Did either of you even read the story?

I don't even know where to begin on the levels of stupidity involved in that

Also, congrats Draug on your 30,000th post.

Yep.

I don't whether to be flattered or frightened that I was stalked like that.

I read it and watched the video and I think it is hiiiiiilarious.

Oh absolutely. But I suspect it was a prank. I mean, maybe Obi is that stupid but there can be only one. May it be obiwan...

It isn't a prank, they talked to the woman later. Maybe its a kaufmanesque prank but otherwise its just an idiot

Deer evidently read signs much better than most humans do.

Clearly. Their intelligence is increasing. Soon they may become a threat to the survival of the human race.

It's the animal conspiracy, I tell you!

I would be worried if I were deer. Intelligence is not a characteristic favored by selection. Brains have high energy requirements.

Brains have high energy requirements, and they also enable better manipulation / use of one's environment. What is your evidence that the negative here exceeds the positive?

As you look at the small number of species with intelligence, their numbers are far lower than species which lack it. All millions of species which get along just fine without intelligence and by the fact of all the millions of species, only one developed high intelligence. Only very rare circumstances can allow the development of advanced brains, which is a testament to its lack of utility in aiding species survival. I think it's safe to say that cockroaches, bacteria, and beetles will outlast human beings.

*Millions of species get along just fine without intelligence.

Putin, in terms of natural survival, yeah, you're exactly right. I think you and I are a couple of not-so-many that think in terms of nature rather than human morals though. It's species that reproduce by the masses and have the tools to adapt to their environment rather than the species that reproduce when the season comes and have the tools to think about how to adapt to their environment that will win out.

There are a lot of features which don't exist in many species, Putin. If you concluded for each of them that they don't aid survival, it would kind of rob evolution of its explanatory power, no?

Long term, the cockroach probably will win. Other than shrinking a bit in size, it hasn't changed much. But tell me which land species is found in more regions of the earth than any other? Hint, the human race is the answer.

Oh, and @bo_sox, survival is actually all I'm talking about here too. The thing is, putin's merely asserting without proof or much argument that the downside (high energy cost) of a brain isn't made up for by its upside. Perhaps it's extremely unlikely in the first place. It is not the case that everything that has turned out to be very useful and widespread appeared as quickly as possible in the fossil record. I just think putin's being a little cavalier with his assumptions about what does and doesn't aid survival (defined, of course, as success in reproducing through time -- NOT absolute numbers). That was all.

As for human v. cockroach, we're both here, so that story is yet to be told. If we eventually build good enough spaceships to colonize other places, well -- all I can say is, I hope we thoroughly check our luggage for roaches!

"If we eventually build good enough spaceships to colonize other places, well -- all I can say is, I hope we thoroughly check our luggage for roaches! "

Had to plus 1 that comment. So great!

Since when are humans supposed to dominate the world? Humans control nature... is that how it's supposed to be? There's a real question, not one that you can answer by typing me six or seven lines on this website. I've pondered it for years. Why has the population hit 7 billion? Why, since 1350, the age of the Black Death, has human population spiked so heavily? It's because there were such drastic measures taken - discoveries, breakthroughs, medical revolutions, etc. etc. - and these drastic measures result in the foundation of modern sciences... bacteria? What the hell was that in 1350? No, it was God getting pissed off. In nature, sickness means you are weak. You get left behind. The cheetah will get you at some point; who cares, you've reproduced, your life is essentially a useless mouth to feed.

I don't believe in that, but I believe that it has a lot of value in what we should believe. We aren't greater than the rest of the world... we are natural predators but we are not the only species on earth. Draug, I agree, and I am saying drastic things for a reason. We do settle in six of the seven continents in huge numbers, but why are the trees coming down and why is the ozone going away? It's not the rats and the coral reefs and the Native Americans that did that. They all have something in common... they know their place in nature and they share their place with everything else. They take what they need. We don't need seven continents to sustain us. I think it's really sad that the only natural wonderlands left are the Arctic and the tropical paradises in Africa, Asia, and South America. We consider all the people who live there to be low, third-world, whatever you want to say... they live in the world instead of living above it.

@Semck... every species has its tools. Humans happen to have thumbs and a pretty useful brain, tied with good health and evolving motor skills (that is, until we all turn into iPeople). A deer has the ability to run and jump forever and ever and an eagle has the ability to see deep into the grass and woods and fly faster than anything can run on land. Some things can burrow, others can swim, others can fly.. you get the point. Humans have their own tools.

