Why haven't other organisms evolved humanlike intelligence?

[Jupiter60]

It seems like it would be a huge advantage to their survival, so why haven't other organisms evolved such? Why are humans the only organisms capable of doing things like creating complex technology and using complex language?

 

[jim mcnamara]

This is an anthropomorphic answer, based on a text on a similar subject, given the question seems to be one as well: How would most humans react to some fuzzy mammal that seemed to be intelligent, reacted defensively and became murderously aggressive in groups when it seemed it would be able to "win" a conflict due to superior numbers.

(Hint: they would go out of their way kill one anytime they saw one. )

Replace "fuzzy mammal" with human and you essentially are describing part of human tribal behavior. Humans have been in the situation of fighting for territory and resources for a very long time.

Or:
Since we got tools and language first do you really think early men would have put up with competing species?

Jared Diamond discusses this concept with good stories and provides detailed insight in 'The World Until Yesterday':

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143124404/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Good book - worth a serious read.

Short answer: Humans already occupy the niche for supreme predator, and dominant mammal on all inhabited continents. Any non-human species acting as contenders for the niche would lose. This is the same reason why there are not hundreds of different large carnivorous species all living in one biome. The few species that already have a foothold are really hard to out-compete, without a disastrous environmental change to level the playing field.

 

[Ophiolite]

It seems like it would be a huge advantage to their survival, so why haven't other organisms evolved such?

Intelligence seems to be of limited advantage in survival. True there are niche applications, but the vast majority of successful organisms have very limited intelligence.

The fact that humans are the first species to evolve on this planet with such an "advanced" intelligence in three and a half billion years suggests that there are many more ways to become successful than be intelligent. The next century or so will show if intelligence is actually all that effective for long term survival.

 

[B0b-A]

Humans not as "advanced" as chimps in short-term memory ...

 

[.Scott]

It seems like it would be a huge advantage to their survival, so why haven't other organisms evolved such? Why are humans the only organisms capable of doing things like creating complex technology and using complex language?

Someone had to be first - and we may have killed off competitors.

Intelligence isn't worth much unless it is shared. A whole bunch of genius alligators that never talk to one another wouldn't advance their species a whole lot in terms of survival.

So the only animals that are candidates would be social ones.

 

[DiracPool]

Intelligence seems to be of limited advantage in survival.

Are you serious?

True there are niche applications, but the vast majority of successful organisms have very limited intelligence.

By "niche applications" do you mean the domination of the planet, the ability to control and domesticate virtually all of plant and animal life, the redirection of geological structures to create dams, etc., and the exploration of space... among many others?

You are correct in saying that the vast majority of successful organisms have very limited intelligence, at least in relation to the type of intelligence humans have. However, their success does not rest on the fact that they are "stupid." The success of a given species can result from several different reasons unrelated to "intelligence" per se, 1) lack of natural predators in their particular niche, 2) lack of species competing for resources, 3) an excessively high reproduction rate, and many others. Most of the "dumb" species that have been around for many millions of years have more that anything "lucked out" to have settled into such niches, or have had the reproductive capacity to spread out fast enough to stay one step ahead of the grim reaper or just simply evolve into something else. Being dumb doesn't help you survive. I think you would be hard pressed to find many evolutionary biologists that would agree that stupidity is a trait that is survivally advantageous. It is the clever squirrel that survives and reproduces, not the stupid one, and it is the EARLY bird that actually does get the worm, not the one that sleeps in (like me)

The fact that humans are the first species to evolve on this planet with such an "advanced" intelligence in three and a half billion years suggests that there are many more ways to become successful than be intelligent. The next century or so will show if intelligence is actually all that effective for long term survival.

Well, that certainly is a true statement. If we do blow ourselves up or trash the environment so bad it leads to our demise as a species, which is certainly possible, you may just indeed have the last laugh.

 

[micromass]

Are you serious?

Yes. Give my cat a humanlike intelligence. What would she be able to do with it. She has no physical capabilities of building anyting complex or using any tools. Furthermore, such an intelligence takes up a lot of energy (our brain takes up over 20% of all our energy). So I wouldn't exactly call it very beneficial. It's only beneficial if certain other side conditions are satisfied.

Whales are said to be quite intelligent. I don't think that really helps them. They have no capabilities to do much with said intelligence.

 

[DiracPool]

Yes. Give my cat a humanlike intelligence. What would she be able to do with it. She has no physical capabilities of building anyting complex or using any tools.

What does building anything complex or using any tools have to do with anything? Your response of "yes" was to the quote of Ophiolite, "Intelligence seems to be of limited advantage in survival."

So by that argument, Stephen Hawking's intellect is of limited advantage in survival. Stephen Hawking isn't building anything complex or using any tools, and I'm sure he has much less physical capacity than a cat. Even so, he's a celebrity, and has teams of doctors keeping him alive and teams of fans feeding him, wheeling him around to conferences, and putting his ideas up for him on the blackboard.. So I'd say his intelligence has a great advantage in his survival.

Furthermore, such an intelligence takes up a lot of energy (our brain takes up over 20% of all our energy). So I wouldn't exactly call it very beneficial.

Again, by that argument you're essentially saying that the strain on natural resources of a few extra plates of pasta a week wasn't worth powering Einsteins brain to come up with the General theory of relativity, or a few extra calories in Hawking's liquid diet wasn't worth the equation of black hole entropy.

It's only beneficial if certain other side conditions are satisfied.

Side conditions like what?

Whales are said to be quite intelligent. I don't think that really helps them. They have no capabilities to do much with said intelligence.

Chimpanzees are also said to be intelligent, as well as a host of other animals such dolphins, monkeys, elephants, even birds such as the African grey parrot and Magpie. It all depends on who you ask and what their criterion is for "intelligence." Human-like intelligence is very specific, it is the ability to hierarchically construct temporally extended symbol assemblies in an essentially unlimited fashion. Nonhuman animals simply do not have this capacity, which is why, as the OP queried, "humans the only organisms capable of doing things like creating complex technology and using complex language?"

As far as the whales are concerned, they've done just fine with whatever intelligence they had, that is at least until the super-intelligent greedy humans came along.

