Is natural selection driven by intelligence?

*PIT2*

First of all I want to make clear that this topic isnt about ID.

On wikipedia I read this definition of NS:

Natural selection is the phrase used in evolutionary biology to describe the fact that individual organisms should tend to differ in reproductive output when they differ from each other in their ability to tackle the challenges posed by their biological and physical environment.

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

Not too long ago I saw this story about intelligent bacteria:

...Yet the humble microbes may have a rudimentary form of intelligence, some researchers have found. The claims seem to come as a final exclamation point to a long series of increasingly surprising findings of sophistication among the microbes, including apparent cases of cooperation and even altruism. But there is no clear measurement or test that scientists can use, based on the behavior alone, to determine whether it reflects intelligence.

http://www.world-science.net/exclusi...18_bactfrm.htm

Further down the article u can read how bacteria behave and 'help' eachother out in different situations, some even sacrifice themselves by committing suicide.

So is natural selection driven by intelligence?

cronxeh

At first it was pure luck I suppose, but with time and introduction of a nervous system, it was with the aid of memory, cognitive function, and behaviour. I suppose when it comes to vertebrates, you bet your spinal cord its driven by intelligence.

*PIT2*

With "at first", do u mean prior to organisms having a nervous system?
Do the microbes from the article in my first post have a nervous system?

pattylou

Part of the problem is the idea of intelligence.

How are you defining it here?

Bacteria can be conditioned, and they respond to envornmental cues, but these behaviors appear to be down to signal transduction pathways and no one would seriously consider these behaviors to be evidence of intelligence. A leaf wilts when there is insufficient water (this phenomenon has been selected for and is the "smart" thing for the leaf to do), but the wilting is due to lowering osmotic pressure - not intelligence unless you are playing with semantics.

*PIT2*

Quote by pattylou

Part of the problem is the idea of intelligence.

How are you defining it here?

Well one definition that stuck in my mind was something like "problemsolving ability".
This is also what i was reminded of when reading this part of the definition of NS:

"their ability to tackle the challenges posed by their biological and physical environment"

So yes, im using intelligence in a very broad sense here. If an organism can solve certain problems, then it is intelligent. It basically selects itself simply by being so intelligent that it or its companions survive and reproduce.

Bacteria can be conditioned, and they respond to envornmental cues, but these behaviors appear to be down to signal transduction pathways and no one would seriously consider these behaviors to be evidence of intelligence. A leaf wilts when there is insufficient water (this phenomenon has been selected for and is the "smart" thing for the leaf to do), but the wilting is due to lowering osmotic pressure - not intelligence unless you are playing with semantics.

I got a different impression from reading the article about bacteria in my first post.
Sections like these seemed to indicate they were intelligent in some sense:

Although the full complexities of bacterial signaling are far from understood, many researchers believe the systems helps bacteria to communicate.

For instance, some bacteria, when starving, emit molecules that serve as stress signals to their neighbors, write Eshel Ben-Jacob of Tel Aviv University and colleagues in last August’s issue of Trends in Microbiology. The signals launch a process in which the group can transform itself to create tough, walled structures that wait out tough times to reemerge later.

This transformation involves a complex dialogue that reveals a “social intelligence,” the researchers added. Each bacterium uses the signals to assess the group’s condition, compares this with its own state, and sends out a molecular “vote” for or against transformation. The majority wins.

Collectively, the researchers wrote, “bacteria can glean information from the environment and from other organisms, interpret the information in a ‘meaningful’ way, develop common knowledge and learn from past experience.” Some can even collectively change their chemical “dialect” to freeze out “cheaters” who exploit group efforts for their own selfish interest, the researchers claimed.

http://www.world-science.net/exclusi...18_bactfrm.htm

selfAdjoint

Communication in that last quote just means the exchange of some chemical or other. All this is chemistry and the steps are on the way to being well pinned down. Many computer systems are as "intelligent" as that. They can communicate and they can change their states based on that communication; that's all that's implied for the bacteria.

*PIT2*

Quote by selfAdjoint

Communication in that last quote just means the exchange of some chemical or other. All this is chemistry and the steps are on the way to being well pinned down. Many computer systems are as "intelligent" as that. They can communicate and they can change their states based on that communication; that's all that's implied for the bacteria.

Sure the steps may one day be pinned down. Does that mean they arent intelligent?
Or if they figure out how to build AI, does that make the bacteria unintelligent or the computer intelligent?

chroot

Evolution actually favors the "left wall of simplicity." Bacteria are arguably much better adapted to life on Earth than are humans -- they're simple, reproduce very rapidly, and can adapt to an enormous range of physical and chemical environments.

Humans, on the other hand, are fragile and can only live within a narrow range of environments.

Far from favoring intelligence, evolution actually favors simplicity. Intelligence only evolved out of necessity.

- Warren

*PIT2*

Quote by chroot

Evolution actually favors the "left wall of simplicity." Bacteria are arguably much better adapted to life on Earth than are humans -- they're simple, reproduce very rapidly, and can adapt to an enormous range of physical and chemical environments.

Humans, on the other hand, are fragile and can only live within a narrow range of environments.

