Human Devolution? Interesting Article...

by AGuest 233 Replies latest jw friends

  • AGuest
    AGuest
    Yes I agree that it is true as a whole of our spiecies. But this will not significantly effect our gaining more understanding of the world and developing more and more in creative fields.
    So the need to have the best hunting skills has been replaced by: better exploitation of enviroment skills,, a long with better and more refined social skills(learning how to live together), thus causing brain computing power not to be that important of an issue to survival as it once was when we were blood thirsty savages fighty for our lives every day.

    Thank you for your comment, dear Frankie (peace to you!) - I like your thinking on this.

    A newspaper hardly stands for 'tangible evidence' and might I indulge you to define your version of 'theory'? Have you read the actual research paper? Do you know the study design parameters? Was this a qualitative or quantitative study?

    Ummmm... I didn’t call it evidence, dear X (peace to you, as well!). Apparently, the paper (and its author and supporters) does. I gave my opinion as to whether I agree that we are getting dumber, and why, and simply asked for yours. You are more than welcome to disagree with the paper. Taking issue with ME, however, for posting about it... and what it purports... is... what?

    Remember, your conclusions are not a path to the evidence you wish to support your conclusions.

    What the...?? Okay, I’m thinking you didn’t read the article. They are neither my evidence OR my conclusions.

    Just hoping to keep the rhetoric WAY down and a more rational, critical approach in throwing out opinions on a study that surely is multi-paged compared to a few paltry words in a newspaper article.

    Well, okay, perhaps it is. If you care to expound on the contents of the paper, including whether such corroborates the assertions made in the article, please... feel free. Again, I was asking what you think about the studies’ results. Not what you think about me.

    I wonder what relationship big head/brain size plays over into choosing who to mate with these day now that we need less computing power brains? This could also be another way the trend can be nuetralized in our evolutionary devlopement or at least another factor in the equation as is choosing to mate with a good provider/ etc....other factors,looks good and healthy and yummy etc...

    Does the fact that some use computers today to choose mates have any bearing on this, dear Frankie? Serious question...

    Since you brought up the subject of deevolution,

    I realize it has other connotations, dear One (peace to you, as well!), but I used the term “devolution,” as in the process of “devolving”... which is a valid word/term, biologically speaking.

    The article is crap, imo.

    Interesting opinion, dear Sab (again, peace to you!). I also wonder if I could have posted that, that an article by a recognized scientist that states there is EVIDENCE that shows we are devolving intellectually is “crap”, IMHO or otherwise... and not called down the ire of half the board on my head - LOLOLOL!

    It's a convoluted opinion to a problem with a simple solution. I don't like the idea of the brain biologically decreasing in intellectual capacity because that is contrary to human nature itself. We by nature transcend our environments

    So, you’re saying that the scientific evidence that supposedly supports the article's assertion is bunk (or perhaps that there is no such evidence)... or that in spite of the scientific evidence we’re not devolving intellectually? Not sure I understand. And if there IS such evidence, what about that? I am also not sure that I can agree that biologically decreasing in intellectual capacity IS contrary to human "nature." I mean, even stars burn out. Perhaps we're on the down-turn, albeit slowly. Not saying we ARE... just sayin'...

    Again, thank you all for your comments. I’ve learned my lesson trying to argue against the “scientific evidence”... (except where no such evidence exists; for example, with regard to the “fact” of the evolution of man from lower life forms, which does not exist – I DO get that there is a THEORY about that, though). In this case, it seems that there is actual evidence that makes the assertion a FACT... and so I just wanted to know what folks thought about that. That’s it; that’s all.

    Not trying to stir up controversy; as I’ve previously admitted, I find science interesting, if not fascinating; I just don’t put my full faith in it. As at least two others here (and from opposite sides of the coin, I think), apparently don’t, either. I think this one is dead-on, though.

    Peace... and again, thank you!

    A slave of Christ,

    SA

  • cofty
    cofty

    A scientific paper does not constitute anything other than a hypothesis that may or may not be supported by further research.

    The vast majority of papers come to naught. That's how science works - publish your study and let other scientists do their best to falsify it. Unless it is so uninteresting or badly constructed that nobody else cares.

