Which is the most 'intelligent' animal, in your opinion?

[SkepticLance]

To lucaspa

 

Re Encephalisation quotient.

I find your replies very annoying, because they are so nit picking. EQ is a measure that I already said was crude, so you attack it by saying it is crude. What are you trying to achieve?

 

EQ also suffers from a degree of variablility. When I first started looking for web sites on EQ, I found that the stated EQ for any one species varied somewhat from web site to web site. So one reference might say human EQ is 5, and another might say 8. However, what stayed fairly consistent was comparisons between species. So if web site A says human = 5, then bottlenose dolphin will be a bit less, say 4. If web site B says human = 8, then bottlenose dolphin will be a bit less, say 7. This applies pretty much across all web sites I looked at.

 

However, you attack my point on the grounds that the reference you looked up showed a different EQ to the reference I looked up. Can you understand why I find your arguments unsound?

 

A major cause of the EQ variability is individual variability. Sure, obesity will affect it. So will lots of other factors. That is why human EQ is given such varying values.

 

Nevertheless, regardless of how you twist it, from any credible study human EQ ends up the highest, supporting the view that human intelligence is top of the pole. This is not proof, but good supporting evidence.

[dichotomy]

As you noted, it's not an "assumption". It's a conclusion. Natural selection does not happen at the will or desire of the individual. If it did, there would be a LOT more deer born with longer fur in a climate getting colder. Instead, what is observed is that just as many deer are born with shorter fur than longer fur. It's just that survival is selective.

 

Ok, "conclusion". I tend to look at everything as an assumption these days, until it falls on my foot, hurts, and becomes a reality.

 

Now, the long and short of the hairy deer. I do see survival as selective. But, I also see survival as cleverly hedging the bets. I say this because nobody really knows (not even unconscious intellect) what the future brings. So if this is the case it is more prudent to have both types of deer about, in even number, for as long as they can survive. If the climate takes a dramatic turn one way or another, then one of the deer types will be more likely to prevail, and thus continue the herd.

I reason this with humans too. I see a massive range of body heights and weights in my city. I can only conclude that this is the species unconsciously hedging the bets for better long term survival. I know people come from all over the world and modern life hasn’t yet ‘flattened things out’. But, in an overfed, and easily digestible processed food, that is a phone call away, western society. A person who easily gains weight, and has great difficulty losing it, generally has a shorter and less healthy life expectancy than someone who doesn’t automatically pack on weight. So, the thin body is better suited to the current food culture of the west. Because life expectancy and health are generally longer for this body type when there’s lots of food available and shelter from the cold. But, if suddenly crops where wiped out by some pest and/or disease, food became much more difficult to obtain, and more difficult to digest. There was a real energy crisis, another ice age. Then the bodies that easily absorb fat would be better suited to survival in this new environment. Life is very clever and adaptable this way.

 

 

 

Again, the data is against some form of "unconscious smarts". People -- particularly population genetecists -- have tracked variations in wild populations and populations subjected to selection pressure in the lab. As you noted at "looking at the odds", if there were an unconscious smarts we would see more favorable variations than the "odds" would predict.

 

I never said that the ‘unconscious intellect’ was infallible. Did you consider that all life is the ‘favorable variation’ you look for? Why should the ‘unconscious intellect’ of life favor a single species when what it might be doing is logically spreading the risk as fully as it can, and thus reduce the possibility of mass extinctions? I don’t think humans are favored any more than microbes by a possible collective unconscious intellect. Life unconsciously wants to continue in what ever form it can. If it means starting from scratch (energy and matter) an infinite number of times, then that’s the way it goes. If it means a human surviving only by getting about with ostrich legs and a baboons butt, then that's the way it goes, simply due to necessity.

