Slashdot Mirror
Evolution of Intelligence More Complex Than Once Thought
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 ...'"
If anyone assumes linearity in complex systems, it only shows they have no clue. In complex systems, linearity is the exception, not the rule.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
This proves that the Intelligent Designer:
- has never been taught of proper design practice and re-use of previous work
- has been sued by the other intelligent designer who built the previous brain for patent infringement and thus couldn't use the same brain but had to built a new one
- is so messy that instead of trying to dig again her/his/its plans of the previous (intelligent) design for brains somewhere under a mountain of junk, restarting everything from scratch is a better alternative
- isn't meticulous and precise enough be succeed making the same brain twice in a row
- is so bored the she/he/it needs to reinvent the wheel every week or so
- has Alzheimer's disease
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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.
Some time ago I read that spamming software had broken the captcha in gmail. Today I had to log into my gmail account and discovered that I am unable to parse the captcha.
Maybe I am not as smart as I thought I was.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
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.
Hence, the bible belt.
. as if following some pre-determined path to a completed, human state.
Or, as if there are a limited number of adequate solutions to the problem 'control a bunch of muscles in order to survive in a three dimensional environment in which other organisms are trying to do the same thing'.
It seems like what we're seeing is that *if* a species randomly goes down the brain route, it'll either die out, or develop a brain very like other brains. Note that many organisms survive very nicely with no brain at all. Where's their "pre-determined path to a completed human state"?
No, it is not. Things of the same type evolving separately, only shows that those traits are successful.
It is also not new. It is pretty obvious that cephalopod and vertebrate brains evolved separately, and that bird and mammal advances over reptiles evolved separately.
Too many captchas generate unreadable garbage, requiring you to waste time by refreshing the page (and re-entering passwords, etc.). I have seriously considered searching for whatever it is spammers use to beat captchas and download it for myself.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
So the upshot here is that the intelligence of any given creature is not a function of it's size or age (in evolutionary terms) but is very tightly geared towards the problems it likely faces in it's natural environment.
For example, even a spider can do quite tricky maths in order to work out how to spin a web between arbitrary fixed points, yet is completely flummoxed by even the simplest general knowledge quiz.
So what I want to know is, what was it about human beings that caused us to develop the capacity to drive cars, build computers and walk on the moon?
You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
this means the nascent potential evolutionary building blocks for intelligence are widely distributed in species in nature and given a chance will give riser to a smarter brain.
It takes more than a chance - it takes evolutionary pressure. If something's already perfectly adapted to its environment without a brain, then it's unlikely to evolve one. A brain might even reduce the fitness of an organism (by diverting energy that could be better used for other survival/reproduction mechanisms).
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.
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.
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.
I dropped a petitde chain this morning the size of a small baryonic particle. At one point, I wasn't sure if I was taking physics, or if the physics was taking me. And while I'm on that point, what's the deal with studying physics? Shouldn't it be physically studying? I'm certainly not taking anything with me when I'm done.
But back on topic, that dude's argument didn't make any sense, so why did you even respond?
As I've wrote before (f*cking IEEE paywall):
"Convergent evolution is one of the most impressive concepts of Darwinian thought. As stated in the literature, "It is all the more striking a testimony to the power of natural selection that numerous examples can be found in real nature, in which independent lines of evolution appear to have converged, from very different starting points, on what looks very like the same endpoint" [Dawkins's Blind Watchmaker, p. 94]. Eyesight is a good example of a remarkable biological tool that has appeared independently many times. For instance, the octopus' eye has evolved from a line independent of our lineage, and there are records of some 40 such "parallel" lines of evolution leading to the development of eyes [L. F. Land, "Optics and vision in invertebrates," in Handbook of Sensory Physiology, Vol. VII, H. Autrum, Ed. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1980, pp. 471-592]."
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.
"Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
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.
"Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
Go tell that to him, but he won't be happy.
Disclaimer: he doesn't shoot the bearer of bad tidings, but he will eat his soul.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Note that many organisms survive very nicely with no brain at all.
Commence republicans/neocons jokes in 3... 2... 1...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders note:
# C - Whole chromosome extra, missing, or both - see chromosomal aberrations
# T - Trinucleotide repeat disorders - gene is extended in length
Anyway, I will ask you a simple question if we build a device to directly view the past and you can watch over billions of years as life evolves as scientists thought it did, and see the most interesting thing Jesus did was starting a cult. Would you still believe in God?
What barriers do you propose might exist that prevent one ancestral population from diverging into two arbitrarily-different ones?
If an individual strays too far genetically, God drops a rock on it.
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.
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
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.
Please don't pidgeonhole all Christians under the Creationist camp. There are many Christians that are not diametrically opposed to evolutionary theory. Rather, we see the creation story in Genesis to be allegorical and poetic, instead of trying to place it under textbook scrutiny.
If you think the Bible is just poetry (which it is, at best) you shouldn't call yourself a Christian.
.
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.
As Dawkins himself answers here, 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.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
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.
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.
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.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
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.
Why don't Republicans believe in Evolution?
Because the first generation in their sample was Abraham Lincoln. The last was George W. Bush.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
I'm sorry but you are wrong. There is no legislative body with any true authority that can deem you a real Christian or not, no matter how hard they may try.
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.
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.