You could have just asked: "If intelligence endows evolutionary success, why is there only one intelligent species?"

It's a very odd question. Firstly--and without worrying too much about definitions--intelligence is a spectrum or a continuum, and it can be observed in many animals, especially among mammals and birds. Secondly, adaptations are adaptive in particular environments. Bacteria are very successful and they don't need intelligence for it. So "the belief that intelligence is a [generally] favorable evolutionary development in organisms" is not one that is held by biologists.

It seems that while intraspecies population (of humans to be specific) indicates that intelligence is a desirable trait to develop in the game of survival, interspecies population tells an entirely different story. — TheMadFool

Better put it like this: intelligence worked for humans and to varying degrees for some other species, but wasn't required for the success of many other organisms. Thus your mystery disappears, no?

And if you think humans are successful ... according to wiki, the average yearly worldwide number of individuals of the cyanobacteria Prochlorococcus is (2.8 to 3.0) × 10^27.

Basically, if we as humans really evolved here along with everything else in the same time period, side by side, why don't we see birds, dolphins, or other animals with (semi) advanced civilizations as well? Or something mildly representative of the evolutionary process. It goes from barely recognizing oneself in the mirror (reflection test) and simple tools/puzzle solving (birds and some mammals) to full blown metropolis, thermonuclear fusion, circuit boards, and space travel with NO link or reasonable midway point in between. It's just bizarre. To say the least. Is that similar or a part of what you're asking? It's a fair question. Mighty fair indeed.

You could have just asked: "If intelligence endows evolutionary success, why is there only one intelligent species?" — jamalrob

Forgive the circumlocution. I'm the kind of person who scratches faer right ear with the left hand. :grin:

Firstly--and without worrying too much about definitions--intelligence is a spectrum or a continuum, and it can be observed in many animals, especially among mammals and birds — jamalrob

To that my reply is simple: intelligence-wise, a dog is closer to a bird than either to humans. There's a gigantic discontinuity in the intelligence graph with only humans on one side and the rest of life on the other. This must count for something, right?

Bacteria are very successful and they don't need intelligence for it. So "the belief that intelligence is a [generally] favorable evolutionary development in organisms" is not one that is held by biologists. — jamalrob

I'll take your word for it but anyone who claimed humans didn't gain from their more powerful brains would be lying to himself/herself as the case may be. Right?

Thirdly, why have you invented terms and concepts like "interspecies population" when, in this case, you just mean the number of extant species? The term "population" is not used in evolutionary biology in the way that you're using it. — jamalrob

I feel more comfortable using fewer words which wouldn't have been possible if I didn't define these concepts.

I didn't know that the term "population" was not part of the biological terminology. What's the correct term then? Does it mean the same thing as "population"? :chin:

And if you think humans are successful ... according to wiki, the average yearly worldwide number of individuals of the cyanobacteria Prochlorococcus is (2.8 to 3.0) × 10^27. — jamalrob

Thanks for the GK but I'm afraid my memory isn't good enough to make use of this tidbit in a conversation. Back to the main issue...these numbers prove my point rather than anything to the contrary, no?

Perhaps there's nothing odd in all of this, nothing amiss with believing intelligence is an asset in the evolutionary game of survival for the simple reason that it did help humans in a very big way.

This may contradict what I've been saying all along, I'm not sure, but the heart of the issue is the metric used in deciding evolutionary success. To my reckoning, as is evident from the OP and my other posts, success in evolution is measured by population size. This conforms with our intuitions of course; after all a population of zero means extinction which is just another word for failure, right? But, if we use population size, the problem is intelligence is no longer an attribute that's a deciding factor in evolution for the simple reason that humans don't make it to the top 10 or, quite possibly even to the top 100, list by population size.

