Why are we so much smarter?

[Tinker Grey]

As I asked in the OP, why should it be us? Why not the chimps? We are very similar anyway.

As my former answer implied, the answer for any Christian is the same -- regardless of their origins view -- it is because God wanted it that way.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I also see that the question has been asked about why we are 'most intelligent'. What does God say about this? (I don't know).

Why can birds fly when we cannot? Why do giraffes have such long necks? Why can some animals sense natural disasters early enough for them to flee the site? (I mean, philosophically speaking?) One could argue that all of these developments came about so they were better able to adapt to their environments. Giraffes need their necks to reach their food, etc. Maybe we require our intelligence to keep us alive against other species. We certainly aren't naturally as strong as many other animals, nor are we as fast, etc. Maybe intelligence is humankind's 'long neck'.

But on a deeper level, I don't know that there is an answer to this question. I mean, a real true answer that would satisfy everyone, and I'm absolutely okay with this. There are plenty of other things to occupy my thoughts than feeding my vanity about why I'm so much smarter than a chipmunk. The world is diverse and many things are yet unexplained. I feel reassured that I don't have these answers, it makes life much more interesting.

Good answer.

 

[Archivist]

Humans and apes share a common ancestor . . . which was an ape. Which is to say, yes we did evolve from apes.

No, humans and apes share a common ancestor that was an ape-like creature, but it was not an ape. That creature differed from modern apes.

The following is from the Smithsonian Institutions Human Origins Program website:

"Comparisons of DNA show that our closest living relatives are the ape species of Africa, and most studies by geneticists show that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas. However, it must be stressed that humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees. Rather, our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor that was distinct from other African apes (emphasis added). This common ancestor is thought to have existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change. Both of our species have since undergone 5 to 8 million years of evolution after this split of the two lineages. Using the fossil record, scientists attempt to reconstruct the evolution from this common ancestor through the series of early human species to today's modern human species."

 

[sfs]

No, humans and apes share a common ancestor that was an ape-like creature, but it was not an ape. That creature differed from modern apes.

Your second sentence is correct: the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees did differ from modern apes. What I am objecting to is your first sentence. The common ancestor was indeed an ape, by any definition of "ape" I've ever seen. That species is not around today, but if it were people on the street would call it an ape, and it would certainly be classified along with other apes. We routinely call other extinct ape species "apes" (try googling "Miocene apes", for example), so why should that one species be treated differently?

The following is from the Smithsonian Institutions Human Origins Program website:

"Comparisons of DNA show that our closest living relatives are the ape species of Africa, and most studies by geneticists show that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas. However, it must be stressed that humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees. Rather, our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor that was distinct from other African apes (emphasis added). This common ancestor is thought to have existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change. Both of our species have since undergone 5 to 8 million years of evolution after this split of the two lineages. Using the fossil record, scientists attempt to reconstruct the evolution from this common ancestor through the series of early human species to today's modern human species."

Read what you emphasized again: the ancestor was distinct from other African apes. That means it was itself an ape. There is no dispute about the scientific issues here. It's purely a matter of semantics, but the semantic distinction you're trying to draw just doesn't hold up.

 

[sfs]

If you plot an expression on the quantity of intelligence versus time, the curve would likely to be near zero until human appeared. Then the curve start to "fly" almost vertically.

As others have pointed out, this is wrong. Chimpanzees are much more intelligent than, say, howler monkeys, which in turn are much more intelligent than guinea pigs, which are more intelligent than salamanders. Chimpanzees can use tools, can learn behavior simply by observing it, can learn to communicate using human sign language, and have intricate social interactions.

Human ancestors since the divergence from chimpanzee ancestors also show gradual change over millions of years, with gradually increasing sophistication of the stone tools used as well as in the size of the brain. It is only within the last hundred thousand years or so that we start to see artistic and ritual behaviors, but prior to that several earlier species used fire and manufactured stone tools. What do you think those earlier species were?

I don't think either any mutation stuff can explain that. Our DNA is "very similar" to that of ape's. So apes should have intelligence equivalent to, may be, our college level students. Shouldn't they?

No, they shouldn't. Our DNA is very similar to ape DNA, but differs in tens of millions of places. Why should we have the same intelligence?

 

[Archivist]

Your second sentence is correct: the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees did differ from modern apes. What I am objecting to is your first sentence. The common ancestor was indeed an ape, by any definition of "ape" I've ever seen. That species is not around today, but if it were people on the street would call it an ape, and it would certainly be classified along with other apes. We routinely call other extinct ape species "apes" (try googling "Miocene apes", for example), so why should that one species be treated differently?

The opinion of people on the street is irrelevent. What matters is the opinion of experts. It was an ape-like creature. It differed from the apes that exist today.

