Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #1093060 -

"the image translators work for the contruct program"


--------------------
What?

Edited by Zero7a1 (11/28/02 12:17 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Zero7a1]
    #1093092 -

So DNA is like a code?  Like information?  Hmmm  Why didn't I think of that? :wink:

I guess what we got here folks is a program that writes itself.  What an anomaly. :smirk:

Very good point! :wink:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #1093204 -

Good one :laugh:

Deduction (2): Natural selection will cut off the lower end of the distribution

Nature never cuts...

Observation (1): There isn't. P(IQ) is well-known to have a rather narrow and symmetric Gaussian shape. IQs above 200 are essentially as rare as IQs of zero.

Because very dumb monkey (IQ 0) surviving and breeding offspring is just as unlikely as very smart monkey (IQ 200) getting all the good genes.

Conclusion (2): We are designed!

May I agree with that anyway? Don't call me evolutionist...  :wink: 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #1093275 -

So DNA is like a code? Like information?

Yes. Now start with two cans of Campbell's Alphabet Soup and mix...


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #1095308 -

Hey Mr Mushrooms! Hope your Thanksgiving was a good one. Here is the reply I promised in another thread.

First off, I would agree that IF your premises are correct, then your deduction and conclusion is sound (wait, as I was writing my response, I just realized a possible flaw in your deduction which I will address at the end of this post). But like other posters on this board (pinksharkmark and Xibalba in particular) I believe the premises are incorrect.

Premise A: Yes, it's probably true that at some point in history intelligence WAS a critical factor to the survival and reproduction of the human race (some scientists believe Neanderthal man is now extinct because he wasn't smart enough). However, I would guess that approximately 10,000 years ago (maybe 5,000, maybe 200,000), as man learned to cooperate with one another, individual intelligence became less important for survival and reproduction. Mankind as a cooperative group could take care of one another to survive, so long as a few were intelligent enough for the group, and others were perhaps stronger, then the group as a whole could survive. Probably the most important factor in passing on genes (I'm guessing) was not intelligence, but the ability to resist fatal diseases. So I WOULD expect to see a Gaussian intelligence distribution in modern man (which as you pointed out is what we observe).

Premise B: I think all modern human brains have the capacity to manipulate symbols, and to do deductive & inductive logic. A special gene isn't required for any of these. But even so, I'll assume your point was that some genes provide "more" of one ability than another. No wait, I guess this couldn't have been your point, because if that were the case, it WOULD be possible to gain a "more" deductive reasoning gene along with a "medium" manipulate symbols gene, and both would be very functional. I believe your argument was that if you don't have the "manipulate symbols" gene, then the deductive reasoning gene is worthless, which I'm arguing is NOT the case.

Premise C: I'm not sure if all genetic scientists would agree with this premise, but since I'm not a genetic scientist myself, I'll assume this a common enough belief and that it is valid.

Now, if Premise A and B are flawed (which in my opinion they are), then your deductions and conclusions are invalid.

But let's say for the sake of argument that your premises ARE correct. I still think there may be a flaw in your deduction.

In deduction number one, you said you expect to see a exponentially decreasing intelligence curve. Fair enough. In deduction #2, you said "natural selection will cut off the lower end of the distribution, so that P(IQ) for *survivors* will *rise* with IQ, up to a certain maximum IQ*", and then you say the rest of the tail beyond IQ* must still decrease exponentially with IQ. Also fair enough.

Now, if most of the unintelligent people died off, and the medium and highly intelligent people didn't, you'd have very few survivors in the low intelligence categories, a medium number of people in the medium intelligence category, and then you'd see the long exponential tail in P(IQ) out to high IQ that you were talking about. My statistics is rusty, but this curve would resemble a Gaussian curve, wouldn't it? Perhaps not a true Gaussian curve, but something close.

Again, a very good argument on your part, but IMHO there are some flaws.


--------------------
:smile:  Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend  :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #1095544 -

Is an individuals IQ based purely on his/her genes. I'm not so sure. A couple who both have PhDs are going to have intelligent children, but is that down to the genes or the environment in which the children will be growing up in? That couple will obviously be fans of learning and this will rub off on the children. Those parents are more likely to buy the children a chess board and a chemistry set at an early age.
I don't think that we are born with an IQ. I think IQ is determined at a very young age, when we are most susceptible to our surroundings. And this exposure will reflect the IQ. When we get older, we start to lay down rules in our mind and it is more difficult to learn things which contradict those rules.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Jackal]
    #1096103 -

I agree Jakal.

There are many factors that dedermine intelegence.


--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Murex]
    #1097946 -

the discussion is not between evolutionism and creationism. it is not because one rejects evolutionism such as it is at this point, that one implies that life was created by God as told in the bible.

actually,(neo) darwinism is pretty vague and reductionistic, and never was entirely scientificly verified. "random mutation plus natural selection" cannot give an answer to many important questions.

Nobody doubts that a species can only survive when it knows to adapt itself to its surroundings, but there are numerous ways to adapt oneself to one and the same environment, and some of these ways are so complicated that the word "adaptation" loses its significance.

to quote waddington: "The presumption that the evolution of the terrificly adapted biological mechanisms is based entirely and solely on a selective choice from a random set of variations, produced by random chance, is similar to suggesting the idea that if one keeps on throwing long enough brick stones on a pile, one will finally end up building the ideal house".

i am not an expert in this field, but can recommend for more details in this regard arthur koestler's Janus - a summing up - chapter III.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: haku]
    #1098007 -

The modern concept of evolution and the theory of natural selection are connected with Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. While we know so much about Darwin, we know so little about Wallace. He is almost forgotten. Wallace considered there are creative forces behind evolution rather than just blind chance.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: raytrace]
    #1098009 -

An open question for evolutionists is: Why our testacles are hanging outside the body? To my knowledge, the best answer given is: for advertisement! Look how strong I am, I can fight with my testacles in such a vulnerable place. If you are happy with that...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: raytrace]
    #1098034 -

In reply to:
Why our testacles are hanging outside the body?


So your sperm don't bake. It's been shown that when men where briefs (as opposed to boxers or 'free swinging'), their (viable) sperm counts go down.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Evolving]
    #1098229 -

evolution has come up with amazing solutions, and it can't cope with that? a lower body temperature could have evolved. (and I meant testicles, forgive me)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: raytrace]
    #1099912 -

Even before my mind was closed, i believed in a mix of evolution and creationism?.


--------------------
And the gameshow host rings the buzzer (brrnnntt) oh and now you get a face full of face!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 dr0mni 12,617 103 05/17/09 02:49 AM
by Darwinian
* For Evolutionists?
( 1 2 3 all )		 gettinjiggywithit 3,445 53 04/16/05 02:51 AM
by Ganesh2005
* The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate
( 1 2 3 all )		 Divided_Sky 5,115 42 10/06/05 05:05 PM
by dr0mni
* Sacred Geometry... A Challenge
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 DiploidM 9,566 180 02/16/10 05:49 PM
by ModularMind
* philosophy the result of idol, bored & self-indulgent minds?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Zen Peddler 6,645 49 01/08/19 12:58 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Can education interfere with intelligence? RandalFlagg 1,716 17 02/15/05 03:55 PM
by gettinjiggywithit
* "Artificial Intelligence"
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 raytrace 9,650 141 01/10/06 05:35 AM
by Seuss
* There isn't intelligent life on other planets
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Dogomush 5,854 79 02/06/06 03:44 PM
by TheGus

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,917 topic views. 0 members, 63 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 15 queries.