 

The forager ants are what I mean by "unconscious intelligence". They do what, in humans, is regarded as very difficult mathematical calculations requiring a high degree of intelligence -- in humans. Yet the ants do so with the most primitive of brains. So, this type of ability can be unconsciously developed by natural selection. Remember, natural selection is an algorithm to get design. It is so good at it that humans use natural selection when the design problem is too tough for them.

 

Saying that ‘natural selection is so good at good design algorithms’, sounds a bit like me saying unconscious intellect can be more powerful than conscious intellect. We might be talking about the same shit in different buckets? You seem to see it as random, lucky and unconscious. I see it as ‘unconscious intellect’, the same as you or me asleep automatically dreaming how to solve problems. In this state we are not in the drivers seat. The unconscious is. We are just interested observers.

 

 

As far as I know. Do you have any data to the contrary?

 

No, I’ll have to be reincarnated as a scientist and carry out a series of tests. On another matter. I have observed that scientists tend to make a lot of silly (and obvious to me) errors when they develop studies on people and animals. It’s infuriating to watch at times. They really should do more preliminary theory work and cover some holes before going into the more useful ‘real life’ studies, just to get a better bang for our bucks and not waste so much time. Of course I don't complain when they come up with the goods, funny about that.

 

 

We don't necessarily have a monopoly on "intelligence". Monkeys, chimps, orangutuans, etc. are very "smart":

9. E Linden, Can animals think? Time 154: 57-60, Sept 6, 1999. (the "prison breaks" from zoos are as clever as anything humans have come up with to break out of prison)

 

However, we do have the combination of intelligence and technology such that it is going to be impossible for any other species to break into our particular ecological niche. But that applies all across evolution: it would be impossible for any fish to challenge sharks in their ecological niche. Sharks are simply very good at that niche. That's why you see widespread adaptation only when species invade an ecology with lots of empty niches: such as the tortoises and finches on the Galapagos or the mammals after the KT extinction. As a population adapts to a niche, of course they are not going to be as good at it as a species that has already adpated to the niche.

 

When we see a replacement of a species, it is when species B has evolved in some other location and is now invading the area of species A. For whatever reason at the other location, species B is better at filling the niche than species A. But you don't see species B evolving in the same area and trying to replace species A. That doesn't work. This replacement is what happened as H. sapiens migrated out of Africa. It was better at filling the niche of Homo than either H. neandertals in Europe or H. erectus in Asia and therefore outcompeted them for the niche.

 

Of course, H. sapiens is now all over the planet.

 

I said what ‘constitutes’ intelligence. But I accept what you are saying. With the exception that there is a theory, I hear, that H. sapiens and H. neandertals may have integrated and become one. That they where not different enough to prevent cross breeding.

 

cheers.

[SkepticLance]

Dichotomy said :

 

A person who easily gains weight, and has great difficulty losing it, generally has a shorter and less healthy life expectancy than someone who doesn’t automatically pack on weight

 

This is not a criticism of the above statement or an argument - just an aside on a point I find interesting.

 

It is possible, and often happens, that a gene or genes for some undesirable trait may stay in the population for a hell of a long time before being weeded out, if it has its nasty effect after the age of reproduction.

 

So if a person has a gene for 'middle age spread' and goes obese after, say, the age of 45, then that gene will not be easily eliminated.

 

The classis is the Huntington's Disease gene, which kills people in their late 50's and 60's. It is damned persistent in the human gene pool.

 

This effect is also a prime candidate for one of the causes of ageing. The population accumulates genes that are harmful, but have an effect only late in life. Since these mutations are not readily weeded out, they build up in number. Today, humans have lots of genetic mutations in the genome which kick in at an older age, and cause harm. ie. ageing. We may have as many as 1000 harmful genes that kick in with age, and cause us to degenerate as we get older.

[foodchain]

Dichotomy said :

 

A person who easily gains weight, and has great difficulty losing it, generally has a shorter and less healthy life expectancy than someone who doesn’t automatically pack on weight

 

This is not a criticism of the above statement or an argument - just an aside on a point I find interesting.

