by AGuest 233 Replies latest jw friends
My point is that where the folks previously had to THINK... they often no longer need to... and perhaps that COULD effect our brains. As to size as well as mutation
No, this is Lamarckianism. That is the point I have made three times now. Nothing you can do or don't do will affect your genes. You can be as intellectually lazy as you like or you can do puzzles all day it won't effect the DNA code in your sex cells and this is not what Crabtree was suggesting.
Thanks NC - some real science at last!
Over time that "laziness"may have an effect on neurologically based skills . . . I'm not sure. . . . size
"Over time that 'laziness' may have an effect on neurologically based skills"... which is what I think the study is SAYING. . . . AGuest
If the study is saying that, then it's pure 100% speculation . . . which is why I used the word "may" and added "I'm not sure"
An evolutionary change comes from genetic mutations which are "selected" as either advantageous or not by environment. Advantageous mutation is preserved because the advantage increases the likelihood of successful reproduction . . . thus the change becomes established in favour of the original genetic composition.
The only way permanent evolutionary change occurs is through the disappearance of the less successful and the emergence of the advantaged. This is not the same as passing on "habits" or "behaviours" from one generation to the next.
Natural selection by environment is the determining factor . . . not socially inherited traits. Any effect on neurologically based skills will have given the humans then living an advantage in the current environment . . . that's why "devolution" simply can't happen . . . it's a death sentence for the individual weakened by adverse mutation.
The time intervals involved stretch well beyond the technological changes of the last 5000 years.
Sabatious: " Why wouldn't the principle show up in Neanderthal? If they have a bigger brain they should have more sophisticated social intelligence within their own framework"
Where to start?
The brain is not a bicep....a large bicep may indicate more strength,but a brain is far too complex to simplify it in this manner. The brain has 6 main regions: the frontal lobe, the parietal lobe, the temporal lobe and the occipital lobe, finally the brainstem consisting of the mid-brain, the pons and the medulla. You then have a cerebellar where fine motor control is managed. (Lobe just refers to a region)
Take my word for it that each region (lobe) does different things. (Google image "brain map") . For example the temporal lobe has roles in emotion, memory, processing of sound and a receiving role in communication. The occipital lobe is largely for visual processing of the action potentials from the eye via the optic nerve. The mid brain has roles in consciousness, your motor cortex is in the frontal lobe, sensory in the parietal..... As you can see there are regions with specific tasks. The evolution of these lobes is fascinating in itself, if you have time read up in the limbic system, the primitive lizard brain that remains in humans, do so.
Anyway, going back to the brain and size, neanderthal skulls for example Have a region in their frontal lobe associated with communication that are enlarged enough to indicate they could probaly communicate in some manner, perhaps a language, but at least grunting. Their skulls bulges out at the broca's area of the brain, like ours do, but not as much. the broca's area is where the brain has roles in speech and communication.
So size is an indicator of higher function in that specific region, e.g. If you have a large spatial awareness region of the brain (Australian aborigines have exactly this) you will be better equiped for spatial awareness. BUT size of a brain is not specific enough e.g. an animal brain may be large but may be dedicated largely to a region beneficial to that animal such as visual perception or motor control or memory or sensory perception, not necessarily communication or 'social intelligence'.
it is important to realise the balance of genetic inheritance and enviromental development of brain size. An australian aborigine children is more likely to inherit large spatial awareness regions of the brain, beneficial for memorising and navigating the austalian landscape. This is different to someone having a larger 'hand knob' (region of brain for finger control) in the motor cortex due to playing piano for 20 years.
So size is so much more complex than it first appears and the brain cant be generalised in such a non-specific way.
With regard to de-evolving and reduced intelligence. If i tried to hold a converstaion about the NFL and attempted to give the impression I knew the game, knew the player stats both old an new but then said "i get a thrill when they score a goal! Especially when its a home run!"" You would immediatly know that I didnt really know what I was talking about. The opening thread and many posts like it are similar to this, the points and questions are an instant indicator that there is no understanding of evolutionary theory. The basic principle of which has NEVER changed. There is no substitute to suggesting "please go read about evolution because you dont understand it" with the predictable reply of offence, anger and claims of knowing evolution or NFL quite perfectly thank you! It is more dissapointing than frustrating. Its not a personal attack, we are all ignorant of many things. But just as me shouting "Nice home run!" At the NFL is a non negotiable give away that I didnt know the game...
You are suggesting in your opening post that it is beneficial to our species in our current enviroment to be less intelligent! So much so that we will reproduce with a bias for gene selection in our partners that will result in low intelligence. That simply is not true and to think so shows a huge misconception about evolution and its processes.
As for the neanderthal and brain size. An IBM 386 pc from 1994 is huge and heavy, a modern Ipad mini is small. The size of the 386 does not compensate for the lack of development (evolution) of the ipad mini.
