does Evolution naturally lead to Intelligence ?

[Swan Black]

If there is much more life [of some sort]
out there in the Universe, as I believe,
it's going to Evolve, correct?

simply through Survival instincts,
isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive longer than the others


related:

does anyone know how long dolphins have been around,
or when they became as intelligent as they are now?


marc

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:16:46 -0700 (PDT), Swan Black
<21bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

>If there is much more life [of some sort]
>out there in the Universe, as I believe,
>it's going to Evolve, correct?
>
>simply through Survival instincts,
>isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive longer than the others

Intelligence is a force multiplier, improving the analysis of
information collected from the senses, and potentially increasing the
efficiency of responses. However, intelligence is itself not without
cost, in terms of metabolic overhead, of reaction time, and how long
it takes an organism to learn. And other skills can outcompete
intelligence in specific cases. So no, it can't reasonably be said
that species' intelligence tends to increase over time.

>related:
>
>does anyone know how long dolphins have been around,

Wikipedia suggests 20 mya.

>or when they became as intelligent as they are now?

One can make only a rough correlation to brain size.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[ednafreon]

By evolving do you mean moving from primitive to advanced as in a series of
"improvements" or just random happenstance? Can it be shown that the
acquisition of intelligence is beneficial to the organism or is it merely a
curiosity? The language is vague.

Bill

[John Harshman]

On 4/22/15, 11:16 AM, Swan Black wrote:
> If there is much more life [of some sort]
> out there in the Universe, as I believe,
> it's going to Evolve, correct?
>
> simply through Survival instincts,
> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive longer than the others

Why, there must be, because most organisms are as intelligent as humans,
or nearly so. Of course a few stand out. Wheat is the cleverest of all
the plants. The intelligence of horseshoe crabs is legendary. And who
has not debated philosophy with Dictyostelium?

> related:
>
> does anyone know how long dolphins have been around,
> or when they became as intelligent as they are now?

No.

[Swan Black]

if you mean MY language is vague, i'm just a very interested layman

does a natural drive for "survival" eventually lead to more intelligent animals, or living things?
Not all animals of course. Other things come into play also. There can many exceptions.

I mean, WE evolved into intelligent [animals],
and I suspect some of that happened because of the desire/need to survive.

Didn't Darwin say something similar? The fittest [sometimes the more intelligent] are slightly more likely to survive [longer]

marc

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El miércoles, 22 de abril de 2015, 19:20:07 (UTC+1), Swan Black escribió:
> If there is much more life [of some sort]
> out there in the Universe, as I believe,
> it's going to Evolve, correct?
>
> simply through Survival instincts,
> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive longer than the others

Do you think humans, because they are intelligent, would last much longer
than dinosaurs that lived some 100 million years or more?

It is supposed humans had existed for the last 5 or 6 million years.
Then, with our present intelligence do you think they can be still alive
in 200 years from now?

Eri

[broger...@gmail.com]

I don't think we have a big enough sample to draw a conclusion. We have an N of 1 for technological species (us) and an N of maybe a few dozen for socially intelligent species, chimps, crows, whales. We are not yet in a position to decide whether technological intelligence is adaptive on a timescale of 100,000 to millions of years.

We would need a few examples of independent evolving biosystems, ie life on other planets, to draw any conclusions. It's a great question, but not one we're likely to have an answer for in our lifetime.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

It exist the problem of how much is too much intelligence.
The greater intelligence of humans resulted in a lot of conflicts and
wars. The increased intelligence gave humans the capacity of growing
very fast. This is not only depleting the natural resources, but
the need to win wars had created the perfect recipe for the humans
to exterminate themselves.
We had acquired enough intelligence to wipe ourselves from the
planet. I had heard a sarcastic comment the question "why we had not heard
yet the extraterrestrials." The reply was... advanced technologies
exterminated each other in less than 200 years; the surviving people
had to go back to hunting and gathering with stone tools for survival.

Eri

[ednafreon]

Swan Black wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 12:55:05 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
>> Swan Black wrote:
>>
>> > If there is much more life [of some sort]
>> > out there in the Universe, as I believe,
>> > it's going to Evolve, correct?
>> >
>> > simply through Survival instincts,
>> > isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive
>> > longer than the others
>> >
>> >
>> > related:
>> >
>> > does anyone know how long dolphins have been around,
>> > or when they became as intelligent as they are now?
>> >
>> >
>> > marc
>>
>> By evolving do you mean moving from primitive to advanced as in a series
>> of "improvements" or just random happenstance? Can it be shown that the
>> acquisition of intelligence is beneficial to the organism or is it merely
>> a curiosity? The language is vague.
>>
>> Bill
>
> if you mean MY language is vague, i'm just a very interested layman
>
> does a natural drive for "survival" eventually lead to more intelligent
> animals, or living things? Not all animals of course. Other things come
> into play also. There can many exceptions.

It's really not part of any theory of evolution that nature has a "drive"
toward anything. Gametes mutate from any number of causes, incorporate the
mutation in the resulting organism and then, by pure chance, adapts to its
environment. At no time is there anything driving the process; it just
happens. It's this process that is leads to imprecise descriptions.

>
> I mean, WE evolved into intelligent [animals],
> and I suspect some of that happened because of the desire/need to survive.
>
> Didn't Darwin say something similar? The fittest [sometimes the more
> intelligent] are slightly more likely to survive [longer]
>
> marc

Language is a huge problem for those hoping to explain how evolution is
supposed to work. There is no way to correctly and precisely to explain how
the whole thing works without linguistic chaos. In the first place the
explanations are too pat, too slick and too ambiguous to have any real
explanatory value.

Secondly, the explanations inevitably require contradictory elements such as
fittedness versus chance and purpose versus mindless randomness. Add in
concepts such as direction (primitive, advanced, etc.), suitability,
fortuitous adaptation, awareness of the environment (adaptation) and no
explanation will be satisfactory.

Bill

[John Bode]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 1:20:07 PM UTC-5, Swan Black wrote:
> If there is much more life [of some sort]
> out there in the Universe, as I believe,
> it's going to Evolve, correct?
>
> simply through Survival instincts,
> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive
> longer than the others
>

Given that cyanobacteria have been around for something like
2 *billion* years while arguably more intelligent phyla (by virtue
of having actual brains) have come and gone many times over, I'd say "no".

Evolution doesn't imply any kind of direction: bigger, faster, smarter,
etc. Intelligent species like us invest a *lot* of time and energy
in relatively few offspring, while other species forego intelligence
and simply play the numbers by producing hundreds if not thousands
of offspring in a single go.

Both strategies work. I'd argue that playing the numbers seems to have
worked better for the majority of life on Earth.

[ednafreon]

The idea of an evolutionary strategy is yet another of those concepts that
misleads rather than explains. To conform to evolutionary theory, there can
be no intent no purpose and no reason behine any of its processes. It just
happens and no causal explanation is possible.

Bill

[RSNorman]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:06:35 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 4/22/15, 11:16 AM, Swan Black wrote:
>> If there is much more life [of some sort]
>> out there in the Universe, as I believe,
>> it's going to Evolve, correct?
>>
>> simply through Survival instincts,
>> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive longer than the others
>
>Why, there must be, because most organisms are as intelligent as humans,
>or nearly so. Of course a few stand out. Wheat is the cleverest of all
>the plants. The intelligence of horseshoe crabs is legendary. And who
>has not debated philosophy with Dictyostelium?
>

I don't dare for fear that it would win.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Intention is not the same as causation. It would be an odd use of language to say that the moon intends to orbit the earth, but a perfectly appropriate one to say that gravity causes the moon to orbit the earth. To say that the reason the moon orbits the earth is that the earth's gravity exerts a radial force on the moon is also fine. Lack of intent does not eliminate causes, reasons, or explanations.

If you don't like the phrase "evolutionary strategy" there are more pure, a-teleological ways of expressing the same idea.

[Burkhard]

And I assume you reject the theory of electricity for the same reason.
After all, electrons do not really "chose" the path of least resistance,
so no causal explanation of why your fuses work is possible

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Leopoldo Perdomo
<leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El miércoles, 22 de abril de 2015, 19:20:07 (UTC+1), Swan Black escribió:
>> If there is much more life [of some sort]
>> out there in the Universe, as I believe,
>> it's going to Evolve, correct?
>>
>> simply through Survival instincts,
>> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive longer than the others
>
>Do you think humans, because they are intelligent, would last much longer
>than dinosaurs that lived some 100 million years or more?
>
>It is supposed humans had existed for the last 5 or 6 million years.
>Then, with our present intelligence do you think they can be still alive
>in 200 years from now?

This common retort is one of my pet peeves. Suggesting that the human
species should last as long as all dinosaurs makes no sense. It might
make sense to compare the lifetime of all mammals to all dinosaurs, or
to compare the lifetime of a single dinosaur species to the lifetime
of humans. Anything else is rhetorical hubris.

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:54:28 -0400, ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

"fittedness"???

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:16:56 -0400, ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The idea of an evolutionary strategy is yet another of those concepts that

>misleads [me] rather than explains. To conform to evolutionary theory, there can
>be no intent no purpose and no reason behin/e/d any of its processes. It just
>happens and no causal explanation is /possible/necessary.


Fixed it for you. HTH, but I doubt it.

[Glenn]

"John Bode" <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:95d85c2a-3657-4c20...@googlegroups.com...

What species "forego intelligence"?

[Earle Jones27]

*
Christian fundamentalists.

earle
*

[James Beck]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Swan Black
<21bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 12:55:05 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
>> Swan Black wrote:
>>
>> > If there is much more life [of some sort]
>> > out there in the Universe, as I believe,
>> > it's going to Evolve, correct?
>> >
>> > simply through Survival instincts,
>> > isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive longer
>> > than the others
>> >
>> >
>> > related:
>> >
>> > does anyone know how long dolphins have been around,
>> > or when they became as intelligent as they are now?
>> >
>> >
>> > marc
>>
>> By evolving do you mean moving from primitive to advanced as in a series of
>> "improvements" or just random happenstance? Can it be shown that the
>> acquisition of intelligence is beneficial to the organism or is it merely a
>> curiosity? The language is vague.
>>
>> Bill
>
>if you mean MY language is vague, i'm just a very interested layman
>
>does a natural drive for "survival" eventually lead to more intelligent animals, or living things?
>Not all animals of course. Other things come into play also. There can many exceptions.

Can you tell me what you mean by "intelligent?"

[snip]

[John Bode]

Bad phrasing on my part.

I simply mean that some species (hell, entire phyla) went down an
evolutionary path that favored investing more energy in higher
reproduction rates over bigger brains. Among metazoa, insects are
probably the most visible example for most people. Wildly successful,
been around for hundreds of millions of years (as a class; I don't think
any individual species has been around that long), practically biological
automata.

But insects are geniuses compared to cnidarians (jellyfish, sea anemones, etc.), sponges, and other metazoa that don't even have *brains*. Also
successful, also been around hundreds of millions of years (as
phyla/classes/etc., if not individual species).

Basically, if you look at the population growth equation

dP/dt = rP(1 - P/K)

insects, cnidarians, etc., have higher values of "r" - they produce
a *lot* of offspring, investing very little energy in each. Mammals
(including us) have higher values of "K" - we produce very few offspring,
but invest a *lot* of energy in each.

K-oriented species (like humans) take longer to reproduce and have smaller
population sizes, making them more suscpeptible to extinction. However, at
some point, humans became intelligent *enough* to turn that equation on its
head. We're still "K"-oriented, but we've been able to rig the game in our
favor (starting with fire and flint-knapping, but things really took off
when we figured out agriculture) so that our population size has ballooned
way past what any other similarly K-oriented species has managed.

But...

The same intelligence that allowed us to expand across the planet may
also be our undoing. And I *don't* mean this as a Donnie Downer "we're
destroying the planet" kind of thing. I mean that our incredible
population growth has a down side. 7 billion people eat a lot of food,
consume a lot of fresh water, create a lot of waste, and we're using up
many resources faster than they can be replenished. Our incredible
technology has negative side effects on our environment (pollution,
warming) that will make it harder for us to maintain this growth over time.

There *will* be a point in the future where the human population crashes.
We're projected to peak around 10 billion and then level off, but there's
no way we can maintain that number indefinately. That crash may or may
not coincide with some of the nastier effects of global warming (which
won't be felt for another 80 to 100 years); we may make it another thousand
years or so before the crash happens.

But it will happen.

I don't expect humans to go extinct, nor do I expect us to turn the entire
planet into an uninhabitable wasteland. I just think that our *massive*
population size is living on borrowed time, and that there will be a
correction that brings that population size more in line with what can
be supported over the long term (hundreds of thousands of years).
I have no idea what that number will be, although I doubt it will be in
the billions.

Of course, none of us will be around when it happens.

[Erwin Moller]

On 4/22/2015 8:16 PM, Swan Black wrote:
> If there is much more life [of some sort]
> out there in the Universe, as I believe,
> it's going to Evolve, correct?
>

The only solution we know of that creates life in a naturalistic way, is
by imperfect self-reproduction.

Which starts with some kind of environment that happened to have the
right molecules to start with some kind of imperfect reproduction.
(abiogenesis)

Can you think of any other scenario that makes sense, without invoking
supernatural 'solutions'?
(I cannot, but the fact that I cannot think of another scenario, doesn't
mean there isn't one.)

> simply through Survival instincts,
> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive longer than the others
>

Since evolution is totally blind, and doesn't have a goal in 'mind', it
is hard to answer if intelligent life is to be expected, if one waits
long enough.

It is clear intelligence *can* have advantages, but there is also costs.

We have seen billions of years of life on Earth without much intelligence.

That is why I am inclined to think there is not a huge 'natural
tendency' for life to evolve towards more intelligence.

On the other hand: It is pretty clear that having sensory data can
improve the success of a lifeform.
And data must be processed. Even rudimentary processing can improve the
success.
And there you have the start of a nervous system in multicellular
organisms.


just my 2 cent!

Regards,
Erwin Moller


--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

[Roger Shrubber]

First, I dislike the notion that life requires the right
kind of molecules to start. I think it requires the right
kind of chemistry, and that's different. We don't really
understand all the different pathways that can lead to life
and so can't say if, given the right raw materials, it's
all likely to eventually produce self-sustaining hyper-
cycles but that looks promising. And that's different from
getting some lucky enzyme/catalyst or what you might have
meant by right kind of molecules.

But once life exists, it will evolve solutions to the
problems it faces or it will die. And it will evolve
problem solving mechanisms of both specific and general
natures. Finally, for the most part, intelligence is all
about problem solving. So yes, evolution will produce
types of intelligence --- provided by intelligence we
mean something that is worthy of the term but not be
anything like many common definitions of intelligence.
Clearly, I'm promoting "problem solving" as the best one.

[ednafreon]

This is exactly how the Commodore 64 computer developed. There were a bunch
of chemicals mixed together in the gas tank of a 1947 Volkswagen. After 20
years of jostling around these chemicals combined in the fortuitous
configuration that made the C64 famous. The only thing missing was the Esc
key. Random chance scored yet another coup in the inevitable progression to
perfection.

Mkaes one wonder, what else is hidden in our gas tanks?

Bill

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:14:11 -0400, ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

So how many Commodore 64s can reproduce themselves, with out without
benefit of gas tanks? I bet the same number as 747s can, with or
without benefit of tornados.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:16:56 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>:

>John Bode wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 1:20:07 PM UTC-5, Swan Black wrote:
>>> If there is much more life [of some sort]
>>> out there in the Universe, as I believe,
>>> it's going to Evolve, correct?
>>>
>>> simply through Survival instincts,
>>> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive
>>> longer than the others
>>>
>>
>> Given that cyanobacteria have been around for something like
>> 2 *billion* years while arguably more intelligent phyla (by virtue
>> of having actual brains) have come and gone many times over, I'd say "no".
>>
>> Evolution doesn't imply any kind of direction: bigger, faster, smarter,
>> etc. Intelligent species like us invest a *lot* of time and energy
>> in relatively few offspring, while other species forego intelligence
>> and simply play the numbers by producing hundreds if not thousands
>> of offspring in a single go.
>>
>> Both strategies work. I'd argue that playing the numbers seems to have
>> worked better for the majority of life on Earth.
>
>The idea of an evolutionary strategy is yet another of those concepts that
>misleads rather than explains.