I am sickened by the industrial, robotic way that most "developed" human populations think they should live.. that's all it is. The environment around us is so special. It's the only one in the known universe that we are even sure can sustain us. I don't know how we get away with destroying it yet say that there may or may not be life in the rest of the universe. Think about the trillions of stars and planets and we are one in trillions. We, as individuals, barely even exist on that scale, yet we, as individuals, can do so much harm and so much good at the same time.

Who said anything about supposed to, bo? A minute ago you were bragging about how you were "one of the few" who thinks in terms of nature, not morals. Now you're weeping about morals, not nature. What the heck?

Anyway, I do happen to believe in morals, purpose, and so on -- it's just that my point on this thread wasn't about that, and I'm confused why yours is.

Semck, I think in morals because it is relatable. If I told you that the trees were sad because photosynthesis isn't easy for them anymore, you wouldn't give a damn or listen. Don't double cross your criticism.

And nobody did. I'm just ranting because I can..

Well, bo_sox, if you told me that, you still would be appealing to my moral sense. Otherwise, why would I care whether the trees were sad?

Does bo speak for the trees?

Trees have emotions? What organ provides these emotions?

"There are a lot of features which don't exist in many species, Putin. If you concluded for each of them that they don't aid survival, it would kind of rob evolution of its explanatory power, no?"

Except high intelligence doesn't exist in any other species. Most species live for 100,000 years. Prokaryotes have existed for 3.5 billion years, and are still one of the most widespread organisms. You look at other species with some intelligence, their numbers are small and growing smaller. Look at the populations of our closest relatives - primates. The population of apes has suffered a catastrophic decline. Ditto chimps. Ditto orangutans. Other intelligent animals have also experienced decline - parrots, dolphins, etc.

So how is intelligence helpful if this is happening, when non-intelligent species are thriving?

"If we eventually build good enough spaceships to colonize other places"

Not going to happen.

Putin, unquestionably, prokaryotes are fantastically successful. But it's the wrong comparison. You should look at a single FIXED species and compute whether it would be more successful with or without intelligence. That's the relevant question. We know of only one species that has intelligence of our level -- us. And we're still here.

In fact -- the species that most closely approximate (us minus intelligence) would be the great apes, and as you point out, they are diminishing while we are increasing. So it would appear that intelligence is not such a bad trade off after all.

" The thing is, putin's merely asserting without proof or much argument that the downside (high energy cost) of a brain isn't made up for by its upside. "

Show me where brains have increased the longevity and likelihood of survival of a species. I can show you plenty of species which lack brains who have lived far longer than anything with some intelligence.

"Show me where brains have increased the longevity and likelihood of survival of a species."

If you accept evolution by natural selection as the primary driver of biological development -- you do, I think -- you'd have to say that they have increased that liklihood in every species in which they now exist. And the thing is, we don't know of any species that has developed intelligence in some subspecies, but then it's faded out. (There may once have been highly intelligent cockroaches, but we have no evidence of such). Again, the relevant question is whether a particular species with intelligence outperforms the same species without it -- not whether one species with brains outperforms a completely different species without.

As I already said, you've provided the best argument there is for my point: we are growing in population and the great apes are declining.

My knowledge of Evolutionary Biology isn't very good, but weren't there several of human-like homos that were stronger, but less intelligent, that we killed off?

"You should look at a single FIXED species and compute whether it would be more successful with or without intelligence."

How is that comparison even possible?

"In fact -- the species that most closely approximate (us minus intelligence) would be the great apes, and as you point out, they are diminishing while we are increasing. So it would appear that intelligence is not such a bad trade off after all."

The only example you ever give is of humans. Population size decreases as you go up the intelligence ladder among primates. For example baboons and mangabeys are less intelligent than apes, chimps, orangutans, langurs, etc. They are also much more numerous.

"you'd have to say that they have increased that liklihood in every species in which they now exist."

Why would I have to say that? I could say that it's a lethal mutation that makes it more likely a species will go extinct.

In your estimation, are mammals and intelligent birds on the whole doing well?

"How is that comparison even possible? "

Indeed. Which is exactly why I challenged your original statement, which only made sense if you assumed that DEER with intelligence would be worse off than DEER without it.

"The only example you ever give is of humans. Population size decreases as you go up the intelligence ladder among primates. For example baboons and mangabeys are less intelligent than apes, chimps, orangutans, langurs, etc. They are also much more numerous. "

The most this could prove is that it's ambiguous, as I said in the first place. (Although it is change, not absolute numbers, that are important anyway. A large declining species is arguably faring worse than a small, growing one).

