I made this post in the "do you believe in aliens" topic, but I dont want to change the topic of that discussion and plus I'd like to know if we even have this technology or if this is something feasible or not. This is the post :
You know what would be a good way to show the possibility of a superior race? If we as humans, could choose one out of the million+ species we have on Earth, and try to make it intelligent. I know we already experiment with gaining knowledge and understanding of animals like chimpanzees, birds, and others, but to "genetically manipulate" a species to further it along the evolutionary timeline. I dont know if we have that technology yet and it is certainly tip-toeing along an ethics tightrope, but if we could say, take border collies and manipulate their genes to make them intelligent to the comparison of neanderthals-- (I say a breed of dog because for one some border collies have vocabularies of hundreds of words and two, if we ever did do this than we would look back on the situation knowing thats man's best friend was vieing for this spot the whole time)-- , then we could definitely harbor the idea that our evolution was helped along by a superior race and other homo-versions were just the superior race trying to get it right. Anyways could this possibly be done?
I have a border collie (Maddie) and, yes, she is pretty smart for a dog. I cannot imagine, however, how you could genetically engineer a dog to increase intelligence. Firstly you would have to define intelligence and there is no consensus over such a definition. Some use the number of commands a dog can respond to, but that doesn't take account of dogs like the Schipperke (and, yes, I have one of those as well - Minnie). The Schipperke is smart but willfull - Minnie will often choose not to hear you (especially if the command is 'don't touch that food'). There are a couple of systems for ranking dog intelligence but we would have to be much more specific.
Assuming that we could agree a definition there would then the the problem of human intelligence vs canine intelligence. Dogs have senses which are in a completely different balance to humans and therefore process information about the world differently. We rely a great deal on visual information whereas a dog relies probably as much or more on smell.
Dogs would not naturally evolve to be more intelligent unless there was some selective pressure in that direction. We could try to introduce such a pressure (for example we could breed dogs that passed particular tests) but we would eventually run into a barrier. The dog does not have the same brain capability as a human - no frontal lobes - and it is doubtful whether dogs can 'premeditate' to any significant degree (ie they cannot think through a new problem before acting). I cannot, therefore, see how you would, in any reasonable timeframe, engineer or selectively breed a dog to be intelligent in a human sense of the word (without resorting to science-fiction type ideas such as brain transplants). Given sufficient time, of course, we could almost certainly do so, but that would be a long time indeed - millenia at least I suspect.
Finally, to do this simply to confirm a hypothesis that we are the products of alien intelligent design would be rather futile. Even if we succeeded it would provide no evidence either way, and evolution provides sufficient explanation without any such intervention being needed.
Actually, i'm curious.
Brian_Bezzle, you say "if we could [run the experiment you describe]..., then we could definitely harbor the idea that our evolution was helped along by a superior race and other homo-versions were just the superior race trying to get it right."
How?
Let's pretend you've successfully run this uplift process (that's what it's called, by the way - uplift). You've taken a dog, done some genetic engineering on it, and made a smart dog - one smart enough to have rudimentary linguistic capacity, and other such stuff that would make it "intelligent". So now you have shown that it's possible to take a dumb dog, play with it, and end up with a smart dog.
So far no problems - and it would be a hell of a feat, certainly scientifically worthwhile - but what i want to know is how you go from "we made a dumb species into a smart species" to "our evolution was helped along by a superior race and other homo-versions were just the superior race trying to get it right"?
Well I'm not saying that it would prove the existence of a superior race, but if we had the knowledge and ability to do it to another species on our own planet, then it would be less crazy to believe we are product of a superior race. I realize it would do nothing to prove either way, but dont you agree that if we could take the species of dog, uplift the species (is that how you use the word?) to a point where we could tell that dogs were making very significant strides in evolution towards becoming what we would recognize as intelligent, wouldn't that make it easier to harbor (and only to harbor) the idea that we have been helped in the same way by a race capable of doing so?