    The popular media love to report trendy science really badly and they get away with it because scientific illiteracy is rampant.

    What people do or read or don't do has no effect at all on their genome. That's not how evolution works.

  • cofty
    cofty

    I used the term “devolution,” as in the process of “devolving”... which is a valid word/term, biologically speaking. - Shelby

    No it isn't.

    The idea is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

    google teleology for more info.

  • fakesmile
    fakesmile

    what is happening is that many intelligent ppl. are deciding that they dont want their progeny to go thru the polluted, debt ridden, 1984ish type of world which seems to be happening. while octomom that kate, whatever.

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    Interesting opinion, dear Sab (again, peace to you!). I also wonder if I could have posted that, that an article by a recognized scientist that states there is EVIDENCE that shows we are devolving intellectually is “crap”, IMHO or otherwise... and not called down the ire of half the board on my head - LOLOLOL!

    There was no evidence presented in the article. I never said the evidence was crap, the article is. If the evidence is solid then the evidence is solid, however I do not support this claim derived from this "evidence":

    We've become so smart, we’re getting stupid, new research shows.

    Not only does this statement defy logic it's also a false claim. A similar claim could go "New research shows that eating raw eggs contributes to terminal illness" and then a few years later it would say "New research shows that eating raw eggs in moderation contributes to a healthy and long life." It's like when a tech company releases a product too early to make quick profits. Instead of waiting for the product to be developed through the right process it is shipped to customers prematurely. The customers hate their products, but because it's a new technology, such as a smart phone, they are OK with a shoddy product and look to brighter horizons. When little do they know that the product could have easily been shipped in a working order rather than non working. All their frustrations could have been avoided simply by the manufacturer running honest and integrous business.

    This article is a case of this same concept translating into the scientific community which is ultimately driven by money, not science. There seems to be a grander agenda at work here ever since the secular community assumed power 4 years ago with the election of Obama. There is some funny business going on and frankly it makes me mad as hell. We are being had.

    So, you’re saying that the scientific evidence that supposedly supports the article's assertion is bunk (or perhaps that there is no such evidence)... or that in spite of the scientific evidence we’re not devolving intellectually? Not sure I understand. And if there IS such evidence, what about that? I am also not sure that I can agree that biologically decreasing in intellectual capacity IS contrary to human "nature." I mean, even stars burn out. Perhaps we're on the down-turn, albeit slowly. Not saying we ARE... just sayin'...

    I'm not rejecting evidence, I am rejecting the conclusions derived from it. Nonetheless, I don't believe we require neuroscience data, or whatever, to see that we have a devolution problem. We also don't need the data to develop a solution to that problem. However, like I said, that problem is not across the board, it's localized and is tied to the breakdown of the family unit. The narrative that they seem to be painting is that we have all screwed ourselves and we are in need of salvation. Sound familiar? It sounds exactly like that of the Catholic church doctrine of original sin and total depravity. "Our brains are devolving and we are beyond help and we need Science to save us" which means give more government grants to Science so they can find more god-damned elementary particles and save humanity as we know it.

    The fact is that our evolution has slowed down. This is not a negative thing, it's actually a very positive thing. It gives us time as a species to develop strategies for the here and now and instead of being a constant state of evolutionary flux.

    -Sab

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann

    The evolution leads to the fitness to environment. If the environment benefits the dumbers so the dumbers will arise.

    Evolution it's not enhancement it's just transformation. Darwin itself never used the word "evolution".

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    I think the article can be summed up thusly:

    Been around the world and found
    That only stupid people are breeding
    The cretins cloning and feeding

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJo0MT3wDBs

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    *sigh*.....

    The human brain getting smaller doesn't necessarily mean we are getting dumber. Also, the human brain consumes a ton of calories. Think on that.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    Also, the human brain consumes a ton of calories. Think on that.

    The point is that most people no longer can.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    The Daily News itself is enough to debunk the article. What about National Geographic or Scientific American? Where are the peer reviewed articles/

    We accomplish so much. The frontiers of science constantly expand. Those who believe in YHWH will find humans flawed. Others will marvel at what one species can do for better or worse.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit