Why is the human-being the only animal which developed learning skill?

[cercig]

Hello,

 

My profession is not genetic, but I have a general knowledge on development of races and human evolution, so please forgive me if I write a wrong notation.

 

According to the evolution theory, humanbeing was in same genetic family as all the ape kinds, we were one of the ape kinds with a primitive brain. Then for a reason, humanbeing developed his learning ability, developed shelters (like cave houses), hunting technics, cooking, discovered fire, new transportation technics, built up new human relationships, culture and civilizations. Finally we became superlative creatures in the planet.

 

My question is "how" or "why" humanbeing developed his learning ability altough all the other ape kinds have kept their primitive brains?

 

If you answer like "There was a threat to humankind, so they developed this skill with his surviving instinct", then I will ask you back like "Then there must be similar threats to other apes too, and there has been hundreds of different ape types, many of them had a very similar brain structure to human brain structure. Why didn't any of these ape kinds develope its learning skills?"

 

Thanks,

 

Gürol

Edited December 8, 2010 by cercig

[ydoaPs]

Other apes and even some non-apes have displayed learned behaviour.

[Mr Skeptic]

Other animals learn too. The animals that are most helpless when young, are usually the ones that learn the most (as opposed to having most of it as built-in instincts).

 

As to why we're so smart, there's a few interesting ideas. Intelligence correlates very well to fitness, and studies show that the people women are attracted to tend to have higher intelligence. Moreover, (some degree of) retardation generally results from most bad mutations, or from malnutrition. In addition, other species use what might be seen as a measure of intelligence for mate selection (birds in particular, are quite smart and the clever ones sing better). So it could have been sexual selection for intelligence.

 

Also, intelligence is necessary for social species like ours (not for herd animals though). We have a complex society and being able to navigate it successfully and profitably takes a lot of intelligence, similarly not to be taken advantage of by other clever individuals.

[cercig]

Yes, I have seen documentaries which are showing that animals can learn some basic actions.

 

However, I am asking same question again. Why did only humankind learn to learn? Why not other billions of animal kinds? What was the breaking point million years ago? How could we open our mind to learn new things? and Why couldn't other animals open their mind and they have kept their limited basic skills?

 

Thanks,

 

Gürol

[cypress]

The answers to your questions are not known. Clearly human capability is markedly different than other species as you have noted, and our current level of understanding is not sufficient to provide scientific answers to them. The general observations that other species exhibit behaviors that one might consider similar leaves the question wanting. The only good answer to your questions at this time is that humans are indeed very different in the areas about which you asked.

[swansont]

The answer is not going to come down to one or two causes. It's going to be a multitude of them, and all inter-related.

 

You mention things related to toolmaking (building things), and you can't build tools without the proper manual dexterity, so you can't exploit any advantage of intelligence if you can't follow through by actually building the tools. So there would be no toolmaking-intelligence selection pressure on animals that had hooves or claws, for example. I imagine that stereoscopic vision is also important for exploiting certain tools (depth perception). So most herbivores are not going to be able to exploit this. Big brains come with a cost, too, as Mr Skeptic has implied. Advanced intelligence is not going to be an advantage if you can't feed yourself.

 

So the broad answer is that there were apes who already had characteristics that could be exploited, so that increased intelligence conferred an advantage.

[cercig]

Yes swansont, you have right points. There are some animals which have natural tools on their body to protect and feed theirself, so there is no pressure on them to change theirself. Moreover, depth perception is very important for discovery. If I add a point, I think "having hands" is a very big advantage to be able to develop tools.

 

According to the properties above, apes are very suitable to develop theirself. However, it is coming to same point again. Million years ago, humankind and many other ape kinds had similar brain, similar body properties and characteristics, similar living style, similar threats from other wild animals. What did push humankind to develop new tools and to discover new living tehcniques? Why didn't other apes feel the same pressure although we had similar life and threats?

[steevey]

Hello,

 

My profession is not genetic, but I have a general knowledge on development of races and human evolution, so please forgive me if I write a wrong notation.

 

According to the evolution theory, humanbeing was in same genetic family as all the ape kinds, we were one of the ape kinds with a primitive brain. Then for a reason, humanbeing developed his learning ability, developed shelters (like cave houses), hunting technics, cooking, discovered fire, new transportation technics, built up new human relationships, culture and civilizations. Finally we became superlative creatures in the planet.

 

My question is "how" or "why" humanbeing developed his learning ability altough all the other ape kinds have kept their primitive brains?

