Slashdot Mirror
Small, Big-Brained Animals Dodge Extinction
ananyo writes "Large-brained animals may be less likely to go extinct in a changing world, perhaps because they can use their greater intelligence to adapt their behavior to new conditions, according to an analysis presented to a meeting of conservation biologists this week. Plotting brain size against body size creates a tidy curve. But some species have bigger or smaller brains than the curve would predict for their body size. And a bigger brain-to-body-size ratio usually means a smarter animal. The researchers looked at the sizes of such deviations from the curve and their relationships to the fates of two groups of mammalian species — 'palaeo' and 'modern'. Analysis of each group produced similar results: species that weighed less than 10 kilograms and had big brains for their body size were less likely to have gone extinct or be placed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list for endangered species. For species larger than about 10 kilograms, the advantage of having a large brain seems to be swamped by the disadvantage of being big — such as attracting the unwelcome attention of humans."
Yeah, because brain size alone is directly equivalent to intelligence. I would venture that the authors of this study have rather small brains.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
"If animals get extinct it's because they're stupid. Let's extinguish more species to help natural selection."
Some people are less intelligent than my pet rats I used to have. I do not thing size matters at all actually.
... but huge dicks? Did they dodge extinction ?
Being tasty.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Small animals survived last five mass extinctions because they have relatively large penis, not the brains. Human dominates over other species simply because we have biggest penis, relatively to our size. Bigger penis is always been an advantage over bigger brain, in any given time of history, or party.
So you should be proud of your species dominance for having a bigger penis, no matter how small in absolute term it is; chances that it's already bigger than an average chimpanzee, in relative term.
One of the ways was already outlined by TFA - using intelligence to adapt their behavior to the changing environment
The other way is to evolve, and to evolve very very rapidly - in a shotgun approach - to ensure that _some_ of the offsprings, no matter how much they have changed, would made it through
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Chickens and cows as species are doing phenomenal with no end in the foreseeable future for the sole reason that they are tasty
If taste is the only criteria, snakes taste much better than chickens !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
That will explain the Japanese resilience.
All these species, chicken, cows, pigs, etc are afflicted by one of the most deadly parasites of the species Homo sapiens. This is a slow acting cunning parasite, that allows the animals to reproduce before killing them. Thus they never develop an immunity to this parasite.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Well, that explains Ewoks, I guess.
Hmmm.... George Lucas was actually right about something. Has anyone measured his skull capacity recently?
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
> "Large-brained animals may be less likely to go extinct in a changing world, perhaps because
> they can use their greater intelligence to adapt their behavior to new conditions, according to an
> analysis presented to a meeting of conservation biologists this week.
Umm, they're only figuring this out now?
Each step in evolution has involved milestones that allow a magnitude or more faster scouring of the evolution fitness gradient descent space.
Slowest
1. Random mutation due to stray neutron or copy error
2. Sexual crossover reproduction
3. Random, controlled re-juggling of genes in a safe-ish way (children look different from parents)
4. Intelligence -- allows learning by observation both from parents and from (possibly accidental) trial-and-error
The latter bails on the genes directly entirely, making behavior not of hard-wrought instinctual genetic-based behavior, but from information transfer and gradient descent space exploration outside of gene modification.
Nobody realized this chain? Well. I guess I just did 50 years of biologists' work, you lazy, lazy sods.
Next step: Computer simulation of genes and genetic algorithms to test out things at high speed, which we then self-modify. Far faster scouring of the fitness gradient descent space.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Then, those brains destroy the whole world!
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Isn't that what wiped out the dinosaurs?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Considering that there are very small humans, is it possible that they too may out last the average height human?
Wouldn't their brains be considered large against the over all size of their human body?
I, for one, welcome our hydroenchephalitic dwarf overlords.
the obvious example is when noah built his ark about 6000 years ago.
Neanderthals and a number of other extinct early hominids had brain sizes of 1600cc to 2200cc. Modern homo homo sapiens have a brain size of around 1200cc to 1500cc. Einstein's brain was around 1250cc. Sharks are the most enduring vertebrate on Earth, and have one of the lowest brain/body mass ratios. There's plenty of evidence to refute the premise.
Marris in her Nature article is implying that large brain/body ratios increase species survival likelyhood, based on comparing a "primitive" class of mammals to a "modern" one. But it could just as well be their digestive system was more adaptable, superior immune systems, etc. She started with a theoretical classification of living and extinct mammals (paleo and modern) and tried to support her theory that one has a survival advantage. This is trying to make the empirical data fit the theoretical model, and is crummy science. If one were actually interested in extinction, they should study different species and why they went extinct or not, and then build a theory based on those empirical results.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
The reason frenology (a way of evaluating people based on their heads) failed was because it was inseparable from racism. Secularists who value each other based on who appears to have the biggest brains will one day be discredited as superficial and evil.
Great name for a new SUV.
This is 'science'? You got a big brain, you're smarter than a thing with a small brain. If you're smart, you dont get extinct. Hardly rocket science. What's the next 'scientific breakthrough'? "Hominids carrying AK47's are likely to prevail in a skirmish with unarmed donkeys"?
Cats.
(When I thought of Small, Big-Brained Animals).
But then again, Horses have been around for thousands of years... (big, small brained)