Current evolutionary stage leading to intelligent life forms

[clint]

This a speculative idea that came to my mind recently.

I'm not really trying to defend it as a theory,
instead I was wondering if there is any evidence supporting or refuting this idea
(if this is inadequate for this section, don't hesitate to move it elsewhere)

Ok, here's where it came to my mind:

On another thread somebody argued that the potential for intelligence among our ancestors in the primate order
would have been obvious for an ET observer already millions of years ago.
(I'm not so sure about that)

On the other hand, maybe the threshold to eventual intelligence was crossed way earlier,
for example when mammals started to dominate Earth.

Maybe eventual intelligence was just the logical conclusion of the current 'evolutionary stage'.

I think it's at least conceivable that many modern mammal orders (and maybe birds, too)
had the potential to eventually produce an intelligent species like homo sapiens.
Some species (like elephants, dolphins, parrots, etc) seem to be at least as intelligent as most primates.

So was an intelligent species eventually inevitable at this evolutionary stage?
(and was it just mere coincidence that the primates made it there first?)

[Neverfly]

I would call it almost scary coincidence.

In fact, recent studies have demonstrated that it's possible that intelligence is an evolutionary disadvantage. At least, in its early stages.
This may mean that intelligence needs to get a really good start and get moving before it peters back out again- making it a rare product of evolution.

In the meantime, what's with all the evolution talk lately?

[ravens_cry]

Scary coincidence.
Actually it is more then that I bet. People see something posted that is in the same feild to a burning question or speculative idea. It either reminds them of it, and/or it decreases their social inertia to post it because, now they know there is other people who are interested. Of course, the daring person is the one who breaks the ice, take the first slice of pizza as it were.

[Neverfly]

You can have it. be daring.

me... I don't like Ice Pizza.

[slang]

They might look for predation. Dodging predators benefits more from thinking than hunting grass.

[clint]

They might look for predation. Dodging predators benefits more from thinking than hunting grass.

Hard to measure as an indicator, isn't it?
You would have to track a statistically significant number of individual animals of a species,
and at least until sexual maturity, in order to know how many fall to predators.

Also, some predation should be good to keep up the selective pressure.
Too much of it, though, and reproductive strategies tend to switch from quality to quantity.

And it would be meaningless in earlier stages of evolution.

[clint]

Complex social behavior might be a good indicator.

Most mammals and birds score high on this one.
Most others seem to show a complete lack of it.

[LotusExcelle]

This is an interesting topic here. I've kind of always had a personal theory that Neanderthals were the superior species to humans and that our surviving is a bit of a fluke (well - obviously its a series if flukes but I mean in regards specifically compared with Neanderthals).

But its a good philosophical question as to when the tipping point is reached and why. Also I would argue that species don't need to fall into human-conceived notions of intelligent behavior. I would toss out the octopus as an example - they certainly don't seem to have a complex family life with social interactions but they are also able to solve problems on par with mice, the smarter birds, and so on.

I find it fascinating that some birds use tools, in fact. We used to think of this as what makes us different - the ability to make and use a tool. So finding out that birds are capable of this kind of problem solving is just... amazing. What does that mean for us? Well perhaps eventually intelligence is the necessary path with certain pressures. For the birds' brain their pressures have led some to create and use tools. Same for us. Perhaps other species do the same thing because specific pressures - different from ours - has led them down the intelligence path of creating things.

Anyway.

[slang]

Hard to measure as an indicator, isn't it?
You would have to track a statistically significant number of individual animals of a species,
and at least until sexual maturity, in order to know how many fall to predators.

I abused the question. I took it to be "at which stage could be looked for signs for potential intelligence" and didn't confine myself to mammals. I guessed that the occurrence of predator/prey relationships might be a very basic indicator of potential to develop intelligence. For that a few observations would do, and assuming that the same situation would be common on other planets biological evolution, it might answer the question. But presumably it sets no time frame for when to expect 'real' intelligence to emerge, and maybe that is more what you are asking for? A more definitive indicator?

Then again, maybe predation is inevitable once separate organisms start competing for resources. Maybe competition for resources by itself is enough to eventually develop intelligence. I'm just speculating here, it's a fun topic to think about. I would be surprised if there were not publications on it.. I guess my evenings' googling plan is set

[Neverfly]

I don't think there are any "signs" that we can analyze just yet.