 

[AlephZero]

So by that argument, Stephen Hawking's intellect is of limited advantage in survival. Stephen Hawking isn't building anything complex or using any tools, and I'm sure he has much less physical capacity than a cat.

If Hawking didn't have the physical devices built by other humans, he would have been dead long ago.

For

domination of the planet, the ability to control and domesticate virtually all of plant and animal life, the redirection of geological structures to create dams, etc., and the exploration of space...

intelligence on its own is fairly useless. But intelligence plus opposable thumbs is a different ballgame.

 

[micromass]

So by that argument, Stephen Hawking's intellect is of limited advantage in survival.

Yes, it obviously is. If he were born 100 years ago, he would have died a long time ago, no matter what his intellect was. Furthermore, if somebody with Einstein's intellect was born right now in South-Sudan, then his intellect would also not mean very much to the person.

So I'd say his intelligence has a great advantage in his survival.

It certainly is now, because we have created a society of intelligent beings. We are talking about evolving to humanlike intelligence. Which means that the species in question does not yet have humanlike intelligence.

Again, by that argument you're essentially saying that the strain on natural resources of a few extra plates of pasta a week wasn't worth powering Einsteins brain to come up with the General theory of relativity, or a few extra calories in Hawking's liquid diet wasn't worth the equation of black hole entropy.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the evolutionary benefit of coming up with GR.

Side conditions like what?

Opposable thumbs, walking on two legs, a changing environment which made evolution necessary to survive, having eyes so we can see, ...

 

[Drakkith]

One could say that human ancestors were in the right place, at the right time, had the right prerequisites, and went through the right circumstances to develop intelligence and use it to their benefit. Aren't we lucky!

 

[DiracPool]

If Hawking didn't have the physical devices built by other humans, he would have been dead long ago.

What does that have to do with intelligence being detrimental to the suvivability of a species? If anything, the fact that human intelligence is able to build devices to keep Stephan Hawking alive is evidence that intelligence confers a survival advantage. Plus, every individual and species relies on the cooperation of conspecifics in order to survive

For intelligence on its own is fairly useless.

Who is talking about intelligence on its own? We're not talking about locked in syndrome here. The OP's question I believe relates to healthy individuals and populations of human and nonhuman species.

But intelligence plus opposable thumbs is a different ballgame.

"I just typed this entire sentence in quotes without using my thumbs, promise."

Ok, this is better now. I am glad I have my thumbs, don't get me wrong. My point, though, is that if the entire human population lost all their thumbs today, or even other appendages, human society would not just stop and wither away. Intelligent creatures, whether human or nonhuman, find ways around physical challenges and limitations by using their intelligence, that's what intelligence means. This not only happens on communal scales but also individual scales. Galileo overcame the lack of a "zoom" feature on his eyesight by inventing the telescope with his intelligence. Benjamin Franklin cured his presbyopia by inventing bifocals, writing to his friend George Whatley in 1784 that he was "happy in the invention of double spectacles, which serving for distant objects as well as near ones, make my eyes as useful to me as ever they were."

So, I guess I'm just not seeing what evidence there is that a lack of intelligence, whether it's an isolated "locked in" intelligence or a motorically expressible intelligence, confers a survival advantage in an individual or its species. If that's what the argument is here.

 

[Ophiolite]

Are you serious?

This was response to my comment that intelligence was of limited advantage in survival. I am completely serious.

Archaea are not intelligent.
Bacteria are not intelligent.

That's most of the organisms on the planet and they are surviving rather well.

If you want to consider prokaryotes only, I don't see much intelligence in plants, or a large part of the animal kingdom.

Of course intelligence is of value in human survival, but the vast array of organisms that survive perfectly well without it, suggests the advantages it confers are limited.

 

[Drakkith]

Of course intelligence is of value in human survival, but the vast array of organisms that survive perfectly well without it, suggests the advantages it confers are limited.

I don't think I agree with this. Most organisms, especially single cell organisms, are not complex enough to develop intelligence. Intelligence seems to require a certain amount of complexity. In general, the more intelligent an organism is, the more complex it is. Complex organisms occupy different niches than simpler ones and have different advantages and disadvantages, so I don't think it's fair to say that the benefits of intelligence are limited. I'd argue that the benefits of intelligence are many, but it requires more complexity than most organisms have and takes specific evolutionary steps to reach it.

It seems to be more of a case that intelligence is extremely beneficial, as a great many organisms have varying levels of it, but high level intelligence is extremely difficult to reach.

 

[Chronos]

There is little doubt intelligence has evolved and increased over geological time. The evolutionary pressure is fairly obvious; smarter prey encourages smarter predators and vice versa. Just about every organism is subject to evolutionary pressure. Intelligence is one adaptation that has utility for complex organisms. The interesting thing about human intelligence is it took a rather dramatic leap a couple million years ago. We went from simian to human levels of intelligence in a remarkably short period of time. Equally remarkable is that we have survived as long as we have. Mitochondrial DNA studies suggest humanity was nearly driven to extinction 150,000 years ago during a particularly severe ice age. We were again at the brink 70,000 years ago in the aftermath of the Toba supervolcano eruption. And these are just the events we know about. Without a fair bit of luck, intelligence is not overly impressive as an evolutionary advantage.

 

[DiracPool]

Without a fair bit of luck, intelligence is not overly impressive as an evolutionary advantage.

What makes you think it's luck that got humans through the ice age and and the Toba eruption? Each of which from a survival challenge was signified by a dramatic cooling of the planet as well as an accompanying destruction of much of the natural vegetation and animal food sources. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

...the Toba eruption resulted in a global ecological disaster, including destruction of vegetation along with severe drought in the tropical rainforest belt and in monsoonal regions. For example, a 10-year volcanic winter triggered by the eruption could have largely destroyed the food sources of humans and caused a severe reduction in population sizes.[22] Τhese environmental changes may have generated population bottlenecks in many species, including hominids.

Where is the evidence that it was luck that got humans through these bottlenecks?

