Thoughts While Watching a Sandpiper
Along the Kennebec River in Augusta, Maine.



Most discussions of which forms of life are the most 'advanced' rest on two assumptions which are never explicitly stated.

First, that human beings (Homo sapiens) are the most "advanced."

Second, that a species' level of 'advancement' is judged by how closely it physically resembles and behaves like human beings.

These assumptions are normally assigned a priori status, meaning they are presumed to be so obviously true that there is no need to provide evidence or argument to defend them.

This, however, creates a tautological argument. Human beings are assigned the rank of "most advanced" solely because, well, we just are the most "advanced."

But for a moment, let us consider the factual basis for the assumption that human beings (Homo sapiens) are the most "advanced" living organisms on the planet Earth; and let us consider other possible, and more provable, methods of determining which species are the most "advanced."

One possible metric could ask: Which living organisms have the longest living individual members?

If this metric is chosen, the most 'advanced' living organisms on Earth are undoubtedly trees and plants. Most tree species contain individuals which live longer than any human. Several tree species, including the sequoia and bristlecone pine, can live for several thousand years. According to Scientific American (May 2003), a plant native to the Namib Desert in southwest Africa (Welwitschia mirabilis) can live 1,000 years or longer.

Another possible metric could ask: Of all living organisms, which species have survived on Earth the longest?

If this metric is chosen, a vast number of species, and their individual members, would be assigned a much higher level of 'advancement' than human beings, since we have only existed as a recognizable species for much less than 1 million years.

This list would include many species of fish, including the sea lamprey, sturgeon, sharks, all of which have been shown through fossil records to have arisen tens or hundreds of millions of years ago and exist today relatively unchanged from their ancestors. Most reptiles, amphibians and insects would also easily eclipse human beings if this metric of 'advancement' were selected.

Interestingly, forms of life which arose much earlier than human beings and have remained relatively unchanged for tens of millions of years are usually called 'primitive.' This adjective is assigned to very old orders of plants such as the ginkgo, horsetails, ferns and mosses; and such animals as the sea lamprey, horseshoe crab and sturgeon. Used in this context, the word 'primitive' has two separate meanings.

First, the word 'primitive' simply means 'old.' This accurately describes a species such as the horseshoe crab or horsetail, which arose hundreds of millions of years ago and, based on fossil records, have changed very little in appearance between then and now.

The second meaning of 'primitive' is more nuanced. When referring to a horseshoe crab or a sea lamprey as a 'primitive' organism, it is implied that these organisms are somehow less "advanced" than Homo sapiens, which have only appeared on Earth's stage at a comparatively recent date. Isolating the meaning hidden in this implication, we discover a species is deemed less 'advanced' than humans simply because it arose on Earth much earlier than humans and has managed to be successful and survive on Earth for many orders of magnitude longer than humans.

If our metric of 'advanced' awards points for those organisms whose evolutionary designs have allowed them to flourish unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, then species such as the sea lamprey or ginkgo rise to the top of our list of 'most advanced' species.

Surely we would consider 'highly advanced' an automobile design which allows the vehicle to start up and run every day for centuries without breaking down; and we would consider 'less advanced' an automobile which falls apart after 5 years or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first.

By closely and objectively examining the premise that Homo sapiens is the most 'advanced' living organism on Earth, we find this judgment is actually based on a subjective interpretation of an objective factual observation. The objective factual observation is that Homo sapiens is one of the newest species to inhabit the planet.

But how do we conclude from this fact that 'newest' necessarily means superior and 'oldest' somehow means inferior?"

A comparison with automobiles is instructive. New models of automobiles are routinely described as the 'most advanced' and possessing 'the most advanced' design. Yet, the average usable life span of an automobile built in 2004 is not appreciably greater than a one built in 1984, 1964, 1944 or 1924. If there were a true 'advancement' in automobile design and technology over the past century, our automobiles today should last for 50 or more years and run for 1 million miles. Does yours?

This example clearly shows that in many cases, 'newest' has no necessary connection to the quality we call 'more advanced' nor does 'oldest' have a necessary connection with the quality we call 'less advanced.'

Here is another example. In 300 B.C., a man from Alexandria, Egypt named Eratosthenes used several simple measurements, basic arithmetic and the geometric principle of similar angles to calculate the circumference of the Earth to within 5 percent accuracy. One thousand years later, the leaders and most residents of Europe believed the Earth had no circumference because it was flat. And given this belief, they had no idea of the actual circumference of the Earth, nor did they possess any methods to calculate the Earth's circumference with equal or greater accuracy than Eratosthenes.

[Physicist Michael W. Friedlander notes in his 1989 book on cosmic rays that there is no record in Europe of the supernova in 1054 A.D. which was widely observed and reported by astronomers in China, Korea and Japan. The remnants of this supernova, which could be seen in daylight for 23 days, are now known as the Crab Nebula. Friedlander posits that Europeans failed to take notice of the supernova because Church dogma held that the heavens were unchanging and immutable. As a result, Europeans had abandoned the science of astronomy for nearly a millenium. Friedlander, M.W. 1989. A Thin Cosmic Rain: Particles from Outer Space. Harvard University Press.]