This is a little controversial but interesting....There is in fact a recent theory of the exact opposite to your thread suggestion. Its the dating geeks hypothesis.That there is a huge increase in autism as clever people are breeding with clever people, i.e. increased geek sex thanks to the internet and aeroplanes. As for the evolutionary advantage, an autistic brain can cope with huge input. We learn and experience in a week of modern life, more than what our ancestors experienced in their WHOLE life. Some believe autism is evolution coping with overwhelming input to our brains in modern life. Of course every decision in biology has a cost, autism resulting in a reduction in social skills.
if this interests you watch this
http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_will_our_kids_be_a_different_species.html
snare x
ps i was tired typing this, sorry if its not well written
If John Hawks can be believed, modern humans have lost ~150cc of brain tissue in the last 20,000 years alone. That's a huge change in a very short time, which suggest something else at work besides mutation.
I can see why it's attractive to theorize about a slightly smaller, but more efficient and agile brain, but we see a similar reduction in brain size when we compare domestic animals to their wild cousins and it has not made them more intelligent.
A number of animals have larger brains than ours, and they have not proven to be more intelligent. It isn't just about size, but also composition and complexity.
I suppose one way humanity could become LESS intelligent is if less intelligent people bred prolifically and the more intelligent people stopped breeding altogether. In the end, higher Intelligence would be bread out of humanity. But it still wouldn't devolve below the lowest level intelligence available today unless less and less intelligent people were the only ones that kept breeding. That would take quite a few generations to achieve because the process would be so gradual and there would always be a chance of a genetic mutation making everyone highly intelligent again.
But that still wouldn't be devolution. That would still be humans evolving to something else.
No, this is Lamarckianism. That is the point I have made three times now. Nothing you can do or don't do will affect your genes. You can be as intellectually lazy as you like or you can do puzzles all day it won't effect the DNA code in your sex cells and this is not what Crabtree was suggesting.
I read up a bit on Lamarckianism... and I don't think that's what the author was suggesting, either. Nor, I believe, was I. Mayhaps we would just have to wait another couple hunnerd-thousand years to find out... but that's another thread altogether and not one I think any of us want investigate. I know I don't... because my position would be just too controversial for some of you and I just don't have that kind of energy anymore.
So... I can accept that perhaps I didn't/don't understand this matter at all... and the "dumbing-down" I DO see is totally unrelated. No problem - I can live with that.
Again, peace to you all... and please know, it was fun (well, after a bit).
A slave of Christ,
SA
I don't know about all this. I have seen some really lazy-brained people. I won't say dumb because the brain seems to very similar to the human body as far as adapting as needed. Think of the body. Let's be more specific, Bruce Lee's body. He admittted that he was not " naturally " athletic. He just trained and wanted/needed to accomplish something for himself. He was a self-actualizer. Look at what an average, relatively healthy body can do. I don't believe that some people are not naturally athletic. We are all naturally athletic. Some people are just raised in an enviroment where there is no need to adapt to stressful situations. The body does adapt, just to an easier situation. In fact the body is so awesome at adaptation that new physical challenges must be added regularly to stimulate growth. Your body gets used to what you require of it. If you took a reasonably healthy person and threw them in a old school logging camp and said " work or die " and you fed them right, the transformation you would see would be incredible. You know it's true because of shows like " The Biggest Loser " in the U.S. If that same person had an identical twin or clone and they spent their days in an office, eating junk, pushing a button every hour, they would adapt to that life as well.
The same is true of the mind. It will adapt to any situation given enough time. If you are in an enviroment that discourages reasoning then you will adapt. If you just have to push a button all day in an assembly line then you adapt to that. If the boss says that starting tomorrow you will be in charge of 5 buttons then the stress begins. That's ok! The stress will cause your mind to adapt. Soon 5 buttons will be no problem. So lazy-brained people are not dumb. They just lack the proper enviroment to promote adaptation and growth. We need a societal change to help people reach their potential. The problem as I see it is that other powerful people know this too. Knowledge is power. Anyone who was a dub or is a dub ( just for an example, not hijacking ) just think what would happen if reasoning and open discussion was allowed and encouraged. There would be no WTBTS as we know it anymore. If people could be nurtured and helped to reach their true mental potential their whole life would change. They would change those around them as well. I don't think society is getting dumber, just mentally and spiritually lazy. We have been conditioned to only go so far, to only think so far. It makes us easy prey. That needs to change.
I am speaking of healthy individuals. I realize that a person can be born with a mental or physical defect that could limit their abilities.
Char: Regarding the us and them comment. It seems everyone here is being pretty respectful and trying to understand each other. Can you set it aside for a while?
Excellent comment - things seem to be back on topic can we keep it that way everyone
