Evolution

[OscarB63]

Exactly the same? No. Nothing is going to be exactly the same from person to person in any comparison. But more or less the same? Yes. I'm from the nurture side of that argument that believes environment - which includes a huge set of factors - plays a bigger roll in intelligence than genetics. That's not to say there is NO genetic influence, just that it's smaller than the environmental influences.


And for retardation there is also the flip side - the genius. There are genetic abnormalities at both ends of the spectrum.

I guess it depends on the range you consider "more or less". 5-10 IQ points can make a dramatic difference in abililty.

 

[Quag]

If you get dropped into the middle of NYC with no knowledge of how to survive, you'd probably get hit by a bus or a cab within days if not hours. or shot by 5-O because they thought you were a crazed lunatic. or you'd wander into a subway tunnel and get smacked by a train. or shot by a korean shop owner for stealing food. or beaten to death by a street gang. etc. etc. etc. If you were lucky, the cops would pick you up and give you a nice comfy room in Bellevue.

Not true, the villagers mentioned in the book would be vary wary as they hve learned that unknown situations can be deadly. They would avoid cars subways etc. The crocodile dundee movies were amusing but not reality. The city dweller would not know that the colorful leaf was actually a poisonous insect etc. He would be dead.
Do you honestly believe that left to yourself having never seen a house or even a lean to you could do any better than a cave man? Most people have know idea how to survive in the wild. Those that do have spent time to learn it from others who taught them. Noone could ever be dropped in a forest all by themselves and then build a lighbulb, let alone the electricity to run it. You would have to invent so many things before you got even close to this that you would die of old age.

 

[OscarB63]

Not true, the villagers mentioned in the book would be vary wary as they hve learned that unknown situations can be deadly. They would avoid cars subways etc. The crocodile dundee movies were amusing but not reality. The city dweller would not know that the colorful leaf was actually a poisonous insect etc. He would be dead.

you assume that all city dweller are impulsive uncautious idiots. :shrug: a city dweller dropped into the middle of the jungle would be scared ****less and afraid of everything.

Do you honestly believe that left to yourself having never seen a house or even a lean to you could do any better than a cave man? Most people have know idea how to survive in the wild. Those that do have spent time to learn it from others who taught them. Noone could ever be dropped in a forest all by themselves and then build a lighbulb, let alone the electricity to run it. You would have to invent so many things before you got even close to this that you would die of old age.

so I guess evolution just stopped when it created humans :shrug:

 

[PrometheusBound]

according to evolution, humans evolved from more primitive hominids due largely in part because said hominids were unable to compete successfully with more specialized creatures in their environment and were forced out into the grasslands where they had to become smarter in order to survive. if subsets of humans, for whatever reason, moved on to even harsher environments would evolution not force said subset of humans to become smarter in order to survive than their brothers they left behind?

Maybe the smart ones would finally wake up and use their superior brains to kill off all the others for treating them like freaks and losers (the nerdbashing situation today). Or the unfit ones would wake up and see that their only chance of survival would be to let the smart ones be their leaders.

 

[PrometheusBound]

In order to survive, you don't have to be able to outrun/outsmart the big, bad, predator, you just have to outrun/outsmart the slowest/dumbest other guy with you. ;-)

Funny but untrue. Your survival would be only temporary. As the slower ones were eliminated, you would move closer to being the slowest and dumbest. You have to be the one smart enough to kill the pred and save everyone else. Without brains, we're all just bread for the pred!

 

[Quag]

you assume that all city dweller are impulsive uncautious idiots. :shrug: a city dweller dropped into the middle of the jungle would be scared ****less and afraid of everything.



so I guess evolution just stopped when it created humans :shrug:

Yes scared ****less but the dangers would be so much less obvious than in the jungle that they would not know what to avoid as avoiding everything is impossible.

Why would evolution stop when humans arrived?
You seem confused, you claim humans living in caves are inherently dumber than humans today because we live in houses. I pointed out that no one could possibly build any of todays modern conviences without all the discoveries that occured before and without having enough free time (ie not spent finding food) to invent these things.
It is not because we are inherently smarter it is because all these inventions have to be done one at a time. If you live where there is no metal deposits good luck getting into the bronze age let alone the iron age. If there are no horses or similar animals you can use as beasts of burden, good luck plowing your fields by hand to get excess food to provide time to invent that weaving loom so you don't have to wear furs. BTW do you know how to tan a hide?
Oh yeah hmm cutting down trees is kinda hard without axes or saws, but I'm sure you being the super wonder human child can invent those in no time flat! then whip up some nails or screws and have a great 2 story cottage to live in.

 

[OscarB63]

Funny but untrue. Your survival would be only temporary. As the slower ones were eliminated, you would move closer to being the slowest and dumbest. You have to be the one smart enough to kill the pred and save everyone else. Without brains, we're all just bread for the pred!

we are not the biggest or the fastest or the strongest. the reason we are at the top of the food chain is that we are the smartest

 

[OscarB63]

Yes scared ****less but the dangers would be so much less obvious than in the jungle that they would not know what to avoid as avoiding everything is impossible.

Why would evolution stop when humans arrived?
You seem confused, you claim humans living in caves are inherently dumber than humans today because we live in houses. I pointed out that no one could possibly build any of todays modern conviences without all the discoveries that occured before and without having enough free time (ie not spent finding food) to invent these things.
It is not because we are inherently smarter it is because all these inventions have to be done one at a time. If you live where there is no metal deposits good luck getting into the bronze age let alone the iron age. If there are no horses or similar animals you can use as beasts of burden, good luck plowing your fields by hand to get excess food to provide time to invent that weaving loom so you don't have to wear furs. BTW do you know how to tan a hide?
Oh yeah hmm cutting down trees is kinda hard without axes or saws, but I'm sure you being the super wonder human child can invent those in no time flat! then whip up some nails or screws and have a great 2 story cottage to live in.

you seem to be confusing having knowledge with having the ability to learn. my question is, that you refuse to answer, do you think you could take a caveman baby and raise it, send it to school and it would have the mental capacity to learn chemistry or particle physics or calculus?

 

[Mach]

"The exact dynamics behind evolution are not fully known,"
that's the point they seem incapable of understanding.

No, the part that may not be understood is that no matter what aspects of evolution are or are not "fully understood", there is no case where it is rational to claim:

1. A supernatural entity exists
2. A supernatural entity existed

It's as though someone drove to your house in a car, and there is a place where you're not sure which road they took.
While you may not know route they took, you can still be certain "a real route was taken, physically."

In contrast, it would be absurd to claim that since their path isn't entirely known, that oh....a dragon appeared, swallowed them, teleported to another dimension, then re-appeared at the destination, and used a complex illusion to show them having taken a road like normal. That's called fantasy.

There is a lot about reality we don't fully understand, for that matter, some things we believe "cannot be understood" in the classic sense. None of that means we can just stuff irrational claims in there and suggest they "may be true"...

 

[PrometheusBound]

that's my point. YOU have to be smarter/faster than the other guy. but what if the big bad predator is not a "predator" but is instead the climate? would not the guy who lives in a cold harsh climate have to grow smarter and develop artificial aids in order to survive and thus be smarter than the guy who lived in a moderate climate where the temperature did not vary much from season to season?

Knowing from personal experience that these theories are used to put down High IQ groups as just being lucky they were forced to develop their minds, I propose a more appreciative interpretation. The already smarter ones knew that they were smart and could come up with some way to handle a harsher environment. Back then brains meant bravery. With the self-hatred by the High IQs who push this luck theory, such as Stephen Jay Gould, and the self-hatred of discrediting High IQ achievement shown by the Unabomber, no wonder we are being led by Neanderthal anachronisms, who rule of law is to grunt, pound their chests, and howl at their herds of self-hating nerds.

 

[Somerville]

you seem to be confusing having knowledge with having the ability to learn. my question is, that you refuse to answer, do you think you could take a caveman baby and raise it, send it to school and it would have the mental capacity to learn chemistry or particle physics or calculus?

What's a "caveman" to you?

 

[Somerville]

Knowing from personal experience that these theories are used to put down High IQ groups as just being lucky they were forced to develop their minds, I propose a more appreciative interpretation. The already smarter ones knew that they were smart and could come up with some way to handle a harsher environment. Back then brains meant bravery. With the self-hatred by the High IQs who push this luck theory, such as Stephen Jay Gould, and the self-hatred of discrediting High IQ achievement shown by the Unabomber, no wonder we are being led by Neanderthal anachronisms, who rule of law is to grunt, pound their chests, and howl at their herds of self-hating nerds.