It doesn't mislead anyone who has the faintest clue.

> To conform to evolutionary theory, there can
>be no intent no purpose and no reason behine any of its processes. It just
>happens and no causal explanation is possible.

Thank you for *again* explicating what is common knowledge,
that metaphor is alive and well. And comprehensible.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:37:38 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Measuring the waist and inseam as contrasted with guessing.

[ednafreon]

Magic of course. The very same force that created it in the first place and
the same one used to explain evolution.

Bill

[chris thompson]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 7:20:05 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy

Chris

[chris thompson]

"Witchcraft to the ignorant...simple science to the learned."
--Leigh Brackett

Chris

[ednafreon]

If you don't mind misleading and imprecise language then either you know the
correct usage or you don't mind that it's misleading. If science is about
precision yet it's processes, methods or explanations are imprecise, then
sloppy explanations cannot be science. In fact, if one knows the correct
explanation and knows how to precisely express it yet doesn't, the omission
becomes tantamount to deception.

Bill

[ednafreon]

Your cite, if accepted, exacerbates the problem of sloppy explanations.

Bill

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:37:02 -0400, ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yours is a bald assertion that's almost certain you can't/won't
demonstrate.

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:35:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

That would be a waste it seems.

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:36:24 -0400, ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Your "it's" above is incorrect, and so sloppy and imprecise. You have
already been corrected for this. So by your own argument, your post
is tantamount to deception.

[broger...@gmail.com]

You do seem to have a problem with this sort of language; it's evidently very hard for you to understand the intended meaning. Perhaps someone will explain it to you. In the meanwhile, most folks seem to have no problem understanding what is meant - and that's as non-sloppy has language has to be to get the job done.

[ednafreon]

Which is how one would explain non-science. The language of science is both
accurate and precise making sloppy, vague and ambiguous explanations
unscientific - by definition.

Bill

[ednafreon]

I have, many times. In the thread, "Teaching Evolution" I demonstrate that
theories of evolution are inevitably teleological and circular and rarely
consistent. I further demonstrated that the theories being taught are taught
incorrectly and are, again inevitably, misleading.

I also demonstrated that the numerous incorrectly explained mechanisms and
processes are non-science by virtue of being not only incorrectly explained
but by being uncallenged by those who know better.

Since theories of evolution are not science, it becomes just as explanatory
to invoke magic and just as scientific.

Bill

[ednafreon]

My usage is correct but, fortunately, grammar, spelling or semantics are not
relevant so your objection is just dumb.


Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

The language of science is full of metaphors and simplifications; it is precise when it needs to be, ie in describing exactly what was done in an experiment, but it is no more precise than required for clear communication. You are straining at gnats.

>
> Bill

[Glenn]

"John Bode" <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f6b429fd-869f-4151...@googlegroups.com...

Nice story. Can you demonstrate that metazoa haven't become more intelligent over the years?

>
> But insects are geniuses compared to cnidarians (jellyfish, sea anemones, etc.), sponges, and other metazoa that don't even have *brains*. Also
> successful, also been around hundreds of millions of years (as
> phyla/classes/etc., if not individual species).

You require a "brain" for "intelligence"?

Is it bedtime yet?

[William Morse]

On 04/22/2015 04:06 PM, John Harshman wrote:

> On 4/22/15, 11:16 AM, Swan Black wrote:
>> If there is much more life [of some sort]
>> out there in the Universe, as I believe,
>> it's going to Evolve, correct?
>>
>> simply through Survival instincts,
>> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive
>> longer than the others
>

> Why, there must be, because most organisms are as intelligent as humans,
> or nearly so. Of course a few stand out. Wheat is the cleverest of all
> the plants. The intelligence of horseshoe crabs is legendary. And who
> has not debated philosophy with Dictyostelium?

That is a complete copout. It is the same as the argument that humans
can't have evolved from monkeys because there are still monkeys.The OP
could have stated the question better but your answer is still
unresponsive to the question. The question is whether evolution tends to
evolve intelligence. I think the answer is yes, but the current sample
size is rather small to draw this conclusion.

>> related:
>>
>> does anyone know how long dolphins have been around,
>> or when they became as intelligent as they are now?
>

> No.
>

[John Harshman]

On 4/23/15, 6:11 PM, William Morse wrote:
> On 04/22/2015 04:06 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/22/15, 11:16 AM, Swan Black wrote:
>>> If there is much more life [of some sort]
>>> out there in the Universe, as I believe,
>>> it's going to Evolve, correct?
>>>
>>> simply through Survival instincts,
>>> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive
>>> longer than the others
>>
>> Why, there must be, because most organisms are as intelligent as humans,
>> or nearly so. Of course a few stand out. Wheat is the cleverest of all
>> the plants. The intelligence of horseshoe crabs is legendary. And who
>> has not debated philosophy with Dictyostelium?
>
> That is a complete copout. It is the same as the argument that humans
> can't have evolved from monkeys because there are still monkeys.

Nope. It's the same as the argument that there can't be a general
advantage for monkeys to evolve into humans because only one species of
monkeys evolved into humans. Which, you will note, is a valid argument.

> The OP
> could have stated the question better but your answer is still
> unresponsive to the question. The question is whether evolution tends to
> evolve intelligence. I think the answer is yes, but the current sample
> size is rather small to draw this conclusion.

If the answer is yes, why is the current sample size so small? Note that
we aren't talking about whether evolution tends to result in one
intelligent species, but whether there is a natural tendency for
lineages to evolve toward greater intelligence. If that were true, we
would expect there to be intelligent insects, intelligent jellyfish,
intelligent petunias, intelligent vorticellas, and so on. Conclusion:
there is no such natural tendency except in circumstances that don't
occur very often.

The OP is not asking the question you appear to think it is.

[William Morse]

On 04/22/2015 07:01 PM, John Bode wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 1:20:07 PM UTC-5, Swan Black wrote:
>> If there is much more life [of some sort]
>> out there in the Universe, as I believe,
>> it's going to Evolve, correct?
>>
>> simply through Survival instincts,
>> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive
>> longer than the others
>>
>

> Given that cyanobacteria have been around for something like
> 2 *billion* years while arguably more intelligent phyla (by virtue
> of having actual brains) have come and gone many times over, I'd say "no".
>
> Evolution doesn't imply any kind of direction: bigger, faster, smarter,
> etc. Intelligent species like us invest a *lot* of time and energy
> in relatively few offspring, while other species forego intelligence
> and simply play the numbers by producing hundreds if not thousands
> of offspring in a single go.

Evolution has created organisms that are bigger, faster, and smarter.
(Also smaller and simpler) Not because of teleological direction, but
because they preferentially survive. But please don't be so obtuse as to
deny that this direction exists.

[Roger Shrubber]

What direction do you mean? Do you mean 'more intelligent'
as a direction? There no more reason to say that a particular
lineage ought to get more intelligent than there is to say
it should get bigger, or smaller, or faster. We observes that
individual lineages that have at times tended to get bigger,
at other points in their history tended to get smaller.
Getting bigger has associated costs, so does getting "smarter".

The trite notion that evolution tends to produce "better"
descendants is terribly entangled with the complication of
the contextual nature of "better". Moreover, the context
of better is not in comparison to ancestors but to peers.
Organisms do not compete with their dead ancestors. Thus
"progress" is a superficially dubious presumption for
evolution.

[Chris Thompson]

So that's why the American Museum of Natural History closed early today.

I'm sure you'll get a chapter all to yourself in Ray's book.

