Human Devolution? Interesting Article...

by AGuest 233 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sabastious

  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.

  How do you know the neurological partitions of the Neanderthal brain? In order to have any conclusive theories you would require an organic specimen. Sure, you can measure the dimensions using the fossil record and compare genetically similar organic specimens, but think about the data that would be lost if we stuided the human brain just using an ancient skull. Really, what is considered a Neanderthal social norm would automatically be subject to a wide range of debate because the data is so scarce. Yes, there are fields of discipline that are making headway, but they must be going at a snails pace as a specimen will be very hard to come by. A deceased Sasquatch would do nicely.

  The brain is not a bicep

  True, but the parts of the brains could accurately be described as muscles and are worked out as such. Within the semi-analogy you would match up a bicep with something like the frontal lobe. The workout regimens for biceps would greatly differ with say the trapezius. So the "workout regimens" of the frontal lobe would greatly differ from other parts of the brain. The comparison is sound logic, however, despite what you have to say.

  -Sab
• 

  xchange

  Missed all of the commotion and haven't read through everything but my point was to highlight that a Texas Sharp Shooter was in the saloon.

  Sharpshooter fallacy or The Texas Sharpshooter: Cherry-picking data (clusters) to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption or conclusion previously held.
• 

  AGuest

  Perhaps the problem, dear X (peace to you!), is that there was no intent to "argue", but to discuss, and in such light some are not very... mmmm... expert, even knowledgeable... in the "art" of "arguing." Since is a social discussion forum... and not an academic setting such knowledge is prerequisite... and adherence to the "rules" of debate/argument is required... perhaps "you" might condescend to grant some leeway, perhaps even a bit of accommodation, even explanation/clarification as, say, dear NC (peace to you!) did.

  Now, I realize that some here are of the mind, "Well, if you want to argue regarding scientific matters then you need to obey the rules of arguing in that respect," but again, I offer that there was no intent TO argue (but only to get other thoughts/opinions on the matter)... and there are no forum rules that dictate there must be.

  I offer that in sincerity and peace and ask you to consider it. Otherwise, "you" are most probably gonna get what you got (from me, at least), and perhaps not get any more (at least, from me) afterward.

  In closing, I want to share a thought with all: some comments were made, and quite respectfully I think, so I take no negative issue with it but do wish to address them, that " if you wanna play with us on a topic like this...” and “... by including you (meaning me, SA) in this discussion...”

  I have often stated that I don’t think like a lot of others folks (most, but what can you do) and so I found those curious in light of the situation being that (1) I started the thread... and so it seems to me that I am the one “including” others in the discussion, not the other way around; and (2) I didn’t necessarily set out to “play” with anyone or any particular group of people. This switched perception, though, is what I perceived borne out in some of the responses at/to me... that I was the "trespasser"... and being treated as such... and so why I began to perceive some of it as "personal." I really found the topic intriguing, however... in light of my own observations... and so was quite serious in trying to understand what others thought about it and/or had to contribute. I realized from the start that I was taking a micro position, versus the author’s macro position (given the timeframes involved in such “change”)... and perhaps that was my error here. But I intended no particular group as a target nor to arbitrarily invite controversy.

  So, okay, I’m done with this, now. Please, though, if you are still intrigued, continue... by all means. I am sure there are those who find the topic as intriguing as I and you and so quite curious as to what else might be added.

  Again, peace to you all!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  xchange

  No agruments here. Just saw a fallacy being committed (not the first time - numerous posters) and drew attention to it for lurkers and those who might not be caught up just yet on logical fallacies.

  Also to emphasize that while a newspaper article is of interest, I would certainly hope that no one takes it at face value until getting their hands on the actual study, data etc. Again, for the benefit of lurkers and those who might not realize just how insidious articles like these can be detrimental to the general public. Just like when an article came out stating that eating eggs was bad for your heart (Western Universtiy). Of course the media and those already predisposed to an aversion of eating eggs for whatever reasons, jumped on that to claim vindication. People were swayed to and fro until another article and commenters (scientists) emphasized that the research methodology was flawed and confused 'causation' and 'association'.

  Just saw the thread....read the article....coughed a few times....and typed. Just my observations. No harm was done to any animals in constructing this and the previous comment.
• 

  sabastious

  Sharpshooter fallacy or The Texas Sharpshooter: Cherry-picking data (clusters) to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption or conclusion previously held.

  No offense, but this type of statement is a massive pet peeve of mine. "Fallacy statements", while useful, can easily be used as a way of hiding behind a cookiecutter argument and skating out of any real deep thought. Frankly, people who take whole discussions and sum them up with these statements, especially in a passive-aggressive indirect kind of way are engaging in fallacy themselves. I guess I would call it overuse of packaged fallacy statements. Occam's Razor is a perfect example of a wonderful principle that is overused as a missile of sorts to sum up well thought out arguments with a negative connotation. It's basically naysaying and cynicism and it really grinds my gears.