In these examples, does newer necessarily mean better? Does older necessarily mean inferior? Can we call a thing more "advanced" on the sole basis that it is newer than something else?

These examples are cited to illustrate a fundamental flaw in the logical basis for the contention that Homo sapiens is "more advanced" than other living organisms -- if the sole basis for this contention is that Homo sapiens is newer to the planet than many other organisms.

The logic in question states that if A is newer than B, A must be more 'advanced' than B. Such a logical relationship can only be valid if this relationship is found to be true in all possible cases, and its negation is found to be false in all cases. [ie., in all possible cases, where A is newer than B, A is more advanced than B; and there are no cases where A is newer than B but is less advanced than B.]

The hierarchical ordering of living organisms by human beings is a very old practice. It is found in many religious and cultural belief systems. Ancient Egyptians assigned a very high cultural value to domestic cats, as evidenced by the mummified and elaborately prepared corpses of cats found in the burial crypts of Egyptian nobles. Some Native American peoples assigned a very high cultural value and significance to wolves, believing them to possess a level of intelligence on a scale similar to themselves.

The hierarchical ordering of living organisms is also embedded in many interpretations of the biological theory of evolution. The introduction by Charles Darwin of the theory of the evolution of species was seized upon by many Europeans to provide an objective "proof" which rationalized their subjugation of people with black, brown, yellow or red skin.

Darwin's use of the phrase 'survival of the fittest' was adopted by industrial, religious and political figures as an objective 'proof' which rationalized the enormous disparity in quality of life between rich and poor people during the Industrial Revolution. Darwin's theory of the role of inherited traits and their development over time through breeding was used to justify and rationalize the practice of eugenics as a scientific method to "breed out" supposed 'inferior' races and improve the human species by purifying the 'superior' races. Eugenics provided the scientific rationale for Nazi Germany's final solution for the inferior races of Jews, homosexuals and other supposedly flawed human beings.

While cleansed of most of its disturbing applications as an objective method to assert a hierarchy of human beings, the biological theory of evolution is often cited today to assert the existence of a vertical hierarchy of the organisms which live on Earth. Basic biological texts often organize living and extinct organisms into a diagram which resembles a tree. In these diagrams, ancient organisms are usually placed at the "bottom" of the tree, while organisms of more recent arrival on Earth are invariably placed at the "top" of the tree. Other illustrative techniques offer a linear diagram, with 'primitive' organisms at the left side of the diagram and 'advanced' organisms at the right side of the diagram, always ending with a small picture of a human being as being the most recent (and therefore, most advanced) of the Earth's living organisms.

These methods of illustration are based on a subjective (ie. untested) assumption that because Homo sapiens is one of the 'newest' of Earth's living organisms, it must therefore be the most 'advanced' of Earth's living organisms. Significantly, the authors of these illustrative devices never explicitly define what they mean by 'most advanced' except that it is somehow synonymous with 'newest'; and by corollary, 'oldest' is somehow synonymous with 'least advanced.'

As others have done in the past, many people today have grafted the elements of evolutionary theory to a pre-existing and subjective hierarchical ranking of living organisms. The rough outline of this process is as follows:

If evolutionary theory holds that mammalian species evolved from non-mammalian vertebrates (ie. reptiles or fish); and primates evolved from other mammals; and human-like primates evolved from apes; and humans evolved from the most "human-like" apes -- then Homo sapiens, being at the end point of this evolutionary line, represents the most recent (ie. newest) product of this particular evolutionary line, and as the 'newest' product, human beings must therefore represent the most 'advanced' product of this evolutionary line.

This line of analysis is not supported by the basic theory of evolution, which is as value-neutral as the physical and chemical laws which ultimately control it.

The basic theory of evolution holds that species change over time due to random variations in their genotype; and these variations either survive or do not survive based upon their ability to survive to reproductive age in their environment.

A horseshoe crab has not appreciably changed (evolved) over the past 100 million years simply because few, if any, of the random variations which have occurred in the horseshoe crab's genotype have over the past 100 million years conferred greater survival success than the horseshoe crab genotype which arose 100 million years ago.

By this we can say the "design" of the horseshoe crab has not changed appreciably over time because the random process of genetic variation in horseshoe crabs has yet to produce a "better" horseshoe crab than the one which arose 100 million years ago. If this interpretation is true, we can say that one of Nature's most fundamental rules of design is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

So long as the basic vehicle of evolutionary change is purely random (ie. random mutations in a species' genotype), we should fully expect to see many organisms which "hit upon" a highly successful design at a very early period, and since that time, none of the many subsequent random variations in that design have conferred upon the species a higher degree of survival success than the original design. As a result, the species in this category will change very little over time.

Under this interpretation of the origin and development of various living organisms, a more accurate illustrative diagram would be horizontal, not vertical. In short, some species are not 'better' than others, nor are some more 'advanced' than others, but they are simply different from each other in certain basic, definable respects.

A cultural example illustrates why a horizontal (ie. non-hierarchical) view of living organisms provides a better fit with objective facts than a vertical (hierarchical) perspective.