Like Bikerman said, it would definitely take sufficient time.
Taking a step back to look at the entire picture... If apes eventually evolved into humans, then technically couldn't every species eventually become (what we recognize as) intelligent?
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Taking a step back to look at the entire picture... If apes eventually evolved into humans, then technically couldn't every species eventually become (what we recognize as) intelligent? |
You are assuming that evolution naturally leads to intelligence. It doesn't. Intelligence is not necessarily a good survival strategy - consider the dinosaurs for example. Many species on Earth are very successful without any great intelligence - consider insects. To evolve intelligence there has to be a selective pressure and there is a large trade-off. The human brain uses a lot of energy, is vulnerable to damage and makes childbirth difficult. If the history of Earth had been slightly different then it is entirely possible that intelligence would never have become an important trait.I suppose what BB is trying to get at is how there appears to be a few quantums leap in the evolution of homosapiens. Hence the long times various folk, of the learned persuation, have spent looking for the missing link, between the apes and the first homoerectus and then the various leaps since, to get us to where we are today.
The future pathaway could take us down the route to etherial being, by capturing the essence or spirit of a person and it existing in the space time continuum. A stepping stone could be to first exist in virtual reality, where I know quite a few folk would really like to live now, but in perhaps an escapist manner. Definitly I think future evolution will be more "Brain" orientated than physical, which could I suppose leave us as just a lump of pulsating brain goo like in one of the early "Star Trek" episodes.
| WhistleTurning wrote: |
| The future pathaway could take us down the route to etherial being, by capturing the essence or spirit of a person and it existing in the space time continuum. |
As opposed to living outside the spacetime continuum?I agree an experiment to breed a more intelligent group of dogs would be very interesting. Potentially we might soon acquire the ability to predict what gene changes would produce best results in the next generation, and to select or splice some genes to produce more rapid change than has previously been possible. I suggest that considerations of ethics and the risk of introducing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with unpredictable side effects will soon limit the experiments more than sheer manipulative skill. Some steps in this direction, together with an analysis of probable results of potential experiments that we choose not to do, could provide us a lot of food for thought.
I doubt if we could shed much light on whether some sort of "directed evolution" took place in our past, however. It is conceivable that someone was willing to experiment and take the chance that they would destoy or badly damage life on the planet if they made a serious genetic mistake. It is also conceivable that the evolution might have been directed by someone who knew how to do it right.
Science could not help us with this question, because of lack of evidence. Scientific knowledge would surely be greatly increased by the experiments we actually performed, though. Let's just make sure we don't get any mad-scientist types involved who choose to "go for the gold" by taking chances with radical gene splicing.
People have been selecting for more intelligent domestic dogs for centuries, at least!
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| People have been selecting for more intelligent domestic dogs for centuries, at least! |
Hmm...not sure about that. Again it depends on what definition of intelligence is used. The border collie is widely thought to be the most intelligent dog and dates back to about 1900. The most important characteristic of the BC is biddability - doing what the owner requires. Intelligence is a factor in that, obviously, but I would argue that the intelligence was not consciously selected for by the early breeders - it just so happened that the most able dogs were so because they were intelligent. Probably a slightly pedantic point, I know.
Most selective breeding in dogs is more to do with breed standard physical characteristic rather than intelligence. | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Well I'm not saying that it would prove the existence of a superior race, but if we had the knowledge and ability to do it to another species on our own planet, then it would be less crazy to believe we are product of a superior race. |
It is already not crazy to believe that. It's certainly a valid hypothesis.
The problem is that it is not rational to believe that, because it would require violating parsimony (the "simplest explanation" that Ockham's Razor talks about). The reason this hypothesis is not discussed scientifically is because there is no reason to assume that our evolution was interfered with. Everything works just fine without an alien intervention.
