# If not us, who? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 4, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573 "2009-10-04T19:03:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/41 "2009-10-06T17:15:17Z")
Raccoons. šŸ˜‰ ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/42 "2009-10-06T17:46:57Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Nothing in the Burgess is the same shape it was in life- most is just just thin carbon films on shale. How recogniseable do you think stone tools would be under the same preservation conditions? I doubt anyone could tell a billion yo midden from a breccia If you can tell the fine structure of a soft wriggling thingā€™s spines, no doubt you could tell a flint has been knapped. It is extraordinary to claim that _rocks_ cannot, under some conditions, survive for hundreds of millions of years. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/43 "2009-10-06T18:16:39Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > If you can tell the fine structure of a soft wriggling thingā€™s spines, no doubt you could tell a flint has been knapped. But I do doubt. I doubt a lot. The Burgess preservation is distinctive because it stands out from its ground mass, and because of the rare conditions that . How are the details on a knapped flint going to stand out > [@](#): > > It is extraordinary to claim that _rocks_ cannot, under some conditions, survive for hundreds of millions of years. Rocks, yes, but not in the same shape they were to start off with. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Awesome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Captain\_Awesome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Awesome)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/44 "2009-10-06T18:35:09Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Nothing in the Burgess is the same shape it was in life- most is just just thin carbon films on shale. How recogniseable do you think stone tools would be under the same preservation conditions? I doubt anyone could tell a billion yo midden from a breccia Almost any rock type, suitably durable for a tool, would be extremely well preserved in such a shale. Flint tools would be virtually uncompressed, leaving all the clues as to their ā€˜intelligent designā€™. The deformable matrix accommodates most of the small-scale strain incurred during the shallow paleodepth to which this type of formation is buried. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/45 "2009-10-06T18:50:47Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Lemur, the mistake you make in:re birds, is that you talk about them as if theyā€™re a monolithic, well, species. Theyā€™re not. Pointing out unintelligent behavior in this bird species or that has no validity in this discussion. Itā€™s like suggesting the fact that there are less-intelligent primates makes Primate intelligence unlikely. > > Iā€™d never even speculate that a European Cuckoo could evolve sentience. But a Raven, or other Corvid? Or an African Gray parrot, or other Psittacine? Iā€™m less sure of the unlikelihood. Thing is though, birds evolved for flight (this affects the basic anatomy even of flightless birds), and big brains are heavy. It is therefore hard to imagine an environment of near-Earth gravity and atmospheric pressure where a flying animal or descendant of flying animals evolves intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![SSgtBaloo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac91a4/32.png) [@SSgtBaloo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SSgtBaloo)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/46 "2009-10-06T19:15:55Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > My standard pedantic complaint: > > ā€œSentientā€ means to be possessed of senses. All animals are sentient. > > As to the OP, I think there are lots of candidates. Raccoons, octopi, cats, bears, birds, meerkats, otters, rats. Given enough time perhaps a reptile could make it. What term would you suggest for human-equivalent ā€œintelligenceā€? Abstract cognition? Really, in common usage, ā€œsentienceā€ has come to mean humanlike intelligence. The OP is not concerned with semantics. My candidate for intelligence? Dogs, Mice and cats. Suitably mutated, of course. šŸ˜‰ ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Awesome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Captain\_Awesome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Awesome)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/47 "2009-10-06T19:16:40Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Thing is though, birds evolved for flight (this affects the basic anatomy even of flightless birds), and big brains are heavy. It is therefore hard to imagine an environment of near-Earth gravity and atmospheric pressure where a flying animal or descendant of flying animals evolves intelligence. But youā€™ve just imagined one. Flightless birds donā€™t have this problem. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/48 "2009-10-06T19:18:44Z")
The major large animal survivors of the KT impact were those creatures which lived in or near rivers or on the coasts, so I, for one, welcome our new otter overlords. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/49 "2009-10-06T19:20:34Z")
> [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > But youā€™ve just imagined one. Flightless birds donā€™t have this problem. The terrifying march of the penguins towards world domination continues ā€¦ :eek: But seriously, if a squirrel-like creature can evolve into us, I can easily imagine a parrot or crow-like creature evolving, under the right conditions, flightlessness and human-style intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blut_Aus_Nord)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/50 "2009-10-06T19:28:22Z")
Unless they grow super strong wings like seraphim. In which case weā€™re doomed. This leads to the logical conclusion that all birds must be destroyed. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/51 "2009-10-06T19:33:03Z")
> [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > But youā€™ve just imagined one. Flightless birds donā€™t have this problem. Yes, but as noted the past flight-oriented evolution seems to determine the basic anatomy of flightless birds ā€“ I mean, look at the size of the head on an ostrich or a penguin. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/52 "2009-10-06T19:44:52Z")