Basically, if we as humans really evolved here along with everything else in the same time period, side by side, why don't we see birds, dolphins, or other animals with (semi) advanced civilizations as well? Or something mildly representative of the evolutionary process. It goes from barely recognizing oneself in the mirror (reflection test) and simple tools/puzzle solving (birds and some mammals) to full blown metropolis, thermonuclear fusion, circuit boards, and space travel with NO link or reasonable midway point in between. It's just bizarre. To say the least. Is that similar or a part of what you're asking? It's a fair question. Mighty fair indeed. — Outlander

Firstly, I'm bowled over by your eloquence - I couldn't have expressed it better.

To answer your question, I'm not quite sure what exactly I meant to get across to the readers but what I'm quite certain about is that population size simpliciter doesn't cut it for measuring evolutionary success, especially if one is of the opinion that intelligence is some kind of "ultimate weapon" in the game of survival. In fact, pardon me if I offend anyone, to tell you the truth, I'm suddenly reminded of the father of Western philosophy, Socrates, specifically that he was :chin: executed for corrupting the youth and impeity...of course, of course.

To that my reply is simple: intelligence-wise, a dog is closer to a bird than either to humans. There's a gigantic discontinuity in the intelligence graph with only humans on one side and the rest of life on the other. This must count for something, right? — TheMadFool

I'm glad you're conceding that intelligence is not restricted to humans, as you claimed. Sure, human intelligence is immensely powerful. Does it count for something? In evolutionary terms, yes: it was an important part of our evolution. So what?

I'll take your word for it but anyone who claimed humans didn't gain from their more powerful brains would be lying to himself/herself as the case may be. Right? — TheMadFool

Yes they did gain, in the environment they evolved in and with the genetic endowment they had. Again, so what? Not all species require such intelligence to thrive.

I didn't know that the term "population" was not part of the biological terminology. What's the correct term then? Does it mean the same thing as "population"? — TheMadFool

I did not say that "population" is not part of biological terminology. Are you pretending that's what I said, or did you simply not read what I wrote? Either way, it won't do.

Back to the main issue...these numbers prove my point rather than anything to the contrary, no? — TheMadFool

What numbers? What point?

Perhaps there's nothing odd in all of this, nothing amiss with believing intelligence is an asset in the evolutionary game of survival for the simple reason that it did help humans in a very big way. — TheMadFool

Ok, so your point is that intelligence is an asset in evolution? As I say, it can be, for some organisms, in some environments. What reason do you have to go further?

This may contradict what I've been saying all along, I'm not sure, but the heart of the issue is the metric used in deciding evolutionary success. To my reckoning, as is evident from the OP and my other posts, success in evolution is measured by population size. This conforms with our intuitions of course; after all a population of zero means extinction which is just another word for failure, right? But, if we use population size, the problem is intelligence is no longer an attribute that's a deciding factor in evolution for the simple reason that humans don't make it to the top 10 or, quite possibly even to the top 100, list by population size. — TheMadFool

Why is this a problem?

what I'm quite certain about is that population size simpliciter doesn't cut it for measuring evolutionary success — TheMadFool

Why not? What do you regard as success in evolution?

What do you regard as success in evolution? — jamalrob

For some, population size. And why not? But it seems to me the question's meaning arises out of a casual use of language and presuppositions that are not clear.

It's like asking what success is in football, the given answer being winning the superball or world cup, depending on your "football." But only a little reflection shows that many answers are possible, depending on meanings supposed but not clarified.

But I'd like a little more clarity in the question, what exactly do you say evolution is, and what do you mean by success? I suspect that in answering, you may decide (discover?) what success in evolution is. But then a corollary question might arise: is only one answer possible, necessarily the case?

I think the big picture is that homo sapiens acquired a trait that had exponential returns. That trait is language ( or something prior to it like abstract thought, it's a continuum of traits anyway).

But, according to wikipedia, language exists 50.000-150.000 years, which seems a very small margin for evolution to manifest something so deep and powerfull again.

It seems that while intraspecies population (of humans to be specific) indicates that intelligence is a desirable trait to develop in the game of survival, interspecies population tells an entirely different story. — TheMadFool

So, I think the above is wrong because you are making a statistical conclusion whithout allowing enough steps for nature to play, after knowing that nature achieved the level to play that card (the card of language). The exponential growth of technology creates the illusion that nature had time to manifest language again but it didn't.