A few years ago, we might have looked at crows and chimpanzees.
But in light of recent developments, it seems highly unlikely that chimpanzees will evolve into our type of intelligence.

[tdvance]

It was mentioned, but tool use is a good indicator, especially if combined with culture. Chimpanzees show a small amount of both (different troupes of chimpanzees will use different tools). The main thing about birds using tools is the kind of tool use is specific to the species, suggesting it's not learned behavior (not that they don't learn to use a tool better with practice though) anymore than a spider making a web is. Chimps actually innovate, though slowly, through the generations. Same is true from some pre-humans like Homo Erectus. (Homo Sapiens innovates fast--"imagination" according to some Discovery Channel program I saw once).

If I ignore primates, I'd think likely candidates for evolution toward intelligence would be elephants (with a trunk capable of tool use if they develop it, and some low-level intelligence already).

[toothdust]

In fact, recent studies have demonstrated that it's possible that intelligence is an evolutionary disadvantage. At least, in its early stages.

Yeah, just look at our own species in its current state. I wouldn't quite call a species that endlessly and mindlessly destroys its own habitat with no regards to the future of its own survival "intelligent".

Maybe we are just an intermediary step?

Evolution of technology

[Neverfly]

Yeah, just look at our own species in its current state. I wouldn't quite call a species that endlessly and mindlessly destroys its own habitat with no regards to the future of its own survival "intelligent".

Maybe we are just an intermediary step?

Evolution of technology

LOL

Ok point taken, but I was referring to a different process and a different study. The results indicated that in the natural world, heightened intellect was an advantage up to a point- after which it became a disadvantage. After more development it then become more advantageous again.
In other words, it's a bit like water freezing into ice.

So humans must have been lucky enough to survive with our disadvantage long enough that it turned back into our favor.

[aurora]

One factor to consider would be diet, having the ability or the need to find a variety of foods may lead to more intelligence since it takes some smarts to be successful when eating different foods in different places at different times.

I can think of some examples, some birds, some mammals, that would fit this, but could probably think of some counter examples as well, so don't know if there is a real cause effect going on.

[Drunk Vegan]

Yeah, just look at our own species in its current state. I wouldn't quite call a species that endlessly and mindlessly destroys its own habitat with no regards to the future of its own survival "intelligent".

Maybe we are just an intermediary step?

Evolution of technology

I agree. I'm still waiting for the first intelligent species to arise, so speculating as to why or how intelligence arose is irrelevant.

[Svemir]

This is an interesting topic here. I've kind of always had a personal theory that Neanderthals were the superior species to humans

Only physically. They were tough guys.
As a VERY good indicator of some species being on the same path as humans is capability of ABSTRACT THINKING.
And Neanderthals didn't have it. They were leaving their deads on the ground, no Neanderthal cemeteries were found. On the other hand, human cemeteries are some of the largest constructions on Earth.
Neanderthals were not able to imagine life after death, another world or time travell. Of all species I've only heard of some chimps that could recognize themselves in a mirror. (as a sign of AT)
(Poor dogy, no matter how hard it try and no matter how high we love him, is not able to imagine itself in a mirror.)
Using tools is not a good indicator as many low level animals use them. Neither social networking. We don't regard ants as being (high)intelligent although they have a social network and billion nerve cells.
IIRC elefants do some kind of ceremonial burrial (the first wonder in Civilization :-)), by standing for a long time around the deceased member of the crowd. IMO it's a sign that they have feelings and not that that they follow his soul to the heavens.

I don't think you can "develop" abstract thinking.
You either have it or you don't.

[ravens_cry]

Um, what about the famous red ochre covered bones of several Neanderthal skeletons? That is at least as significant as elephants standing around for a while around a dead body. Since we have never in historical times met a living Neanderthal, your statement that they 'lacked abstract thought' is suppositional at best. The whole concept of low and high animals is fallacious. Without 'lower' life forms such as bacteria, and other more complex scavengers, life would have used up all available carbon and other elements, and would be covered with their dead dried husks in permanent sterility. Each creature is part of it's own niche. Intelligence is but one path to evoulutanary, and while it has been very successful for us, it is but only one way. If going by pure numbers, the arthropods and mollusc's and bacteria and invertebrates in general, are the masters of this world. Even in biomatter, their weight likely exceeds all vertebrates, and certainly our own species.

