Since dolphins and chimps are two of the smartest species on our planet, which one will evolve more intellectually in the next 100,000 years? Why?

And if humans share a direct lineage with members of the ape family why is there such a huge gap in intelligence? If humans evolved from primitive ape species then there would have to be other ape species that are closer in intelligence.

Stessors that cause a species to make physical adaptations are obvious but what really causes a species to evolve intellectually? Every species on earth is placed under stressors that SHOULD cause them to evolve intellectually. Advanced intelligence is a far more valuable asset than physical adaptations so why don't more species evolve intellectually? What stressors have caused dolphins to get so smart? Having to dodge sharks for 100 million years?

Thumbs make the difference.

 

Originally Posted by slizza420

And if humans share a direct lineage with members of the ape family why is there such a huge gap in intelligence? If humans evolved from primitive ape species then there would have to be other ape species that are closer in intelligence.

Chimps and Humans share something like more than 96% of DNA, we are so insanely similar.

Also Humans are not direct descendants from Chimps. Our common ancestor was long before chimpanzees were even a species. We've both been evolving for a period of time ever since.

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

Thumbs make the difference.

Brains make the difference!

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

Thumbs make the difference.

opposable thumbs make the difference

monkeys have thumbs, just cant do what we can do with our thumbs. i believe that is huge in becoming an advanced mind, you just have so many things you can do now with opposable thumbs such as building something.

it goes back to natural selection, the strength our species put forth to survive was so strong and our brains are really just that much smarter. making language to have logical conversations and teaching habits was huge. you gotta thank the bell curve for producing some crazy smart Phoenician who one day said "hey we should fucking make letters n shit"

 

Originally Posted by Donkey Kong

you gotta thank the bell curve for producing some crazy smart Phoenician who one day said "hey we should fucking make letters n shit"

ROFLMAO I wish I was there to hear that!

Sexual selection based on intelligence in our ancestral predecessors likely contributed greatly to the development of the pronounced frontal lobe we see in homo sapiens today.

Sometime probably 100s of thousands of years ago one or both sexes among our ancestral genetic line decided that being intelligent was incredibly sexy. Intelligent individuals reproduced more successfully and more often than less intelligent individuals. And not just because they were probably better at gathering food and hunting but because they and their genes were strongly preferred by the opposite sex.

almost anytime you see a very unusual trait exaggerrated to extreme proportions (like a peacocks tail or homo sapiens frontal lobe) it is probably the result of some strong sexual selection. Combine the sexual selection with the other obvious general advantages of increased intelligence and you have some serious natural selection for braininess.

Oh just a reminder there were other species that were 'in between' humans and chimps intelligence-wise. Neanderthal coexisted with homo sapiens for some time, but they were evidently out competed for the same resources and driven to extinction.

Many neanderthals were assimilated into the human population. I've worked for some of them.

 

Originally Posted by SCTrojans

Chimps and Humans share something like more than 96% of DNA, we are so insanely similar.

Also Humans are not direct descendants from Chimps. Our common ancestor was long before chimpanzees were even a species. We've both been evolving for a period of time ever since.



Brains make the difference!

The DNA genetic code is so incredibly long and complex. Pretty much all species have similar DNA. It's just like chemistry. The slightest change in atom arrangement or electrical charge can create an entirely new element.

Graphite and diamonds have the exact same molecular formula but yet they are two completely different things simply because of the way their atoms are arranged.

 

Originally Posted by Moss Boss

Another point I feel obligated to make. : the genesis of sexual selection in a species is arbitrary. Why does a peahen so strongly prefer a peacock with a huge, elaborate and colorful tail? There is no reason, she just does. The males who possess that trait she is looking for fare better reproductively. Sexual selection based on intelligence seems like a good idea and obvious in hindsight, but the origins of that sexual preference were essentially a random occurrence.

I would assume that a female would be more inclined to breed with a person that had superior physical strength. Back in the day the ability to beat the shit out of your fellow man was what determined dominance. Intelligence didn't get you very far back then if you couldn't swing a weapon.

Achilles was getting mad pu$$y and it wasn't because he was a politician.

Not saying Achilles was a real warrior but bad ass fighters were gods back then.

Yeah physical dominance is certainly a factor that would appeal to females. But remember we are talking about predecessors to homo sapiens, or perhaps the earliest possible homo sapiens. Humans 30 to 50k years ago had the same brain powe we do. In all likelyhood, the physical differences between individuals that survived to adulthood were probably not nearly as great as we see today. All things being equal, the smarter man fared better reproductively.

The bigger stronger guy would have an advantage no doubt, but as a social species, the the man who best worked with his fellow tribesman and utilized his resources (the smartest man) would likely have attained a position of respect and importance.

The guy who first built a bow and arrow probably got serious tang.

 

EVERY female member of a species breeds with the strongest, most dominant male they can find.

Well, that might be true in general but I'm telling you that 'dominance' is not always the same as size and strength.

Female birds of paradise mate with the males who best perform a specific mating dance to her satisfaction. His size and strength is irrelevant. The dance is the only criteria.

Now, I'm not suggesting that a primitive homo sapiens woman would forego a strong and healthy male in order to secure the genes of a weak and sickly but intelligent male. But in a primitive and tribal setting, I'm sure she would skip a healthy and strong, but socially inept and dumb male in preference for a healthy, maybe less-strong, but intelligent and socially dominant male. Social dominance is probably more important than physical dominance. And that probably correlates very strongly with intelligence.

*edit*

In this case, I believe social dominance is 'dominance' in the reproductive sense because we are talking about social animals arranged in tribes. If the strongest male is not also the social leader, he may win a fight or two but he will definitely lose the war, so to speak.

 

Originally Posted by cdmalgee

Yes, and when the tool used to feed and defend yourself is your intelligence, the strongest and most dominant male is often the smartest. If we used our teeth, claws, and brute force to survive more than our minds, then those traits would've carried on, much like they have with another close relative in mountain gorillas.

The intelligence gap widened after the discovery to create fire. No longer did the ancestors have freeze at night and look for ways to keep from shivering. They could actually sit and think about how to make their lives easier instead of only survival.