argument as a whole is easily done. The taxonomic categorization of organisms is a construct defined by people. It is not reasonable to presume without evidence that there exists some cellular mechanism that prevents genetic mutations with regard for human-created taxonomies. Once one admits that evolution occurs within a species, it naturally follows that mutations could conceivably accumulate to any degree without regard for species or any other invented taxonomic boundary.
Conversely, discounting macro-evolution while accepting micro-evolution is tantamount to the belief that, inside every cell, there exists a mechanism that prevents mutations which would give rise to offspring if that offspring could not produce fertile progeny with not just its parents' generation, but its grandparents', great-grandparents', etc, all the way back to the beginning of life itself. There is no logic or scientific research that supports such a conclusion.
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:1, Insightful)
seems to a mainstream tendency to describe yourself as 'Christian' despite not believing in, you know, the basic tenets of Christianity.
Think of us as being too lazy to change the default setting on features we don't use.
Re:Gallileo (Score:3, Insightful)
A while, but almost two [wikipedia.org] thousand [wikipedia.org] years [wikipedia.org] less than your use of "Gallileo" (which is spelled wrong and should be "Copernicus" anyway if you are looking for the person who reintroduced heliocentrism to the Christian West in the Renaissance) in the subject suggests that you think it took.
"Center of intelligence on Earth" doesn't even make sense.
Not "anyone" that knew much about what the word "random" means.
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
....Probably - over a few hundred million years.....
Probably is a statistical word. Do you have an idea what the probability is that a fish can evolve into a horse? I'll give you a hint. Your probability of winning next 23 consecutive lotteries is significantly higher than that a fish will evolve into a horse. The probability of another planet existing in the universe that can support intelligent life is about the same. Mathematicians consider any probability less than about 1 in 10^-42 equal to zero.
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
If I were a Christian, I would hate you and see you as an incredibly bad person.
If you were a Christian, you would love him, you would fear for his mortal soul, and you would pray for him regularly.
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think the Bible is just poetry (which it is, at best) you shouldn't call yourself a Christian.
The only condition to classify oneself as a Christian is the belief that Christ died on the cross to forgive our sins and give us everlasting life. That's it. I am also a Christian who happens to believe in evolution and I take the Bible very loosely rather than literally. I believe that the Bible was inspired by God and not the literal word of God, because the latter can't be written into any human dialect. You lose something in the translation.
I do have friends who believe the universe was literally created in seven days, and I happen to think that is ludicrous (and impossible, since days are measured in units of rotations of the earth, which hadn't been created yet). So whether a "day" to God is a microsecond or a millennium, it doesn't matter to me. When I read "God said 'let there be light'", I read it as "God made the Big Bang". When I read that God created Adam from dust, I read it as "God set evolution in motion from the primordial soup and eventually humans came into being."
Believe me, fundamentalists who say that the earth is 6000 years old or that dinosaurs never existed annoy me as much as they do you, but to say that I'm less of a Christian for taking the Bible as words of inspiration rather than literal truth is flat out incorrect.
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Were the first fish of which you speak fish, or were they not fish? If they were, then by your own admission I was right; fish evolved into amphibians. If they weren't, why did you call them fish?
Did I say otherwise? You, along with several others, seem to have have read a "direct" or "overnight" or "in one step" where none was written. Also, you said some fish had offspring that were amphibians. Why then did some amphibians not have offspring that were reptiles? If one transition happened through intermediates, why not the other?
What possible grounds do you have for that accusation?
Assuming I wished to disprove evolution (which I don't, anyone with a room temeprature IQ in centigrade could work that out) what else would one do with evidence? Hide it? Compase a symphony about it? Make it into a soufflé?
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone claiming to be God knocked on the door of your dwelling, what evidence would such a person have to provide to convince you that such claim was true? If you slam the door in such a person's face and they came in anyway, right through the wall, what other evidence would you require?
That's the weirdest question I've ever been asked. Let's face it, it's never going to happen.
I can't think of any conjuring trick that would convince me - walking through a wall is hardly on a par with, you know, creating the whole universe.
But presumably an omnipotent being, who wanted to, could simply rewire my brain to make me believe anything he wanted me to believe.
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:2, Insightful)
That is an irrational answer. He's basically saying that if God seeded life on earth, then science would therefore become useless for understanding that life. He's as bad as the worst of the creationists. He's co-opting and perverting science to support his emotion-based belief system -- in his case the belief in the non-existence of God.
Re:Wow, evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think the Bible is just poetry (which it is, at best) you shouldn't call yourself a Christian.
I think you're not qualified to decide who get to call themselves Christians. After all, that's one of the few things where the truth really is decided on popular vote... Only the worst fundamentalist christians believes that all the christians that believe differently from them are not Real Christians(tm).