My view on whats need for evolution to be complete.

[bobhikes]

I feel intelligence is missing from the evolution equation. I believe evolution as mostly adquate but as intelligence developed evolution was modified by that intelligence.

An example
Red ants and Black ants live in a specfic area they are physically the same except color the red ants die off. An evolutionist might theorize that the black ants survived because the color allowed them to heat there bodies better during a bad winter.

I would theorize the black ants had more intelligence that allowed them to adapt better than the red ants or that the black ants came up with an idea before the red ants of same intelligence that allowed them to survive better.

The issue is intelligence is not provable. Also it really doesn't do anything different for us today. But for me it shows how and why we actually developed the way we did. It gives direction to evolution not so random. The direction being to increased intelligence of a species.

Now what I feel I need to tell you is that this is not a big deal for me. Evolution as a whole is a nice thing to debate. I won't get my feelings hurt either way.

 

[Autodidact]

I feel intelligence is missing from the evolution equation. I believe evolution as mostly adquate but as intelligence developed evolution was modified by that intelligence.

An example
Red ants and Black ants live in a specfic area they are physically the same except color the red ants die off. An evolutionist might theorize that the black ants survived because the color allowed them to heat there bodies better during a bad winter.

I would theorize the black ants had more intelligence that allowed them to adapt better than the red ants or that the black ants came up with an idea before the red ants of same intelligence that allowed them to survive better.

The issue is intelligence is not provable. Also it really doesn't do anything different for us today. But for me it shows how and why we actually developed the way we did. It gives direction to evolution not so random. The direction being to increased intelligence of a species.

Now what I feel I need to tell you is that this is not a big deal for me. Evolution as a whole is a nice thing to debate. I won't get my feelings hurt either way.

I feel you have no idea what you're talking about, haven't studied ants or evolution, and know nothing about the extensive evolutionary work regarding intelligence, brain development and functioning.

My suggestion, bob, would be that you begin by learning what the Theory of Evolution says. Just a suggestion.

 

[Nepenthe]

I feel intelligence is missing from the evolution equation. I believe evolution as mostly adquate but as intelligence developed evolution was modified by that intelligence.

An example
Red ants and Black ants live in a specfic area they are physically the same except color the red ants die off. An evolutionist might theorize that the black ants survived because the color allowed them to heat there bodies better during a bad winter.

I would theorize the black ants had more intelligence that allowed them to adapt better than the red ants or that the black ants came up with an idea before the red ants of same intelligence that allowed them to survive better.

This isn't a theory or even a hypothesis. It's gibberish.
1) Is this testable? Is it falsifiable- what, if shown to be the case, would invalidate your hypothesis?
2) Does your hypothesis have any predictive power? Can you ask if A, does B follow with any degree of foresight?
3) Does your idea violate Ockham's razor? Is your ant intelligence hypothesis a better explanation and explain in a more succinct manner competing hypotheses?
4) Is your hypothesis applicable in a wider scope than ant intelligence and evolution- can it be widened to include a wider field such as mammal intelligence and such?

What you have is really just nonsense sentences strung together with nothing substantive.

The issue is intelligence is not provable.

Then it's not scientific. If no amount of testing can corroborate your idea it's not a hypothesis or anything amendable to scientific inquiry. You might as well say your scenario in the OP is the consequence of Gthnaljfosan or pixies or the moons of Ganymede in the 12th dimension.

Also it really doesn't do anything different for us today. But for me it shows how and why we actually developed the way we did.

It shows nothing since you have nothing to show for it. An explanation needs a body of evidence behind it or its ability to explain becomes meaningless. I can explain the evolution of, say, eukaryotes by invoking an invisible, non-corporeal elf that is undetectable by any scientific means but that removes it from the realm of consideration since it's irrelevant.

It gives direction to evolution not so random.

Sentences like this betray a lack of understanding of natural selection.

The direction being to increased intelligence of a species.

Evolution has no direction, much less in the direction of intelligence. Scala naturae is a quaint footnote in anthropomorphism and medieval thinking. Apologies to Haldane but if there were anything like "direction" in evolution it looks like that direction would be towards beetles.

Now what I feel I need to tell you is that this is not a big deal for me. Evolution as a whole is a nice thing to debate. I won't get my feelings hurt either way.