Doesn't it make more sense that humans may have been able to survive these catastrophes because of their use of their intelligence to create and tame fire, build shelters, make clothing, preserve foods through salting them, drying them, and cooking them, and communicating through gestures and likely spoken language? My guess is that it was the humans that were able to leverage these intelligent traits that were the ones to survive the bottleneck, not the dumb ones that couldn't rub two sticks or stones together to create a spark for a campfire.

 

[Choppy]

Robin Williams once characterized the human race with the phrase:
"If we can't **** it, we'll kill it."

Apparently, over history, we've done a little of both.
http://www.sci-news.com/otherscienc...neanderthal-genes-modern-human-dna-01734.html

 

[Choppy]

More seriously though I think there's also an energy conservation issue. Maintaining a highly functioning, conscious brain requires a very stable metabolism that's constantly burning a lot of calories and you have to have some very specific conditions for such a system to evolve.

 

[256bits]

Doesn't it make more sense that humans may have been able to survive these catastrophes because of their use of their intelligence to create and tame fire, build shelters, make clothing, preserve foods through salting them, drying them, and cooking them, and communicating through gestures and likely spoken language? My guess is that it was the humans that were able to leverage these intelligent traits that were the ones to survive the bottleneck, not the dumb ones that couldn't rub two sticks or stones together to create a spark for a campfire.

I think what you are referring to is the conscientious ability of humans to adapt to environmental conditions. In that regard, we would have to be one of the more successful species on this planet.
Humans occupy all regions of land mass with its variable temperatures and other conditions, survive on water, below water and even is space, and if advanced intelligence allows us to use technology to do so, then the level of intelligence does matter.

One could make an argument that the gut bacteria of humans are just as successful as humans, and will be no matter where humans go, either on land, sea, air, or space, but the condition here is that their niche environment does not change, but they will be just as evolutionary successful as humans in the short or long term.

Question is, what is evolutionary success? amount of biomass, longevity, position on the food chain, use of tools, information gathering, member of an arbitrary biological classification ( done by humans ), sentience, ...?

 

[DiracPool]

Wow, I'm (almost) speechless. What a marvelous eloquence in that post, 256. I'm grateful for an ally here.

As such, I feel compelled to try to address your query, 'Question is, what is evolutionary success?'

That is a good question. Sorry to not sound more sophisticated, But..

It is obviously about staying alive and procreating (to the max ;) I can't think of anything else...

If I think of anything, I'll post it.

 

[Torbjorn_L]

Why haven't other organisms evolved humanlike intelligence? It seems like it would be a huge advantage to their survival, so why haven't other organisms evolved such? Why are humans the only organisms capable of doing things like creating complex technology and using complex language?

That depends on how you define [species-]like intelligence. By definition, you have intermediate stages so anyone trait isn't defining a species as such. Relevant here, intelligence isn't part of what defines a human. Not even hominins, where suggestions rather would be akin to our small canines, a truly unique trait among hominids.

So this part of the question is specie-centric.

There is very little of intelligence that seems derived among hominins. So far I know of the ability to plan ahead (corvids have problems there), suggest behavior when mentoring (chimps show but do not suggest), and handle combinatorial languages. Technology (tool use) is known among mollusks and fishes, contextual languages among birds and apes. The "complex" part here is a matter of timing, we are the first to evolve such.

So this part of the question is selection bias.

A more compelling question, since the specie-centric part fails, may be to ask if we will be alone in evolving the biased part.

Biologists commonly suggest so, specific traits are rare unless the environment promotes channeled evolution. (Such as when ocean living fishes, reptiles and mammals evolve similar body shapes.) The question why Homo evolved complex technology/language and if it suggests such a channeling is open.

Humans have been in the situation of fighting for territory and resources for a very long time.

So have other animals, even hominids (chimps).

Mitochondrial DNA studies suggest humanity was nearly driven to extinction 150,000 years ago during a particularly severe ice age. We were again at the brink 70,000 years ago in the aftermath of the Toba supervolcano eruption.

No. Which is why you don't quote references no doubt.

- The latest population models accounting for Neanderthal and Denisovan core genes show that Africa had a population that oscillated between 10-20 000 humans. No severe bottleneck seen. ["The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains", Pääbo et al, Nature 2013]

- How much the Toba eruption affected the population, even close by, is entirely unconstrained. That people repopulated the area shortly after suggests that the effects were very local. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory ]

To sum up the problems with these claims, they were based on mitochondrial evidence which is generally a poor informant and in this case have been efficiently refuted by whole genome sequencing.

 

[Jupiter60]

Intelligence certainly has an advantage to survival. I'm not saying that intelligence alone has an advantage to survival. I never said that. Blind humans have a higher survival rate than blind "animals". A blind animal will only survive if there is a human to take care of it.

 

[Drakkith]

Intelligence certainly has an advantage to survival. I'm not saying that intelligence alone has an advantage to survival. I never said that. Blind humans have a higher survival rate than blind "animals". A blind animal will only survive if there is a human to take care of it.

I'm not sure I agree. A lot of animals depend on their other senses more than humans do and can adapt to blindness.

 

[Travis_King]

Doesn't it make more sense that humans may have been able to survive these catastrophes because of their use of their intelligence to create and tame fire, build shelters, make clothing, preserve foods through salting them, drying them, and cooking them, and communicating through gestures and likely spoken language? My guess is that it was the humans that were able to leverage these intelligent traits that were the ones to survive the bottleneck, not the dumb ones that couldn't rub two sticks or stones together to create a spark for a campfire.

And yet, I stepped on a cockroach this morning...

Intelligence is certainly advantageous to humans. And, it seems that it is advantageous to other animals which find themselves in ecosystems with other intelligent predators. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

Intelligence is one of the traits that helped us overtake similar species, evolutionarily. We are mostly hairless, relatively weak given our size, we can't see well at night, we have no natural defensive traits (like a thick hide or poisonous sweat glands) nor offensively advantageous traits (like claws or sharp teeth) besides our thumbs. We exist because we are intelligent, and it happened by luck that our species was able to develop that intelligence to what we have now. We are the dominant species of the planet and the unrivaled predator of all ecosystems (if we choose to be). Sure, a shark can get us in the ocean, or a tiger in the jungle, but give me a submarine and some torpedoes, or a tank and some shells and I'll have dinner ready by six. Yet we are, in most other respects, unimpressive as a predator.