 

It is possible, and often happens, that a gene or genes for some undesirable trait may stay in the population for a hell of a long time before being weeded out, if it has its nasty effect after the age of reproduction.

 

So if a person has a gene for 'middle age spread' and goes obese after, say, the age of 45, then that gene will not be easily eliminated.

 

The classis is the Huntington's Disease gene, which kills people in their late 50's and 60's. It is damned persistent in the human gene pool.

 

This effect is also a prime candidate for one of the causes of ageing. The population accumulates genes that are harmful, but have an effect only late in life. Since these mutations are not readily weeded out, they build up in number. Today, humans have lots of genetic mutations in the genome which kick in at an older age, and cause harm. ie. ageing. We may have as many as 1000 harmful genes that kick in with age, and cause us to degenerate as we get older.

 

Not to speak to metaphorically but traits might be a bit holographic depending on whatever stress you happen to view the organism from. Being able to build fat surely has benefits in the real world. Now in some modern human societies it may have some drawbacks, but the ability to be able to reproduce many times while still having this trait surely does not reduce its presence in a gene pool. Also environmental factors can curb in many cases obesity, such as if a person develops a diet and exercise regime to counter such to some extent. Overall I don’t see anything rigid to explain the progression of genes via some rigid formula, I think it more or less still dwells on fitness in the environment over time as the best explanation.

 

Example of time being something so hard to consider is simply thinking of the idea that recorded history for the most part does not really escape in most cases barely over a few thousand years, in terms of generations its most likely impossible for a human mind to envision the passage of say even a million years. Plus giving mutation rates, regardless of type of mutation, there is a point in which you can say 100% genetic change from .01% mutation rate could eventually happen, akin to a drip of water filling up a bucket.

 

To add to this though you have to deal with "networks" of genes and so on, plus epigenetic effects, plasticity of the phenotype. In many cases you can find an array of terms to add to a -type, such as ecotype and chemotype for example, its akin to the use of the word troph and -troph if I may somewhat illegally say so in personal opinion. Even another pointer is the concept that the wild type is named so versus in the lab or cultured really.

[lucaspa]

To lucaspa

 

Re Encephalisation quotient.

I find your replies very annoying, because they are so nit picking. EQ is a measure that I already said was crude, so you attack it by saying it is crude. What are you trying to achieve?

 

The recognition that EQ is so crude as to be worthless. Certainly comparing intelligence between individuals within a species and very probably comparing intelligence between species.

 

EQ also suffers from a degree of variablility. When I first started looking for web sites on EQ, I found that the stated EQ for any one species varied somewhat from web site to web site. ... This applies pretty much across all web sites I looked at.

 

"Pretty much" does not mean EVERY website, does it? Which supports my argument that EQ is worthless because of the variability of calculating it! If it were a reliable variable, you wouldn't see the variability between websites. How many of those websites were .edu?

 

Nevertheless, regardless of how you twist it, from any credible study human EQ ends up the highest, supporting the view that human intelligence is top of the pole. This is not proof, but good supporting evidence.

 

Is it? Or is it evidence that EQ is chosen as the measurement precisely because it places human intelligence at the top of the pole? IOW, is EQ used because it gives the answer we want for one species -- our own -- not because it is reliable in evaluating the relative intelligence of all the other species out there?

 

Here are some other resources:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int3.html If you choose to read only 1, read this one. Notice that if you take the simplistic ratio of brain size to body size, birds have a much higher ratio than humans! It takes fiddling with the constants to get the EQ to come out to the tables you quote. And YES! a table that comes from an .edu site!