Far from favoring intelligence, evolution actually favors simplicity. Intelligence only evolved out of necessity.

- Warren

All that means is that the intelligence doesnt necesarily result in more and more intelligent individuals.
It doesnt mean the selection isnt driven by simple, rudimentary intelligence.

SciFiGuy

Intelligent creatures certainly evolve faster. Look at, for instance, small birds, who have high ratios of brain to body weight. Currently, the mechanism behind this is assumed to be the greater flexibility of intelligent life. Imagine a stupid bird that could peck at grubs half-exposed in wood, but was descended from a line that caught insects on the wing. How many generations would it take for the behavior of grabbing at grubs take to appear and allow natural selection to start adapting the bird to that task? A smart bird, on the other hand, would teach itself the behavior, and continue to exploit new adaptations more fully.

selfAdjoint

Quote by PIT2

Sure the steps may one day be pinned down. Does that mean they arent intelligent?
Or if they figure out how to build AI, does that make the bacteria unintelligent or the computer intelligent?

Well what you CALL things is up to you!

I personally find that there is something in the cognitive abilities of the hominids (and perhaps limited to genus homo) that is distinctly different from the capabilties of all other terrretrial organisms, and it seems problematical to me to blur this distinction so far that very simple "mechanical" systems are counted as intelligent. What's next, thermostats?

Rade

A quick look at any textbook on evolution will clarify that natural selection = the differential (nonrandom) reproduction and survival of genotypes. If, as suggested above, we define intelligence as "problem solving", it is clear that the general process of natural selection does not require intelligence. A simple example--female fruitfly "A" produces 23.6 eggs when environment is at 25 C, female fruitfly "B" produces 6.5 eggs. There is no problem to solve--type A female genotypes would quickly replace type B over time, all else being equal. Clearly, those forms of life with intelligence can alter outcome of selection process--but natural selection does not require intelligence, it requires genes in interaction with an environment (biotic and abiotic).

*PIT2*

I personally find that there is something in the cognitive abilities of the hominids (and perhaps limited to genus homo) that is distinctly different from the capabilties of all other terrretrial organisms, and it seems problematical to me to blur this distinction so far that very simple "mechanical" systems are counted as intelligent. What's next, thermostats?

There is something quite different about it indeed. But if we follow the evolution of intelligence back in time, can anyone really say where it started and how? Or are we then in the domain of the origin of life?

Quote by Rade

the general process of natural selection does not require intelligence. A simple example--female fruitfly "A" produces 23.6 eggs when environment is at 25 C, female fruitfly "B" produces 6.5 eggs. There is no problem to solve--type A female genotypes would quickly replace type B over time, all else being equal.

True, but i still wonder if that isnt some kind of 'rudimentary intelligence'. Changing the reproduction rate in response to stimuli is somewhat similar to what is described in this article about bacteria:

A new report in Molecular Microbiology by Indiana University Bloomington researchers shows that at least one bacterium, Escherichia coli, ratchets up its "adaptive mutation" machinery when it simply runs out of food.

Biologists Patricia Foster and Jill Layton found that as E. coli cells begin to starve, the bacteria quadruple their expression of DNA Polymerase IV (Pol IV), a mutation-causing enzyme that is notoriously bad at copying DNA accurately. The culprit, the scientists discovered, is sigma-38, a stress protein that appears to activate expression of the Pol IV gene.

"We've known that bacteria respond to different kinds of stress by activating 30 genes or so," said Foster, who led the study. "We now know Pol IV is part of the response to starvation, which E. coli experience regularly during their life cycles. This polymerase may provide the bacterium with new properties that help them get out of difficulty by, for example, giving them the ability to use other food sources for growth."
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/1160.html

So while it may seem simply like temperature increased their output instead of any intelligence, there is still some process inside the organism involved in doing this and it could qualify as an extremely simple form of intelligence.

*quantumcarl*

Quote by PIT2

Further down the article u can read how bacteria behave and 'help' eachother out in different situations, some even sacrifice themselves by committing suicide.

So is natural selection driven by intelligence?

Its going to be hard to measure intelligence without an IQ test... I don't think microbes have access to computers or pencils to take the test.

It is interesting that, in the chromosomes of the cells of tissues in humans there is a gene that is called the P52 gene. This gene, through natural selection, has a design that would seem to be altruistic in that it is the cell regulator and decides if the cell will live or die. If the cell becomes mutated or infected, P52 decides the cell and all its organelle should commit suicide to save the surrounding cells from infection or mutation... (such as cancer).

However, there is a mutation, (cancer) that can shut off the P52 cell. And that is what we see today when we see a tumour. It is a result of the mutation that is cancer's ability to shut of the P52 gene's ability and mandate to cause apoptosis and continue to grow, damaging the surrounding tissues, structures and various leukiocytes.

The advent of the P52 gene is probably a result of the drive for suvival in the integrated cells of a tissue brought about by natural selection.

The function of the P52 gene is no doubt an autonomic one and not a result of intellegent choice. It is probable that similar, autonomic mechanisms have developed in single celled microbes as well and that they are not intelligent choices but are naturally selected features that lend themselves to survival.