To give a practical example: suppose you had a pet dog in your backyard, and one day you went out and saw a pile of dog crap on the grass there. The logical hypothesis is that your dog crapped on the grass. You could suggest that another dog snuck in, crapped, and then left. That's hardly a crazy suggestion - it could definitely happen, and it's not even highly improbable. But you have no reason to believe it. You have everything you need with the original hypothesis. There is no need to assume another dog.
Now, if your dog is a poodle and the pile of crap is the size of a basketball... well then you'd have a reason for assuming another dog (or a horse). But without a reason, it is irrational to make assumptions that are unnecessary. And it's easy to show why making unnecessary assumptions are a bad idea. Instead of another dog, i could hypothesize that science fiction writer Robert J. Sawyer snuck into my backyard and did the business, then left. Nothing there is impossible - Sawyer lives in the neighbourhood, and one can certainly argue that he's been putting out loads of crap recently. It's a little less probable than another dog, but it's still possible. But unless you find a signed copy of Hybrids in the pile, there is no reason to implicate him.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| I realize it would do nothing to prove either way, but dont you agree that if we could take the species of dog, uplift the species (is that how you use the word?) to a point where we could tell that dogs were making very significant strides in evolution towards becoming what we would recognize as intelligent, wouldn't that make it easier to harbor (and only to harbor) the idea that we have been helped in the same way by a race capable of doing so? |
(Yes, you used the word right.) Ok, but consider this: still using the doggy doo analogy above, suppose i conducted an experiment to prove to you that it is possible that a dog could make it into the backyard, do the job, and then leave undetected. What have i accomplished?
Or, suppose i were able to demonstrate that Sawyer's whereabouts were unknown for a period during the time the crime was committed - and i somehow managed to obtain a sample of his stool and showed that it was of a similar colour and consistency with dog mess. What does this show?
Remember, in both those cases i already admitted that the hypothesis was possible. Unlikely in the case of Sawyer, sure, but possible. The hypotheses were just not probable because they required unnecessary assumptions, and it was irrational to consider them because of that. What's changed?
As you can see, nothing has changed. All the experiment will show is that it's possible. But we already knew that. There is no argument there. It does not make the hypothesis any more plausible, and it does not make it any more rational to accept it.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Taking a step back to look at the entire picture... If apes eventually evolved into humans, then technically couldn't every species eventually become (what we recognize as) intelligent? |
Bikerman and i disagree on the likelihood of intelligence evolving, but he's certainly right when he says that intelligence is not inevitable.
One simplistic way to look at evolution is to look for "Good Tricks", things that have evolved that are really neat ways to increase your survival chances. Insect antenna, for example are a Good Trick, and so we find that many - if not most - insects have them, and even other species have similar features (whiskers). Once a branch finds a Good Trick, evolution will generally circulate around that Good Trick. The way a fish swims is a Good Trick, and once the "first fish" figured that trick out (i'm speaking metaphorically of course), most fish evolution from then on out focuses on perfecting or taking advantage of that Good Trick. They become more streamlined, develop scales, rear-facing gills, fins, and so on. They don't bother with developing legs or wings, because they have their Good Trick.
Intelligence is a Good Trick - it is a very good trick in fact, if a global disaster occurs the species with the best chances of surviving are us and the cockroaches. Moreover, once a species selects to increase intelligence as its Good Trick, it's a ball that once it starts rolling does not easily stop.
But it's only one of many Good Tricks. There are thousands of Good Tricks you can see at work in the world today. There is no reason to believe that after another few billion years, a descendant of a cockroach will be critiquing Chaucer, because their Good Trick is not intelligence, but is still a Good Trick.
| WhistleTurning wrote: |
| I suppose what BB is trying to get at is how there appears to be a few quantums leap in the evolution of homosapiens. Hence the long times various folk, of the learned persuation, have spent looking for the missing link, between the apes and the first homoerectus and then the various leaps since, to get us to where we are today. |
Nonsense. There is no missing link, and anyone of a learned persuasion knows that. It is a creationist myth.
| WhistleTurning wrote: |
| Definitly I think future evolution will be more "Brain" orientated than physical, which could I suppose leave us as just a lump of pulsating brain goo like in one of the early "Star Trek" episodes. |
How many quatloos are you willing to bet on that? ^_^;I agree with you mostly on everything, except that apes had many good tricks but still eventually evolved further and further. Hiding in trees was a good trick, asserting dominance was a good trick to ward off predators, not even to mention whenever the evolution granted biped status. Opposable thumbs too. But basically you should get what I mean, good tricks are mastered but they do not always mean the end. Good tricks are just major steps in evolution correct?