Chris

[Chris Thompson]

Please feel free to challenge Maynard Smith's work.Do you have specific
complaints? If so, let's hear them.

Chris

[Earle Jones27]

*
Bill: I would say to you the same thing I said to a couple of other
posters here:

Please, please tell us that you are not a schoolteacher.

earle
*

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:31:16 -0400, ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>

Sorry, repetitions of your assertions don't count as demonstrations.

><In the thread, "Teaching Evolution" I demonstrate that
>theories of evolution are inevitably teleological and circular and rarely
>consistent.

As in other threads, you merely repeatedly assert your bald
assertions.

>I further demonstrated that the theories being taught are taught
>incorrectly and are, again inevitably, misleading.

Again, repetition doesn't count as demonstration.

>I also demonstrated that the numerous incorrectly explained mechanisms and
>processes are non-science by virtue of being not only incorrectly explained
>but by being uncallenged by those who know better.

Of course, you have done no such thing.

>Since theories of evolution are not science, it becomes just as explanatory
>to invoke magic and just as scientific.

Circular reasoning claims another victim.

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:37:06 -0400, ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Nope. As has been explained to you before, "it's" is a contraction of
"it is". The possessive form is "its". You could have looked this up
for yourself. So not only are you wrong, but you're willfully wrong.

> fortunately, grammar, spelling or semantics are not
>relevant so your objection is just dumb.

Then you tacitly admit that your line of reasoning is just dumb. No
surprise there.

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:07:47 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com

Apparently strained gnats don't support coherent thinking.

[jillery]

If Bill is a public schoolteacher, I'm switching to Libertarianism.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 21:15:07 UTC+1, Swan Black wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 12:55:05 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> > Swan Black wrote:

> if you mean MY language is vague, i'm just a very interested layman
> does a natural drive for "survival" eventually lead to more intelligent
> animals, or living things?

All living things apart from lemmings & some humans have a "natural drive for "survival"".

It can be shown, that even suicidal people, wish to end this existance because they believe there ia a better place. (Not sure why lemmings do it, but.Anyhoo)

> I mean, WE evolved into intelligent [animals],

You believe Humans are intelligent? Oh dear.

Humans are vile things, driven by greed, political power, & a thurst for war & domination. By means of any deceipt conceivable.

Religious corruption, hidden by delusions of religious grandure.

We (or should I say "they") Idolize celebraties who contribute nothing to their gene pool, except having the good fortune of being snapped by a little box with a focal point & photographic plate inside.

A device invented, in all good faith, yet like all devices sequentured by paranoid political NutBaloons, who have only one desire. To keep surveilance, on something they believe/(but know deep down can't) they can control.

They create war, bombs, false economies, to enslave.

They invent situations, for the delusion & expense of others, so as to null for just one second that sence of paranioa/fear they have.

And for what?

So that the lowly (quite possibly smarter) cockroach, can use it's intelligence to quite simply, wait, and watch the superiour race simply tear itself apart.

[Burkhard]

pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 21:15:07 UTC+1, Swan Black wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 12:55:05 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
>>> Swan Black wrote:
>
>> if you mean MY language is vague, i'm just a very interested layman
>> does a natural drive for "survival" eventually lead to more intelligent
>> animals, or living things?
>
> All living things apart from lemmings & some humans have a "natural drive for "survival"".

Objections to this vile piece of propaganda! (And no, I get that the
first part is tongue in cheek). But using this opportunity to restore
the reputation of a much maligned creature, the idea of Lemming suicides
is an urban myth, mainly promoted by a Disney movie that used staged
footage. They do die during their migration, but because of their drive
for survival: do I try the river which might be too much for me and I
drown or do I stay behind and starve for sure?

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

So you see Swan Black, thanks to Burkhard's inciteful knowledge, of both Disney characters & the lemming family, we have successfully narrowed down all species inept of the natural desire to survive to HomoSapiens.

And as I said, they only commit suicide because they are brain washed into thinking there is an afterlife.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 11:20:01 UTC+1, pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 21:15:07 UTC+1, Swan Black wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 12:55:05 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> > > Swan Black wrote:

Anyhoo Back to the original question.

> > does a natural drive for "survival" eventually lead to more intelligent
> > animals, or living things?

Yes&No.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/23/15 2:34 PM, ednafreon wrote:
> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 4:40:02 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:

>>> [...]

>>> If you don't mind misleading and imprecise language then either you know
>>> the correct usage or you don't mind that it's misleading. If science is
>>> about precision yet it's processes, methods or explanations are
>>> imprecise, then sloppy explanations cannot be science. In fact, if one
>>> knows the correct explanation and knows how to precisely express it yet
>>> doesn't, the omission becomes tantamount to deception.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> You do seem to have a problem with this sort of language; it's evidently
>> very hard for you to understand the intended meaning. Perhaps someone will
>> explain it to you. In the meanwhile, most folks seem to have no problem
>> understanding what is meant - and that's as non-sloppy has language has to
>> be to get the job done.
>
> Which is how one would explain non-science. The language of science is both
> accurate and precise making sloppy, vague and ambiguous explanations
> unscientific - by definition.

Science is a human activity with no demarcation between it and other
human activities. Therefore, the language of science equals the
language of humans. And sloppy, vague, and ambiguous explanations are
sometimes the best way to communicate. Do you object to effective
communication, or just science in general?


--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:36:24 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:16:56 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>John Bode wrote:
>>>

>>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 1:20:07 PM UTC-5, Swan Black wrote:
>>>>> If there is much more life [of some sort]
>>>>> out there in the Universe, as I believe,
>>>>> it's going to Evolve, correct?
>>>>>

>>>>> simply through Survival instincts,
>>>>> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive
>>>>> longer than the others
>>>>>
>>>>

>>>> Given that cyanobacteria have been around for something like
>>>> 2 *billion* years while arguably more intelligent phyla (by virtue
>>>> of having actual brains) have come and gone many times over, I'd say
>>>> "no".
>>>>
>>>> Evolution doesn't imply any kind of direction: bigger, faster, smarter,
>>>> etc. Intelligent species like us invest a *lot* of time and energy
>>>> in relatively few offspring, while other species forego intelligence
>>>> and simply play the numbers by producing hundreds if not thousands
>>>> of offspring in a single go.
>>>>
>>>> Both strategies work. I'd argue that playing the numbers seems to have
>>>> worked better for the majority of life on Earth.
>>>
>>>The idea of an evolutionary strategy is yet another of those concepts that
>>>misleads rather than explains.
>>
>> It doesn't mislead anyone who has the faintest clue.
>>
>>> To conform to evolutionary theory, there can
>>>be no intent no purpose and no reason behine any of its processes. It just
>>>happens and no causal explanation is possible.
>>
>> Thank you for *again* explicating what is common knowledge,
>> that metaphor is alive and well. And comprehensible.
>> --
>>
>

>If you don't mind misleading and imprecise language then either you know the
>correct usage or you don't mind that it's misleading.

Both, actually, since it's only really misleading to those
who refuse to accept the use of vernacular in casual
discussion (IOW, those who grasp at any perceived excuse to
bitch), and willful refusal to learn confers no obligation
on anyone. Explain once to those who really misunderstand,
yes. But that's not what you do; witness the seemingly
endless crap about "habitable zones" a few weeks back.

> If science is about
>precision yet it's processes, methods or explanations are imprecise, then
>sloppy explanations cannot be science.

No science paper or symposium presentation uses language
misleading to its target audience; if you decide to join
that audience without proper grounding that's your problem.
And t.o is neither a science paper nor a science symposium,
but a discussion group with a wide range of participants.
I'm certainly no scientist, but I easily learned the lingo
and connotations of terms used here; is there some reason
you can't do so, or is it just a preference for holding your
breath and turning blue if you don't get your way? Enquiring
minds want to know. Well, not really.

> In fact, if one knows the correct
>explanation and knows how to precisely express it yet doesn't, the omission
>becomes tantamount to deception.

