The AAH suggests that many of the features that distinguish humans from their nearest evolutionary relatives can be explained through a period of aquatic adaptation in which protohumans spent time wading, swimming and feeding on the shores of fresh, saline or brackish waters (though there has been disagreement and modification of the theory regarding the salinity of the purported watery environment[11][12][13]) and suggests comparisons with other aquatic or semiaquatic species with similar characteristics. ...
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
I'm content with the idea that primitive man came upon cooked meat from brush fires, but to learn to build a fire without the benefit of a lightning strike takes planning and memory. You don't see apes or chimpanzees do the same. The aquatic ability is definitely another thing that separates us from the chimps.
KitemanSA wrote:Please tell me folks, what is the physical trace of "intelligence"? For all we know there have been 50 sapient species on this planet, only one of which chose to go the "technology" route. What trace would a race of a-technical genius philosophers leave?
I think Douglas Adams said it best:
Douglas Adams wrote:Man has always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much...the wheel, New York, wars and so on...while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man...for precisely the same reason.
So, these two points are precisely why I suggested 'farming' is the signal I would regard as 'intelligence', in the context of extra-terrestrial life.
Dolphins don't farm. By not farming, they [like any other species] limit their numbers to growth and make impossible the settlement of a particular location. This means that it becomes difficult to avoid predation, and that they cannot begin to devise 'culture'.
Actually, dolphins have been observed in the wild herding tuna ... I call that farming. Orca do similar with some of their prey, as well.
[edit] yeah, i'm late getting back to this thread, i know.
krenshala wrote:
I think Douglas Adams said it best:
So, these two points are precisely why I suggested 'farming' is the signal I would regard as 'intelligence', in the context of extra-terrestrial life.
Dolphins don't farm. By not farming, they [like any other species] limit their numbers to growth and make impossible the settlement of a particular location. This means that it becomes difficult to avoid predation, and that they cannot begin to devise 'culture'.
Actually, dolphins have been observed in the wild herding tuna ... I call that farming. Orca do similar with some of their prey, as well.
[edit] yeah, i'm late getting back to this thread, i know.
I wouldn't call herding the same as farming, sorry? Lot's of predators 'herd' as part of the hunt.
That said, if farming is the test, and if by that test ants are considered intelligent and dolphins are not, then the test fails, IMHO.
I've seen a video from Japan where a researcher has taught chimps how to count, and very rapidly. They can also learn to communicate by sign language, and when given a choice between cooked or raw meat pick the cooked, I'm sure someone will teach them how to build a fire.
They just never pass anything learned to the next chimp generation. Our ancestors had to evolve from the same level.
Did our ancestors perpetuate their elders' discoveries by mimicking or by being taught? IE would chimps have to learn to teach their peers and offspring, or would monkey-see-monkey-do be enough, for intellectual inheritance (e.g. fire-making) to evolve as a trait?
I suppose this is part of the domain of nature/nurture research.
Betruger wrote:Did our ancestors perpetuate their elders' discoveries by mimicking or by being taught? IE would chimps have to learn to teach their peers and offspring, or would monkey-see-monkey-do be enough, for intellectual inheritance (e.g. fire-making) to evolve as a trait?
I suppose this is part of the domain of nature/nurture research.
This is quite an interesting point. I wonder if anyone here has the necessary background or knowledge to clarify this.
I think it was both. I do know that monkeys do often mimick things they see other monkeys and humans do. I do think that the active teaching evolved out of that at some point in our evolution.
To me the understanding of fire and what it does and does not do and the need to overcome the fear of it in the first place was not a learned behaviour though. I think that it was a matter of intelligence, the ability to predict and calculate the potential harm from the fire (e.g. realize that it is save to approach at that point in time) and the ability to see the potential use (at first probably warmth, light and protection against predators, cooking most likely came much later). I dont think any animal has even come past that first intellectual hurdle yet.
I think it is a little of both Nature/Nuture.
As an organsim evolves, it becomes more suited for cetain behaviors, and less suited for others.
For example, a baby will soon learn that it can grab stuff with its fingers and opposable thumb, whereas a dolphin while maybe poking/pushing stuff with its flipper, would never grab.
In the absence of any observed behaviour, an infant is going to grab stuff at some point. It is a function of having a hand. Once stuff is grabbed, eventually it will become a tool.
There is also a difference between facultative and obligatory use of tools though.
All animals including the great apes only use tools occasionally and simply "loose" them once they are done with them. They never keep them or improve them.
This is called the "facultative use of tools".
Humans do that and it is called obligatory use of tools. E.g. a human would keep a certain rock that fullfilled a certain task exceptionally well, or a stick, or branch, etc.
Later they would even add or improve on these tools.
I never thought about this difference between facultative and obligatory use of tools, but it makes perfectly sense and I have to agree also with Skipjack point.