[Svemir]

Um, what about the famous red ochre covered bones of several Neanderthal skeletons? That is at least as significant as elephants standing around for a while around a dead body. Since we have never in historical times met a living Neanderthal, your statement that they 'lacked abstract thought' is suppositional at best. The whole concept of low and high animals is fallacious. Without 'lower' life forms such as bacteria, and other more complex scavengers, life would have used up all available carbon and other elements, and would be covered with their dead dried husks in permanent sterility. Each creature is part of it's own niche. Intelligence is but one path to evoulutanary, and while it has been very successful for us, it is but only one way. If going by pure numbers, the arthropods and mollusc's and bacteria and invertebrates in general, are the masters of this world. Even in biomatter, their weight likely exceeds all vertebrates, and certainly our own species.

What are you talking about is evolutionary success.
And of course it is not an indicator of human-like intelligence and vice-versa, human-like intelligence will not grant a success to the species.
But, I got updated on Neanderthals and now the state of the knowledge is that they had some symbolic thinking capabilities.
The issue in OP was if the aliens would recognize humans as a species with a potential to be ...space travellers
if they saw us in savanna together with Neanderthals, apes, elephants , parrots, few millions of years ago?
I think so, and major criteria would not be use of tools, number (at some point, it's thought, there were less then 10 000 humans left), social network but abstract and symbolic thinking.

[clint]

...Also I would argue that species don't need to fall into human-conceived notions of intelligent behavior. I would toss out the octopus as an example - they certainly don't seem to have a complex family life with social interactions but they are also able to solve problems on par with mice, the smarter birds, and so on.

Good point, there might be other 'paths' to intelligence.
Maybe ours is just one of the fastest.

On a water world the octopus might prevail. This one is scary, actually.
I hope we will never be visited by super-advanced octopus-aliens with no experience at all in social interaction

I abused the question.

Not at all, please continue to post!

A few years ago, we might have looked at crows and chimpanzees.
But in light of recent developments, it seems highly unlikely that chimpanzees will evolve into our type of intelligence.

I look at it more in terms of the potential of an entire biological order (or class, etc) - not a species.

The descendents of chimpanzees, crows, elephants, etc. may indeed never make it there.
But their very above-average intelligence could indicate a high potential of their biological orders to eventually produce a sapient species
- if given time and favorable conditions.

The main thing about birds using tools is the kind of tool use is specific to the species, suggesting it's not learned behavior (not that they don't learn to use a tool better with practice though) anymore than a spider making a web is. Chimps actually innovate, though slowly, through the generations. Same is true from some pre-humans like Homo Erectus. (Homo Sapiens innovates fast--"imagination" according to some Discovery Channel program I saw once).

I generally agree, although some bird species are good tool-users and amazingly innovative - New Zealand's Keas are a one great example.

The results indicated that in the natural world, heightened intellect was an advantage up to a point- after which it became a disadvantage. After more development it then become more advantageous again.

Why disadvantage? Because of higher energy consumption?

One factor to consider would be diet, having the ability or the need to find a variety of foods may lead to more intelligence since it takes some smarts to be successful when eating different foods in different places at different times.

Actually, this is probably one of reasons why many primates need to be quite intelligent:
they have to find widely scattered fruit tress of dozens of species,
know at what exact moment the fruits of each species are ripe, etc.
This might also have lead to good color sight and navigation skills.

The issue in OP was if the aliens would recognize humans as a species with a potential to be ...space travellers
if they saw us in savanna together with Neanderthals, apes, elephants , parrots, few millions of years ago?
I think so, and major criteria would not be use of tools, number (at some point, it's thought, there were less then 10 000 humans left), social network but abstract and symbolic thinking.

Probably the potential or precursors of abstract thinking can also be deduced from some other animal behavior described on this thread.
So in the absence of homo, elephants and the likes might well qualify as indicators that 'something is going on'.

[Neverfly]

Why disadvantage? Because of higher energy consumption?

I'm not sure if I remember right.
I gotta re-find that study.
There's also a thread about it here on BAUT somewhere I think...

[Noclevername]

Evolution doesn't come in "stages" or have any guaranteed path of development. It's only about mutation, survival, and reproduction, collectively resulting in adaptation. If intelligence, abstract thought and inventiveness are survival traits for a species under a given set of circumstances, that's what they will develop for as long as those circumstances exist or until they, like humans, become smart enough to alter their circumstances to suit themselves.

[thorkil2]

I agree. I'm still waiting for the first intelligent species to arise, so speculating as to why or how intelligence arose is irrelevant.

I think there may be some confusion between "intelligent" and "smart." The two terms are not necessarily synonymous.

[thorkil2]

Intelligence is but one path to evoulutanary, and while it has been very successful for us, it is but only one way. If going by pure numbers, the arthropods and mollusc's and bacteria and invertebrates in general, are the masters of this world. Even in biomatter, their weight likely exceeds all vertebrates, and certainly our own species.

I agree with much of what you say, but no one who has lived in close proximity with animals can doubt that intelligence is a continuum, not a yes/no state. I have a dog who figured out on her own that she might stand a better chance of catching the rabbits in the back yard if she chased them toward a funnel point, then ran around to surprise them at the exit end. Sometimes it works. Anyone who has tried to protect a bird feeder from squirrels knows they are amazingly inventive (including tool use) at getting past the safeguards. I know of one group that used swinging vines to do a "Tarzan" at a high platform feeder. Recently saw mention of a bear in one of the national parks who had learned to enter a trap, grab the bait, and kick out his hind leg to keep the trap door from swinging shut behind him. The list goes on. Intelligence is a matter of degree, and it is almost certainly an evolutionary inevitable, given time and an environment sufficiently hospitable to life in general. Its inevitability surely derives from the need and ability to receive and respond to sensory input. Complexity increases as competition demands better response (aack--huge oversimplification...). There is a lot more intelligence in the world than our bible-thumping "man is master of all" roots would like us to acknowledge.

[Grashtel]

(Poor dogy, no matter how hard it try and no matter how high we love him, is not able to imagine itself in a mirror.)

How good are humans are recognizing their own scent or the sound of their voice?

You have to be careful of humancentric bias, just because humans are primarily visual creatures and therefor good at recognizing their reflection doesn't mean that a species that isn't visually oriented not recognizing its reflection doesn't necessarily mean much other than that they aren't visually oriented.

[Svemir]

How good are humans are recognizing their own scent or the sound of their voice?

You have to be careful of humancentric bias, just because humans are primarily visual creatures and therefor good at recognizing their reflection doesn't mean that a species that isn't visually oriented not recognizing its reflection doesn't necessarily mean much other than that they aren't visually oriented.

While it's true that humans are visually oriented that experiment has little to do with that.
Our eyes (and majority animal eyes, I guess) are primarily designed for pattern recognition.
Patterns are led to the brain which in turn makes an identification and thereafter makes a decision. Dogs brain fails in recognition, it can only see that is a dog (in a mirror) but is not able to connect the picture to itself. I's a complicated task for all animals, but is simple even for very young humans.
The experiment went on towards simpler patterns like playing computer games (for animals :-)), where the task was to push a ball into the rectangle, randomly placed on the screen, using joystick. The dog failed again, although it seemed it understood the task (because it was very frustrated :-)).
A pig completed the task easily.
(tough, it was lazy and did it only when it was hungry, but it did it)

[north]

While it's true that humans are visually oriented that experiment has little to do with that.
Our eyes (and majority animal eyes, I guess) are primarily designed for pattern recognition.
Patterns are led to the brain which in turn makes an identification and thereafter makes a decision. Dogs brain fails in recognition, it can only see that is a dog (in a mirror) but is not able to connect the picture to itself. I's a complicated task for all animals, but is simple even for very young humans.
The experiment went on towards simpler patterns like playing computer games (for animals :-)), where the task was to push a ball into the rectangle, randomly placed on the screen, using joystick. The dog failed again, although it seemed it understood the task (because it was very frustrated :-)).
A pig completed the task easily.
(tough, it was lazy and did it only when it was hungry, but it did it)

so the question is ;

what makes the pig so advanced ?

( it would be interesting to see a pig given a MRI on its brain function as compared to Humans )

[kimera]

Hi, I'm an Evolutionary Anthropology major. What they are currently teaching me (which, as in any science, may or may not be accurate) is that high intelligence in humans originally began as an after-effect of a selection for bipedalism. For a long time, humans were thought to be different because of our 'intelligence' (I'll go into this in a bit), but now most evidence suggests that we became bipedal first and then the high intelligence was selected afterward. So unless another primate species decides to go bipedial, it is unlikely that there will be another 'us'.