Not to the target audience, it doesn't. The fact that
scientists use verbal and written shorthand in casual
discussion is not deception, but a tacit acknowledgement
that full and precise terminology isn't required, and in
fact would probably choke off the discussion; a full
explanation of how evolution works, for instance, would
require a textbook (or at least a fairly long chapter); is
that really what you want in *every* discussion involving
evolution, or are you just carping? I'd bet on the latter.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[lucaspa]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 2:20:07 PM UTC-4, Swan Black wrote:
>
> simply through Survival instincts,
> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive longer than the others

How would that work for bacteria and Archaea? And those account for 99.99% of species on the planet.

If you mean among species with a brain, obviously not. Look at all the species that are NOT sapient.

However, as Daniel Dennet explained in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, as natural selection and evolution explore the Library of all possible genomes, eventually it will get to the wing of the library that codes for sapience.

BTW, natural selection does not work on "Survival instincts". You need to look at what natural selection IS. Here is Darwin's summary:

"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 103 6th ed.]

[Paul J Gans]

I'd make that "preferentially survive in accessible niches".

But I'm not sure that a direction exists. If we start with unicellular,
almost any change has to be toward further complexity. Once we get to
"reasonable" complexity it becomes impossible to ignore the number of
"devolutions" that have occurred including such things as <sea animals>
-> <land animals> -> <sea animals> which has happened several times.

>> Both strategies work. I'd argue that playing the numbers seems to have
>> worked better for the majority of life on Earth.
>>

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[ednafreon]

So we can just teach sloppy thinking assuming that the
taught won't use the teachings anyway. Those who do
eventually need precision, can get a graduate degree.

Bill

[Pete K.]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:32:30 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

And in this case I don't think the language is even particularly that
metaphorical. Life *does* use different actual strategies for
reproduction. Not purposefully used, but used nonetheless.

[jillery]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:04:51 -0400, ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[...]

>So we can just teach sloppy thinking assuming that the
>taught won't use the teachings anyway. Those who do
>eventually need precision, can get a graduate degree.

IIRC you haven't identified what you think qualifies as sloppy
thinking. Some people might have the impression you think sloppy
thinking is whatever disagrees with your personal opinions. Do you
have a more rigorously defined concept in mind? If so, will you share
with this newsgroup?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 20:24:05 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Pete K." <n...@email.plz>:

Sure. Now try to get that across to Bill/Edna through
his/her mental firewall.

Good luck.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:04:51 -0400, the following appeared

>So we can just teach sloppy thinking assuming that the
>taught won't use the teachings anyway. Those who do
>eventually need precision, can get a graduate degree.

Good to see you haven't changed your penchant for failing to
read and try to understand anything which disagrees with
your preconceptions and prejudices, and to just repeat your
refuted claims ad nauseum.

So, "carping" it is...

[billconner]

The problem I've pointed out is that careless explanations
are misleading. Consider why theories of evolution have
social and political consequences. If everyone was correctly
and accurately and precisely informed of the hypotheses
supporting these theories, their view might change and
society might change.

Since the explanations promoted by the science popularizers
and the popular science media oversimplify various theories
of science, the general population of non-specialists are
misinformed and misled. What's most depressing about all
this is that no one seems to care.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

You have not really shown that the explanations you claim are careless mislead anyone. I've never met a student who could not understand that teleological language in evolution is metaphorical. You, presumably understand that it is metaphorical.

First you have to show evidence that anybody is seriously confused (other than those determined to misunderstand the theory of evolution in the first place). Then you'll have to detail the important social consequences of that confusion. Simply "pointing out" that it's a problem in the absence of evidence is sort of like "pointing out" that there's life all over the universe.

>
> Since the explanations promoted by the science popularizers
> and the popular science media oversimplify various theories
> of science, the general population of non-specialists are
> misinformed and misled. What's most depressing about all
> this is that no one seems to care.

You'll need to show how the simplifications are harmful. Lot's of people can get a fair idea of QM from a clear explanation of double slit experiments. Would you really like to tell them they either have to learn how to use linear operators on infinite dimensional vectors in a Hilbert space before they can hear anything about QM?

Clearly explaining science to laypeople is an art, and some scientists are not so good at it, but there are plenty of excellent popular accounts of evolution, physics, epidemiology, what have you. Indeed the American Academy of Sciences and the National Academy both have programs aimed at training people to communicate science to the general public effectively, so you'll need to provide some evidence to back up the claim that "nobody cares," too.

>
> Bill

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:38:15 -0400, billconner <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

They don't have any social or political consequences that should
trouble anyone who's responsible or interested in the well-being of
society.

>If everyone was correctly
>and accurately and precisely informed of the hypotheses
>supporting these theories, their view might change and
>society might change.

No one should be willing to let a scientific theory tell them what's
the best way to behave.

>Since the explanations promoted by the science popularizers
>and the popular science media oversimplify various theories
>of science,

Which is sometimes necessary, considering how complex many scientific
theories can be.

> the general population of non-specialists are
>misinformed and misled.

Not in any meaningful way, they're not.

> What's most depressing about all
>this is that no one seems to care.

Or it should be depressing to you that all your ideas are rubbish, and
no one would care if you stopped posting them.

[Bill]

If some talking head on a science channel or a popular
science magazine, states (in well modulated and dulcet and
earnest eloquence) that a peacock has bright colors to
attract a mate or an arctic hare is white so it can hide
from an arctic fox (who is white so it can sneak up on the
arctic hare), would this be misleading?

Wouldn't that language imply a purpose and direction in
nature? Isn't that language teleological? What do you
suppose the unprepared non-specialist will believe about
evolution?

These misrepresentations are not only scientifically bogus
they are misleading and deceptive and common.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

The unprepared non-specialist (assuming his is not willfully misunderstanding) can have his confusion cleared up in a couple of sentences.

>
> These misrepresentations are not only scientifically bogus
> they are misleading and deceptive and common.

They are perfectly acceptable, and useful, metaphorical language which does not lead to serious confusion.

Imagine if every time one described an adaptation one had to re-iterate that natural selection occurs without goals or teleology. Pretty soon, TV shows about biology would need to have little "small print" banners at the bottom of the screen explaining that teleological language is evolution is simply metaphorical and that evolution has no goals or intentions. Sort of like the lists of side effects on drug ads. It's too bad this kind of langugae confuses you. It doesn't confuse most people, and when it does, their confusion is very easy to clear up.

>
> Bill

[Glenn]

<broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d0b68d8a-ad9c-44cb...@googlegroups.com...

No, unless you are ignorant or don't accept Bill's claim.

"The 'selfish gene' props up the whole notion of a Darwinian world that is uncaring to the point of being positively nasty: an image that has sometimes provoked resistance to the sciences in general and natural selection in particular. And as Denis Noble, a physiologist at the University of Oxford, UK, has compellingly argued, the idea that genes are selfish is totally unnecessary to an understanding of how they work, and is in some ways misleading."

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110223/full/news.2011.115.html

>
>>
>> Since the explanations promoted by the science popularizers
>> and the popular science media oversimplify various theories
>> of science, the general population of non-specialists are
>> misinformed and misled. What's most depressing about all
>> this is that no one seems to care.
>
> You'll need to show how the simplifications are harmful. Lot's of people can get a fair idea of QM from a clear explanation of double slit experiments. Would you really like to tell them they either have to learn how to use linear operators on infinite dimensional vectors in a Hilbert space before they can hear anything about QM?
>
> Clearly explaining science to laypeople is an art, and some scientists are not so good at it, but there are plenty of excellent popular accounts of evolution, physics, epidemiology, what have you. Indeed the American Academy of Sciences and the National Academy both have programs aimed at training people to communicate science to the general public effectively, so you'll need to provide some evidence to back up the claim that "nobody cares," too.
>

So you have no problem with claiming all that without any evidence, yet feel the need to chastize Bill for claiming what is well known?

[Glenn]

<broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5139af64-7bf7-45e0...@googlegroups.com...

You're a nut.

[ednafreon]

Consider posters here who are all aghast that some religious
organizations don't want theories of evolution taught in
school. Consider the impact on society if these
organizations succeed. Ponder the political implications. It
matters.