Your "hypothesis" is ridiculous.

 

[bobhikes]

I feel you have no idea what you're talking about, haven't studied ants or evolution, and know nothing about the extensive evolutionary work regarding intelligence, brain development and functioning.

My suggestion, bob, would be that you begin by learning what the Theory of Evolution says. Just a suggestion.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[bobhikes]

This isn't a theory or even a hypothesis. It's gibberish.
1) Is this testable? Is it falsifiable- what, if shown to be the case, would invalidate your hypothesis?
2) Does your hypothesis have any predictive power? Can you ask if A, does B follow with any degree of foresight?
3) Does your idea violate Ockham's razor? Is your ant intelligence hypothesis a better explanation and explain in a more succinct manner competing hypotheses?
4) Is your hypothesis applicable in a wider scope than ant intelligence and evolution- can it be widened to include a wider field such as mammal intelligence and such?

What you have is really just nonsense sentences strung together with nothing substantive.


Then it's not scientific. If no amount of testing can corroborate your idea it's not a hypothesis or anything amendable to scientific inquiry. You might as well say your scenario in the OP is the consequence of Gthnaljfosan or pixies or the moons of Ganymede in the 12th dimension.

It shows nothing since you have nothing to show for it. An explanation needs a body of evidence behind it or its ability to explain becomes meaningless. I can explain the evolution of, say, eukaryotes by invoking an invisible, non-corporeal elf that is undetectable by any scientific means but that removes it from the realm of consideration since it's irrelevant.

Sentences like this betray a lack of understanding of natural selection.

Evolution has no direction, much less in the direction of intelligence. Scala naturae is a quaint footnote in anthropomorphism and medieval thinking. Apologies to Haldane but if there were anything like "direction" in evolution it looks like that direction would be towards beetles.

Your "hypothesis" is ridiculous.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[bobhikes]

Which I should have done first this is the best I can find.

Our hominid and human ancestors evolved large and complex brains exhibiting an ever-increasing intelligence through a long and mostly unknown evolutionary process. This process was either driven by the direct adaptive benefits of intelligence,[48] or, alternatively, driven by its indirect benefits within the context of sexual selection as a reliable signal of genetic resistance against pathogens

The is a lot about human intelligence. I would be interested in anything on the evolution of intelligence especially the lower animals.

Any suggestions or links welcome.

 

[bobhikes]

Psychology today article

Most of the article is very deep but this pretty clear.

I believe scientists and civilians alike may have grossly exaggerated the importance of general intelligence in everyday life. Intelligence does not help you with really important problems in your life, such as maintaining a successful relationship, being a good friend, and raising children. It merely helps you with solving unimportant, evolutionarily novel problems like getting formal education, making money in a capitalist economy, and flying an airplane.


Just liked the quote.

 

[painted wolf]

Intelligence certainly is an important trait... but I think you are giving it too much credit.

How do you define intelligence?

If intelligence is so important, then why are so few species "gifted" with it? The vast majority of species don't even have brains.

Brain size is not a great measure of intelligence... for example, people with large brains are not smarter than people with smaller brains.

Brains are extremely expensive organs... there are serious metabolic costs that need to be addressed.

Physical traits that encourage survival are extremely easy to find and measure and have been shown repeatedly to be drivers of evolutionary change.

but honestly I think my first point is the most important... without a clear, concise and testable definition of "intelligence", your concept is unworkable.

Hope this helps.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I feel intelligence is missing from the evolution equation. I believe evolution as mostly adquate but as intelligence developed evolution was modified by that intelligence.

An example
Red ants and Black ants live in a specfic area they are physically the same except color the red ants die off. An evolutionist might theorize that the black ants survived because the color allowed them to heat there bodies better during a bad winter.

I would theorize the black ants had more intelligence that allowed them to adapt better than the red ants or that the black ants came up with an idea before the red ants of same intelligence that allowed them to survive better.

The issue is intelligence is not provable. Also it really doesn't do anything different for us today. But for me it shows how and why we actually developed the way we did. It gives direction to evolution not so random. The direction being to increased intelligence of a species.

Now what I feel I need to tell you is that this is not a big deal for me. Evolution as a whole is a nice thing to debate. I won't get my feelings hurt either way.

Wouldn't the debate be more interesting if you first learned something about the subject?