What are biologists' views on the three most intelligent organisms?
90107
That depends upon the definition of 'intelligence' and there is not just one. People tend to identify human-like behaviors with intelligence, but what is it? Learning ability? Tool use? Self-consciousness?\nI don't know.\n\nSo that's my non-view on the subject, as a biologist.
27731
well, there are two ways that I remember from bio. One is that they learn from other animals/ assimilate other organisms into their own cell structure (this is simple lifeforms)for example, many scientists theorized that the mitochondria comes were actually assimilated organisms.\n\nAnother way is the whole "survival of the fittest" basically, certain members of a species that are able to survive/thrive in an environment would oust the other members, while if the environment changes so that it favors another group, then this group would die out, so that only the species that work best in the environment are left. I think this is a theory that Darwin came up with.
1022986
Two potentially unresolved questions in evolutionary biology are how and why did sex evolve (the big unresolved issue), and why only two as opposed to more sexes is stable. theory allegedly predicts three is more stable and better than two for example.\n\nYour text book anwsers, like recombination to break the linkage between "good" and "bad" genes and to avoid parasites (red queen hypothesis) explain why sex, ONCE it has evolved, is stable and selected for, BUT not how or why it evolved.\n\nPerhaps you should consider work by Lynn Marguilas et al. on the symbiont theory. Although now largely accepted that organelles like the mitochondria and chloroplast are degenearte symbionts, and less accepted that the nucleus is too, extrapolation of this theory would allow (account for) for the evolution of diploidy and reductive meisois (and thus sexual reproduction) by having two organisms (one aerobic the other anerobic) merging and seperating according to the oxygen levels (oxygen was at first a highly toxic compound to life untill aerobic metabolism evolved). \n\nBy the way hemaphrodites are still sexual, even selfing ones.\n\nAnd additionaly please note and remember for future that sexual discrimination, like homosexual discrimination, and so on, is neither a prerequisite nor a product of sexual reproduction.
87707
what do you consider intellectual? i would say the cns(central nervous system) can also be called intellectual.\n\nmy lymph nodes and adrenal glands are pretty smart too, they defend my body from invaders, know how to regulate my hormone levels, function to keep me healthy... pretty smart.
246827
From what I've learned, most of his ideas about taxonomy were based on the idea of the Great Chain of Being (adopted from Aristotle), which classified most species on the basis of their physiological "superiority." Linneaus was trying to make some kind of statement about evolution, which was ultimately incorrect. Short of looking the answer up on Wikipedia, sorry this is the best I can do :)
824349
ummm everybody seems to have the same answer but yeah\nim assuming your in gr......7 science?\njust cause thats what i am referring to right now in my head:\n\na producer: like a plant/ something that makes its own food[bottom of food chain]\n\nconsumer: an animal/ something that need food by eating something else.\nthere are a bunch of types of producers but i dont remember the names cuz it was too long ago i think it was...so i will number them\n1: 2nd lowest it only eats plants\n2: eats plants and things that eat plants [3rd lowest]\n3: things that eat plants and animals that eat plant/ plants and animals.[highest/us!]\n\nif 1 animal were to lose its habitat, the plant eater would have no food and it would die and then the 2 woulod be able to eat nothing and the 3 would be able to eat nothing cuz the animals and the plants died. its an ecosystem...ect.....symbiosism....ect..\n\nand included in that test should be some stuff about decomposition or something like that\n..\n..\nand some stuff about \nmutualism; when 2 things are benifiting \nex: the sharks and the suckers\n\n__________.[i forgot]; when i thing benifits but the other is not harmed\nex: i cant think of one right now...but it exsists!\n\nparasitism; when i thing benifits and the other is harmed\nex: a tapeworm in a human\n\nendnote: ppl will see this answer and answer it better based on my answer so *cough*i think i should get best answer*endcough* and i totaly am just typing this out of my brain what i learnt 2 years ago so i dont remember much ^_^"""
766942
Personally I thought:\n\nMan, dolphin, pig, chimp\n\nAccording to Edward O Wilson, top animal behaviourist:\n\n1. Chimpanzee (two species) \n2. Gorilla \n3. Orangutan \n4. Baboon (seven species, including drill and mandrill) \n5. Gibbon (seven species) \n6. Monkey (many species, especially the macaques, the patas, and the Celebes black ape) \n7. Smaller-toothed whale (several species, especially killer whale) \n8. Dolphin (many of the approximately eighty species) \n9. Elephant (two species) \n10. Pig \n\nNo donkey I'm afraid!
194715
depends on what u consider intelligent? we as human consider ourselves to be the intelligent life forms on our planet but what are we basing that on? The fact that we can think logically, do math, astronomy. These are things that are only important to US, what does a dog need with math consider its species and what it is here for. Frankly this is not a general question that can be answered with one answer in which everyone will agree on. we all have what we think to be "intelligent" and what is not. Think about the very first mathematician and scientist, how do u think they viewed others and what do u think others thought about them trying things that were innovative and "new" but not necessarily "smart" at the time?