...my original point being, although intelligence has undoubtedly helped us evolve and survive as a species, cockroaches have survived for millions of years and have not developed any "intelligence" because they get along perfectly well without it.

 

[Chronos]

<Mitochondrial DNA studies suggest humanity was nearly driven to extinction 150,000 years ago during a particularly severe ice age. We were again at the brink 70,000 years ago in the aftermath of the Toba supervolcano eruption.>

No. Which is why you don't quote references no doubt.

With 'considerable' effort, I rounded up a couple references.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-humans-extinct_2.html, After Near Extinction, Humans Split Into Isolated Bands

A causal relationship between the population bottleneck and the Toba super-eruption is in dispute - e.g., http://ice2.uab.cat/argo/Argo_actualitzacio/argo_butlleti/ccee/geologia/arxius/4Gathorne-Hardy.pdf, The super-eruption of Toba, did it cause a human bottleneck?
There is, however, little dispute a population bottleneck existed around that time.

Reference requests are welcome. Dismissive remarks are not.

 

[Torbjorn_L]

Intelligence certainly has an advantage to survival.

In very few organisms, seeing how few species are and how little biomass they command. Human equivalent intelligence can be rare because it is a) low likelihood (biologist's take, seeing how low likelihood specific traits have) and/or b) it is difficult to evolve (doubtful, since it took a few million years and many hominids participated).

We are mostly hairless, relatively weak given our size, we can't see well at night, we have no natural defensive traits (like a thick hide or poisonous sweat glands) nor offensively advantageous traits (like claws or sharp teeth) besides our thumbs. We exist because we are intelligent,

As long as we are clear on the causality here, since cultural intelligence allowed us to be hairless (clothes) et cetera.

Yes, intelligence is "our thing", same as elephant trunks are theirs.

 

[Torbjorn_L]

With 'considerable' effort, I rounded up a couple references.
There is, however, little dispute a population bottleneck existed around that time.

The Paabo reference I gave beg to differ. Again, it is modern and based on core genome sequencing, while older refs is not.

Reference requests are welcome. Dismissive remarks are not.

You are welcome to both. I see so much crap posted so when there isn't any attempt to give references I assume as default that there isn't any. It is not malice, "assume no malice", it is an assumption of ineptness. Good for you to have found those mitochondrial evidences (I assume) I found, better than going from memory. (Which of course I do too at times, putting me in the inept class when I'm wrong. And I am of course wrong at times. It is, admittedly, a fine line between productivity/laziness and too much research/effort.)

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Science just this week published a news piece looking at whether increased intelligence in various animal species leads to increased fitness. In many cases, researchers are finding that higher cognition has evolutionary trade-offs that can decrease fitness:

Raine has pioneered such studies, chiefly in bumblebees. In the lab, he tests how fast a bumblebee learns to associate different colors with nectar rewards. Some bees master each task in just a few tries, whereas others never quite get it. Colonies with the slowest learners collected 40% less nectar, he and his colleagues reported several years ago.

But by marking the tested bumblebees and allowing them free access to the outdoors, he and graduate student Lisa Evans discovered that in the wild there are trade-offs to being a fast learner. Bees that make errors in the color association test are also “more likely to assess new flower types,” Raine says. In one experiment, these error-prone bees wound up collecting more sugar than their “smarter” sisters, the team reported at the meeting and online on 17 May in the Journal of Comparative Physiology A. Raine and Evans suggest that for bees, a mixed colony of fast and slow learners might be the most successful.

Similar trade-offs between learning and other factors seem to be at work in a common European songbird called the great tit, according to a talk by behavioral ecologist Julie Morand-Ferron of the University of Ottawa. In recent studies, she, Ella Cole of the University of Oxford, and their colleagues have discovered that these birds display individual variation when challenged to pull a lever out of a tube to gain access to food. The lab-tested birds belong to a monitored wild population, and the team reported in 2012 that “smarter” birds laid more eggs and were more efficient foragers. However, for unknown reasons, these birds are also more likely to abandon their nests, negating any reproductive advantage, the researchers noted. Thus, as in bees, a range of cognitive abilities persists among these birds, Morand-Ferron said.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6197/609.full

 

[Doofy]

Not sure if anyone here will be familiar with this, but one idea I have heard is that consuming psychedelic mushrooms could be what moved us so far beyond the other apes. If you've ever experienced the indescribable wonder of a full-blown psychedelic trip this might not sound far-fetched to you. The word 'profound' doesn't even begin to describe the experiences produced by chemicals like psilocybin, so if it turned out that they were like booster rockets for brain development then it wouldn't surprise me. I believe this theory claims that human brain size increased at an absurd rate right around the time that environmental changes would have meant our distant ancestors left the trees and started coming into contact with mushrooms on the ground. It alleges that low-dose psilocybin sharpens our vision, higher doses lead to these psychedelic trips, involving increased sexual activity and stronger community bonds. So, based on that it sounds like there would have been some evolutionary advantage to having it in the diet.

It goes by the name of 'Stoned Ape' theory should you feel like googling it. I'm no anthropologist so there may be very good reasons to distrust it but it's certainly an interesting idea to me.

 

[Drakkith]

Not sure if anyone here will be familiar with this, but one idea I have heard is that consuming psychedelic mushrooms could be what moved us so far beyond the other apes. If you've ever experienced the indescribable wonder of a full-blown psychedelic trip this might not sound far-fetched to you. The word 'profound' doesn't even begin to describe the experiences produced by chemicals like psilocybin, so if it turned out that they were like booster rockets for brain development then it wouldn't surprise me.

It goes by the name of 'Stoned Ape' theory should you feel like googling it. I'm no anthropologist but it's certainly an interesting idea to me.

