Evolution of Intelligence?

Question

I got this answer to one of my questions...

"However, nature is fiercely economical - one needn't be a biologist to see that. If a cheetah does not need the complex social interactions of a human society, along with everything that goes with it, then nature will not bring such a characteristic about in cheetahs."

Wolves, Gorrillas, Parrots and I think even Cheetas mate for life, they all have complex social structures but not higher intelligence. I know that the first three will often become so sad after their mate dies that they stop eating and die themselves, I have seen it first hand in a large Macaw and a Wolf. Those traits aren't needed for survival and yet there they are.

Thoughts?

Ok, out of context I can see how this is misleading. I understand that animals have a form of intelligence. The question refers to the level of intelligience and cognitive ability as demonstrated by humans.

In millions of years, why haven't other animals developed intelligence comparable to Man? Try to demonstate why our species required such a substantial leap as compared to every other species, while every other species apparently did not require intelligence comparable to ours.

Given the premises of evolution (random chance, life from non-living matter, etc.) it just doesn't add up.

Answer 1

That answer is looking backwards instead of starting at the beginning and working from there. I recently read a book called The Battle for the Beginning by John MacArthur where he talks about the miraculous behaviors that God has built into animals. One example he gave was of the leaf cutter ants that keep aphids like cattle and "milk" them.

Claiming that an unintelligent series of chances is responsible for behaviors like that is equivalent to claiming that a tornado swept through a hardware store and left fully functional devices in it's wake.

The author of that answer doesn't realize that when he or she says "nature" is fiercely economical that is personifying a force and attributing intelligent outcomes to random chances. Think about it. Why would random forces be concerned with the propagation of a species? How can inanimate matter suddenly become alive and then go on to produce millions of complex creatures? The answer that "time + chance = complex life forms" is a cop out. There is no natural inclination of inanimate matter to "have a desire" for life to continue in existence.

I've read the confessions of several prominent supporters of the theory of evolution and they admit that the theory is untenable but they continue to support it because the only other alternative is intelligent design by a god like being and they won't go there.

Answer 2

Actually you are wrong. Both Wolves and Gorillas have an alpha male who mate with certain females of the group while all the others females are not mated with and the males cannot touch them. There is a reason for this by evolution. Both are capable of breeding and having many more offspring. Without that social order their populations would rise to such a great number their prey or plant source would die off. As for the parrot and other small organisms that mate for life, this means greater survival for the offspring. I don not think Cheetahs mate for life, the are loners. Gorillas and Parrots are among the smartest animals on the planet so surprise surprise another wrong idea you had.

As for evolution being random surprise another wrong fact from an idiot. Evolution is far from random and does not work on chance. Animals have grown smart just not like us since the right path never lead them down that road.

Answer 3

I think humans do not give animals enough credit for intelligence as we should. I have been a farmer all my life and have observed animals very closely, at least domesictated species. Inteligence is an inheiritable trait so obviously in the wild the more inteligent members should be able to survive longer thus providing more offspring for the gene pool. I would not agree that nature is fiercely economical. I am reading this statement to mean that creatures with the simplest most benificial traits would out preform others. I think evoluton would tend toward the complex, as the more complex an organism is the more likely it will be to out preform the simpler organisms. I have a problem with human's classification of intelligence. We tend to believe that organisms which we can manipulate and "teach them tricks" the more intelligent they are. I would not neccessarily classify this as intelligence.

Answer 4

I think that echo is more complex than that,becuz I think man had evlolution but he wasn't an ape either,so I think that the sadness and emotions not nesseserly related to inteligence u know ,maybe its lika an animal thing that man feels and stuff,like the mother instinct ....
that not needed for survival thing is a great point but I think its not an evolution of intelignece though...so there must be some love to bind all these social ani,al together by the mean of love I mean,to mate and complete thier biological life...and to protect each other...

Answer 5

The reason they mate for life is more economical in nature than need. Not that I deny there can and probably is an emotional attachment, I'm sure there is one. But, its built into certain species pick one mate (which is extremely rare) and even in species that do this, many still mate with other males and females to maximize the genes. Elephants and whales are the only animals i've heard of that recognize their dead.

Answer 6

Several concepts have been confused here. A hen sacrifices her life for her chicks by diverting a fox in her direction - sometimes even attacking the fox. The evolutionary scheme stacks the odds in favor of the survival of the hen's genes, not necessarily the hen herself.

It's through that lens that you have to evaluate whether the fierce and deep attachment you describe offers an advantage. And it's a good analytical exercise. It's about the genes,and, as E.O. Wilson and company posit, it can extend to "kin selection."

Answer 7

Don't assume that social systems aren't needed for survival. Would people be able to survive all alone? Certainly not. We aren't very large, or fast, compared to other animals, and building things that we need to survive often takes more than one person. We are only strong when there are many of us.

For many wild creatures shared resources mean ENOUGH resources. If every cheetah killed it's own prey and ate half of it and left it to rot, there would not be enough prey to go around for all the cheetahs. I say social lives are quite necessary to survive, for humans and wild animals.

Answer 8

nature tends for disorganisation.u need effort and wisedom to get things organised and meaningfull.chance can't make a great creature like the human being?.if you were in a forest and found a nice home there ,surely u will not suppose that it is a result of evolution!although all the raw material may be presen around!.but when it comes to livingthings you dont think in this way !!!!!

Answer 9

Neanderthal did ... Neanderthal was an evolutionary cul de sac ... An advanced toolmaker and primate ... that thrived well into the last Ice Age ... and we are not the descendants of Neanderthal ...

Answer 10

The strongest 'trait' would be love and there is no more powerful aid to survival; the two are not mutually exclusive.