Don't know much about biology, sociology or psychology - I see

 

[PrometheusBound]

which is basically what I said.

early hominids moved out into the grasslands because they were not specialized enough to successfully compete with other creatures. the environment was not able to support unlimited growth. those hominids who were smarter were better able to acquire the resources needed to survive and reproduce. in turn they passed along this trait to their offspring. etc. etc. etc.

random genetic mutations. if the mutation is beneficial and allows the organism to survive and reproduce better than its fellows, that mutation is passed along with higher frequency to the progeny until it becomes spread throughout the population. if the mutation is harmful, the organism is less suited for survival and reproduction and the mutation is not passed along with the same frequency and eventually dies out.

human intelligence was the result of a random mutation that allowed those who possessed it to be more successful breeders.
natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Intelligence is not hereditary, nothing is and heirs have no rights. IQ is a random positive mutation. One primitive invented a tool or method for advancement and the knowledge, not genes, was passed down to the next generations by his tribe. Eventually, a brute force regressive leader hired priests to discredit the inventors and claim that the same gods who provided the tribe with its tools anointed him and his descendants to rule over the tribe.

 

[Somerville]

Intelligence is not hereditary, nothing is and heirs have no rights. IQ is a random positive mutation. One primitive invented a tool or method for advancement and the knowledge, not genes, was passed down to the next generations by his tribe. Eventually, a brute force regressive leader hired priests to discredit the inventors and claim that the same gods who provided the tribe with its tools anointed him and his descendants to rule over the tribe.

don't know much about genetics, a subset of biology, I see

 

[OscarB63]

What's a "caveman" to you?

pick an age. 20,000 years ago.

 

[Somerville]

pick an age. 20,000 years ago.

20,000 years ago - a cave man was us, h. sapiens sapiens, same brain size as modern humans, slightly more robust skeletal features because of the the lifestyle, but one of those "cave men" in modern clothes could walk along a city street today without drawing attention for being noticeably, physically different

 

[Quag]

you seem to be confusing having knowledge with having the ability to learn. my question is, that you refuse to answer, do you think you could take a caveman baby and raise it, send it to school and it would have the mental capacity to learn chemistry or particle physics or calculus?

Yes and No.
Start with No: Not everyone living today can learn particle physics or calculus, though I believe most could if they were interested enough and applied themselves.

Yes: If by caveman you mean a man living in caves then yes, subject to what is written immediately above. If you mean some earlier anthropod ancestor of homo sapiens then good chance that no you couldn't teach them.

I took caveman to mean homo sapien living in a cave, if that is not what you mean then please be more specific in the future.

 

[PrometheusBound]

don't know much about genetics, a subset of biology, I see

I know enough about their required beliefs to see that they are politically correct ideological sciences preached by parasites living off the glory earned by iconoclastic creative scientists, who would be insulted by their decadent egalitarian conclusions.

 

[Somerville]

I know enough about their required beliefs to see that they are politically correct ideological sciences preached by parasites living off the glory earned by iconoclastic creative scientists, who would be insulted by their decadent egalitarian conclusions.

This is a fine polysyllabic rant that really says "I don't know ****, but I still know more than fancy pansy academic types" which is another way of saying " got nothing but fine words"


Try addressing the issues and get your head out of that lexicon

 

[Wake]

Maybe the smart ones would finally wake up and use their superior brains to kill off all the others for treating them like freaks and losers (the nerdbashing situation today).

Oh how I sympathize with this message, LOL.

 

[tecoyah]

....snip....

to claim evolution is a "proven fact" defies science.

Do you mean the THEORY of Evolution?

I guess I missed where someone called it fact.

 

[Wake]

I don't know if evolution exists or not.

It's probably likely that it does, that there is no God that matches what we preconceive.

Likewise, mman is probably just a hairless monkey on some average rock in this infinite thing we call space. It really seems like a pointless existence if this were true.

 

[Somerville]

Do you mean the THEORY of Evolution?

I guess I missed where someone called it fact.

Like people keep saying, "Evolution is both a theory and a fact" Evolution is a fact and the best explanation so far for the 'fact' of evolution is the Theory of Evolution as first postulated by Charles Darwin and expanded upon by hundreds of thousands of researchers over the past 150+ years.

 

[Mach]

It really seems like a pointless existence if this were true.

Considering it's humans that determine "what the point is", how would it be pointless? Do you value your life? Do your friends, family? If so, then not pointless. The universe is what it is, trying to give a meaning, to the thing that "is all meanings", would be silly! It's ****ing cool as ****, the universe....far cooler than "Nothing".

Put another way, if ther was a super-bastard out there who lets babies die of cancer, who claimed "i care", would that somehow make life MORE fulfilling? Maybe it would...our entire life could be spent trying to find a way to enact vengance on such a asshole.

Where u been wake?

 

[American]

IF they were perfect..there would have been no harmful mutations to pass along. so it wouldn't matter if they interbred or not.

other than cultural taboo...why is interbreeding frowned upon?

Come on Oscar, you know how the story goes. Humans have never been perfect. Creation in one's image doesn't necessarily mean perfect. An image could mean many things.