From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#.22Stoned_ape.22_theory_of_human_evolution

McKenna's "stoned ape" theory has not received attention from the scientific community and has been criticized on several fronts. His ideas regarding psilocybin and visual acuity have been criticized for lacking evidence and for misrepresenting Fischer et al., who studied medium doses (not low doses) of psilocybin and found that perception (but not visual acuity) was altered. Fischer et al. further state that psilocybin "may not be conducive to the survival of the organism". There is also a lack of evidence that psilocybin increases sexual arousal, and even if it does, it does not necessarily entail an evolutionary advantage. It may even be a disadvantage in the context of the presumed higher sexual competition in Homo Erectus as indicated by its higher sexual dimorphism relative to Homo sapiens.[80]

Looks to me like McKenna (the guy who developed the theory) didn't know what he was talking about since he failed to use his cited studies correctly.

 

[Doofy]

From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#.22Stoned_ape.22_theory_of_human_evolution

McKenna's "stoned ape" theory has not received attention from the scientific community and has been criticized on several fronts. His ideas regarding psilocybin and visual acuity have been criticized for lacking evidence and for misrepresenting Fischer et al., who studied medium doses (not low doses) of psilocybin and found that perception (but not visual acuity) was altered. Fischer et al. further state that psilocybin "may not be conducive to the survival of the organism". There is also a lack of evidence that psilocybin increases sexual arousal, and even if it does, it does not necessarily entail an evolutionary advantage. It may even be a disadvantage in the context of the presumed higher sexual competition in Homo Erectus as indicated by its higher sexual dimorphism relative to Homo sapiens.[80]

Looks to me like McKenna (the guy who developed the theory) didn't know what he was talking about since he failed to use his cited studies correctly.

Hmmm, fair enough. McKenna was a crazy guy, he went deeper with psychedelics than anyone I else I am aware of and he came up with some wild ideas, some of which have turned out to be nonsense (but he would acknowledge how 'out-there' a lot of it was). He also came up with some brilliant insights, often less to do with science and more about how we are as a culture/society and a species. Definitely an interesting character, and one of these people who paved the way for the more serious studying of psychedelics that seems to be gathering momentum now.

 

[SteamKing]

It seems like it would be a huge advantage to their survival, so why haven't other organisms evolved such? Why are humans the only organisms capable of doing things like creating complex technology and using complex language?

I take the rather pessimistic view that should two or more intelligent species evolve, eventually there will only be one remaining.

An evolved species with intelligence is not necessarily one which will go around shouting, "Look at me! I'm intelligent!", until it has got the lay of the land so to speak. There's no upside, in evolution or other things, to intentionally making yourself a target. That's how the Apes took over.

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

 

[DiracPool]

If you've ever experienced the indescribable wonder of a full-blown psychedelic trip this might not sound far-fetched to you. The word 'profound' doesn't even begin to describe the experiences produced by chemicals like psilocybin

I'm eagerly awaiting your updated commentary once you have a "bad trip."

I believe this theory claims that human brain size increased at an absurd rate right around the time that environmental changes would have meant our distant ancestors left the trees and started coming into contact with mushrooms on the ground.

Our primate ancestors spent plenty of time on the ground whereby they would have come in contact with said mushrooms before coming down from the trees. I highly doubt there's any connection. Is it true that the most popular current model is that environmental changes roughly 8 mya drove many primates out of the trees. The evolutionary consequence of this, however, was not a "rocket-propelled" brain growth due to the injestion of psychedelics, it was the bipedalism that resulted so they could see above the grasslands on the savanna.

Bipedalism freed the hands to manipulate objects, create tools, etc., which gave a selective advantage for regions of the brain to develop to facilitate a more hierarchically complex manipulation of these objects. It had nothing to do with getting stoned. What about the hundreds of other quadrupedal mammalian species wandering around the planet at that time consuming magic mushrooms? Why didn't they develop human-like intelligence?

 

[SteamKing]

I'm eagerly awaiting your updated commentary once you have a "bad trip."



Our primate ancestors spent plenty of time on the ground whereby they would have come in contact with said mushrooms before coming down from the trees. I highly doubt there's any connection. Is it true that the most popular current model is that environmental changes roughly 8 mya drove many primates out of the trees. The evolutionary consequence of this, however, was not a "rocket-propelled" brain growth due to the injestion of psychedelics, it was the bipedalism that resulted so they could see above the grasslands on the savanna.

Bipedalism freed the hands to manipulate objects, create tools, etc., which gave a selective advantage for regions of the brain to develop to facilitate a more hierarchically complex manipulation of these objects. It had nothing to do with getting stoned. What about the hundreds of other quadrupedal mammalian species wandering around the planet at that time consuming magic mushrooms? Why didn't they develop human-like intelligence?

If you're sitting around on the ground stoned all the time, you are unlikely to wind up inventing tools, language, or anything else which is very complex. You are, however, more likely to serve as a nourishing meal to the less advanced species which are not stoned.

 

[DiracPool]

If you're sitting around on the ground stoned all the time, you are unlikely to wind up inventing tools, language, or anything else which is very complex. You are, however, more likely to serve as a nourishing meal to the less advanced species which are not stoned.

Lol. So true. Cut to 6 mya. Gorn and Thorg are sitting underneath a tree munching on mushrooms and getting stoned, Gorn says, "Thorg, is that a lion charging us or a spacecraft coming to take us on a ride through the galaxy." Thorg replies, "I don't know but it sure is pretty."