In evolutionary terms, yes: it was an important part of our evolution. So what? — jamalrob

A brainteaser I'm going to keep at a safe distance (for my sake).

Yes they did gain, in the environment they evolved in and with the genetic endowment they had. Again, so what? — jamalrob

Another brainteaser.

I did not say that "population" is not part of biological terminology. Are you pretending that's what I said, or did you simply not read what I wrote? Either way, it won't do. — jamalrob

I made a request for the technically accurate term.

What numbers? What point? — jamalrob

This number: (2.8 to 3.0) × 10^27

Ok, so your point is that intelligence is an asset in evolution? As I say, it can be, for some organisms, in some environments. What reason do you have to go further? — jamalrob

Yes, intelligence is a plus point if you want to survive what nature throws at you. This results, ceteris paribus, in an increase in the population of intelligent creatures.

Forgive me if this gets tedious but my point is that while intraspecies population proves intelligence is an advantage, interspecies population, as I said earlier, tells a different story. That's all.

Why is this a problem? — jamalrob

Why not? What do you regard as success in evolution? — jamalrob

To reiterate (hopefully not ad nauseum), population size indicates that intelligence is not a deciding factor insofar as evolutionary success defined as numerical strength is concerned. I'm just puzzled by the fact though people continually speak of how humans, because of their intelligence, have come to dominate the planet, the actual numbers lead us to a different conclusion.

Mind you, I still think population size is a useful metric for determining which organisms are successful and which not and that intelligence does confer an advantage but, as you've so kindly pointed out, "(2.8 to 3.0) × 10^27", looking at the actual figures we get a different picture. By way of a resolution I'm seeking some modification to the metric - keeping population size as it makes intuitive sense but doing something to it to match facts. A ratio perhaps? Any ideas on that front?

For some, population size. And why not? But it seems to me the question's meaning arises out of a casual use of language and presuppositions that are not clear.

It's like asking what success is in football, the given answer being winning the superball or world cup, depending on your "football." But only a little reflection shows that many answers are possible, depending on meanings supposed but not clarified.

But I'd like a little more clarity in the question, what exactly do you say evolution is, and what do you mean by success? I suspect that in answering, you may decide (discover?) what success in evolution is. But then a corollary question might arise: is only one answer possible, necessarily the case? — tim wood

Hats off to you for the most pertinent queries. All I can say is that population size is an intuitively sound measure of evolutionary success for the simple reason that a population of nought is just another way of saying extinction. If an organism becomes extinct, it's failure, right? At the other extreme is huge populations which bespeak, among other things, reproductive health and general wellbeing.

I'm just puzzled by the fact though people continually speak of how humans, because of their intelligence, have come to dominate the planet, the actual numbers lead us to a different conclusion. — TheMadFool

The stuff you wrote before this is garbage, by the way. But here is where you make your point. So, if humans are to be considered as dominant on Earth, you'd expect them to be as abundant as, say, Prochlorococcus? That is crazy. Nothing you're saying hangs together or makes sense.

In order to drive home the point, imagine you're an alien visitor to earth and you observe that among the 8.7 million species on earth only 1 has intelligence. Would you think intelligent life is a success or a failure? — TheMadFool

I think my alien would also note that earthly Intelligence is a spectrum, and not confined to a single species. For example, crab-like creatures are so successful for their scavenger vocation, that the crab-form has evolved several times. They are only as intelligent as necessary for their niche.

Evolution is a heuristic procedure, and chooses the "fittest" from among many options, and to fit many niches. But is that process homing-in on a single trait, like general Intelligence? Or is adaptive intelligence merely one step on the stair to ultimate fitness success? Fit for what? :smile:

Crabs evolved 5 times : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation

The stuff you wrote before this is garbage, by the way. But here is where you make your point. So, if humans are to be considered as dominant on Earth, you'd expect them to be as abundant as, say, Prochlorococcus? That is crazy. Nothing you're saying hangs together or makes sense. — jamalrob

You must've glossed over some of my posts. Let me ask you a few questions:

1. What is success in evolutionary terms?

2. If a species goes extinct is it success/failure?

3. Is population the correct metric to measure success?

Let's begin there.