940712
Biological computers aren't a myth anymore... For those who don't believe this, read this article:\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/358822.stm\nOf course I don't say it's a genius because it's not, but this computer is capable of learning, associtaing relations, show the results depending on its knowledge and so on... \nArtificial Intelligence is growing very fast so who knows what the future will bring. For now it's just in developing stage, or with national security status :P.\nhttp://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/02/the_rise_of_the.html
336092
Spillmonkey.com.. More news than you can shake a monkey at.. We...\nThat the great Greek philosipher Aristotle, after he had finshed teaching ... Alexander, had noticed the inferiority of the fork and the spoon, so\nhttp://www.spillmonkey.com/spork/index.shtml\n\nbcgrowers title\nIMO worms are some great and amazing creatures.As the greek philosipher Aristotle said "Worms are the intestines of the earth" Wow we have...\nhttp://www.cannabase.com/cl/bcga/chat/chat_mar1.htm\n\neBay Australia - Prints, Prints framed, limited, Contemporary...\n1900s ANTIQUE PRINT ARISTOTLE SCIENTIST PHILOSIPHER      US $7.99 <1m     Whalebones, Whitby      GBP 14.40 - <1m\nhttp://attr-search.ebay.com.au/_Prints_W0QQcatrefZC12QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQgc...orderZ2QQsaatc...\n\nPlato Message Board\nANYBODY PLEASE HELP! · PLATO, ARISTOTLE,AND CICERO ON PHILOSIPHER KINGS!? tremons016 tree order\nhttp://mb.sparknotes.com/mb.epl?b=85&m=952325&p=2&t=281189&w=1\n\nAristotle Message Board\n...of PHILOSIPHER-KINGS tremons016 tree order ... Started on 11/17/04 12:27 AM 1 Reply last msg 11/24/04 6:57 PM ... 227 Views · Plato/Aristotle...\nhttp://mb.sparknotes.com/mb.epl?b=84&m=952335&t=281194&w=1\n\nLost Spirit :: View topic - gays marrying?!\nQuote: Originally Posted by golers671 first of all, theres something called Aristocracy, deriving from the greek philosipher, Aristotle.\nhttp://www.lostspirit.com/t399413p16-gays-marrying.htm
499343
Evolution.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.
593358
Quote simply nbecause we killed them all.\n\nAs recently as 20, 000 years ago humans lived side by side with another intelligent species in Indonesia.\n\nAs recently and 30, 000 years ago humans lived side by side with another intelligent species in Europe.\n\nAs recently as 40, 000 year ago people lived side by side with another intelligent species in the Middle East.\n\nAs recently as 60, 000 years ago people lived side by side with two other intelligent species in Europe.\n\nAs recently as 70, 000 years ago people lived side by side with three other intelligent species in Asia.\n\nAs recently as 80, 000 years ago people lived side by side with three other intelligent species in Africa.\n\n\nIn the last 80, 000 years humans have exterminated many hundreds of thousand of species of animals and plants. We have exterminated species that we feed on, and we have exterminated species by accident, but what we have been especially good at is exterminating species that we compete with.\n\n\nAll those other intelligent species ate the same food as us, they caught that food in the same way. They were our greatest competitors. Once they came into contact one of those species had to die. The system could not support both populations. As it happens our species was the survivor.\n\n\nThe reason you can't have a conversation with any other species is because we have caused the extinction of other all other species capable of speech. \n\nWe're good at extermination.
287793
Yeah probably the dolphins.  It's been shown they are more intelligent than humans.  Once they evolve to the point of being physically independent on land AND water, I think they'll give us a run for our money.\n\nEver see that Simpsons episode where the dolphins reclaim the land?  I just love that one.  *smile*
646184
Yes. To believe we are the only intelligent life forms in the universe is a little arrogant of us, don't you think?
634642
Human biology. I like it best because there is so much that we can and will learn about the human body. The human body is the most sophisticated machine ever created. God is a total genius.
1094350
who says humans are smarter than other species?? what is your measure of intellegence?
1016787
Intelligence is not a fluke, but there is truly some debate as to whether it is the product of evolution or not.  Take any primate, for example.  They all have relatively sophistated brains, and the work with them suggests a capacity for intelligent behavior.  Still, intelligent behavior and actual intelligence are two different things.  No simian has ever learned to sign on its own, or develop a method of mathmetics, or designed a house.  It can be shown these things, and even taught the basics of them, but its never done these things on its own.  And there are other animals out there with brains as large as ours or larger, like a dolphin, yet none of these animals have ever created anything (so far as we know, anyway).\nWhy is it that all other animals on Earth must adapt in order to survive but not human beings?  We don't adapt to our environment; we don't grow thick fur when we get cold, or hibernate for the winter.  We make our environment adapt to us.  We reshape our environment to make it more conducive to our survival, like making thick warm clothing and building a fire.  That's creative intelligence, and there's no evidence that it's present in any other species on Earth.  Cognitive intelligence, yes, but creative intelligence, no.  So I don't see how it could've been "evolved" into us, when it seems nature hasn't put that charectaristic in any other species.