Have a look at the diagram on this page discussing neuronal cell death. The design looks completely intellegent but is the result of trial and error... or natural selection.

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/phph/p...atsscience.htm

*PIT2*

Quote by quantumcarl

The function of the P52 gene is no doubt an autonomic one and not a result of intellegent choice. It is probable that similar, autonomic mechanisms have developed in single celled microbes as well and that they are not intelligent choices but are naturally selected features that lend themselves to survival.

Im curious, do all living cells have such genes for autonomic mechanisms?

If so, then it moves their origin outside the scope of NS.
If not then they would be naturally selected.

*quantumcarl*

Quote by PIT2

Im curious, do all living cells have such genes for autonomic mechanisms?

If so, then it moves their origin outside the scope of NS.
If not then they would be naturally selected.

Before I take a stab at answering your question I want to point out the bacterial that live in a symbiotic relationship with the Lichen plant.

The Lichen obtain nutrients secreted by the microbes and the microbes obtain shelter and nutrients from the Lichen. The arrangement came together probably by accident. There was no Intelligent decision made by either organism to come together and create the symbiotic relationship.

Genes may have developed that supported this relationship because of the proximity and the relative support found in the relationship. The genes would support certain functions that resulted from the symbiosis.

This is how genes are formed (to answer your query). They come about to maintain a function or process as well as hang on to that function as a genetically transferable trait to offspring (hence survival of the species) that has been introduced.

This is all about Natural Selection. You have trillions of genetic combinations in each cell that no longer apply to that cell because it has become specialized. The most striking evidence of this is seen in developing human foetuses. During one stage of development we have gills and we really look like a fish then an amphibian. These are gene expressions that are superceded by newer, compiled gene sequences that direct our development toward the latest mode of selection and survival... the human morphology... which is dictated by the latest selection of genes.

And our modern set of genes seems to have worked in terms of a good selection for survival since, as you can see, we have just reached the 6 billion mark in terms of populating the planet.

But, the genes were not intelligently selected by the cells themselves... they are selected by a process not unlike following the path of least resistance (like the path a rock takes when rolling down a hill) ... the "dominant genes" are a result of natural selection... or "trial and error".

*PIT2*

Quote by quantumcarl

This is how genes are formed (to answer your query). They come about to maintain a function or process as well as hang on to that function as a genetically transferable trait to offspring (hence survival of the species) that has been introduced.

So it is the 'function' or 'process' which keeps the genes of value and transfers them to offspring. And it is this function or process which i say may be a form of intelligence.

Its actually quite simple. Ive twisted 'survival of the fittest' into 'survival of the most intelligent', because fitness can be considered a form of intelligence ('physical intelligence', like there is also 'emotional intelligence'

)

But, the genes were not intelligently selected by the cells themselves... they are selected by a process not unlike following the path of least resistance (like the path a rock takes when rolling down a hill) ... the "dominant genes" are a result of natural selection... or "trial and error".

Following the path of least resistance doesnt imply that the genes are beneficial for survival, so that itself isnt what selects the genes which are passed on. A thousand paths of less resistance can be followed and all be doomed, but the one that isnt doomed is the one that serves the function needed for survival.

And as for this part:

Before I take a stab at answering your question I want to point out the bacterial that live in a symbiotic relationship with the Lichen plant.

The Lichen obtain nutrients secreted by the microbes and the microbes obtain shelter and nutrients from the Lichen. The arrangement came together probably by accident. There was no Intelligent decision made by either organism to come together and create the symbiotic relationship.

Genes may have developed that supported this relationship because of the proximity and the relative support found in the relationship. The genes would support certain functions that resulted from the symbiosis.

Is this what they call symbiogenesis?
And if so, then isnt that a form of cooperation? At least thats what i read on wikipedia:

In Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, Lynn Margulis argued that symbiogenesis is a primary force in evolution. According to her theory, acquisition and accumulation of random mutations are not sufficient to explain how inherited variations occur; rather, new organelles, bodies, organs, and species arise from symbiogenesis. Whereas the classical interpretation of evolution (neo-Darwinism) emphasizes competition as the main force behind evolution, Margulis emphasizes cooperation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis

Similar discussions for: Is natural selection driven by intelligence?
Thread	Forum	Replies
Natural selection needs the feeling??	Biology	1
Evolution-Natural selection types	Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework	0
Evolution = years of natural selection?	Biology	16
Cosmic Natural Selection	General Astronomy	72
Natural selection or Societal selection?	Biology	16

cronxeh Recognitions: Gold Member	At first it was pure luck I suppose, but with time and introduction of a nervous system, it was with the aid of memory, cognitive function, and behaviour. I suppose when it comes to vertebrates, you bet your spinal cord its driven by intelligence.

PIT2	With "at first", do u mean prior to organisms having a nervous system? Do the microbes from the article in my first post have a nervous system?

selfAdjoint Recognitions: Gold Member Staff Emeritus	Communication in that last quote just means the exchange of some chemical or other. All this is chemistry and the steps are on the way to being well pinned down. Many computer systems are as "intelligent" as that. They can communicate and they can change their states based on that communication; that's all that's implied for the bacteria.