Intelligence is a spectrum — Gnomon

There's a clear discontinuity in the intelligence spectrum separating humans from the rest of the the animal kingdom.

I'm honestly not sure if you're being honest, but...

To answer your questions, for the sake of argument let's say that evolutionary success can be measured by the number of individuals in a species, and let's call that number the population of that species. Now make your argument or point.

I note that you have also ignored Gnomon's central point, as you have done so far with mine.

I'm honestly not sure if you're being honest, but...

To answer your questions, for the sake of argument let's say that evolutionary success can be measured by the number of individuals in a species, and let's call that number the population. It's not such a bad measure. Now make your argument or point. — jamalrob

The facts:

1. Extinction is failure, no two ways about it. Extinction means a population of zero. Ergo, greater the population the more successful. Population is a good measure of evolutionary success.

2. Intelligence is, for certain, a plus point in survival. Humans are a success story measured by how we outnumber other species that exist at our scale. Intelligence is an asset in the game of survival.

3. The population of certain microbes exceeds by a factor of, sometimes, several millions the human population. They are, most assuredly, successes too. But, they lack intelligence.

The paradox:

Population indicates brainless organisms are more successful than organisms with brains but we know, for certain, brains are the ultimate weapon - the thermonuclear warhead if you will - in the evolutionary race. In other words, population simplicter fails to capture the intelligence factor in the clear and obvious success of the human race.

The proposed resolution:

Introduce another parameter which, together with population, will reflect the actual truth - the truth that

1. Humans are the most successful lifeforms on the planet

2. This success is wholly attributable to our intelligence

Thanks.

1. Extinction is failure. Population is a good measure of evolutionary success.

2. Intelligence is, for certain, a plus point in survival. Humans are a success story measured by how we outnumber other species that exist at our scale. Intelligence is an asset in the game of survival.

3. The population of certain microbes exceeds by a factor of, sometimes, several millions the human. They are, most assuredly, successes too. But, they lack intelligence. — paraphrasing TheMadFool

Point 2 makes different claims. The first and last sentence are wrong, as I've been saying since my very first contribution to the discussion. What we can say is that intelligence has been an important part of human evolution and of the evolution of some other successful species. And if you want to talk about "our scale", (body size?), then sure, there's an argument for saying we're the most successful species of our approximate size and that this has largely been owing to our intelligence.

The paradox:

Population indicates brainless organisms are more successful than organisms with brains but we know, for certain, brains are the ultimate weapon - the thermonuclear warhead if you will - in the evolutionary race. In other words, population simplicter fails to capture the intelligence factor in the clear and obvious success of the human race. — TheMadFool

There is no paradox here. Brains are not "the ultimate weapon". There is no support for this claim in your argument or in biology. Maybe you can say that brains like ours are the ultimate weapon for animals like us, i.e., medium-large mammals, or whatever.

Population does fail to capture the success of human beings. You can measure success in different ways, and it has no strict definition in evolutionary biology, because evolution has no aims. You have not explained why you're troubled by the fact that population size doesn't reflect human success.

The proposed resolution:

Introduce another parameter which, together with population, will reflect the actual truth - the truth that

1. Humans are the most successful lifeforms on the planet

2. This success is entirely attributable to our intelligence — TheMadFool

So you want another measure of success, perhaps in combination with population, so as to prove (or reflect) what you already think is obvious, that humans are the most successful species on Earth? Why? Is it because you think this is lacking in evolutionary biology?

You can bring in variety of habitats, coverage of the planet, breeding success, and many other things to measure success. It's up to you. Have a look at ecological measures. But generally speaking, in merely evolutionary terms, humans are certainly not the most successful species on Earth. If you want, you can say that they're the most successful apes, or even mammals, or vertebrates. But it's arbitrary and has little if anything to do with evolutionary biology.