 

[gravenewworld]

From an evolutionary molecular biology perspective, this may be controversial in some circles and it isn't my field of expertise, but one idea that has been floated out there is related to the absolutely unique ways that humans postranslationally modify proteins. For example, sialic acids became prominent late in evolution, primarily in animals of deuterostome lineage which comprises the vertebrates and some “higher” invertebrates that emerged at the Cambrian expansion. With rare exceptions, sialic acids are not generally found in plants or in most prokaryotes or invertebrates. There have been a few reports of sialic acids in mollusks, such as octopus and squid, and insects such as Drosophila. Genes structurally related to those involved in vertebrate sialic metabolism have been reported in insects and plants, and even in Archaea. Sialic are now often found in membrane macromolecules of microorganisms with newer lab techniques. Overall, it appears that sialic acids may be a more ancient Precambrian invention, but they were then either eliminated or used only sparingly in many lineages—finally flowering into prominence only in deuterostome lineage. Genetic evidence also suggests that the original invention of sialic acids may have derived from homologous gene products that synthesize keto-deoxyoctulosonic acid (Kdo). Certain strains of bacteria can contain large amounts of sialic acids or other 2-keto-3-deoxynononic acids in their capsular polysaccharides and/or lipooligosaccharides. Some of these bacteria are pathogenic and cell-surface sialic acids protect them from complement activation and/or antibody production. Thus, although definitive proof has not been obtained, the possibility of gene transfer from host eukaryotes exists. Interestingly, there is wide variation in sialic acid expression and complexity within deuterostome lineage, with the sialome of echinoderms appearing very complex and that of humans being more simple. However, expression of hydroxylated forms of sialic acids and O-acetylated sialic acids is highly conserved in deuterostomes, although exceptions exist, such as the lack of hydroxylated sialic acids in man, chicken, and some other birds.


So what does this have to do with evolution and why haven't other species involved intelligence like us? The most prominent example in this case is related to polysialylic acid (PSA) addition on neural cell adhesion molecule 1 (NCAM1). NCAM1 is a cell surface adhesion protein on neurons that is vitally important for memory, learning, and plasticity. NCAM1, along with another protein called L1, interact homophilically to fasiculate neurons together. However, when PSA is added to NCAM1, NCAM1 and L1 can no longer interact--in otherwords, PSA addition to NCAM1 is another layer of control over the way neurons can remodel themselves. The importance of PSA on NCAM1s can not be overstated. In addition to regulating the way neurons in the adult brain can remodel, NCAM1s and PSA regulate the way neurons move throughout the body espeically in neural crest-derived tissues during development. Additionally, genetic variation of ST8SIA2, the gene responsible for polysialylation of NCAM1, is associated with increased susceptibility to bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and autism. More and more evidence piles on all of the time for the role of polysialylation in the brain development.

To visualize PSA, see here (top polymer):

http://glycoforum.gr.jp/science/word/gif9909/gt-c01-fig1.gif


During metabolism of glucose into sialic acids in organisms other than huamans a gene named CMAH encodes for the enzyme that hydroxylates sialic acid into Neu5Gc the structure of which is here:

http://www.glycoforum.gr.jp/science/glycogenes/06/1.gif


As was stated above, one of the things that makes us uniquely human is the fact that we do no have Neu5Gc on our cells. The explanation for this is due to an inactivating exon deletion in the CMAH gene that occurred after our last common ancestor with the African great apes. If you can see what I'm getting at, the monomers that make up PSA in humans are not hydroxylated, and PSA in humans is not made out of a polymer of Neu5Gcs. The importance of this slight chemical alteration is quite profound--many experiments have been performed that have shown that when Neu5Gc is engineered onto the surface of human cells, you can induce immune responses. And as was previously discussed, PSA modulation of NCAM1s has a profound influence on brain development, learning, and memory. Why haven't animals evolved human like intelligence? One reason could be due to either lack of proper sialic acid metabolism and/or deletion or mutational impairment of their CMAH gene which is responsible for their production of Neu5Gc that may be preventing their brains from rewiring themselves to develop human like intelligence.

 

[Pythagorean]

I haven't dived deep into this thread, so I apologize if I'm restating something, but human intelligence has a lot of contributing factors. Some we share with other animals (the versatility of the neocortex, for instance). But others are unique (afaik) to humans, such as well-known jaw muscle "maladaptation" (presumably) that allowed for larger brain growth. The molecular story here involves MYH16.http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040322/full/news040322-9.html

 

[Acid92]

"Human-like" intelligence, and I think this is most usefully defined in the evolutionary-biological sense as the ability to solve novel problems (as opposed to merely recurring ones) in the organisms environment via "learning" (see article below) -or to put it another way, take most species out of their natural habitat and they tend to go extinct but throw a group of even ancient humans nearly anywhere on land on the planet and they just may survive-, is obviously an absolute advantage in survival. The problem is getting there in the first place since evolution is a continuous process. Here is a pertinent article I found that describes some research addressing just this very question. The research was on the relationship between "learning ability" in animals like fruit flies and fitness: turns out that "learning ability" actually has fitness costs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/science/06dumb.html?8dpc=&pagewanted=all

My impression of all this in quantitative terms: suppose we could describe evolutionary fitness as a function of "learning ability"/intelligence, then if increased intelligence has fitness costs (of course you could eventually evolve ways to deal with those costs but local costs if you will, will always exist), the function would be fraught with local extrema in spite of the fact that the general trend will be a positive relationship between fitness and intelligence. Once you get to a local maxima on that function, evolving higher intelligence would actually be maladaptive, and all else being equal, natural selection has no reason to go any further. To top it all, as the article points out too, increasing intelligence is merely one way to deal with the problem of a changing environment. So all in all, "human-like" intelligence appears to be an incredibly adaptive trait in an "absolute" sense but that is only after you have the trait, evolving it in the first place is an entirely different thing.

 

[Doofy]

I'm eagerly awaiting your updated commentary once you have a "bad trip."

Been there. Unpleasant to say the least. Some people claim there's more to be gained from a bad trip than a good one... but I am not one of those people, lol.

Our primate ancestors spent plenty of time on the ground whereby they would have come in contact with said mushrooms before coming down from the trees. I highly doubt there's any connection. Is it true that the most popular current model is that environmental changes roughly 8 mya drove many primates out of the trees. The evolutionary consequence of this, however, was not a "rocket-propelled" brain growth due to the injestion of psychedelics, it was the bipedalism that resulted so they could see above the grasslands on the savanna.

How sure are people about that grasslands thing? I've heard talk of us having stood upright because of starting to wade through water like this actually:

which seems to vibe with the whole aquatic ape thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis) but I don't know if the experts have decided they don't like this one.

Bipedalism freed the hands to manipulate objects, create tools, etc., which gave a selective advantage for regions of the brain to develop to facilitate a more hierarchically complex manipulation of these objects. It had nothing to do with getting stoned. What about the hundreds of other quadrupedal mammalian species wandering around the planet at that time consuming magic mushrooms? Why didn't they develop human-like intelligence?