  -Sab
• 

  sizemik

  Shelby, if I may . . .

  I think the point that was being made regarding "scientific" debate is it's level of robustness. It is a feature of the scientific community to subject any hypothesis to intense scrutiny and critical analysis. Perceived flaws are often the focus rather than a search for consensus. The principle of falsifiability is central to the scientific method, so "argument" and controversy" are normal and expected. Scientists recognise and even invite such robust debate purely out of respect for the essential role it plays in the validation process. To those unfamiliar with this feature it can seem insensitive, even ruthless, as personal sensitivities lie a very distant second.

  For example . . . as a young man, Stephen Hawking rose up in a lecture theatre and declared false the conclusions of Fred Hoyle, one of the most respected and pre-eminent scientists of the day, to his face, before all his students. Fred Hoyle was naturally incensed, but, to his credit, set aside his personal feelings to consider the content of Hawkings argument . . . which, as a result of continued robust debate, has since been proved correct.

  I believe this was the point being made . . . and, while few here would merit the description of "scientist", in general, this thread has been an example of that process. Content is the prime and solitary focus . . . and the challenge lies in maintaining that focus to the exclusion of personal sensitivities.

  Having said that . . . a deliberately provocative approach has no place . . . in either scientific, or indeed any constructive process.
• 

  sabastious

  Size, isn't the principle of confirmation, as opposed to falsification, also a tenent of the scientific method? Doesn't this give a measure of flexibility to how the method can be used? You could use it with a "lens of falsification" and a "lens of confirmation" and then compare the two approaches to develop a coherent theory. Why must everybody focus on falsification? Some seem to be better at one and others another. There seems to be legitimate flavors at work here. Also, what if the observation at hand doesn't have a whole lot of measurable data, like seeing an unexplained orb. It's easier to confirm than to falsify when there is litte data. There is a large amount of data right in front of you, but you have no way of converting all that data into written form other than it's physical appearence and how it interacts with it's environment. It may be working with sciences that have yet to be fully discovered or use a combination of sciences that we are unaware work in mysterious union.

  -Sab
• 

  sizemik

  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. . . . TD

  I'm not convinced of that at all . . . and such a suggestion is made with unwarranted haste IMHO.

  "Loss of brain tissue" is a slightly suggestive description for what is better termed a change in volume.

  The entire period representing the presence of homo sapiens is only 200,000 years (10 times that period). Speciation among hominids has produced at least 15 seperate and distinct species over 7M years. A change in the size of a single organ of a little more than 11% within the time frame suggested does not place it outside the normal mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection. Of course, the speed of change can fluctuate dependng on the rate and extent of environmental change. Every human born is in effect, an original genetic article (a mutation). There is always untapped potential to collectively respond to environmental change, which is only utilised when environmental change occurs. The rates of change can vary. Collective change within a species to the extent suggested is certainly not impossible. Without knowing the full range of features contributing to the success of such a change . . . it is very premature to suggest any other mechanisms are involved IMO.
• 

  sizemik

  Size, isn't the principle of confirmation, as opposed to falsification, also a tenent of the scientific method? . . . sab

  No.

  Confirmation comes as the result of the principle of falsification, and is not a seperate tenet of the scientific method. The falsification process is not simply a debunking of theory . . . it involves the continued testing and experimentation of previously presented hypotheses, in a search for genuine exceptions and flaws . . . it is only through this process that these become exposed and dealt with. The results of the process confirm . . . or otherwise.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I do wonder what abysmal higher education facilities there are to graduate students with such a lack of sophistication regarding the process of science. It is very different from a JW mindset.

  Science theorizes. It is not my specialty. Nevertheless, within law and the social sciences, I can pull out statistics to prove any argument. Any law journal has a plethora of ads from scientists wishing to be expert witnesses. I have yet to hear any scientist testify contrary to the interests of the party paying them.

  It just seems to me that a few never truly leave the WT. They leave and set up their own JW type religion. Listening to popular culture alone, one would pick up some idea of how science works.

  Scholars repeating the mundane do not get much attention. In fact, I see how provocative statements by fringe scholars sell Bible related books. The more shocking the reference concerning Christianity, the better the sales. The Daily News is a very bad endorsement. It provides little context or explanation. My local newspapers offer even less. People actually purchase newspapers that are soley press releases. Opposing views are not even mentioned. Simple questions are not asked. Publishing press release is cheap compared to paying a reporter. I am glad for the background in better rated journals and newspapers. Science was not my area of concentration. Yet I don't see how we can have a civil society without understanding the basics of science.

  This whole process reminds me of when the WT reports secular information. Without exposure to the secular world, you have no benchmark. I was so proud of the articles in the Awake. Believe it or not,, they gave me an edge over classmates in grade school.