You may as well add, as your extra parameter, number of individuals of the species that have visited the moon, or number of books written, and you'll get the result you want: we win!*

However, I'll play your game. The extra parameter is ability to change its way of life in fundamental ways while its genome doesn't change or changes only in minor and unrelated ways, i.e., history. But this is just descriptive.

*Of course, you could just choose intelligence itself, and you've got what you need.

By the way, I do believe that in an important way, humans are different in kind, i.e., that there is as you say a "discontinuity". But that's exactly why studying human beings becomes a different kind of endeavour from evolutionary biology.

Point 2 makes different claims. The first and last sentence are wrong, as I've been saying since my very first contribution to the discussion. What we can say is that intelligence has been an important part of human evolution and of the evolution of some other successful species. And if you want to talk about "our scale", (body size?), then sure, there's an argument for saying we're the most successful species of our approximate size. — jamalrob

Are you saying that if there were two organisms, one intelligent and the other not, they would both fare about the same in the game of survival? :chin:

Surely, at least to my knowledge, intelligence at any and all scales of existence is a clear advantage. An intelligent organism wil be able to pick the best spots and the right time to do whatever it is they want to do unlike one that isn't intelligent, giving it an edge in the competition.

There is no paradox here. Brains are not "the ultimate weapon". — jamalrob

Read above. I don't get why you think differently. Why would you say intelligence doesn't make an organism a superpower? The evidence is in plain sight - machines, cities, medicine, computers, and so on. You need to put more on the table than flat assertions.

Population does fail to capture the success of human beings. You can measure success in different ways, and it has no strict definition in evolutionary biology, because evolution has no aims. You have not explained why you're troubled by the fact that population size doesn't reflect human success — jamalrob

Is extinction failure or not? It is, right? What would be the definition of extinction? Population = 0! In other words, if we let the pendulum swing the other way, greater the population, the more successful an organism is, no?

Last I heard reproduction is an evolutionary goal and reproduction leads to increase in population. The point of evolution is to multiply and maximize the membership for a given species.

So you want another measure of success, perhaps in combination with population, so as to prove what you already think is obvious, that humans are the most successful species on Earth? Why? Is it because you think this is lacking in evolutionary biology? — jamalrob

I'm fairly confident that intelligence makes an organism nigh omnipotent and, as I said, the evidence is right under our noses.

coverage of the planet — jamalrob

To me, this merits serious consideration. I mean yes some microbes have an estimated population of (2.8 to 3.0) × 10^27 but how much space do they occupy as a whole? Humans, numbering 7 billion only, occupy huge tracts of land which, for sure, is disproportionate by any standard.

Thank you for that suggestion.

You need to put more on the table than flat assertions. — TheMadFool

This coming from the person who says that intelligence is a general evolutionary advantage, for which there is no evidence, for which there has been no argument (aside from pointing at the development of human civilization), and which doesn't even have any clear meaning in evolutionary biology (what is intelligence?).

Are you saying that if two organisms, one intelligent and the other not, they would both fare about the same in the game of survival? — TheMadFool

Aside from the basic meaninglessness of this question, as I've been saying, it depends. Look around at the species on Earth. The evidence is that intelligence is not required, certainly not always required, for success. On top of that, there are many ways in which intelligence could be a hindrance. My guess is that it would be a hindrance in most environments and for most organisms. I don't see how it could help bacteria or spiders. One problem: big brains are very costly to maintain.

Surely, at least to my knowledge, intelligence at any and all scales of existence is a clear advantage. An intelligent organism will be able to pick the best spots and the right time to do whatever it is they want to do unlike one that isn't intelligent, giving it an edge in the competition. — TheMadFool

This is plain wrong, and you need to think about evolution and biodiversity very differently to correct your misconceptions. I've tried telling you politely.

These days I wouldn't usually link to Quora, which has degenerated horribly over the past 5-10 years, but many of the answers here get across the general gist: Higher intelligence provides a clear evolutionary advantage, so why haven't more animals developed this?