Read what you emphasized again: the ancestor was distinct from other African apes. That means it was itself an ape. There is no dispute about the scientific issues here. It's purely a matter of semantics, but the semantic distinction you're trying to draw just doesn't hold up.

No, the quoted material does not mean that the common ancestor was an ape. It was a distinct creature that differs from modern apes.

Yes, it is a matter of semantics. So, why are you making such a big deal about ape vs. ape-like.

 

[Archivist]

Read what you emphasized again: the ancestor was distinct from other African apes. That means it was itself an ape. There is no dispute about the scientific issues here. It's purely a matter of semantics, but the semantic distinction you're trying to draw just doesn't hold up.

Perhaps you will prefer the wording from the PBS Evolution website:

"Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either (emphesis added). Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

 

[sfs]

How much is the difference on intelligence among species of homo sapiens? Are they similar or very different? I heard we discovered short human in some jungles. Are they less intelligent than normal people? I assume they should have the same DNA as ours.

There is only one species of Homo sapiens; "Homo sapiens" is the name of a species in the genus Homo. Different living populations of Homo sapiens have on average slightly different DNA and on average will score differently on IQ tests; no one knows if there is a genetic cause for the IQ differences.

Are we now smarter than the stone age people? Are we becoming smarter through time?

I see no reason to think we're currently becoming smarter. Yes, we're likely smarter than the earliest stone age "people", who were not members of our species. Here is a plot of cranial capacity vs time for species related to ours:

The stone age extends back about 2.5 million years, and covers modern Homo sapiens, Neandertals, Homo erectus, Homo habilis and probably some australopithicenes. Looking at the skull sizes for that period, yeah, I think it's likely that they used to be less intelligent.

So what ever species we will evolve to, they would eventually make flying saucers?

Who knows? Just because we got more intelligent in the past is no reason to think we're going to continue to do so in the future. Our environment is very different than it used to be.

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution can explain 'how' but not 'why'. It's funny how creationists and atheists have so much in common in this regard.

I definitely do not agree on this. Even I hope what you said is true.

Yes, evolutionist discovered "how". But after that, they always added speculations on "why" (in order to complete the reasoning). More often than not, they would also use the interpretations of "why" in all sort of arguments as if they do know why.

For example: to the question in OP, a lot of evolutionists would say: "we have a larger brain. That is why". See the mix-up?

 

[juvenissun]

Actually they can outperform college students in computer games, and a quick google shows estimates of Chimp IQ at between 40 and 70. That is hardly a graph climbing vertically, especially over million of years.

There are things that come in sudden leaps too, even in human development. Small children cannot handle in abstract though, then as they grow, suddenly it clicks in. Some people never get the hang of it.

Very true.

If chimp's IQ, as you quoted, is about 1/3 or 1/2 of human, then why do they never get the magic click? Could it be interpreted by a tiny tiny difference in DNA?

If we gathered human with IQ at a similar range of chimps, and make a society, would they do better than that of chimps? Or, they would simply die off.

And, for the IQ number, I refuse to admit that I am only three times smarter than chimps.

Well, this thread dips into the problem of measuring the intelligence. It is another black box.

 

[juvenissun]

I also see that the question has been asked about why we are 'most intelligent'. What does God say about this? (I don't know).

Why can birds fly when we cannot? Why do giraffes have such long necks? Why can some animals sense natural disasters early enough for them to flee the site? (I mean, philosophically speaking?) One could argue that all of these developments came about so they were better able to adapt to their environments. Giraffes need their necks to reach their food, etc. Maybe we require our intelligence to keep us alive against other species. We certainly aren't naturally as strong as many other animals, nor are we as fast, etc. Maybe intelligence is humankind's 'long neck'.

But on a deeper level, I don't know that there is an answer to this question. I mean, a real true answer that would satisfy everyone, and I'm absolutely okay with this. There are plenty of other things to occupy my thoughts than feeding my vanity about why I'm so much smarter than a chipmunk. The world is diverse and many things are yet unexplained. I feel reassured that I don't have these answers, it makes life much more interesting.

Of course we have many problems. It is nice to recognize that.

But, the key one is about God. That is a problem with the highest priority. Because if you do not think about it, either you are doomed, or you don't get glory.

And whether are we evolved from monkey IS one of the problem related to our understanding to God. So, we better think about it. To highlight the problem: Do you believe that we are evolved or created?

 

[Assyrian]

Very true.

If chimp's IQ, as you quoted, is about 1/3 or 1/2 of human, then why do they never get the magic click? Could it be interpreted by a tiny tiny difference in DNA?

Sorry juv, are you saying that when people grow and start to think in abstract thought, it is magic?

If we gathered human with IQ at a similar range of chimps, and make a society, would they do better than that of chimps? Or, they would simply die off.

