by AGuest 233 Replies latest jw friends
Shelby - I didn't say devolution wasn't a word. It isn't a valid scientific concept. You would know that if you bothered to read the Wiki link you posted. You could also have googled teleology like I suggested.
Please take a moment to read and think before you post.
I would like to say, to certain who know who they are, when you make claims about how you perceive things as being worse today than previously, the common mistake you make is have no data, no control group, no normalization of data (and no data, BTW), to compare and contrast against.
Logic and science... you keep using those words and still have no idea what they mean or how to use either tool.
Neanderthals had bigger brains than us. Its not just size that matters its how the brain is organised.
A newborn baby has many time more neural connections than an adult. Its the trimming of connections that makes us smart.
<<<< 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”... --Aguest>>>>
Ah yes, Shelby!
Time for you to watch the Youtube video I posted. DEVO was and is a group formed out of the concept you've just posted, that we are in the process of deevolution, hence their name. The video will demonstrate the group's devotion to de-evolution.
NC, I am talking about social intelligence, not general intelligence like learning a foreign language etc. I am not talking about IQ. The claim is that with primates the bigger the brain the larger the social group. That's why Gelada Baboons have the largest herds because they have the largest brains (humans have even larger herds than Gelada Baboons because our brain is even larger than theirs). The species sits around and grooms each other while engaging in a social "chatter." They show a sophisticated social intelligence that directly correlates to their size of brain. Again, this is only for primates, not for other species like birds or lizards. I could see how that would affect our social prowess as a species if our brain is indeed decreasing in size.
-Sab
Sab - that's generally true but its not a law. What about Neanderthal's? You are not claiming they were more socially advanced than Homo sapiens are you?
I meant the side of science that asserts what this article purports, Jer... and so I'm not so sure "people are not saying they disagree" with science (at least as far as the "evidence" the article claims the study purports to show). Certainly, some are simply disagreeing with me, regardless of what the article is even about.
Let's call a spade a spade. (Not a racial comment.)
You clearly said, "Well, so much for agreeing WITH science, I guess."
Now you claim "some are simply disagreeing with [you] regardless of what the article is even about."
That's a bunch of bullshit. There were excellent comments on page one and up until you made the above comment where people used their own thinking and have read other stuff.
But no, you just dismiss people because they want to disagree with you. These people cannot be capable of agreeing with you so they must not be actually forming an informed opinion. Bullshit.
Continuing with the "spade is a spade," you are just trying to stir things up so this can be about YOU.
I bit. I am sorry I bit. Go back and read their informed or well-thought out opinions and make this about what you posted.
"... we may be able to magically correct any mutation that has occurred in all cells of any organism at any development stage."
I thought that was funny! . . . AGuest
I think you might have misinterpreted what was being said. The writer was using the expression as distictive from "natural". The word artificially would probably have been a better choice.
The allusion is to artificial genetic manipulation . . . which has great potential, especially in medicine. Science has recently announced the discovery of a genetic mutation which is resistant to the HIV virus, and may render AIDS obselete in both males and females. Interestingly the mutations presence is currently exclusive to a few homosexual males.
Sab - that's generally true but its not a law. What about Neanderthal's? You are not claiming they were more socially advanced than Homo sapiens are you?
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. It would be REALLY hard to compare them with us from a social perspective because we don't have any live Neanderthals. Do we know the top end of how large their groups could be? There is also the other factor of their brain evolving for different purposes besides that of a basic primate like a Baboon. For Baboons they just increase in group size because they can all generally get along, but what about disputes? The more intelligent the primate the more involved the disputes within the groups are going to be. This could actually cut down the population which would hide their social prowess and group size through ideological schism. They might have sophisticated social skills but cannot use them because they are being killed off in wars that are created by a different type of intelligence spinging forth demanding a different type of reaction for survival. However, the idea of diplomacy is definitely a social skill that has pervaded through the evolutionary line.
-Sab
Again, this is only for primates, not for other species like birds or lizards.
Then perhaps we have to look at causation. Is it the bigger brains that make them more social, or is it how their brains are organized? Would a smaller overall brain reduced this effect if the original connections stayed in tact? Cofty mentioned that it is trimming connections that make us smart---in whatever way. These connections are trimmed by our experience---unused portions get nipped, so to speak (hugely simplified). this is why a human that is not exposed to language by around age 9 or so, will forever lose the ability to use language. Those connections have been chopped.
So, with the Baboons, is there something in their environment that makes stronger social connections in the brain at a young age, and something in other primate environments that cause these connections to be trimmed earlier? And of course, this cultural pressure can also come into play with evolution if it affects their fitness.
That's why I'm saying I think we are over-simplifying a very complex issue. There are SO MANY factors, that we don't get all the answers by just looking at one. It's a growing field for sure.
I'm also saying that we don't read an article and then look for ways to confirm the data. Oh look, kids can't read a sun dial. That confirms it. We are getter stupider. Instead we continue to ask questions, we try to falsify the results we find, and we get closer to the answer.