As one of them says, "Evolution doesn't work that way."

@TheMadFool: Here's some discussion about the evolution of general intelligence that might shine some light on what I'm saying. The context is primates only, but it might give you an idea of how difficult it is to claim that intelligence is a general advantage.

Some species have larger brains than others, which, at least in primates, is associated with higher G [general intelligence]. Why did these species respond to domain-specific selection pressures with an increase in general intelligence, or cope with environmental unpredictability by increasing their brain and intelligence, rather than opting for alternative, domain-specific adaptations?

To answer these questions, it is important to keep in mind that the conditions under which large brains can evolve are to a substantial degree restricted by their costs (Isler & van Schaik 2014). Brains are energy-hungry organs that consume a large proportion of the energy available to an organism, particularly in growing immatures. Thus, natural selection more readily favors an increase in brain size when this leads to an increase in net energy intake, a reduction in its variance, or ideally both. Furthermore, a big brain slows down the organism’s development, which means that a species’ ability to slow down its life history is a fundamental precondition for its opportunity to evolve larger brain size. Accordingly, the life-history filter approach (van Schaik et al. 2012) shows that slowing down life history, and thus evolving a larger brain, is only possible for species that can increase adult survival and are not subject to unavoidable extrinsic mortality, such as high predation pressure. Isler and van Schaik (2014) have shown that such a cost perspective can explain a substantial amount of variation in brain size across primates, and that allomaternal care plays an important role in accommodating the costs associated with bigger brains (in particular, because food subsidies by allomothers help pay for the energetic costs of the growing immatures, and because of life-history consequences; see also Burkart 2017).

Natural selection thus evaluates the net fitness benefit of a bigger brain, which also takes the costs into account. The balance of benefits and costs is critically influenced by how efficiently an individual can translate brain tissue (or general cognitive potential) into survival-increasing innovations – that is, knowledge and skills. — The evolution of general intelligence, BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES 2017

https://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/Cambridge/Amici_Coexistance_BehBrainSci_2017_2476762.pdf

The paper begins from the common thought in biology that, far from being a general advantage, the presence of intelligence on Earth is a puzzle that needs to be explained.

Here's one (simplistic, semi-metaphorical) way to look at things. In a species with high general intelligence, evolution has offloaded the problem of survival to the individual and social behaviour of that species--it's up to them to solve their own problems using their general intelligence--but in most other species, niche-specific traits have evolved to cope with the environment, as if natural selection has solved the problems itself. Bears don't need to be intelligent enough to make warm clothing.

Thus, general intelligence confers advantages only in some cases.

This coming from the person who says that intelligence is a general evolutionary advantage, for which there is no evidence, for which there has been no argument (aside from pointing at the development of human civilization), and which doesn't even have any clear meaning in evolutionary biology (what is intelligence?). — jamalrob

You're kidding, right? The evidence for my claim that intelligence is an evolutionary advantage can be found in the humble bathroom mirror, if you know what I mean. Humans dominate the world and you know it. It doesn't help at all if you keep negating the truth.

Aside from the basic meaninglessness of this question, as I've been saying, it depends. Look around at the species on Earth. The evidence is that intelligence is not required, certainly not always required, for success. On top of that, there are many ways in which intelligence could be a hindrance. My guess is that it would be a hindrance in most environments and for most organisms. I don't see how it could help bacteria or spiders. One problem: big brains are very costly to maintain. — jamalrob

I'm afraid we're not going to make any progress if you keep denying facts, the relevant one being, humans dominate the world. What does that tell you?

This is plain wrong, and you need to think about evolution and biodiversity very differently to correct your misconceptions. I've tried telling you politely. — jamalrob

Again, you're in denial.

In order to settle the matter once and for all, I'll pose 3 questions to you:

1. How come humans are at the top of the food chain at present?

2. Was there any change in our position in the food chain in the last million years or so?

3. What's the explanation for this change?

I'm not saying intelligence has to evolve, I'm saying once it emerges in an organism, doesn't matter how, it'll instantly, in geological terms, dominate the rest of the animal and plant kingdoms.