Suppose someone from one of these organizations stumbles
across one of these threads and exclaims, "Eureka! evolution
as taught in schools is not science!". They might then
conclude that since theories of evolution are taught
incorrectly and can easily be misunderstood because the
explanations are bogus, these theories cannot be science.

What will the the basis of objecting to other accounts of
nature, such as Creationism? There is none. So far no one
has tripped to the problem but that could change. So, yes,
how science is taught really does matter.

Bill

[ednafreon]

I think it's more likely that no theory of evolution is
plausible if explained correctly. None of the innumerable
hypotheses buttressing are plausible when taken individually
and inconsistent when taken together. The whole explanatory
framework of these theories is a rickety, cobbled together
structure glued together with ad hoc hypotheses.

Even so, it may still be entirely correct. Since the
theories are incorrectly and deceptively explained though,
how can we know? The language matters.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

Yes, it would be bad if evolution were driven from the schools. So far, though, the folks trying to drive it out have failed to convince the courts.

>
> Suppose someone from one of these organizations stumbles
> across one of these threads and exclaims, "Eureka! evolution
> as taught in schools is not science!". They might then
> conclude that since theories of evolution are taught
> incorrectly and can easily be misunderstood because the
> explanations are bogus, these theories cannot be science.

People from those organizations already claim that "evolution is not science." Metaphorical language is not the issue.

>
> What will the the basis of objecting to other accounts of
> nature, such as Creationism? There is none. So far no one
> has tripped to the problem but that could change. So, yes,
> how science is taught really does matter.

The basis of objecting to Creationism is that (in most of its forms) it is incompatible with well supported science. And that's only an objection to teaching Creationism as science in school, people are free to hold to creationism for religious reasons, of course.

>
> Bill

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El jueves, 23 de abril de 2015, 4:40:05 (UTC+1), jillery escribió:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Leopoldo Perdomo
> <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >El miércoles, 22 de abril de 2015, 19:20:07 (UTC+1), Swan Black escribió:
> >> If there is much more life [of some sort]
> >> out there in the Universe, as I believe,
> >> it's going to Evolve, correct?
> >>
> >> simply through Survival instincts,
> >> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive longer than the others
> >

> >Do you think humans, because they are intelligent, would last much longer
> >than dinosaurs that lived some 100 million years or more?
> >
> >It is supposed humans had existed for the last 5 or 6 million years.
> >Then, with our present intelligence do you think they can be still alive
> >in 200 years from now?
>
>
> This common retort is one of my pet peeves. Suggesting that the human
> species should last as long as all dinosaurs makes no sense. It might
> make sense to compare the lifetime of all mammals to all dinosaurs, or
> to compare the lifetime of a single dinosaur species to the lifetime
> of humans. Anything else is rhetorical hubris.

>
> --
> Intelligence is never insulting.

thanks for the correction. It seems nobody is perfect.
eri

[ednafreon]

It is possible for some actual fact, documented by science,
to also have religious connotations or implications. Some
proposition is not bogus simply by being religious.

Bill

[jillery]

No.

>Wouldn't that language imply a purpose and direction in
>nature?

No.

>Isn't that language teleological?

Yes. That language is also recognizably metaphorical, to describe
functions, and so doesn't imply what you say it implies.

>What do you
>suppose the unprepared non-specialist will believe about
>evolution?

Either they will understand evolution or they won't. What do *you*
suppose they will believe about it?

>These misrepresentations are not only scientifically bogus
>they are misleading and deceptive and common.

Oh, those were rhetorical questions. I forgot you have no interest in
silly things like, you know, answers. My bad.

[jillery]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 15:16:58 -0400, ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Of course it matters, just not the way you say it does.

>Suppose someone from one of these organizations stumbles
>across one of these threads and exclaims, "Eureka! evolution
>as taught in schools is not science!". They might then
>conclude that since theories of evolution are taught
>incorrectly and can easily be misunderstood because the
>explanations are bogus, these theories cannot be science.

They do that anyway, whether or not they know what they're talking
about. Just like you.

>What will the the basis of objecting to other accounts of
>nature, such as Creationism? There is none. So far no one
>has tripped to the problem but that could change. So, yes,
>how science is taught really does matter.

In the U.S., Creationism is legally a religious dogma, and so can't be
taught in public schools as science, as that would be an
unconstitutional establishment of religion.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Of course proposition is not automatically bogus simply because it is religious. Many bogus propositions are not religious at all. Still, it is entirely possible for a proposition to be religious and, independently of that, bogus.

[William Morse]

On 04/23/2015 09:20 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/23/15, 6:11 PM, William Morse wrote:
>> On 04/22/2015 04:06 PM, John Harshman wrote:

>>> On 4/22/15, 11:16 AM, Swan Black wrote:
>>>> If there is much more life [of some sort]
>>>> out there in the Universe, as I believe,
>>>> it's going to Evolve, correct?
>>>>
>>>> simply through Survival instincts,
>>>> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive
>>>> longer than the others
>>>

>>> Why, there must be, because most organisms are as intelligent as humans,
>>> or nearly so. Of course a few stand out. Wheat is the cleverest of all
>>> the plants. The intelligence of horseshoe crabs is legendary. And who
>>> has not debated philosophy with Dictyostelium?
>>
>> That is a complete copout. It is the same as the argument that humans
>> can't have evolved from monkeys because there are still monkeys.
>
> Nope. It's the same as the argument that there can't be a general
> advantage for monkeys to evolve into humans because only one species of
> monkeys evolved into humans. Which, you will note, is a valid argument.

Point taken, but it turns out that has little to do with the OP
question, which is whether more intelligent members of a clade show
preferential survival. (I admit that my original response was also to a
different question, as you pointed out.) So it is not that we should
expect to have a discourse with Dictyostelium, it is that we should
expect Dictyostelium to be more intelligent than their predecessors who
didn't survive, according to Swan Black's hypothesis. An interesting
question, but I don't know that it is answerable, since I don't know how
we could measure the intelligence of clade members that didn't survive.

>> The OP
>> could have stated the question better but your answer is still
>> unresponsive to the question. The question is whether evolution tends to
>> evolve intelligence. I think the answer is yes, but the current sample
>> size is rather small to draw this conclusion.
>
> If the answer is yes, why is the current sample size so small? Note that
> we aren't talking about whether evolution tends to result in one
> intelligent species, but whether there is a natural tendency for
> lineages to evolve toward greater intelligence. If that were true, we
> would expect there to be intelligent insects, intelligent jellyfish,
> intelligent petunias, intelligent vorticellas, and so on. Conclusion:
> there is no such natural tendency except in circumstances that don't
> occur very often.
>
> The OP is not asking the question you appear to think it is.
>

[John Harshman]

On 4/26/15, 7:22 PM, William Morse wrote:
> On 04/23/2015 09:20 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/23/15, 6:11 PM, William Morse wrote:
>>> On 04/22/2015 04:06 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/15, 11:16 AM, Swan Black wrote:
>>>>> If there is much more life [of some sort]
>>>>> out there in the Universe, as I believe,
>>>>> it's going to Evolve, correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> simply through Survival instincts,
>>>>> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive
>>>>> longer than the others
>>>>
>>>> Why, there must be, because most organisms are as intelligent as
>>>> humans,
>>>> or nearly so. Of course a few stand out. Wheat is the cleverest of all
>>>> the plants. The intelligence of horseshoe crabs is legendary. And who
>>>> has not debated philosophy with Dictyostelium?
>>>
>>> That is a complete copout. It is the same as the argument that humans
>>> can't have evolved from monkeys because there are still monkeys.
>>
>> Nope. It's the same as the argument that there can't be a general
>> advantage for monkeys to evolve into humans because only one species of
>> monkeys evolved into humans. Which, you will note, is a valid argument.
>
> Point taken, but it turns out that has little to do with the OP
> question, which is whether more intelligent members of a clade show
> preferential survival.