> [@SSgtBaloo](#): > > What term would you suggest for human-equivalent ā€œintelligenceā€? Abstract cognition? Really, in common usage, ā€œsentienceā€ has come to mean humanlike intelligence. Sapience/Sapient has been used. But yes, ā€œsentienceā€ is used to mean ā€œhaving humanlike intelligenceā€ as often as not. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Awesome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Captain\_Awesome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Awesome)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/53 "2009-10-06T19:59:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, but as noted the past flight-oriented evolution seems to determine the basic anatomy of flightless birds ā€“ I mean, look at the size of the head on an ostrich or a penguin. The cranial size of one species doesnā€™t restrict the evolutionary potential for its adaption in another. The vertebrate skeletal arrangement is highly conservative in elemental terms, but not with an individual componentā€™s morphology or adapted use. If circumstances had conspired differently it is not inconceivable that the progeny of Phorusrhacos might be king of the hill right now. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/54 "2009-10-06T22:43:15Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The terrifying march of the penguins towards world domination continues ā€¦ :eek: > > But seriously, if a squirrel-like creature can evolve into us, I can easily imagine a parrot or crow-like creature evolving, under the right conditions, flightlessness and human-style intelligence. Exactly. The limiting factors on the avian brainā€“largely flightā€“is ā€œso far.ā€ Yes, even flightless birds are still limited by the small brainsize of their ancestors. But thereā€™s nothing that limits the future growth of such brain size. The human anatomy underwent quite some serious changes to accommodate it (e.g., female pelvic bone). Thereā€™s no reason to suppose such drastic changes couldnā€™t occur in an avian evolution that favored brain size. In fact, the other advantage of flightlessness in this respect is freeing up the wings for other possible uses: if the fin of a cetacean can evolve from the fully articulated ā€œhandā€ of its ancestor, whoā€™s to say a birdā€™s wing structure might not ā€œrevertā€ to the articulated form of its dinosaur ancestor, and eventually even rotate a thumb? Psittacines have two toes forward and two backā€“as do owlsā€“and can be quite adroit with them. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/55 "2009-10-06T22:44:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, but as noted the **past** flight-oriented evolution seems to determine the basic anatomy of flightless birds ā€“ I mean, look at the size of the head on an ostrich or a penguin. Emphasis added. ---
**Author:** ![Grendel\_s\_Father](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grendel\_s\_Father](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grendel_s_Father)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/56 "2009-10-06T23:07:48Z")
IMO this whole question is very anthropocentric and really anthropomorphises the whole question of intelligence. Why are making tools, buildings, cars, computers etc. the hallmark of intelligence? Because those are behaviors found in humans, and we are humans. So really, the question weā€™re asking is not ā€œwould other animals become sentient,ā€ (or, similarly, ā€œdoes sentience exist elsewhere in the universeā€) itā€™s would they _become humans_ and to what degree (or do humans exist elsewhere and to what degree). What if ants asked the same, self-centered type of questions and completely missed the point? > **[The Search](https://xkcd.com/638/)** > > I am so excited about the Kepler mission. This is the second most important thing our species has ever done, right behind inventing the concept of delivery pizza. šŸ™‚ ---
**Author:** ![Never\_Say\_Dice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ee59a6/32.png) [@Never\_Say\_Dice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Never_Say_Dice)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/57 "2009-10-06T23:20:10Z")
Raccoons have excellent hand manipulation, and of course thereā€™s the pandaā€™s thumb which is a different bone, but works fine. All apes do have opposable thumbs, you know. Go to the zoo and watch them as they eat oranges or bananas, or tear paper. Their thumbs work like ours, and their big toes outdo ours by a long shot. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/58 "2009-10-06T23:35:10Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > (Iā€™m skeptical whether cats could evolve to sentience ā€“ I think theyā€™re too biologically specialized, although theyā€™re intelligent and adaptable enough.) If you ever meet my cats, your skepticism will disappear. šŸ˜‰ ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/59 "2009-10-07T11:08:07Z")
> [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > Almost any rock type, suitably durable for a tool, would be extremely well preserved in such a shale. Flint tools would be virtually uncompressed, leaving all the clues as to their ā€˜intelligent designā€™. The deformable matrix accommodates most of the small-scale strain incurred during the shallow paleodepth to which this type of formation is buried. Thatā€™s fine for diagenesis, but Iā€™m talking about the sort of tectonic history thatā€™d soon turn that shale into slate. Iā€™ve got some experience with this - the Dwyka tillite here is a dropstone diamictite that contains clasts of quartzite, basalt etc. in fine matrix - I assure you, this has not rendered them immune to stress and strain. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Awesome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Captain\_Awesome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Awesome)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/60 "2009-10-07T12:05:56Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Thatā€™s fine for diagenesis, but Iā€™m talking about the sort of tectonic history thatā€™d soon turn that shale into slate. Iā€™ve got some experience with this - the Dwyka tillite here is a dropstone diamictite that contains clasts of quartzite, basalt etc. in fine matrix - I assure you, this has not rendered them immune to stress and strain. If you invoke the deviatoric strains required to produce a slate, then clearly yes. But short of these, stone tools could potentially be very well preserved (my _Echinocorys sulcatus_ is nodding in agreement with me). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573.md?page=4)