Thanks for your valuable comments.

Please think about it some more, and read at least some of the paper I quoted. And please name a fact that I have denied, as you claim.

What you've pointed out can be explained by saying that for humans, in the environment in which they evolved, intelligence was an advantage and increased at an unprecedented rate. You've made no argument for, and have given no evidence of, a general advantage across the tree of life.

humans are at the top of the food chain — TheMadFool

They're not: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/where-do-humans-really-rank-on-the-food-chain-180948053/

I'm going to speculate as to why an intelligent person like you might think that the apparent dominance of human beings on Earth is evidence that intelligence is a general advantage in evolution.

I think you have a conception of evolution as a game with a winner, and from your point of view, humans have won the gold medal. Since humans have succeeded owing largely to their intelligence (this is fair), then intelligence must be an advantage in evolution.

But notice that this conclusion simply doesn't follow, just in terms of basic logic. All that follows is that intelligence was an advantage for us. Imagine: some cyanobacteria wipes out human beings (it's possible) and becomes, in your terms, the dominant organism on Earth. In its case, it had nothing to do with intelligence.

In any case, what is dominance, exactly? What makes humans dominant over cyanobacteria?

Please think about it some more, and read at least some of the paper I quoted. And please name a fact that I have denied, as you claim.

What you've pointed out can be explained by saying that for humans, in the environment in which they evolved, intelligence was an advantage and increased at an unprecedented rate. You've made no argument for, and have given no evidence of, a general advantage across the tree of life. — jamalrob

The underlined bit resonates with the gist of my post. Don't you agree that technology, a product of intelligence, has made it possible for humans to expand their reach into different, even extreme habitats from the hot equatorial deserts to the cold arctic, at rates orders of magnitude greater than the much much slower process of evolution? I mean, if we had to depend on evolution to make the arctic landscape our home then it would take millions of years but we've, with technology, accomplished that in a fraction of that time.

Kindly factor the above in your next post.

I'm going to speculate as to why an intelligent person like you might think that the apparent dominance of human beings on Earth is evidence that intelligence is a general advantage.

I think you have a conception of evolution as a game with a winner, and from your point of view, humans have won the gold medal. Since humans have succeeded owing largely to our intelligence (this is fair), then intelligence must be an advantage in evolution.

But notice that this conclusion simply doesn't follow, just in terms of basic logic. All that follows is that intelligence was an advantage for us. Imagine: some cyanobacteria wipes out human beings (it's possible) and becomes, in your terms, the dominant organisms on Earth. In its case, it had nothing to do with intelligence.

In any case, what is dominance, exactly? What makes humans dominant over cyanobacteria? — jamalrob

Intelligence, in my humble opinion, is an ability that any organism, with sufficient complexity, can acquire. Humans don't have copyright over intelligence and if it has served us well then, what prevents another organism from reaping similar benefits?

Allow me to define dominance: it occurs when a single species multiplies with little to no hindrance from predation and begins to expand their territory into all available ecological niches, sustains it to such a level that other organisms are outcompeted and driven to extinction.

Are humans not the dominant species on the planet?

Again, thanks for engaging with me. It must be tiresome.
:up:

Don't you agree that technology, a product of intelligence, has made it possible for humans to expand their reach into different, even extreme habitats from the hot equatorial deserts to the cold arctic, at rates orders of magnitude greater than the much much slower process of evolution? I mean, if we had to depend on evolution to make the arctic landscape our home then it would take millions of years but we've, with technology, accomplished that in a fraction of that time. — TheMadFool

It's about more than just intelligence, but sure, I agree.

Intelligence, in my humble opinion, is an ability that any organism, with sufficient complexity, can acquire. Humans don't have copyright over intelligence and if it has served us well then, what prevents another organism from reaping similar benefits? — TheMadFool

It's weird to say that any organism can acquire intelligence, but otherwise, yes, other animals are intelligent, as I pointed out to you in my first post. Other species do indeed "reap similar benefits", if by that you mean some kind of evolutionary success. Every day I see hooded crows behaving intelligently, and they clearly dominate the bird life in the area I live in.

