Likelihood of other extant species evolving language and intelligence?

How likely (or unlikely) is it that a currently extant species on Earth could or will go on to develop language and intelligence in the same way that humans did?

There is no way to compute those odds without more information.

To compute the likelihood of something, we need to be able to compute the number of states that are possible, and then the subset of those we consider a “success”.

For example, to compute the odds of rolling a six with a pair of dice, we compute the total number of possible states (6*6* = 36), and the subset of these we consider a “success” (the rolls that have at least one six … 6+6-1=11) so the odds are 11/36.

In the case you provide, we have no way to even begin to compute either value … the number of possible ways that things can evolve (under the influence of natural selection), or the subset of these that we would consider a “success” (human-like intelligence).

And this is further complicated by the fact that evolution is NOT random … but is driven by the NON-random process of natural selection. So some states are more likely than others given certain environmental states.

For example … it is generally accepted that human-like intelligence was prompted by many prior development … opposable thumbs, bipedality (which freed up the hands), articulate vocal chords (which allowed the development of language and the abstraction centers of the brain), a strong social structure (which provided an environment that accelerated the growth of language), etc. etc.

What are the “odds” of a mutation that produces an opposable thumb? How would one even *begin* to compute those odds? Is an opposable thumb really necessary, or could some species on another planet that developed an opposable *outer* digit (pinkie) do just as well? Or could a land-based tentacled species do just as well?

How on earth can we even *begin* to answer these questions?

I’m not trying to avoid the question … I’m just pointing out that questions about ‘likelihood’ need a lot of information.

—- {edit … response to jim761076} —-

So people like jim761076 here who claim that the answer is ‘zero’ are just making claims with zero justification.

He also demonstrates how Creationists approach the problem in a completely dishonest way.

Namely, they boil the entire problem down to molecular combinations … as if all evolution was, was nature throwing molecules together in random configurations.

He COMPLETELY ignores natural selection! In fact, he even ignores *procreation* … the fact that every new molecular combination (organism) is the offspring of one (or the combination of two) that already exists!

For example:

>”First we will look at a simple mathematical problem. If you wanted to properly order just 27 items without making a mistake it would take about 11 octillion trials to give you the proper odds of hoping to achieve this. That would take 1 trillion trials per second, 24 hours a day, for about 345 million years! ”

Wow! That’s huge!

So how does he get that … by assuming that we pick all 27 items, look at them, and if they aren’t *ALL* in the right order, we just put them all back in the hat and draw again. So the total number of draws we need are 27!=11 octillion. Wow!

So then he takes that impossibly huge number and says “So, if it takes 1 trillion trials per second for 345 million years just to properly sequence just 27 items. How long would it take to get the proper random single point mutations in the DNA to code for the proper amino acids to create the proteins for all the very complex parts of the body it takes to speak and have higher intelligence?”

That is indeed an excellent refutation … of something that bears no resemblance whatsoever to how evolution works!

I.e. that’s not evolution. That’s random shuffling of atoms. As if intelligence arrived by just pulling random sequences of amino acids out of a hat.

Let’s go back to that 27-items exercise and lets add *selection*. We draw 27 items, and if the first item is in the correct slot then we *select* it (keep it), return the failures to the hat and draw again, and so on until all 27 items are in the correct slot. This is far closer to how natural selection works … past successes are *kept*, new improvements are *selected*, and any failures are rejected. So it takes about 27 draws to get the first item in the right slot, 26 additional draws to get the second item in the correct slot, and so on. So the number of draws goes from 27! down to 27+26+25+… +1 = 378 tries! So if we drew one combination per second, that would take about 378 seconds (6.3 *minutes*) … not 345 million years!

THAT is the difference *selection* makes.

And THAT is the feature of evolution that Creationists like jim761076 just ignore!

And THAT is why Creationist computations of the “odds” of any particular combination of *features* … much less a specific combination of *molecules* … is just horribly, horribly dishonest.

NOURISHING LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN EARLY CHILDHOOD ( DAVIDSON FILMS )

Comments are closed