 

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ArtikelNr=102973&Ausgabe=233218&ProduktNr=223831&filename=102973.pdf

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH9-4FVJC1J-1&_user=5751&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000001378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5751&md5=893b7ef3d55a21b0ebde4547fa9044d0

 

"In 1973, Jerison attempted to establish a quantitative measure of intelligence with his concept of the encephalization quotient (EQ), which was the ratio of actual brain size to expected "average" brain size. The latter was defined by the allometric function for brain:body relations initially proposed by Snell (1892) in the form of E = kP, where E and P are brain and body weights, respectively, and k and are constants. For example, a taxon with an EQ of 6, the actual value calculated by Jerison for humans, would have a brain six times larger than that in the "average" mammalian taxon. Jerison (1973) assumed that since the brain size of an "average" mammal was sufficient to maintain basic sensory and motor functions, the "excess" brain weight represented neurons that could be utilized for higher mental functions. The concepts of intelligence and the encephalization quotient have been repeatedly questioned, however. First of all, it has proven difficult if not impossible to establish a definition of intelligence, as a biological property of an organism, that is free of value judgment (Butler and Hodos, 1996). Secondly, the actual value of an expected brain size will depend on the choice of a reference group, and an expected brain size can therefore change substantially, depending on the taxonomic level selected (van Dongen, 1998)." http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/42/4/743

 

 

http://www.anthro.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mchenry/Chapter23.pdf

 

This one has EQ for extinct hominoids. I notice the the EQ for habilis is higher than the EQ for erectus!

 

"Taxona EQ

Pan troglodytes Extant 2.0

Ardipithecus ramidus

Australopithecus anamensis

Australopithecus afarensis 2.4

Kenyanthropus platyops

Australopithecus africanus 2.7

Australopithecus aethiopicus

Paranthropus boisei 2.7

Paranthropus robustus 3.0

Australopithecus garhi

Homo habilis 3.6

Homo rudolfensis 3.1

Homo ergaster 3.3

Homo sapiens Extant 5.8

 

More information on the variability of EQ, this time embedded in the math:

 

"Clearly, since the line of best fit (regression, major axis, or reduced major axis) is calculated based on the data, it should be possible to calculate exactly how far each point is from the line; it is, and these numbers are called residuals. One can then use these residuals in one way or another to calculate an index of brain size relative to what is predicted for an animal of that body size. Different researchers use different indices (two you might run into are "comparative brain size" or CBS, and "encephalization quotient" or EQ). Animals with large EQs are thought to be relatively "smart" and those with small EQs are... not (for example, the siamang in the figure below). CAUTION: There are 3 possible lines of best fit, and since this is empirical of course the exact line--and hence residuals--will depend on which species are in the sample, AND there are different ways to calculate the EQ (should you base the human EQ on all mammals, on just "primitive" mammals (compare to a baseline), or on just primates?). Hence values of EQ or CBS in the literature range widely; I've seen between about 4 - 8 for humans (one of, if not the most, encephalized animals). Just be careful when comparing results across studies, and read the methods carefully! http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/courses/allometry/allometry.html

 

Now, the long and short of the hairy deer. I do see survival as selective. But, I also see survival as cleverly hedging the bets. I say this because nobody really knows (not even unconscious intellect) what the future brings....

I reason this with humans too. I see a massive range of body heights and weights in my city. I can only conclude that this is the species unconsciously hedging the bets for better long term survival.

 

But the SPECIES doesn't have an "unconscious". To have an "unconscious" you have to have a brain. A species is a collection of individual organisms. No separate brain. And it is the individuals that die! Now, do you see yourself volunteering to be the the variability that isn't going to make it in the future? Why would any individual do that? So how can there be an "unconscious" intellect at work picking variability?

 

A person who easily gains weight, and has great difficulty losing it, generally has a shorter and less healthy life expectancy than someone who doesn’t automatically pack on weight. So, the thin body is better suited to the current food culture of the west.

 

However, how long is that life expectancy? Long after the individual has kids! If you don't die until your 40s or 50s, natural selection is blind to whatever variation caused that death. Why? Because you've already passed those inheritable traits to your children.