Allow me to define dominance: it occurs when a single species multiplies with little to no hindrance from predation and begins to expand their territory into all available ecological niches, sustains it to such a level that other organisms are outcompeted and driven to extinction.

Are humans not the dominant species on the planet? — TheMadFool

I'm undecided if this is an interesting or useful definition or question, but I'll answer yes for the sake of argument. What now?

In other words:

Okay, let's say that humans are the dominant species, and yes, we benefited very significantly from intelligence, and yes, other animals can be intelligent. What, then, is your next step?

What, then, is your next step? — jamalrob

I' sure you must've already figured out where I want to take this but if I must be explicit then...

Once we're in agreement that humans are at the top of the pyramid of life by any and all standards, we now need a metric that reflects that fact.

There is an indicator of success in evolution and it's, as far as I can see, an intuitive one based on the simple fact that extinction can't be interpreted in any other way but as a failure. After all extinction for a species is defined as a population = 0. We just put two and two together from that intuitive notion of what evolutionary success is and we're led to the inevitable conclusion that population size is an index of success. Are you with me so far?

However, you mentioned that there's a microbe with a population of (2.8 to 3.0) × 10^27, a mind-boggling number that make humans look like they're on the verge of extinction. What this means is population, by itself, won't do the job in ensuring that humans retain their position at the top of the pyramid of life. Something's not right.

There are many options for a good metric for evolutionary success I'm sure and you've been kind enough to offer some of your own. Thanks for that.

However, I don't wish to discard population because it makes intuitive sense but because it alone gives us the wrong picture, it needs to be modified - I'm thinking a ratio with another measurable quantity - in such a way that it doesn't do violence to the pyramid we constructed with humans at the apex.

Quite a simple idea, no?

It's just weird. Maybe I'm missing the point. You want a metric that reflects the dominance of human beings? Like, a number? Why not use other measures, such as intelligence, or "when a single species multiplies with little to no hindrance from predation and begins to expand their territory into all available ecological niches, sustains it to such a level that other organisms are outcompeted and driven to extinction." I mean, you already defined dominance so as to make humans come out on top, so what more do you need?

However, you mentioned that there's a microbe with a population of (2.8 to 3.0) × 10^27, a mind-boggling number that make humans look like they're on the verge of extinction. What this means is population, by itself, won't do the job in ensuring that humans retain their position at the top of the pyramid of life. Something's not right. — TheMadFool

This in particular is mind-bogglingly crazy. Seriously, unless someone can point out my own prejudices, this has gotta be one of the craziest thoughts I've ever seen written down on this forum.

And for God's sake drop the "pyramid of life", and "game of evolution" phrases. I'm out :razz:

I mean, you already defined dominance so as to make humans come out on top, so what more do you need? — jamalrob

Yes, I realized that but then what's the alternative? The word "dominance" comes with its own connotational baggage so to speak.

This in particular is mind-bogglingly crazy. Seriously, unless someone can point out my own prejudices, this has gotta be one of the craziest thoughts I've ever seen written down on this forum — jamalrob

Why is it crazy? There are two widely-held beliefs:

1. Humans are an exceptionally successful species

2. Population is a marker of success

However, 2 contradicts 1 [ref: (2.8 to 3.0) × 10^27] but both make sense, intuitively at least.

This is the "paradox" I want to bring to a satisfactory resolution.

And for God's sake drop the "pyramid of life", and "game of evolution" phrases. I'm out :razz: — jamalrob

I have a very limited vocabulary, so the clichés. So, yeah!

Thanks again.

I'm not sure what to say, TMF. I can't get my head around what you're saying at all, and I think I've said all I want to say, so maybe @Gnomon, @aylon or @tim wood could say something.

No problem. It's nothing substantive. Just a thought I had. I was hoping for some feedback, that's all. Thanks for the discussion and the links. Good day!