On another note.. if we could uplift a species then yes it wouldn't do much to prove our evolution was interfered with, but it would definitely prove that as humans are not so mighty as we think we are because special dominance could indeed switch. (not that we would let it). We just do not know of any other intelligent species compared to us, but we do know that it should be pretty improbable we are the only life among the stars and planets of the universe. If we could find, or make, another intelligent species, then it should be a clear sign that we arent alone.
I'm not sure what the reasoning is for that last point. We either are or are not alone. Whatever technical feats we manage to achieve won't change that. If we managed to genetically engineer a smart dog then how would that make it more likely that there is other intelligent life in the universe?
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| I agree with you mostly on everything, except that apes had many good tricks but still eventually evolved further and further. |
Hm, yes and no.
First, as i said, it's a very simplistic way of looking at evolution, so it won't stand up to deep scrutiny (so don't bother to try). But the point is not that when a species finds a Good Trick that they just stop evolving. It's that when they find a Good Trick, they don't need another Good Trick until their environment changes. Once they have that Good Trick, they tend to focus on milking that Good Trick, rather than looking for another one. Once homo sapien settled on intelligence as its Good Trick, it's not likely to start evolving wings - but again, if the environment changes, we may stop selecting for intelligence and start on the path to getting wings. Millenia ago, the proto-humans had mobility in the trees as their Good Trick, but then the environment changed and they needed a new trick, so they chose dexterity and tool use. The lesson to take away is that intelligence is not inevitable - if a species finds a Good Trick, they'll stick to it, until it stops working and they need a new Good Trick.
But you are still falling into that old trap. Apes did not evolve "further" after any specific point (opposable thumbs, bipedal motion, etc.). Evolution is not a straight line that you move from "lower" life forms to "higher" life forms. Intelligence is not "further" along the evolutionary scale than opposable thumbs - it's entirely possible we could evolve to lose our intelligence in the future. Fish climb out of the water to walk on land, then they go back into the water (for example, whales), then... who knows? It's not correct to say the fish evolved "further" to leave the water, then "devolved backwards" to go back in.
Evolution is change, not improvement. (And even if it were, is intelligence really that great an improvement? Certainly there are better ways to evolve to ensure longevity of the species.)
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| On another note.. if we could uplift a species then yes it wouldn't do much to prove our evolution was interfered with, but it would definitely prove that as humans are not so mighty as we think we are because special dominance could indeed switch. (not that we would let it). We just do not know of any other intelligent species compared to us, but we do know that it should be pretty improbable we are the only life among the stars and planets of the universe. If we could find, or make, another intelligent species, then it should be a clear sign that we arent alone. |
i seriously doubt any moderately intelligent person with even a mediocre grasp of science believes that we're the only intelligent life in the entire universe, unless they're basing that belief on some misguided religious interpretation. Even if Bikerman is right and intelligence is vanishingly rare, there's still plenty of room for it in the universe for there to be billions of intelligent civilizations. Ask him, you'll see.
The only people who remain to be convinced are the fruit cakes who believe there is something divinely special about humanity. And this experiment won't do anything for them. The fact that humans - "the only intelligent life in the universe" - can create other intelligent life doesn't change the fact that they were "the only intelligent life in the universe" before they did it. | Indi wrote: |
| Even if Bikerman is right and intelligence is vanishingly rare, there's still plenty of room for it in the universe for there to be billions of intelligent civilizations. Ask him, you'll see. |
Absolutely.