 

But, if suddenly crops where wiped out by some pest and/or disease, food became much more difficult to obtain, and more difficult to digest. There was a real energy crisis, another ice age. Then the bodies that easily absorb fat would be better suited to survival in this new environment. Life is very clever and adaptable this way.

 

You are misusing teleology here. And that comes from sloppy language. There is no "cleverness" involved. If there were, would life be so stupid as to have 99.99% of all species go extinct? But that is what happens. No, the variability is chance without any intelligence at all. It is pure luck -- either good or bad. You don't choose the genes you are born with. Neither does anything else "choose" (as in an intelligent choice). The species does not sit around and decide "Dichotomy will have a fat body type and lucaspa will have a thin one, that way the species will be prepared for a possible ice age."

I don’t think humans are favored any more than microbes by a possible collective unconscious intellect.

 

Where is this "possible collective unconscious intellect" housed? All intellect has a material container -- such as a brain. What is the material container of the "unconscious intellect".

 

I think you are mistaking the fact that natural selection is an unintelligent process that gives design. Natural selection does not involve intelligence, yet the product of natural selection -- adaptations/designs -- might look like they are the product of intelligence.

 

Life unconsciously wants to continue in what ever form it can.

 

No. Life has no "unconscious" desire of any kind.

 

Saying that ‘natural selection is so good at good design algorithms’, sounds a bit like me saying unconscious intellect can be more powerful than conscious intellect. We might be talking about the same shit in different buckets? You seem to see it as random, lucky and unconscious. I see it as ‘unconscious intellect’, the same as you or me asleep automatically dreaming how to solve problems. In this state we are not in the drivers seat. The unconscious is. We are just interested observers.

 

But our "unconscious" is still in our brain, isn't it? You are proposing a disembodied, non-material "unconscious". No, what you are mistaking is that evolution is a combination of chance and determinism. The chance is the variation. Selection is determinism. For you and me, we are lucky or unlucky in the alleles we inherit from our parents or get by mutation. However, selection is very deterministic at picking the alleles that do best in the current environment. The result is an unintelligent process that gives design. An algorithm is a series of steps that, if followed by a servile dunce, always gives a result. Long division is an algorithm. You don't need intelligence to do long division -- any calculator can follow the steps. But the answer is guaranteed. With natural selection, the guaranteed outcome is design. You are trying to get "intelligence" into evolution. There isn't any.

 

No, ...On another matter. I have observed that scientists tend to make a lot of silly (and obvious to me) errors when they develop studies on people and animals. It’s infuriating to watch at times.

 

1. So you have no contrary data about the beavers. You don't necessarily have to go out and do tests. Just be aware of someone else that has already done so. However, in the absence of contrary data, my statements stand.

2. Can you be more specific about the studies? What methodologies do you think are flawed?

 

With the exception that there is a theory, I hear, that H. sapiens and H. neandertals may have integrated and become one. That they where not different enough to prevent cross breeding.

 

1. You did state what you considered "intelligence". However, that doesn't negate my argument that humans are already in that ecological niche and, therefore, it is impossible for another species to evolve comparable intelligence/technology as long as humans are around.

 

2. The data from several independent lines of evidence refutes this theory. Sapiens and neandertals were two different species and did not interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

1. neandertals and sapiens co-habited Mt. Shkul in Syria for 60,000 years. There have been hundreds of sapien and neandertal fossils found there. No sign of interbreeding.

2. mtDNA extracted from neandertal fossils (4 different ones) all show differences in base sequences outside the range of sequences for H. sapiens. Separate species.

3. Y-chromosome and mtDNA studies all show that the oldest Y-chromosome and mtDNA sequences in sapiens are no older than 100,000 years. But neandertals were a species 250,000 years ago. If sapiens and neandertals had merged, then there would be older Y-chromosome and mtDNA sequences. There aren't. Therefore sapiens and neandertal did not merge. Instead, the fossil data says that both species evolved from H. erectus: sapiens in Africa and neandertals in Europe. Classic allopatric speciation.