Let's see if I understand... walking upright -> more freedom for hands -> brain develops more to get more hand control -> ? -> advanced reasoning / imagination / etc.

Seems straightforward up until the -> ? -> but gets vague at that point. Could it be that mammals other than primates lacked whichever brain receptors the psilocybin binds to?

 

[Drakkith]

which seems to vibe with the whole aquatic ape thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis) but I don't know if the experts have decided they don't like this one.

From the article you linked:

Extant scientific consensus is that humans first evolved during a period of rapid climate fluctuation between wet and dry, and that most of the adaptations that distinguish humans from the great apes are adaptations to a terrestrial, as opposed to an earlier, arboreal environment. Few paleoanthropologists have explicitly evaluated AAH in scientific journals, and those that have reviewed the idea have been critical. The AAH is one of many hypotheses attempting to explain human evolution through a single causal mechanism, but the evolutionary fossil record does not support any such proposal. The proposal itself has been criticized by experts as being internally inconsistent, having less explanatory power than its proponents claim, and suffering from the feature that alternative terrestrial hypotheses are much better supported. The attractiveness of believing in simplistic single-cause explanations over the much more complex, but better-supported models with multiple causality has been cited as a primary reason for the popularity of the idea with non-experts.[3]

It is extremely unlikely that the AAH is responsible for human evolution, either by itself or as a primary factor.

 

[DiracPool]

Some people claim there's more to be gained from a bad trip than a good one...

The only insight I ever gained from having a bad trip is a clear understanding that it sucks to have a bad trip, and that it's much better to find natural ways to get your buzz on other than ingesting psychoactive substances.

Let's see if I understand... walking upright -> more freedom for hands -> brain develops more to get more hand control -> ? -> advanced reasoning / imagination / etc.

Seems straightforward up until the -> ? -> but gets vague at that point.

There's a large body of literature linking hierarchically sequenced manual manipulations and hierarchically organized cognitive processes. I suggest reading Jean Piaget's work or some of the many neo-Piagetian scholars/authors that abound today. There's even a Journal published by the Jean Piaget Society if you want to peruse that: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/cognitive-development/

Could it be that mammals other than primates lacked whichever brain receptors the psilocybin binds to?

Not likely. Neurotransmitters and receptors are highly conserved in mammals, which is why we can feel confident that experiments conducted on these animals have relevance to human brain function. My guess is that there's probably a fair number of empirical studies on the effects of psilocybin and LSD on animals published out there if you look around.

 

[Doofy]

The only insight I ever gained from having a bad trip is a clear understanding that it sucks to have a bad trip, and that it's much better to find natural ways to get your buzz on other than ingesting psychoactive substances.

Actually I consider it totally natural behaviour, it's not even confined to our species, but enough of the psychedelics talk before I derail the thread too much.

There's a large body of literature linking hierarchically sequenced manual manipulations and hierarchically organized cognitive processes. I suggest reading Jean Piaget's work or some of the many neo-Piagetian scholars/authors that abound today. There's even a Journal published by the Jean Piaget Society if you want to peruse that: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/cognitive-development/

Sounds interesting and I will certainly have a read about it when I've got time. What is really meant by 'hierarchically sequenced/organized'? Is that about, say, wrist motion -> multi-finger motion (gripping hold of something) -> individual finger motions? And as for the hierarchy of brain activities...?

Does this Piaget stuff mean that, as a rule of thumb, animals that have to perform more intricate/complex motions with their body parts should be smarter? How do dolphins fit into this with their clumsy flippers?

Not likely. Neurotransmitters and receptors are highly conserved in mammals, which is why we can feel confident that experiments conducted on these animals have relevance to human brain function.

Ah, that does make sense.

My guess is that there's probably a fair number of empirical studies on the effects of psilocybin and LSD on animals published out there if you look around.

I haven't really looked for them but I have heard plenty of talk about early ones being conducted badly and deliberately for government propaganda purposes, and their illegality meaning research into them has been very handicapped since then.

 

[bobze]

How sure are people about that grasslands thing? I've heard talk of us having stood upright because of starting to wade through water like this actually:

which seems to vibe with the whole aquatic ape thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis) but I don't know if the experts have decided they don't like this one.

Junk to say the least;
[/PLAIN]
aquaticape.org

Why have I done this site?
Two reasons:

1) Because AAT/H proponents ask why don't people take their theory seriously as science, and the way you take a theory seriously as science is to examine it for accuracy and criticize it where it falls short, because...

2) "Valid criticism does you a favor" Carl Sagan, page 32 of The Demon-Haunted World (1995).

I am doing what many AAT/H proponents -- including its principal proponent, Elaine Morgan -- have repeatedly claimed they want done: treating the AAT/H as befits a serious scientific theory.

Accepting any new theory uncritically is foolish. When doing a critique of any theory of human evolution, you check the facts the authors use to support the theory.

All scientific theories need to be examined for accuracy; it's an essential component of the process of science. I'm afraid that when the Aquatic Ape Theory is examined, it does not fare well. The AAT/H is built on many supposed facts which, when examined, do not turn out to be true. Perhaps the kindest thing would be to ignore it, but I am not that kind.

Instead I've begun an ongoing response of pointing out errors of fact, errors in theoretical understanding (which, though critically important, is more problematic because a lot of people seem to think this is waffling), and urging the theory's proponents to respond to valid objections to their theory.

A good critique on the "science" of AAH.

 

[lpetrich]

This may be something that's improbable or else difficult to evolve.

Looking at the Earth's biota, some features evolved several times, while some others evolved only once, as far as we can tell.

Multicellularity has evolved several times, but animal-like multicellularity only once. All the other instances are plantlike or funguslike or slime-mold-like.

A vertebrate-style internal skeleton has evolved only once, while various sorts of external and almost-external ones have evolved several times.

Etc.

 

[Medicol]

Evolution is not goal oriented. So our intelligence is not what it solely offers us after all. But it is a product of our adaptability to surroundings. There have been no such good conditions for other species to evolved their human-like intelligence. I'm not joking but what are we going to do if a *creature* sitting behind us is having much higher IQs than we are ? Compete, kill or co-live ? Please analyze these terms biologically.