All human beings, regardless of culture, survive to reproductive age by placing food in their mouths. However, the methods by which various people place food in their mouths can vary widely. Some people eat food with their fingers. Other people use chop sticks. Other people use forks, spoons and knives. While each method is different, they are all equally successful at the task of placing enough food in that person's mouth so that they can survive to reproductive age. Surviving long enough to reproduce is the only goal that matters.

Under this analogy, those who eat with their fingers, or chopsticks, or fork, spoon and knife are analogous to different species of living organisms. Each achieves the goal of survival in a different manner, but all achieve the goal with equal success. And by this analogy, saying that Homo sapiens is more 'advanced' than a horseshoe crab makes no more sense than an Asian person saying they are more 'advanced' than an English person because they eat their food with chop sticks instead of a fork, knife and spoon. And an English person would quickly and correctly point this out.

This analogy brings us very conveniently to human beings' use of tools to help them survive. The use of tools by human beings is one of the most cited pieces of 'evidence" that Homo sapiens is more 'advanced' than other living organisms. But is it?

First we must consider the multitude of organisms which survive exceedingly well without the use of tools. If an individual sequoia tree can survive for 2,000 years without the use of tools, why should it ever develop a use for tools? In this example, we can say that today, it would be in the sequoia tree's interest to develop tool use to prevent human loggers from chopping the last of them down.

How do we define a tool? Birds use "tools," ie. non-living objects, to construct the nests (houses) which hold their eggs and young. Beavers construct dams and lodges by chewing through trees and carefully arranging branches, mud and stones into dams. Numerous mammal species construct intricate burrows to avoid predators and nurture their young. Various freshwater fish construct simple to elaborate nests in stream and lake bottoms to hold and nurture their young. Sticklebacks create nests of plant material in a manner very similar to birds. How are these different than human-built houses?

To these points, one can say the "tool using behaviors" described above are instinctive in these animals, ie. the parents do not methodically teach their offspring these tool-using techniques. In contrast, most of the "tool using" behaviors of human beings are not innate, but must be taught by parents to their young or from parent to parent.

However, this distinction between the "instinctive" tool use of a beaver and the "learned" tool use of human beings is of no greater significance in terms of survival than an Asian person who eats with chop sticks and an American who eats with a fork and spoon. They are different methods toward achieving the same goal -- surviving long enough to reproduce. Is this difference meaningful or trivial?

Are human beings different than other living organisms? Yes, in innumerable ways. Are we similar to other living organisms? Yes, in innumerable ways. Do our differences confer a superiority over other organisms or are they just different ways to achieve the same goal?

In a world of life formed by evolutionary processes which are value-neutral, how do we fit into this world such value-laden concepts as superior and inferior, advanced and primitive?

Have we? Do we? Should we?

And now, what the Sandpipers think ...

Birdbrain Doesn't Equal Stupid, Scientists Argue
Mon Jan 31, 2005 05:44 PM ET

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
Reuters News Service

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Birds are not stupid and their brains are not primitive so it is about time the scientific world gave them full credit, experts said on Monday.

An international group of avian experts took on the slow-moving world of scientific nomenclature, calling for a new map of the avian brain that reflects its true structure.

The current system dates back 100 years and suggests a bird's brain is mostly basal ganglia, and that this area controls primitive brain function and instinctive behavior.

In fact neither is true -- the bird brain more closely resembles human brains and even so, the basal ganglia is not a primitive region, said Erich Jarvis of Duke University in North Carolina, who led the study.

"Stop calling people birdbrains meaning stupid. Take it as a compliment," Jarvis said.

Jarvis, who studies how birds learn vocalizations such as songbird songs and imitated speech in parrots, said their behavior can be surprisingly complex.

They can use tools, they can use songs and imitate human language to communicate and they can count.

"They can lie -- you can teach a pigeon to do something that will have another pigeon get food for a reward. You can find a female pigeon that will pretend a reward for food is coming and then she eats it instead of her mate," Jarvis said.

Jarvis said he is not only defending the intellect of birds.

"We should be able to get more insight into how the human brain works, too," he said.

For instance, "primitive" regions of avian brains are actually sophisticated processing regions that similar to those in mammals, the group said.

"There is strong interest across neuroscience in using birds as models for learning and development, and migratory and social behavior."

He said some birds have evolved cognitive abilities that are far more complex than in many mammals.

"We believe that names have a powerful influence on the experiments we do and the way in which we think," the consortium wrote in their argument, published in the journal Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

Jarvis said it was important to change the nomenclature because it was confusing even scientists.

"People would call me up and ask me how birds could do something complex when their brains were so primitive," Jarvis said in a telephone interview

The names scientists use to describe a bird's brain structure date back 100 years to a German scientist, Ludwig Edinger, who is considered the founder of comparative neuroanatomy.

"A lot went into trying to support the idea of a human's place in the evolutionary scheme of animals. They didn't follow Darwin's view that evolution was a tree," Jarvis said.

They tried to link it to religion -- a linear system where god created one creature, not good enough, then created another creature, not good enough and then created human -- perfect," he added.

"It was beautiful story but it wasn't true."

BACK