I wouldn't necessarily say that intelligence is 'vanishingly rare' but I do disagree with the view that the universe is 'set-up' for the evolution of intelligence and that intelligence is therefore an inevitable outcome. I've seen this 'theory' espoused, in several guises, in various publications - an 'add-on' to the anthropic principle - I don't buy it.
Having said that, I agree completely that there is plenty of room for the evolution of intelligence in our vast universe and I, personally, would be very surprised if there were not a large number of intelligent species 'out there'. I am doubtful about our chances of ever 'talking to' such civilisations because, mostly, I don't see any way of overcoming the physical barriers presented by the distances involved. That is not to say that I don't think we can detect such civilisations - I think we can and probably will. I'm just pessimistic about the chances of ever being able to communicate meaningfully with them.This is definitely an interesting topic! Honestly I think that if creatures out in the wild can adapt to easier reach their food source (I just watched a documentary about a moth which grew its tongue to over a foot long to reach the nectar of a certain flower) it is probably possible to make a creature more intelligent. However, to see amazing progress we would probably have to wait thousands of years to see any real change. Then again if after thousands of years of always wanting more money, why can't we make it appear? 
I'm not sure if we could genetically make them evolve, but I suppose if we can clone things we can probably make them smarter. I'm waiting for the day when are army will simply be cloned with enhanced genes. Really if that was ever possible things like all the same blood type would really make the army more safe and efficient than what we have today. Err...you are waiting for the day when we can clone soldiers to form an army? Wow! Let's leave aside the ethical/moral considerations of cloning for a moment. What concerns me is the paucity of ambition. If we did decide, as a society, to allow cloning, do you really think that cloning soldiers is something we should be looking forward to or getting excited about?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I wouldn't necessarily say that intelligence is 'vanishingly rare' but I do disagree with the view that the universe is 'set-up' for the evolution of intelligence and that intelligence is therefore an inevitable outcome. I've seen this 'theory' espoused, in several guises, in various publications - an 'add-on' to the anthropic principle - I don't buy it. |
Oh, i see. Well yes, i have to totally agree with you there. That is an idiotic proposition.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Having said that, I agree completely that there is plenty of room for the evolution of intelligence in our vast universe and I, personally, would be very surprised if there were not a large number of intelligent species 'out there'. I am doubtful about our chances of ever 'talking to' such civilisations because, mostly, I don't see any way of overcoming the physical barriers presented by the distances involved. That is not to say that I don't think we can detect such civilisations - I think we can and probably will. I'm just pessimistic about the chances of ever being able to communicate meaningfully with them. |
i was going by a couple quotes where you seemed to suggest the evolution of a big brain was extremely unlikely. i'd say it's not a certainty, but in a big enough ecosystem, i think it's quite likely because of its extremely high survival potential in just about any environment. Not that that makes it more likely to happen, but if it does happen, it is extremely likely to be passed on, regardless of the environment, even in a very limited capacity. And when a species starts down that path, competition within the species will pretty much guarantee continued progress.I agree with Indi. Increased intelligence swept through hominid evolution like a wildfire. I think there is enormous evolutionary potential (thinking energetically) when advanced intelligence practically guarantees a tremendous surge in fitness, and is essentially an irreversible (extinction excluded), positively fed-back process. Honestly, I'm kind of amazed that advanced intelligence didn't evolve sooner.
Yes, reading back I can see where I probably gave the impression that intelligence is unlikely to arise - I think I was concentrating on getting the point over that it is not inevitable and probably pushed my prose a bit too far in the other direction
PS - I would still maintain that we need to be careful when considering how likely intelligence is to develop. Evolution of a large brain has many cons as well as pros. The 'costs' are increased difficulty in childbirth and therefore increased infant mortality, large energy requirement (20% of basal metabolism is taken up by the brain) and increased period of infant 'helplessness'. I do agree, however, that once started down this path, the process would seem to be self perpetuating.