If you think about it, that's the question I was talking about. It's the
same thing as a general trend toward greater intelligence. That is, if
there's a universal selective advantage to greater intelligence within a
clade, then all clades will evolve toward greater intelligence.

> (I admit that my original response was also to a
> different question, as you pointed out.) So it is not that we should
> expect to have a discourse with Dictyostelium, it is that we should
> expect Dictyostelium to be more intelligent than their predecessors who
> didn't survive, according to Swan Black's hypothesis.

But you understand that we all started out in the same place, right?
Unless this phenomenon only began a short time ago, it's still the same
question.

> An interesting
> question, but I don't know that it is answerable, since I don't know how
> we could measure the intelligence of clade members that didn't survive.

Not necessary. We need only reconstruct the ancestors. I don't mean
physically; I mean we infer the states at internal nodes on a tree by
looking at the survivors.

[Mr. B1ack]

Greater intelligence CAN boost survival/reproduction odds,
at least in some environments, but the history of life on this
planet clearly shows that "intelligence" isn't particularly
selected for. A billion years and, so far as we know, only
ONE "intelligent" little branch on the tree.

Intelligence carries a burden - brains are metabolically
expensive. The particulars of the environment have to
make that expense worth it and that advantage must
be maintained long enough for a "critical mass" of IQ
to develop ... intelligence that's worth it in pretty much
any environment.

Oh, and of course there have to be mutations or at
least significant and mutually-synergistic changes
in gene expression in order to realize any IQ boost
at all.

Our little branch of the tree apparently "got lucky" ...
both some changes in DNA and how much certain
genes were expressed AND an environment where
a little extra IQ really made a difference.

I suppose it *is* possible that one or more branches
of 'dinosaurs' got lucky too. Plenty of time and all
the environments anyone could want. It's worth
noting how much bang birds get per CC of brain
matter ... a more-efficient organization ... and that
birds are a direct offshoot of 'dinosaurs'. So why
no dinosaur cities ? "Intelligence" comes in flavors
and maybe the smarter dinos didn't have our kind
of flavor to their IQs, leading them off in other
directions that didn't involve creating lots of
durable artifacts. Hey, maybe poetry was the most
important use for IQ back then :-)

In any event, IQ is not some kind of "goal" for life ;
seems to be selected AGAINST actually. If this is
a general rule then the chances of running into
intelligent aliens drops considerably ... easy to
go a couple billion years with nothing smarter
than a toadfrog. On the plus side that means
more stuff for US eventually ......

[Erwin Moller]

On 4/23/2015 6:55 PM, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> Erwin Moller wrote:

>> On 4/22/2015 8:16 PM, Swan Black wrote:
>>> If there is much more life [of some sort]
>>> out there in the Universe, as I believe,
>>> it's going to Evolve, correct?
>>>
>>

>> The only solution we know of that creates life in a naturalistic way, is
>> by imperfect self-reproduction.
>>
>> Which starts with some kind of environment that happened to have the
>> right molecules to start with some kind of imperfect reproduction.
>> (abiogenesis)
>>
>> Can you think of any other scenario that makes sense, without invoking
>> supernatural 'solutions'?
>> (I cannot, but the fact that I cannot think of another scenario, doesn't
>> mean there isn't one.)

>>
>>
>>> simply through Survival instincts,
>>> isn't there a natural tendency for the more intelligent to survive
>>> longer than the others
>>>
>>

>> Since evolution is totally blind, and doesn't have a goal in 'mind', it
>> is hard to answer if intelligent life is to be expected, if one waits
>> long enough.
>>
>> It is clear intelligence *can* have advantages, but there is also costs.
>>
>> We have seen billions of years of life on Earth without much
>> intelligence.
>>
>> That is why I am inclined to think there is not a huge 'natural
>> tendency' for life to evolve towards more intelligence.
>>
>> On the other hand: It is pretty clear that having sensory data can
>> improve the success of a lifeform.
>> And data must be processed. Even rudimentary processing can improve the
>> success.
>> And there you have the start of a nervous system in multicellular
>> organisms.
>
> First, I dislike the notion that life requires the right
> kind of molecules to start. I think it requires the right
> kind of chemistry, and that's different. We don't really
> understand all the different pathways that can lead to life
> and so can't say if, given the right raw materials, it's
> all likely to eventually produce self-sustaining hyper-
> cycles but that looks promising. And that's different from
> getting some lucky enzyme/catalyst or what you might have
> meant by right kind of molecules.

I didn't mean it in any way you interpreted my lines. :-)
I don't expect some enzyme to be generated by sheer luck, that
kick-started the first self-replication.

Maybe it is my lack of understanding the English language (native Dutch
here), but to me they sound pretty much the same:

[me]
"Which starts with some kind of environment that happened to have the
right molecules to start with some kind of imperfect reproduction.
(abiogenesis)"

[you]
"Which starts with some kind of environment that happened to have the
right kind of chemistry to start with some kind of imperfect reproduction.
(abiogenesis)"


My formulation was pretty vague (on purpose because I don't know much of
the process, molecules/chemistry involved, that created the first
form/system of self-replication).


In my mind "right kind of chemistry" and "right molecules" are pretty
much interchangeable in this context.


>
> But once life exists, it will evolve solutions to the
> problems it faces or it will die. And it will evolve
> problem solving mechanisms of both specific and general
> natures. Finally, for the most part, intelligence is all
> about problem solving. So yes, evolution will produce
> types of intelligence --- provided by intelligence we
> mean something that is worthy of the term but not be
> anything like many common definitions of intelligence.
> Clearly, I'm promoting "problem solving" as the best one.
>

Agree.

Intelligence as in "any data processing that helps survival" is clearly
beneficial.
But there is always a cost too: our brains don't work for free. :-)

That makes the path to 'high intelligence' interesting because all the
steps taken in the direction, by our ancestors, must have been
beneficial, or they would be routed out by selection.


Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Thursday, 23 April 2015 01:40:06 UTC+1, RSNorman wrote:

> I don't dare for fear that it would win.


Coward, or Lazy?

I really can't decide.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 21:10:06 UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:

> Wheat is the cleverest of all the plants.

Wow, a lady asks about intelligence, and you provide the most convincing argument against it.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 21:10:06 UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:

> Wheat is the cleverest of all the plants.

In terms of dying to get shit out the pack.

The Joker is the smartest of all the cards.

[Roger Shrubber]

Obviously, not in my mind and for reasons that exist above.
There's a school of thought in abiogenesis that goes by the
name 'metabolism first'. That's about the flux of reactants
to products (and of energy). It captures the dynamics and,
if you think about it some, life is about the dynamics more
than the building blocks. Dead parrots have most of the same
building blocks as living parrots.

The right kind of chemistry better captures the dynamics
than does the right molecules.

>> But once life exists, it will evolve solutions to the
>> problems it faces or it will die. And it will evolve
>> problem solving mechanisms of both specific and general
>> natures. Finally, for the most part, intelligence is all
>> about problem solving. So yes, evolution will produce
>> types of intelligence --- provided by intelligence we
>> mean something that is worthy of the term but not be
>> anything like many common definitions of intelligence.
>> Clearly, I'm promoting "problem solving" as the best one.
>>
>
> Agree.
>
> Intelligence as in "any data processing that helps survival" is clearly
> beneficial.
> But there is always a cost too: our brains don't work for free. :-)
>
> That makes the path to 'high intelligence' interesting because all the
> steps taken in the direction, by our ancestors, must have been
> beneficial, or they would be routed out by selection.

I'm not sure about "all". Almost all steps on the route to "higher
intelligence", that produced a higher metabolic cost, must have had
some benefit, even if that benefit need not have been "intelligence".

[Mr. B1ack]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:18:34 +0200, Erwin Moller
<erwinmol...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>
>Intelligence as in "any data processing that helps survival" is clearly
>beneficial.
>But there is always a cost too: our brains don't work for free. :-)
>
>That makes the path to 'high intelligence' interesting because all the
>steps taken in the direction, by our ancestors, must have been
>beneficial, or they would be routed out by selection.

