evolving towards intelligence

[markd]

I usually lurk in the upper fora. In another forum an IDiot is claiming that "the fittest creatures are always the most intelligent". While he is not quantifying "intelligent" what is an appropriate refutation??

[NottyImp]

fitness <> intelligence

Bacteria are probably the most succesful organisms on earth, but they ain't very bright.

[ZouPrime]

It's simply wrong. By "fittest", we mean the ability to reproduce in a given environment. "Survival of the fittest" means that the living beings who are the best at reproducing will survive (since they reproduce more easily and thus use more of the available ressources than the "unfit" ones").

So "fittest" can mean a lot of things: the most intelligent, or the stronger, or the faster... anything that can help an individual in its reproduction compared to its competitors.

[Hnefi]

Maybe you could point out that a majority of the biomass on Earth consists of bacteria. Since bacteria are also very very small, this makes them incredibly successful, and thus by definition incredibly fit. In fact, no other type of organism has had such a thorough effect on the world as bacteria, and yet, they are incredibly stupid.

[RBH]

It's simply wrong. By "fittest", we mean the ability to reproduce in a given environment. "Survival of the fittest" means that the living beings who are the best at reproducing will survive (since they reproduce more easily and thus use more of the available ressources than the "unfit" ones").

So "fittest" can mean a lot of things: the most intelligent, or the stronger, or the faster... anything that can help an individual in its reproduction compared to its competitors."Fittest" can also mean the least noticeable, the best hidden, the smallest, etc., etc., etc. It need not mean 'more' of something. "Fit" has no meaning in the absence of a description of the selective environment -- it is not an intrinsic property of a species or population, but must always be defined in terms of 'fit with respect to' a specified environment. It is a relational concept.

RBH

[markd]

Thanks guys. Not sure why I try to fight the good fight with toolbags, but gotta spread the word.

[Avatar]

Cockroaches.

How bright are they?

Yet they survive better than we do.

[ashaktur]

Cockroaches.

How bright are they?

Yet they survive better than we do.

Depends on whether one gets in my way or not.

[Blackcat]

In another forum an IDiot is claiming that "the fittest creatures are always the most intelligent". While he is not quantifying "intelligent" what is an appropriate refutation??

David Beckham. A simple observation that completely breaks this hypothesis. ;)

[NottyImp]

David Beckham. A simple observation that completely breaks this hypothesis.

Or, indeed, his wife.

[Berthold]

In his optimistic outlook for SETI, Carl Sagan said,"It is always better to be bright." But this thing is not ceteris paribus: nerve tissue needs a lot of energy (food). There are many ways to make a living, and although we have just Earth as an example, I think it can be said that it took rather long for a sophisticated toolmaker to evolve, as the principal wherewithal to start with (sense organs, central nervous system, limbs able to manipulate things) had been around for some time.

[judanne]

Depends on whether one gets in my way or not.
Ah, but where there's one you can see, there's usually hundreds you can't. How do you know he or she isn't just the sacrificial decoy? :Cheeky:

[jonesg]

I usually lurk in the upper fora. In another forum an IDiot is claiming that "the fittest creatures are always the most intelligent". While he is not quantifying "intelligent" what is an appropriate refutation??


Define Fittest, in evolution its particular to each example.
A chameleon isn't intelligent to change its coloring, but I could make good use of that tactic myself here and there.
It does imply intelligent design.

[jonesg]

In his optimistic outlook for SETI, Carl Sagan said,"It is always better to be bright." But this thing is not ceteris paribus: nerve tissue needs a lot of energy (food). There are many ways to make a living, and although we have just Earth as an example, I think it can be said that it took rather long for a sophisticated toolmaker to evolve, as the principal wherewithal to start with (sense organs, central nervous system, limbs able to manipulate things) had been around for some time.

But Sagan was too obviously wrong, yeh its nice to be bright ...
but Its better to have common sense.

It makes a fool of many who place over-reliance on human intellect.

[RBH]

Define Fittest, in evolution its particular to each example.
A chameleon isn't intelligent to change its coloring, but I could make good use of that tactic myself here and there.
It does imply intelligent design.No, it doesn't "imply" intelligent design. It is consistent with intelligent design. Since intelligent design's sole claim is that "some stuff looks designed", with no further info about how, when, where, by what, etc., anything at all is consistent with intelligent design and as a direct consequence, nothing at all implies intelligent design.

RBH

[show_no_mercy]

But Sagan was too obviously wrong, yeh its nice to be bright ...
but Its better to have common sense.

It makes a fool of many who place over-reliance on human intellect.

This is a nonsense statement. Common sense = human intellect.

"[human intellect] makes a fool of many who place over reliance on human intellect"

:rolleyes:

[RidgeBe]

I bristle a bit at the phrase “common sense.� If at least two people do not share a “common sense� then it is an oxymoron—neither common, nor for at least one, sensible.
When two lawyers on opposing side ask jurors to use their “common sense,� then the lawyers are doing so with an air of condescension toward the jurors.