 

If you answer like "There was a threat to humankind, so they developed this skill with his surviving instinct", then I will ask you back like "Then there must be similar threats to other apes too, and there has been hundreds of different ape types, many of them had a very similar brain structure to human brain structure. Why didn't any of these ape kinds develope its learning skills?"

 

Thanks,

 

Gürol

 

What happens with primates is they pass information down from generation to generation, which has been observed in Indonesia where monkeys learn to disable traps and then pass that information down. Not only that, but it's more of a matter of adaption. It was more efficient for human beings to learn and use cognitive thinking, so the ones who could do it and be innovative survived the most. There's plenty of other animals that can think and memorize and, but the problem is either they don't have the right appendages or they can't communicate. Also, without a complex system of labeling information, which is what we do with words, it's harder to do cognitive thinking. Words are like shortcuts. They make think more efficient because we can summarize an entire though process of a minute in a matter of a few seconds. So if you can think by labeling information, you have more room to think about other things at the same time and make more connections, and most other animals do not have this ability.

[Sisyphus]

Yes swansont, you have right points. There are some animals which have natural tools on their body to protect and feed theirself, so there is no pressure on them to change theirself. Moreover, depth perception is very important for discovery. If I add a point, I think "having hands" is a very big advantage to be able to develop tools.

 

According to the properties above, apes are very suitable to develop theirself. However, it is coming to same point again. Million years ago, humankind and many other ape kinds had similar brain, similar body properties and characteristics, similar living style, similar threats from other wild animals. What did push humankind to develop new tools and to discover new living tehcniques? Why didn't other apes feel the same pressure although we had similar life and threats?

 

They did. Neanderthals had language and complex tools comparable to our ancestors contemporary to them. Clearly, it didn't save them from extinction. Chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest surviving cousins, have only very basic tools and are doing fine. Or they would be, if they had no interaction with humans.

 

I think the thing it's important to remember is that what gives humans such a tremendous advantage is civilization, but that isn't necessitated by our big brains, only allowed by it. Civilization is only a few thousand years old, which means that it didn't exist for the vast majority of the history of biologically modern humans. The natural ability to learn to manipulate the environment as well as we do is still an advantage "in the wild," but much, much less of one, with all the same disadvantages.

 

So the intelligence of humans is really a freak event - a series of coincidences allowing a minor advantage in limited circumstances... that eventually became an unprecedented advantage. But "future advantage" cannot be a driver of evolution.

[immortal]

 

My question is "how" or "why" humanbeing developed his learning ability altough all the other ape kinds have kept their primitive brains?

 

If you answer like "There was a threat to humankind, so they developed this skill with his surviving instinct", then I will ask you back like "Then there must be similar threats to other apes too, and there has been hundreds of different ape types, many of them had a very similar brain structure to human brain structure. Why didn't any of these ape kinds develope its learning skills?"

 

Well it looks like it was the development of highly specialized sense organs in humans which gave them the slight advantage to outcompete other Hominids rather than their brains. The highly specialized sense organs helped them to communicate with each other which is very crucial in the learning process.

 

This might answer your question.

My link

[Emily2025]

Maybe there is another factor that many people do not feel comfortable with considering. Maybe we are an engineered/ hybrid species, created by star races who came to the planet long ago.

 

The arrogant sense of superiority we have over other species and lack of empathy we show toward them is based on the ridiculous myth that because we can do things they can't that they are not sentient beings too, worthy of compassion and respect.

 

If the missing link is indeed explained by alien intervention, then this simply suggests that this species evolved those skills due to having been around a very long time. Eventually, animals may evolve in very much the same way. If that is the case, should not all life be treated with reverence?

Edited December 15, 2010 by Emily2025

[steevey]

Maybe there is another factor that many people do not feel comfortable with considering. Maybe we are an engineered/ hybrid species, created by star races who came to the planet long ago.

 

The arrogant sense of superiority we have over other species and lack of empathy we show toward them is based on the ridiculous myth that because we can do things they can't that they are not sentient beings too, worthy of compassion and respect.

 

If the missing link is indeed explained by alien intervention, then this simply suggests that this species evolved those skills due to having been around a very long time. Eventually, animals may evolve in very much the same way. If that is the case, should not all life be treated with reverence?