[SkepticLance]

To lucaspa

Re EQ.

It appears that you delight in detail criticism.

I already said that EQ is a crude measure, and you spend half a very long posting describing in detail what those crudities are.

 

However, EQ has one very important scientific virtue. It is perhaps the only comparative measure of intelligence that is objective. With intelligence, it is almost impossible to come up with measures that are not affected very strongly by the preconceptions of the researchers. This is shown by the ignominious history of researching differences in intelligence based on race.

 

EQ is clearly not a good guide when we look at those organisms that are very large or very small. However, with the exception of a few very large organisms (the elephant and some whales) the candidates for 'most intelligent' are all in the intermediate size range. I doubt anyone is seriously going to suggest that a house mouse is the most intelligent animal.

 

Looking at the EQs of intermediate size animals, and accepting that it is an imperfect measure, we are left with a clear indication that the 'most intelligent' will be either humans or a cetacean.

 

This ties in well with alternative indicators. I am firmly of the opinion that humans are the most intelligent, and this idea is supported not only by EQ, but also by relative frontal lobe size, language ability, ecological success, technological development, success in social groupings etc.

 

I find it hard to see how, with the overwhelming weight of evidence, that anyone could consider another species more intelligent than humans, except for the very unlikely possibility that a cetacean (unable to develop technology due to lack of arms) may have developed high intelligence as an aid to social interaction.

[someguy]

yes, but since you admit that EQ is crude, and even using it dolphins rank among the highest, and dolphins have language (though not written), perhaps as complex as ours. i think you would need to allow that they are possibly as smart or maybe even smarter than we are. if we were stuck with flippers and not hands with opposable thumbs and were stuck under the ocean, i don't think we would have been able to develop written language, or any type of technology. you know? i think it's a possibility. so far a possibility that we can neither confirm nor deny. but i have seen them perform a test that indicated one of two things. either they are certainly smarter than humans, or they have learned to count without written language. personally i lean strongly against the latter but still, it at least puts them in our league.

[SkepticLance]

To someguy

 

I have already admitted the possibility that some cetaceans are up there in the same intelligence area. It is going to be difficult to perform an objective test, though.

[someguy]

oh ya, my bad. and ya it will be difficult, but maybe once they figure out the whole DNA thing we'll be there.

[dichotomy]

But the SPECIES doesn't have an "unconscious". To have an "unconscious" you have to have a brain. A species is a collection of individual organisms. No separate brain. And it is the individuals that die! Now, do you see yourself volunteering to be the the variability that isn't going to make it in the future? Why would any individual do that? So how can there be an "unconscious" intellect at work picking variability?

 

I'll repeat this with some minor edits - Did you consider that 'all of life' is the ‘favorable variation’ you look for? Why should the ‘unconscious intellect’ of life favor a single species when what it might be doing is unconsciously spreading the risk as fully as it can, and thus reduce the possibility of complete extinction of life?

 

However, how long is that life expectancy? Long after the individual has kids! If you don't die until your 40s or 50s, natural selection is blind to whatever variation caused that death. Why? Because you've already passed those inheritable traits to your children.

 

Yes, but N.S. still can be viewed as the unconscious spreading of risk. Either traits work, or they don’t depending on what enviro factors are operating at the time. I think the sheer fact that N.S. operates effectively the way it does, is quite clever, even though N.S doesn't consciously think.

 

You are misusing teleology here. And that comes from sloppy language. There is no "cleverness" involved. If there were, would life be so stupid as to have 99.99% of all species go extinct? But that is what happens. No, the variability is chance without any intelligence at all. It is pure luck -- either good or bad. You don't choose the genes you are born with. Neither does anything else "choose" (as in an intelligent choice). The species does not sit around and decide "Dichotomy will have a fat body type and lucaspa will have a thin one, that way the species will be prepared for a possible ice age."