But there's another simple point: the reason we should consider humans is because it's largely humans that are driving the changes in the numbers of the others, anyway. Bonobos, for example, are on the decline due to hunting and habitat destruction. That is sad, but biologically, it's our species outcompeting theirs. NOT some less intelligent species outcompeting them.

"Why would I have to say that? I could say that it's a lethal mutation that makes it more likely a species will go extinct. "

You'd have to say that for a few reasons. First, the genetic developments involved are substantial, so there would have had to be pretty impressive selection pressures, if you believe NS led to the brain. Second, all the nearest ancestors were outcompeted. There is nothing going around today exactly like a human without a brain.

"The most this could prove is that it's ambiguous, as I said in the first place. (Although it is change, not absolute numbers, that are important anyway. A large declining species is arguably faring worse than a small, growing one)."

Except I'm not just talking about absolute numbers and never was. The rate of decline of chimps, apes, and orangutans is catastrophic. The rate of decline of lower monkeys and such is not that severe. But absolute numbers do actually matter for the survival of the species, would you not agree? The whole evolutionary imperative is to reproduce.

"The most this could prove is that it's ambiguous, as I said in the first place."

Or you could be dismissing inconvenient data and concocting mandatory impossible bars to jump over to provide any meaningful assessment.

"the reason we should consider humans is because it's largely humans that are driving the changes in the numbers of the others, anyway. Bonobos, for example, are on the decline due to hunting and habitat destruction. That is sad, but biologically, it's our species outcompeting theirs. NOT some less intelligent species outcompeting them."

But why aren't these intelligent mammals able to adapt to this habitat destruction better than non-intelligent life? Any anyway, much of habitat destruction is caused by climate change, which I wouldn't say is exactly an example of humans "outcompeting" anybody since it adversely affects humans as well.

Interesting points, putin -- I'll go eat and then come address them. But please address the point that for the brain to have evolved, it must indeed have conferred a selective advantage along the way to the many mutations involved.

Ok, putin, so you still haven't addressed that central point. But to your points -- it's very interesting what you say, and I'm not really sure why the apes do so much worse than the monkeys (I also haven't spent even 2 minutes trying to find out). Maybe mid-range intelligence isn't worth the cost as much as high intelligence.

But the reason it's only fair to focus on humans? Humans are overwhelmingly the most populous primate species on earth. No doubt there can be interesting effects among the remainders when one branch so utterly dominates, but it's clear that humans have been and continue to be the most successful of this type, and intelligence is easily the most obvious functional difference between them.

"No doubt there can be interesting effects among the remainders when one branch so utterly dominates, but it's clear that humans have been and continue to be the most successful of this type, and intelligence is easily the most obvious functional difference between them."

For most of human history, humans weren't populous at all. Humans were on the verge of extinction 70,000 years ago. So for most of human existence there has been absolutely no pay off to intelligence and increased brain size. But intelligence makes humans more vulnerable. For example human babies require a long time to develop once they are born. They are essentially helpless for a very long time and take a long time to develop functions which other animals develop very quickly. Most of their brain development occurs after birth. The large brain is also difficult to pass through the birth canal.

"But please address the point that for the brain to have evolved, it must indeed have conferred a selective advantage along the way to the many mutations involved."

A good guess is that it is a side effect of bipedalism. As I said before the birth canal is narrow and as a result our brain growth occurs after birth already occurs. With other primates brain growth pretty much stops at birth. There is no room in the skull for brain growth, whereas the narrower birth canal in humans led to humans developing skull openings which allow for greater brain growth. But as I said this hasn't really been an advantage in the long history of humanity, which has lived at the precipice of extinction for much of its existence. It is likely more through dumb luck that big brained humans were able to survive long enough so that they were able to develop agriculture, which facilitated the rapid growth in population.

Just another point, but humans shocking lack of genetic diversity within its population, especially compared to our cousins among the primates, speaks to our history of having a sparse population.

A history of sparse population proves our population is on the rise, does it not? Id intellect contributes to declining population the we are either outliers orbyour theory needs to be reevaluated.

I've already stated we are outliers. I don't know what you're arguing. Everything you said I already said in the above posts. And I'd also add that the explosion of human population is not going to be sustained, since the energy requirements of feeding such a population are enormous, and climate change is going to wipe out grain supply.