Some interesting reading on the matter;
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000C1E5D-B9BA-1422-B9BA83414B7F0103
http://www.physorg.com/news83410847.html
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n12/mente/evolution/evolution_i.html
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:52 pm; edited 2 times in total Sure humans can have capabilities to do something like that, but what would a smarter animal caused by engineering accomplish? In certain cases, scientific advancement can better humanity and in certain cases it could have disasterous consequences. The only evolutionary advantage that humans have over animals is their intelligence: the animals would have advantage over humans if it weren't for their unique intelligence. So just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should.
On the other hand, humans naturally increase animal intelligences simply by contact with them: as others have mentioned, dogs and cats can pick up ideas from humans when they become domesticated.
you have to watch the show "The Human Body: Pushing the limits" on Discovery. It is on Sunday for at 9-11 p.m. for the next few weeks. It explains all these things your body can do, will do, and had once done.
| xbcd wrote: |
| you have to watch the show "The Human Body: Pushing the limits" on Discovery. It is on Sunday for at 9-11 p.m. for the next few weeks. It explains all these things your body can do, will do, and had once done. |
I notice that you are pushing the same show on several different threads. Please don't do that. If you have some observation from the show that you think is appropriate for the thread then by all means share it with us. | Bikerman wrote: |
| xbcd wrote: | | you have to watch the show "The Human Body: Pushing the limits" on Discovery. It is on Sunday for at 9-11 p.m. for the next few weeks. It explains all these things your body can do, will do, and had once done. |
I notice that you are pushing the same show on several different threads. Please don't do that. If you have some observation from the show that you think is appropriate for the thread then by all means share it with us. |
sorry man, i did not mean to promote it but it is an awesome show. I the sight episode they showed how that tech. is getting so far along that we might eventually be able feed images directly form the outside would straight to our brain using a computer. They also talk about how we don't use all of our mind and there is much room for expansion. This weeks brain episode is supposed to have some really cool evolution stuff. | xbcd wrote: |
| you have to watch the show "The Human Body: Pushing the limits" on Discovery. It is on Sunday for at 9-11 p.m. for the next few weeks. It explains all these things your body can do, will do, and had once done. |
Oh shoot I missed that. What were some of the things it covered? We definitely live in exciting times.[quote="Indi"] | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
To give a practical example: suppose you had a pet dog in your backyard, and one day you went out and saw a pile of dog crap on the grass there. The logical hypothesis is that your dog crapped on the grass. You could suggest that another dog snuck in, crapped, and then left. That's hardly a crazy suggestion - it could definitely happen, and it's not even highly improbable. But you have no reason to believe it. You have everything you need with the original hypothesis. There is no need to assume another dog.
|
Very interesting how you make an increase in human intelligence analogous to a dog taking a crap...
Excellent choice.
Excellent. I have been thinking about this very thing lately, I will look at those. Thanks! This reminds me of some movies. How they do expiermental tests on animals, and create a creature which almsot destroys human life on earth.
Cool idea though, just had to point out the thing about the movies, lol.
I think man has furthered evolution too much, jmho
| Chris24 wrote: |
| I think man has furthered evolution too much, jmho |
It what ways has man futhered his own evolution? I can think of contributing to his fitness by modern conveniences/protection from nature's forces,predators in many cases/medicine and advancements in health.
In what ways has man furthered it too much?Evolution evolves and takes a long time. Every tiny adjustment has been thought of by nature. How can humans ever take the idea of changing this in that after decades of thinking with the high risk of failing because it's man-made and didn't take hundreds or even thousands of years of testing by nature itself. Evolution is the survival of the fittest. So you would need a million dogs and manipulate everyone of them to eventually see that 90% has died and that 10% is part of the elite dogs because they got some weird minor adjustments.
This was of course in case we had the technology to change this, but if we have we should not do it anyway.
Well, you could try to mimic evolution - there is a field in computational science which does just that, using Evolutionary Algorithms.