 

 

It doesn’t think about it like WE do. It unconsciously spreads risk in order to give the best chance of survival.

 

 

Where is this "possible collective unconscious intellect" housed? All intellect has a material container -- such as a brain. What is the material container of the "unconscious intellect".

 

Take a look at my new thread on the collective unconscious and conscious intellect.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=356057#post356057

 

 

1. So you have no contrary data about the beavers. You don't necessarily have to go out and do tests. Just be aware of someone else that has already done so. However, in the absence of contrary data, my statements stand.

 

No, you're in the same boat as me here. Where is your evidence to the contrary? I’d seriously be interested in this one.

 

 

2. Can you be more specific about the studies? What methodologies do you think are flawed?

 

The methodologies that generally go wrong are – not accounting for the relevant variables, the lab test that really needs to be a life test, the human disease of perpetual incorrect assumption. There was a debate on the incorrect diagnosis of ADHD and perscription of ritalin I was following. I'll try to find some of the dodgy science involved in that one when I get a chance.

 

Cheers (you are making me work you know?).

 

If there were, would life be so stupid as to have 99.99% of all species go extinct? But that is what happens.

 

Gee, it must have been hell counting all those dead microbes.

 

You don't choose the genes you are born with.

 

No, unconscious nature does that for us. And swithes genes on/off when the right stimuli is applied too. If there was absolutely no method applied by a collective unconscious we wouldn't even see microbes in existance. Life persists because it attempts to. Even though it does not know it is trying to.

 

cheers.

 

Originally Posted by lucaspa

 

1. neandertals and sapiens co-habited Mt. Shkul in Syria for 60,000 years. There have been hundreds of sapien and neandertal fossils found there. No sign of interbreeding.

2. mtDNA extracted from neandertal fossils (4 different ones) all show differences in base sequences outside the range of sequences for H. sapiens. Separate species.

3. Y-chromosome and mtDNA studies all show that the oldest Y-chromosome and mtDNA sequences in sapiens are no older than 100,000 years. But neandertals were a species 250,000 years ago. If sapiens and neandertals had merged, then there would be older Y-chromosome and mtDNA sequences. There aren't. Therefore sapiens and neandertal did not merge. Instead, the fossil data says that both species evolved from H. erectus: sapiens in Africa and neandertals in Europe. Classic allopatric speciation.

 

Thanks for this updated info. The source docu I watched was probably at least 3 years old, and only speculated interbreeding from a single irregular infant fossil. Of course, the infant may not have been fertile due to it being a hybrid.

[hitmankratos]

Dolphins are.

[bugman101]

The ant and its colony! A single ant has 250,000 brain cells. Humans have 10,000 million, and 35,000-40,000 ants has the potential as a colony to match the human brain. A colony of ants functions in unison. Ants are social insects capable of problem solving. The Slave Maker ant (Polyergus rufescens) actually raids the nests of other colonies stealing the pupae. The stolen pupae then hatch and work as slaves within the slave maker colony. Ants are found on every inhabitable landmass on the planet. In respect to an Ants size and weight, if a man was to run as fast as an Ant he would be as fast as a racehorse. Ants can lift 20 times their body weight. Talk about a well adapted creature.

[EdEarl]

Tough question, because intelligence can be measured in many ways, social, mathematical, language, etc.

Bonobos.

[arc]

The one genetically closest to us.

 

But a crow is the smartest by weight. They can reason, making judgments about lengths and depths. They are problem solvers.

 

 

 

Octopus have a remarkable capacity to learn and remember the lesson presented, even if only shown once.

 

[Ophiolite]

How many ant colonies have Nobel prizes? How many ant colonies have been to the moon?

 

Most significant: how man ant colonies have asked "what is the most intelligent species?"

[chibiidol]

Other than humans? I just watched a documentary on octopuses, they work very differently from us but are quite intelligent never the less. However, Im dont know if they are more intelligent than primates.