Exactly. A billion years, probably a million species ... but
"intelligence" always stops at "just adequate". Brains ARE
metabolically expensive and slow-developing brains require
a lot of effort by the parents.

Only our little branch of the tree, barely more than a twig,
managed to develop what you'd call "transcendent"
intelligence ... IQ for its own sake, IQ beyond merely
"adequate" for immediate survival concerns. A lucky
coincidence of environment and mutation and a body
plan that included dexterous hands to turn the products
of mind into matter.

And even then, the geneticists say, we almost got snuffed
out a least once - big brains can become a big burden if
conditions are NOT "just right".

There was a point where our IQ reached a sort of "critical
mass" beyond which the utility of general-purpose IQ
became self-sustaining. This critical mass, this hysteresis
point, is high enough so that nothing else has managed to
exceed it in the whole history of the planet. (yea, some will
cite dolphins/whales, but I don't think their IQ is "general
purpose" - and they don't have hands or equivalents to
put complex concepts into action)

As I said to someone else, this does NOT bode well
for the prospect of finding intelligent non-terrestrial
life since the same "critical mass" issue is likely
universal for any life even remotely like that on
earth. Expect plenty of "just adequate", but "smart"
will be the rarest find of all.

[William Morse]

I disagree. Take the example of streamlining. In animals that move at
speed through viscous media, there is a universal selective advantage to
greater streamlining. Yet not all clades evolve towards greater
streamlining, because there are other selective pressures involved based
on the details of their niche. But are they still as streamlined as they
can afford to be based on other constraints?

>> (I admit that my original response was also to a
>> different question, as you pointed out.) So it is not that we should
>> expect to have a discourse with Dictyostelium, it is that we should
>> expect Dictyostelium to be more intelligent than their predecessors who
>> didn't survive, according to Swan Black's hypothesis.
>
> But you understand that we all started out in the same place, right?
> Unless this phenomenon only began a short time ago, it's still the same
> question.

This response would make sense if higher intelligence was the only
selective force and if evolution was directed. Since neither of those
is true, we would expect to see evolution taking many courses. And once
a particular clade follows a particular branch, there may be no way for
them to get to "human" intelligence even if there were significant
selective pressure for them to do so. Butterflies are not going to
evolve high intelligence. It might still behoove them to have higher
intelligence than other butterflies if that can be accomplished via
greater efficiency.

>> An interesting
>> question, but I don't know that it is answerable, since I don't know how
>> we could measure the intelligence of clade members that didn't survive.
>
> Not necessary. We need only reconstruct the ancestors. I don't mean
> physically; I mean we infer the states at internal nodes on a tree by
> looking at the survivors.
>

OK, but how do we give them IQ tests?

I do have the concern that intelligence may always require increased
energy use, so that unlike streamlining it may be more difficult to
improve efficiency.

[RonO]

There is a correlation with size and capacity for brains, but if you
look outside of mammals to examples like birds and molluscs they have
gone for efficiency instead of just size. Brains are very energy
intensive, but my guess is that other lineages haven't made it to your
"critical mass" level of intelligence simply because we are at the point
in the evolution of animals where it could happen and it just happened
to happen among mammals first. For all we know crows or octopi may be
at the level where Homo habilis was 2 million years ago. When you
figure that we have all been evolving on our separate ways for over half
a billion years between a squid and us and over 300 million between us
and birds, a couple million years is insignificant in terms of who got
to your critical mass first. You also have structural and environmental
issues. When were octopi going to utilize fire? Birds use stone tools,
but they have issues manipulating them with no hands.

Ron Okimoto

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

When it comes to "Brain Size". It really doesn't matter. You see in less than a gnats penus, we are going to realise a few things.

1) Just like a kid with a High I.Q, & 0 resourses.

A) Is the Octopus, Dolphin, Grey Parrott, et al.

B) Such entitie are *NOT* alone, in this universe.


That means 2).

2) Intelligent life is *ABUNDANT*, so ABUNDANT it *WILL* blow your mind one day.

So why are we so alone?

Well we are *NEVER* alone, we are so *SURROUNDED* by intelligent life, that we forget.

We see a chasm, (in our own minds) between 1 and 2, and it is a great chasm It's a true infinity.

Until you realise the neighbours you have at No, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 on your very own street.

[William Morse]

The question of what prerequisites there may be for going from the
intelligence of crows, octopi, chimps, elephants, dolphins, etc. to the
symbolic processing of humans is an open question. I think it is going
to take a larger sample size than one to answer, so the answer may have
to wait until we can see other worlds with complex life. The other
question that affects the prospect of finding intelligent
non-terrestrial life is whether life that achieves "human" intelligence
inevitably expands to exhaust the available resources to the point of
collapse. Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" is a cautionary tale.

Bill

[RSNorman]

I think it is more likely going to take observaation of artificial
intelligence that can simulate and "look like" or "pass a number of
tests" that we think are indicative of human symbolic processing. The
main question then is whether our own intelligence is "real" or merely
"looks like" intelligence or "passes a number of tests" that we think
are indiicative of "real" intelligence.

[William Morse]

An excellent point that we may be able to tell from the development of
artificial intelligence what the requirements are to get from the
intelligence of crows, octopi, etc. to symbolic processing. I think
there is no doubt that humans are capable of symbolic processing, but
some question as to how close other animals come to that. Some young
chimps have been taught rudimentary symbolic processing, but still do
not possess true language. My question was more whether it takes a
particular set of circumstances for symbolic processing to evolve from
indexical processing or whether that often occurs. Perhaps we can use
computer simulations to predict that if and when we know what level of
"intelligence" it takes for symbolic processing.

An interesting book that pertains tot he question of whether our own
intelligence is "real" is Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow".
Apparently most of our thinking is fast and typified by heuristics, and
may not be all that "intelligent". OTOH, under the right circumstances
we are capable of "slow" thinking, which is more likely to involve the
kinds of thought processes we consider "intelligent".

[RSNorman]

On Mon, 04 May 2015 21:37:01 -0400, William Morse

It is clear from subjects like the development of higher abstract
mathematics that humans have the ability for symbolic processing which
obviously is based on our linguistic ability to communicate symbolic
information. However when talking about "intelligence" as "street
smarts": the ability to function, survive, and even thrive in the real
world faced with real world challenges, most of our behavior is, as
Kahneman points out, the "fast" thinking. In fact much neurobiology
indicates that what we call conscious decision making in these
circumstances is merely a story manufactured after the fact to make us
believe that the world and our behavior in it is rational. That can
involve rather drastic revisionistic depiction of what we actually
sensed and how we responded. The "true facts" are not as important as
is the making of a nice narrative.

[ednafreon]

Keep in mind that, if humans have existed for about 200,000
years and has only developed science and complex technology
in the last 200 years, humans were content with mere
survival for about 199,800 years. This means that 99.9% of
human existence wasn't very remarkable by our present
standards.

By these numbers, we've barely even started investigating
nature, and ourselves. Whatever intelligence we have has
either been dormant or irrelevant in the context of the
modern age. If we are truly as intelligent as we believe we
are, why did it take so long to manifest itself?

Bill

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 05 May 2015 15:16:52 -0400, ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It seems to require a social organization that we now call
"civilization" and a written language to enable individuals to have
the opportunity to spend their days and years thinking about complex
notions rather than scratching out a physical existence and also being
able to record their thoughts so that knowledge could accumulate over
generations far beyond oral transmission.

A characteristic of anything that involves eponential growth is that
what happens in the most recent few years equals all that has
happened in all of past history.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Tuesday, 5 May 2015 03:24:27 UTC+1, RSNorman wrote:


> However when talking about "intelligence" as "street
> smarts": the ability to function, survive, and even thrive in the real
> world

Here is where you fail.

The *Real World*. To a Dolphin, Parrot, Chimp, is a beautiful realm of balance.

The *Real World*. To *YOU*, is what you are told.

Now who is smarter? The Free Chimp, or the Chimp who does what he is told?

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 5 May 2015 14:01:31 -0700 (PDT), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

Clearly the latter. The Chimp who does what he is told gets the
cookie!