There is something I have wondered probably since I was a kid. I don’t fully understand the theory of evolution. But I believe central to it is the fact the species, be they human or not, are constantly evolving, even as we speak. I don’t think anyone would doubt the human homo sapiens species is the most evolved species to-date. As shakespeare even said:
So how long will it be before other animal species catch up with us? Specifically, I guess what I am asking is how long before they catch up with us in intelligence, technology and social structure? Or will in fact other animals ever catch up with this way?
Does anyone know what scientists have to say about this matter. Links would be helpful.
Count me as a “no” on this. There is no such thing as “most evolved”. Scientists do not - or at least should not - talk about any species as being higher or more advanced on any sort of evolutionary scale than any other. Evolution does not have a direction, an arrow - there is no single axis along which species march towards evolutionary perfection.
Having established that, the concept of any other species “catching up” in pure evolutionary terms to us is also meaningless.
However catching up in what we think of as intelligence (or any other measurable parameter) is a valid concept. It could only happen to a given species if
i/ there is an evolutionary advantage to doing so
ii/ the right mutations happen to occur in that species
iii/ those mutations are not otherwise more of a disadvantage to that species than the advantage conferred by the increased intelligence, and
iv/ we don’t wipe them out anyway.
All species are constantly evolving, as you say, but only to better fit the environment in which they find themselves, which may or may not involve increased intelligence. Every now and then the environment changes underneath a species, and they suddenly find themselves less well fitted to it (or occasionally better fitted to it) than before, through no evolutionary change at all.
Shakespeare’s evaluation of his own species is a little less inspiring when you realise Hamlet is actually speaking ironically, and he goes on to say how detestable he finds himself and his fellow man.
You presume that man has reached the pinnacle of evolution, which is not true. The human species is still evolving, and it could be argued that it has already evolved faster than most other species, and will continue to outdistance the nearest competitor.
If this is true, other species are falling behind, not catching up.
Impossible to say because evolution is based on selection(natural or otherwise) of random mutations - if we could accurately predict what kind of selective forces will be in place in the future, then the question might be answerable, although still speculatively.
AndrewT nailed it. The idea that there is some sort of pinnacle of evolution is a popular misunderstanding. Creatures adapt to survive, but that doesn’t mean they are heading towards becoming “perfect” beings. A shark is very good at killing, and that’s how it survives. I seriously doubt that sharks will ever become as intelligent as humans. Humans are relatively weaker and slower than many predator animals, and intelligence is a valuable survival tool for us.
I seriously doubt that we are going to get any smarter at this point. I think you’d pretty much have to be psychic to know what direction the human race might take in the distant future.
Other species don’t need to “catch up.” A species adapts to its environment, not to some standard of ‘most evolved.’ Single-celled organisms, for example, will stay like they are if they are well-suited to their surroundings. They aren’t competing with us in a race. I don’t think cockroaches have changed much in recent years - they’re older than we are, anyway - and yet they would survive a great number of catastrophes that would kill us easily.
As AndrewT pointed out, Shakespeare was NOT extolling humankind with that speech. Here it is in full:
My emphasis. The point is that, great as all that stuff might be to other people, Hamlet simply doesn’t give a crap about anything.
The only way animals would surpass us would be if there was a survival advantage to them being as smart, or smarter than us. Also, if there was some sort of technological stagnation, and animals evolved some sort of defense against human tools (bullets/arrows).
I have heard that evolution is not a matter of time, but of generations. So animals that reporuce rapidly could evolve ways to rival us. I am aware some species of insecs can rapidly become resistant to pesticides in this manner.
Hasn’t this scenario already happened in a way, but with modern Homo sapiens exceeding (or matching, who knows) the intelligence of the older Homo species. We stormed out of Africa and in the blink of an evolutionary eye, they were all gone (so we better hope it doesn’t happen again :eek: ).
I doubt another intelligent species (as we would consider intelligent) will evolve while we’re still here, the time scale is too big and we’re killing off most of the likely other sources. Probably the best chance for a new non-human intelligence is artifical, machine or genetically engineered.
I would raise an only semi-facetious argument that the limited-liability corporation has out-evolved human beings. A creation of human beings, it has absorbed its creator species into its operational matrix. It can live forever, is singleminded in purpose, and is not burdened by moral scruples.
mammals have existed as the dominant macrofauna for sixty-five million years;
in that time one genus has evolved intelligence, within the last three million years only.
I wouldn’t expect that another intelligent species would arise due to Darwinian evolution for say another fifty million years;
Genetic engineering may produce thousands of intelligent versions of our animal companions; it is a mixed blessing to be self conscious and sapient, but before many centuries have passed chimpanzees and bonobos, dolphins, squid and whales may bring new insights to our cultural mix.
I’m not sure if this is an exact answer to the OP, but it’s something I’ve been thinking about for a couple months.
Most animals or plants altered by forced human evolution have been changed to produce more meat, fruit, or grain. There is one animal that has taken on a number of other responsibilities involving rational thought, athletic skills, loyalty, obedience, attitude, and ability to master a multitude of tasks. Moreover, for thousands of years (possibly up to around 100,000) people have been selecting these animals for those traits.
Well, of course, I’m talking about dogs. I’ve been known to put in a good word for dogs on occasion.
Anyway, my WAG is that we are forcing dog evolution in the direction of less aggression, better socialization, and greater intelligence. Give them a million years. I, for one, look forward to serving my dog masters. I have several boxes of Milk Bones in reserve already.
Look forward to it? We are their servants already.
Duchess’ ancestors have already ensured that she is well fed, protected from the elements, and given better medical care than I enjoy. She doesn’t even have to herd sheep or flush game. All she has to do is look cute and she gets a cookie.
The pnly thing that she keeps us around for is to drive and open containers. But , I am sure that if she needed to she could steer and her buddy Pepper would be on the floor working the pedals…
Would work if the majority of breeders were still breeding for intelligence and socialization the way they were 100 millinea ago. Now breeders breed mostly for profit or for show, they are more concerned with the number of puppies, and the appearance of certain traits. All the inbreeding and gene trash is starting to express more negatives than positives.
My own WAG goes along a similar line though. While I don’t feel that there is a goal to evolution beyond becoming more survivable in your environment as a species; I can think of a particular species which is receiving environmental pressures to be more resourceful, manipulative, and dextrous. The Raccoon.