 

[Guco]

Humans were originally endurance hunters. We might not have claws, speed or raw strength, but few animals can run as long and far as we can. You think a chimp can run a marathon?

The traits that make us good endurance hunters have also contributed to our specific intelligence:
Walking upright: does not only free the hands, but it also allows for a greater weight of the brain (the head is now on top of the center of gravity) and reduced energy required for movement (which frees up more energy for the brain). This may have also contributed to our vocal abilities.
Naked skin: it's not that we lost hair just because we can wear clothes, our naked skin gives us increased control of our body temperature by making sweating much more effective. That's important because the brain is very sensitive to overheating.
Tactics of hunting: Endurance hunting is usually social hunting (wolves for example). It requires social coordination (tactics+long range sound communication during a hunt) and social rules on how to share food. Because our sense of smell isn't that good, we rely on being able to interpret things like tracks or broken branches to follow an animal. This also requires being able to empathize with an animal, to be able to understand where it would flee when being chased.

Then if you go back further to our likely origin in forests (where most primates live) there are some additional traits we picked up there:
Multiple highly evolved sensory organs: this is something we have in common with most primates. Because primates generally live in trees it requires good eyesight (for 3d navigation), hearing (because trees also block sight and predators) and touch (very useful when you are swinging through trees). Our sense of smell is not quite as impressive but still decent.
Our diet: fruit and meat, all high in energy, gives time for leisure, makes it easy to feed children.
Understanding of place and time: required to find food in forests. Apes know when and where they can find fruit, they remember specific trees and the time when the fruit is good to eat.

Finally, we don't know if the evolution of human-like intelligence is rare or not until we find many other planets with animal life on it that have been around for at least as long as Earth has. n=1 until we do.

 

[Syed Ammar]

Humans were originally endurance hunters. We might not have claws, speed or raw strength, but few animals can run as long and far as we can. You think a chimp can run a marathon?

The traits that make us good endurance hunters have also contributed to our specific intelligence:
Walking upright: does not only free the hands, but it also allows for a greater weight of the brain (the head is now on top of the center of gravity) and reduced energy required for movement (which frees up more energy for the brain). This may have also contributed to our vocal abilities.
Naked skin: it's not that we lost hair just because we can wear clothes, our naked skin gives us increased control of our body temperature by making sweating much more effective. That's important because the brain is very sensitive to overheating.
Tactics of hunting: Endurance hunting is usually social hunting (wolves for example). It requires social coordination (tactics+long range sound communication during a hunt) and social rules on how to share food. Because our sense of smell isn't that good, we rely on being able to interpret things like tracks or broken branches to follow an animal. This also requires being able to empathize with an animal, to be able to understand where it would flee when being chased.

Then if you go back further to our likely origin in forests (where most primates live) there are some additional traits we picked up there:
Multiple highly evolved sensory organs: this is something we have in common with most primates. Because primates generally live in trees it requires good eyesight (for 3d navigation), hearing (because trees also block sight and predators) and touch (very useful when you are swinging through trees). Our sense of smell is not quite as impressive but still decent.
Our diet: fruit and meat, all high in energy, gives time for leisure, makes it easy to feed children.
Understanding of place and time: required to find food in forests. Apes know when and where they can find fruit, they remember specific trees and the time when the fruit is good to eat.

Finally, we don't know if the evolution of human-like intelligence is rare or not until we find many other planets with animal life on it that have been around for at least as long as Earth has. n=1 until we do.

Hey, I THINK THIS IS THE PERFECT REPLY! EXCELLENT MAN.

 

[james oliver]

It seems like it would be a huge advantage to their survival, so why haven't other organisms evolved such? Why are humans the only organisms capable of doing things like creating complex technology and using complex language?

The answer to me simply is humans assume we are the most intelligent. It's all relative. Too use "survival" as some type of gage - sharks have been around for 400 million years (humans - 7 million). We are not even on the top of species with the longest life spans...

 

[DiracPool]

The answer to me simply is humans assume we are the most intelligent. It's all relative. Too use "survival" as some type of gage - sharks have been around for 400 million years (humans - 7 million). We are not even on the top of species with the longest life spans...

Looking back through this thread, there seems to be a confounding of the concepts of "intelligence" and "survival." Intelligence is simply one tool of many that can be helpful in survival. It can also be helpful in not surviving, as in being so smart and clever that you construct a bomb to wipe out your species, or you become so successful at being successful that you overpopulate and dry up (literally in California) your resources, etc.

On the other hand, slime molds and extremophiles will probably be around long after were gone, and I wouldn't consider them "intelligent" in the same way Einstein was intelligent. But to answer the OP's initial query, it's not because a slime mold might survive a nuclear holocaust and we won't that it did not evolve human intelligence, it is because it didn't need to evolve human intelligence in order to survive. Humans evolved from primates, who had a relatively cush existence for a long time living up in the trees away from ground predators. At some point a population of these primates were (most likely) forced down from the trees and had to survive in east Africa amidst a panoply of dangerous and more fit quadrupedal carnivores. Natural selection utilized and shaped what was available to help those primates adapt and survive that specific situation, which was specifically the exploitation of the hand that the primates had already had well developed for swinging through the trees.

A smile mold, sea sponge, juniper tree, or hammerhead shark wasn't under these same selection pressures that hominoids were under, and this is why they did not evolve human-like intelligence.

 

[stefanow]

Intelligence per se (= understanding, predicting and acting accordingly) is not a prerequisite for survival. Countless mindless living beings have been around for millennia and will probably outlive us for all intents and purposes. However, there’s one huge evolutionary advantage in human intelligence in particular. Human beings don’t just die; they also know that they are destined to die one way or another. That leads to a constant struggle for power in advance by any means necessary, even when no apparent enemy is on sight, in a desperate and conscious attempt to avoid annihilation. Death is life’s single most ingenious invention in order to assure that the struggle for survival, aka evolution, will never reach to an end – and human intelligence its most advanced realization.