Are you talking about placing them in an urban setting with access to modern technology and resources produced by the rest of human society, or dropping the two groups in the middle of a rainforest with only the resources they can come up with themselves? My money would be on the chimps.

And, for the IQ number, I refuse to admit that I am only three times smarter than chimps.

Try taking them on at the computer game

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/04/animalbehaviour.evolution

My money is on the chimp.

Well, this thread dips into the problem of measuring the intelligence. It is another black box.

It is a problem, both defining intelligence and measuring it, but then again you were happy to estimate ape intelligence at 'near zero' this morning.

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry juv, are you saying that when people grow and start to think in abstract thought, it is magic?

What do you think it is?

Are you talking about placing them in an urban setting with access to modern technology and resources produced by the rest of human society, or dropping the two groups in the middle of a rainforest with only the resources they can come up with themselves? My money would be on the chimps.

I think it makes no difference as long as there were no interference from outside.

Try taking them on at the computer game

This is the point. A faster reaction does not represent wisdom. Older people are slower, but are wiser.

It is a problem, both defining intelligence and measuring it, but then again you were happy to estimate ape intelligence at 'near zero' this morning.

I still do. It does not need any measurement to get this conclusion. Chimps (or dog) can learn, but they do not learn by themselves. We did and we did it very fast.

 

[Assyrian]

What do you think it is?

A mental ability that only emerges after our brains reach a sufficient level of development and complexity.

I think it makes no difference as long as there were no interference from outside.

So you are saying chimps have the intelligence of low IQ humans?

This is the point. A faster reaction does not represent wisdom. Older people are slower, but are wiser.

It wasn't just a speed test, it was a memory and problem solving test. Humans got worse as speed increased and the chimps didn't, but they still beat humans when it ran slower.

I still do. It does not need any measurement to get this conclusion. Chimps (or dog) can learn, but they do not learn by themselves. We did and we did it very fast.

Actually humans learn much slower than any animal, we just keep on learning for longer. A kitten will be out running and pouncing and learning to catch insects while a human child has barely discovered it has toes. Give a toddler a banana, put a small monkey in the room (do not try this experiment at home.) Who will end up with the banana?

 

[juvenissun]

A mental ability that only emerges after our brains reach a sufficient level of development and complexity.

So you are saying chimps have the intelligence of low IQ humans?

It wasn't just a speed test, it was a memory and problem solving test. Humans got worse as speed increased and the chimps didn't, but they still beat humans when it ran slower.

Actually humans learn much slower than any animal, we just keep on learning for longer. A kitten will be out running and pouncing and learning to catch insects while a human child has barely discovered it has toes. Give a toddler a banana, put a small monkey in the room (do not try this experiment at home.) Who will end up with the banana?

You are off line. It seems you are arguing that chimps are smarter than human.

 

[Assyrian]

They are in some areas, the computer games shows that quite clearly, and they are certainly smarter than your average toddler. You just want to believe they have near zero IQ because you think it would support creationism, but the evidence doesn't back you up.

 

[juvenissun]

They are in some areas, the computer games shows that quite clearly, and they are certainly smarter than your average toddler. You just want to believe they have near zero IQ because you think it would support creationism, but the evidence doesn't back you up.

If so, why don't we see any written language of chimps? (see what image can you find this time). So compare to human culture, the chimp culture is indeed, zero.

Human infants can draw as long as they can hold a pen.

Also, just a random thought: I don't think you can teach animal anything without a food reward or something like that. So, if a starved person is competing food with a chimp on the speed of reaction, I guess human will win in most cases

 

[Assyrian]

How many toddlers write? It is a silly argument. It is not the things apes can't do that tell us how intelligent they are, it is the things they can do. You don't measure a toddler's intelligence by whether it can drive, handle quadratic equations or write a sonnet. You look at the things it can do and how well they do them.

However you could take it up with Koko the Gorilla
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT][/FONT]
...if you know American Sign Language.

 

[shernren]

Also, just a random thought: I don't think you can teach animal anything without a food reward or something like that. So, if a starved person is competing food with a chimp on the speed of reaction, I guess human will win in most cases

If you cut out from human culture food, sex, and the drive to obtain those, I wonder how much you'd have left.

 

[juvenissun]

How many toddlers write? It is a silly argument. It is not the things apes can't do that tell us how intelligent they are, it is the things they can do. You don't measure a toddler's intelligence by whether it can drive, handle quadratic equations or write a sonnet. You look at the things it can do and how well they do them.

However you could take it up with Koko the Gorilla
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT][/FONT]
...if you know American Sign Language.

Good. See what we can do when compared to chimps.

In comparison, if we can do 100, chimp can do less than 1.

Example: fire, buildings, written words, literature, sciences, explorations, knowledge, art, religion.

How can anyone say we evolved from chimps?