As for why humans developed these big, massive brains which drain a lot of resources, the most convincing theory that I've read was that it is a product of sexual selection. If you look at IQ scores, males are more variable in demonstrations of their intelligence because it is an X-linked trait. Females selected intelligent males and, over time, high intelligence spread throughout the population. The high intelligence facilitated group living but group living also forced one to use their intelligence a lot in order to socially maneuver oneself to a higher position, and thus there was strong selection on intelligence.

As for 'intelligence', once of the things they hammer into your head repeatedly in my classes is that all fitness is relative including intelligence. We are not more intelligent than an octopus is, except by our measures. By the measure of the octopus, s/he is considerably more intelligent, especially when it comes to matters such as how they use their chromatophores. Chimps have a much better memory than most humans. If a human tried to live a successful life as any other creature, we would fail miserably not only because we haven't been socially instructed, but also because our intelligence is different. So in this sense, each species is increasing towards higher intelligence.

This is not to say that we can't create a definition of what it means to be intelligent and judge other creatures by this measure, but it is first very important to set up clear guidelines about what intelligence is before we go around testing and trying to establish if 'intelligence' can evolve considerably and under what conditions.

As a VERY good indicator of some species being on the same path as humans is capability of ABSTRACT THINKING. And Neanderthals didn't have it

I've been taught that Neanderthals did have abstract thoughts. There is evidence that they buried their dead, cared for old and infirmed members of their societies, and Neanderthal remains have been found with non-practical items such as jewelry.

Of all species I've only heard of some chimps that could recognize themselves in a mirror.

More species than just chimps can. Elephants and all great apes recognise themselves in a mirror.

[clint]

As for 'intelligence', once of the things they hammer into your head repeatedly in my classes is that all fitness is relative including intelligence. We are not more intelligent than an octopus is, except by our measures. By the measure of the octopus, s/he is considerably more intelligent, especially when it comes to matters such as how they use their chromatophores.

I think the key would be the complexity of communication.
While octopuses may communicate in a quite ingenious way,
they don't seem to come anywhere near the complexity of human communication.

If a human tried to live a successful life as any other creature, we would fail miserably not only because we haven't been socially instructed, but also because our intelligence is different. So in this sense, each species is increasing towards higher intelligence.

I'm not so sure about that.
The human brain is incredibly good at learning new skills,
and perfectly capable of adapting to tools that behave in a completely different way than its natural body
(tools, cars, airplanes, artificial limbs, video games, etc.)

Actually what the brain of a new-born does is exactly that:
learn how to use a completely unfamiliar body.

[ravens_cry]

I think the key would be the complexity of communication.
While octopuses may communicate in a quite ingenious way,
they don't seem to come anywhere near the complexity of human communication.

A intelligence who based much of its communication off of smell,( like most mammals) would find humans to be very poor communicators indeed. Even more so if you compare humans to the ways of squid and octopuses. Why, the humans only use skin chromatics to indicate embarrassment and if they have been too long exposed to ultraviolet radiation.
Simple communicators, barely worthy of the word.
An interesting examination of the implications of scent based communication, is examined in the webcomic Freefall

[kimera]

I think the key would be the complexity of communication.
While octopuses may communicate in a quite ingenious way,
they don't seem to come anywhere near the complexity of human communication.

I don't know, from the videos and articles I've read, it's very amazingly complex. I've seen videos of octopus doing amazing things and I've had some pretty crazy experiences with cephlopods in person.

I'm not so sure about that.
The human brain is incredibly good at learning new skills,
and perfectly capable of adapting to tools that behave in a completely different way than its natural body Actually what the brain of a new-born does is exactly that:
learn how to use a completely unfamiliar body.

Of course all newborns do this. But you need experience to see how those things are used before you can use them. In my 'Evolution of Societies and Culture' class, the professor used to play a game with us where he would bring in tools from a variety of cultures (including some found at Ikea) and have us guess for what the tools were used. It was extremely rare that we could properly guess their use because we had never been exposed to the tools before. If I dropped you in the middle of the Kalahari or Yuma desert, you wouldn't be able to survive despite the fact that people have lived there for years and years. People who live in a modern environment think it is so easy to make and use stone tools, bows, etc, but I challenge you to try it for yourself. The Neaderthals made stone tools of such complexity that experts now can't reproduce.

If I suddenly placed you in the body of a chimp, you would most certainly die. If you want to see how well you'd do compared to a chimp, then get together with a bunch of buddies and try to hunt monkeys out in the juggle. Or try termite fishing.