[benevolenthellion]

 

1.mice

2.Dolphins

3.Humans

 

Sorry I had to

[CharonY]

 

 

Most significant: how man ant colonies have asked "what is the most intelligent species?"

 

I think two, but they had a strong Brazilian accent and I can't be sure.

[CramBoom]

For me, it is a tie between elephants and octopi. Octupi are smart in thier own way, and have advanced brains, whereas elephants have self consciousness, can recognize themselves in a mirror, problem solve, etc.

[Ayesha]

Squids are said to be the brainiest animals in the world.

[nyouremyperfect10]

Intelligence cannot be quantified IMO.

 

We think we're intelligent, but probably the only thing that separates us is that our abstraction is more advanced.

 

Who is to say dogs, lions and tigers don't abstract? Maybe lions and tigers believe in a big cat god, who knows? lolol...

[Titan1290]

This is interesting http://list25.com/25-most-intelligent-animals-on-earth/2/ and I would give you an answer but how does one measure intelligence ? Perhaps I should make that a question!

[EdEarl]

This is interesting http://list25.com/25-most-intelligent-animals-on-earth/2/ and I would give you an answer but how does one measure intelligence ? Perhaps I should make that a question!

This list of 25 most intelligent animals seems to be a popularity contest. I am a cat lover, but cats are not IMO more intelligent than an orangutang or crow, and probably not as smart as a monkey or sea lion. The same goes for squirrels. It lists whales but shows a picture of an orca (misnamed killer whale), which is a dolphin and not actually a whale.

 

There are different kinds of intelligence, graphic, audio, and verbal to name a few. It is easy to understand that an orca and sperm whale, both dolphins, have very large brains and are quick learners. Their smaller cousins, the bottle nose dolphin, can communicate in sophisticated ways that we do not fully understand, and I think the same is true of orca and sperm whales do too. Using sonar they can see prey through darkness and hidden in ocean sand. It seems reasonable they can see inside each other and notice pregnancy and tumors. Perhaps some of the dolphins know of seaweed and animals that they use for medicinal purposes (speculation). However, I cannot imagine they would understand that a human surgeon could perform an operation to remove a tumor. Because of volcanic activity in the oceans, dolphins probably understand dangerous temperatures. However, I cannot imagine they would understand a Bic lighter.

 

On the other hand, at least one bonobo has used a lighter to light a campfire, and water to quench it. A bonobo has a much smaller brain than many dolphins or an elephant. But, it is hard to compare the intelligence of a human, bottle nose, orca, sperm whale, bonobo, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, African elephant and Asian Elephant. Although, comparison of various primates, various cetaceans, and various pachyderm would be easier than all of them together.

 

My list of the smartest animals would include all of the apes, dolphins, and pachyderm.

[Titan1290]

Ed Earl is going about the right way to do this defining intelligence/measuring intelligence is the first step to be able to answer this question. As Ed Earl said below:

 

.

 

"There are different kinds of intelligence, graphic, audio, and verbal to name a few."

 

as well as defining intelligence you would have to identify/classify all the different types of intelligence. BUT bats can use echolocation and we cannot is this because they are more intelligent than us or not ? Bats have probably adapted to use echolocation because of adaptation.That then for makes me believe that perhaps the adaptation rate and intelligence of a species may be linked. Then another question how does one measure adaption rate ? The point is there is far to many variables here and if this was such and easy question since science would have had a definitive answer for the most intelligent species. The way to find an answer for your question would be to identify all these variables that make up intelligence and also understanding how all these factors work in relation to intelligence.

[Danijel Gorupec]

Apes.

 

Still, I think, the octopus intelligence is more charming and more important, and should be studied more. Because this is a completely separate branch of intelligence (from the evolutionary point of view). It gives hope that the intelligence did not happen just by a chance.

 

I am not sure about pig intelligence. I never saw much intelligence in my pigs... Maybe I just eat them too early - should I wait somewhat longer for their brightness to emerge?