 

For one, I don't know how you can assume no one but you knows that we aren't that far from the certain mental capabilities of other animals, really only 100,000 years max, and for two, I'm guessing you watched that history channel special explaining the different evidence for alien interference in the past, which I thought about for a little while. What those episodes didn't do however, is talk about other theories and reasons how the human race has high mental capabilities in certain areas. Over time for millions of years, the brains of different organisms have developed to analyze the outside environment and respond to it. Because of this, the brain is like a muscle, in that the more you use certain parts of it, the more those parts develop. The reason humans have much higher mental capabilities in those certain areas is because for all those years, primates were using those part of their brain the most. And after to many generations of those brain parts needing to be used more and more, it was only most efficient that the capacity for things like memory and logic and communication increased. And then, after humans did actually appear, all of these things could advance even exponentially more as more communication developed to more complex forms, and more and more information could be carried down through generations and had to be innovative in order to adapt to new environments. So, it only makes sense that after all those 70,000-100,000 years it would only make sense that the human race is at the point it is today, which you might think is very far, but it's really only a small step forward.

Edited December 16, 2010 by steevey

[Emily2025]

For one, I don't know how you can assume no one but you knows that we aren't that far from the certain mental capabilities of other animals

Err....I never assumed anything.....you did.

 

I do assume however that a great number of humans do lack empathy/ enough concern for the plight of animals.....if enough cared then we would have done something by now to stop the terrible cruelty that carries on every single day toward thousands upon thousands of our animal kin.

 

Also no, I did not watch that program on History Channel.

[steevey]

Err....I never assumed anything.....you did.

 

 

 

Also no, I did not watch that program on History Channel.

 

You said "the arrogant sense of superiority we have" not specifying that you only thought that and that you thought it was only most human beings. But in any case, the point I made is still valid, no matter what the source. There's a reason that alien theory doesn't have a lot of followers and its because most of its evidence is circumstantial which is exactly what those episodes didn't make clear.

Edited December 17, 2010 by steevey

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Let's please focus on the discussion rather than making this personal.

Emily2025, the topic of aliens and engineered species is something better discussed in the speculations forum. Let's stick to well-accepted biology here.

[zheng sheng ming]

I think that Nature is beauty and reasonable!

[steevey]

I think that Nature is beauty and reasonable!

 

Wait, you think that nature is reasonable or that nature being beautiful is reasonable?

[Mrs Zeta]

Nature has a tendency to create progressively more complex structures. Starting with organic life, this went from the creation of molecules, to cells, organisms, societies and now global integrative systems. Each level is progressively more complex than the previous one. It is therefore normal for one of nature's creations (in this case it happened to be humans) to evolve and reach higher intellectual sophistication.

[Ringer]

Nature has a tendency to create progressively more complex structures. Starting with organic life, this went from the creation of molecules, to cells, organisms, societies and now global integrative systems. Each level is progressively more complex than the previous one. It is therefore normal for one of nature's creations (in this case it happened to be humans) to evolve and reach higher intellectual sophistication.

 

If it is normal then why is it that humans are the only species out of millions of vertebrate species to develop the way we did. And if it has a tendency towards complexity why are there many more bacteria than other animals.

[cypress]

Well it looks like it was the development of highly specialized sense organs in humans which gave them the slight advantage to outcompete other Hominids rather than their brains. The highly specialized sense organs helped them to communicate with each other which is very crucial in the learning process.

 

 

What specific aspect of the theory accounts for differential development of advantages? if diverging paths both offer advantage, what aspect of the theory prevents both paths to develop simultaneously in the same population? They both of course are advantageous are they not? Furthermore because both occur stepwise and over a long period of time, what is to prevent the initial opportunities to initiate pathways previously not taken to occur over and over again? How can you demonstrate that your speculation has merit?

[Mrs Zeta]

If it is normal then why is it that humans are the only species out of millions of vertebrate species to develop the way we did. And if it has a tendency towards complexity why are there many more bacteria than other animals.

 

It is easier to explain if you think about you life. During your life you (or anyone) achieves only a few truly remarkable things, the rest of your time has been spent on mundane things such as brushing your teeth, standing around, sleeping and watching television etc. But those things are necessary in order for your achievements to materialize. The same with life in nature, we are a much more complex species, but the other less complex organisms are generally needed in order to support our development directly or indirectly. Even within the human species there are individuals who are much more sophisticated than others. Some are destined to become very sophisticated creatures, others (the majority) are just going to remain as 'human plankton'.

[immortal]

Good point Cypress.

 

 

What specific aspect of the theory accounts for differential development of advantages?

 

It is normally postulated that both genetic as well as phenotypic variations account for differential development of novel forms. Whether it is advantageous or not depends on the overall fitness of the organism which is screened by Natural selection.

 

If diverging paths both offer advantage, what aspect of the theory prevents both paths to develop simultaneously in the same population? They both of course are advantageous are they not?

 

Yes it is possible for a population to have multiple simultaneous divergent paths. It doesn't have to be the case where all the advantageous divergent paths for producing highly specialized sense organs where somehow induced only into human populations. It doesn't have to require any teleological assistence. Even other hominid populations might have had advantagoues divergent path for the development of sense organs. The fact that they survived the evolutionary race for some period of time shows that even they had advantageous divergent paths.

 

The point where I think our population was lucky is that our population exploited the environment in rather different ways which was not possible for other hominids. We have to remember that development of new pathways helps the organisms to interact with new ecological niches. The environment induced different changes to our population and it might not been possible for other hominds to have the same environmentally induced phenotypic changes as it is highly unlikely that they would have had similar inputs from the environment or similar responsiveness to these inputs.

 

So the way our population interacted with the environment after having divergent development pathways was important in making us to outcompete other hominids. Further this would have led to speciation and origin of humans.

 

Furthermore because both occur stepwise and over a long period of time, what is to prevent the initial opportunities to initiate pathways previously not taken to occur over and over again?

 

Yes there is nothing that prevents similar pathways to happen over and over again. The fact that species have diverged more than once from the Common ancestral population (CAP) shows that it is very much possible and likely.

 

But as i have discussed earlier the problem is not of intiation of pathways but what happens after that, what evolutionary line that population takes after it has obtained some divergent novel pathways is very important. We also have to remember that the inputs from the environment are random but the kind of responses that the genome makes to produce phenotypic variations is not random. So it is very unlikely that different populations will have similar phenotypic variations in habiting different environments.

 

How can you demonstrate that your speculation has merit?

 

I hope this satisfy you.

[michel123456]

My question is "how" or "why" humanbeing developed his learning ability altough all the other ape kinds have kept their primitive brains?

 

Maybe there were other "intelligent apes" around and we killed them all a long time ago to assure superiority.

 

As to "why are we intelligent?"

My opinion is that it is a mistake of mother nature. Our brain was, and is first designed to control a bunch of operations inside our own bodies. As a matter of survival it controls also the relation between our bodies and our environnement, through our senses. A small part of these relations has become conscient, and that part is what we call "intelligence". Maybe one day this function of the brain will tend to contract, and that will be the end of Homo Sapiens. Otherwise, if we ever find an insect or any other specie the same intelligent as we are, we will try to kill it at first sight.

[Mr Skeptic]

Nature has a tendency to create progressively more complex structures. Starting with organic life, this went from the creation of molecules, to cells, organisms, societies and now global integrative systems. Each level is progressively more complex than the previous one. It is therefore normal for one of nature's creations (in this case it happened to be humans) to evolve and reach higher intellectual sophistication.

 

This sounds an awful lot like Aristotle's old "Great Chain of Being." No, there is no guarantee that evolution will proceed to "more complex" life, nor is there anything about humans that makes them "more complex" than an amoeba, from an evolutionary sense anyways.

 

What specific aspect of the theory accounts for differential development of advantages? if diverging paths both offer advantage, what aspect of the theory prevents both paths to develop simultaneously in the same population? They both of course are advantageous are they not? Furthermore because both occur stepwise and over a long period of time, what is to prevent the initial opportunities to initiate pathways previously not taken to occur over and over again? How can you demonstrate that your speculation has merit?

 

Random chance. Sometimes similar solutions are arrived at by evolution via different, unrelated means; this is called convergent evolution. These similarities are not homologies like "normal" similarities, which can be verified by comparison of the DNA. Intelligence is costly, but in humans it's more useful than in other species because of our physical ability to use tools.

[Mrs Zeta]

This sounds an awful lot like Aristotle's old "Great Chain of Being." No, there is no guarantee that evolution will proceed to "more complex" life, nor is there anything about humans that makes them "more complex" than an amoeba, from an evolutionary sense anyways.

 

 

I don't understand your comment. I believe that I am more complex than an amoeba. My biological redundancy, mechanical abilities, the capacity to alter my environment, let alone cognitive functions have 'emerged' over a progressively more complex evolutionary development process. I believe in Nature and natural laws. I have the chance to observe Nature in a variety of diverse settings (medical, biological, agricultural, social etc). All I can see is a tendency to create situations that lead to greater complexity. Any loss of complexity is associeted with loss of function, and eventually death.