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: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
Challenge for Evolutionists
    #955533 -

Since science can now be discussed in our forum I thought I'd post a little riddle for the mathematically inclined evolution believers.  I will not give any rebuttals to this but merely will watch as members think they have the correct answer(s) to this puzzle.

Enjoy! :smile:

Premise (A): fitness among humans is a monotonically increasing function of IQ, that is, the smarter you are the more successful you are at breeding (in the primitive culture, of course; let us not inject red class warfare herrings about modern societies and their putative breeding habits, if you pleez).

Premise (B): intelligence is the combined result of a large set of genes. Each of them contributes in some small way to intelligence, and, if we order them correctly, each functions correctly only when all "previous'' genes in the ordering are also functioning correctly.  Meaning if the gene for a big cerebrum is missing, the gene for high connectivity in the cerebrum won't do much good, and if the gene for high connectivity in the cerebrum ain't working, then a gene for language acquisition has no point, and if the gene for language acquisition is gronked then a gene for logical argument is wasted, and so forth. All we're arguing here is that there is specialization among genes, and that more specific, more specialized genes normally only function correctly if less specific, more general genes also function correctly.

Premise (C): the probability P(g_i) of the i^th gene g_i existing and functioning correctly in a breeding cohort is independent of all other P(g_j) with j not equal to i. P(g_i) is proportional to the probability of the mutation that gives rise to g_i. And remember, it is critical to a non-design theory of speciation that mutations are random, i.e. not correlated with each other.

Deduction (1): if (A), (B) and (C), then the probability distribution of intelligence P(IQ) should be, a priori, an exponentially decreasing curve, i.e. P(IQ) = a exp(-b IQ), where a and b are constants.  Because, roughly, the probability for a given level of intelligence IQ caused by N functioning intelligence genes is P(IQ) = [P(g_i)]^N = exp(- N (-log P(g_i))), where we have assumed all P(g_i) are the same for the sake of simplicity. [(P(g) < 1, incidentally, so -log P(g) > 0.] We can fancy this up by letting P(g_i) vary from gene to gene, but the outcome is essentially unchanged.

For example, if there are 4 IQ genes, for (1) a big brain, (2) a brain with symbolic manipulation capability, (3) a brain with deductive logic capability, and (4) a brain with inductive logic capability, and the probability of each gene functioning correctly is 0.5, then the normalized IQ distribution at birth will be:

51.6% - small brain

25.8% - big brain

12.9% - big brain, can manipulate symbols.

6.5% - big brain, can manipulate symbols, do deductive logic.

3.2% - big brain, can manipulate symbols, do deductive & inductive logic.

Deduction (2): 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*. However, beyond IQ*, the value of which depends on the detailed dependence of survival on IQ, P(IQ) must still decrease exponentially with IQ. In particular, there should be a long exponential tail in P(IQ) out to high IQ.

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.

Conclusion (1): Natural selection cannot have produced P(IQ)!

Observation (2): A Gaussian shape is known to result when a target is missed by many tiny random accidental mistakes. That is, if humans were *designed* to have IQ = 100, neither smarter nor dumber, and the flawed somatic mechanism for producing it missed the genetic target by a little with every attempt (zygote), then we'd see a Gaussian shape to P(IQ).

Conclusion (2): We are designed! God is Alive! Hosanna!


As I said, Enjoy!  I predict in advance that most will assume an answer predicated on their a priori philosophical committments.  Whatever the case may be I only intend that it cause a few to think.  That alone with be worth it.

I also wish to state that this argument has a flaw.  It's up to the members to figure out what it is.  In the unlikely event that someone does discover it I will post to acknowledge it.

Cheers, 

Edited by Mr_Mushrooms (10/12/02 06:47 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
don't bite the creationist bait! [Re: ]
    #955655 -

man = ape + mushroom  :grin: 


--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: don't bite the creationist bait! [Re: pattern]
    #955787 -

i need to brush up on my logic!

so far, to the point of this life ... i've been horrible with math. i love philosophy but it always gets me at logic. logic to me has always seemed to be a math with words ... and not just ol' math like pre-algebra but rocket science math. many philosophers (if not all) at one point or other in thier concepts use logic and i become a veg head. i would love to decipher your argument and come to some sort of conclusion (illusion if you wanna get deep) but quite frankly is makes my head hurt.

:confused: =  :frown:

oh well .... i'll survive

:cool: 

if you can send a link or two, or a book list of something that might help me PM me please

thanx in advance 


--------------------
Rafa (x_X)

fuck a sig



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: don't bite the creationist bait! [Re: pattern]
    #955789 -

i don't particularly understand the math. actually, it's pretty greekish to me. but, my thoughts on the matter are as follows:

A) individuals with a very low IQ do not survive for obvious reasons. they are too stupid to survive.

B) individuals with IQ's hovering around the average are fit. they tend to survive and propagate.

C) individuals with exceptionally high IQ's are probably better at mathematics or poetry than the average IQ guys, but they are essentially no more fit to survive. thier extra intelligence doesn't do much for them in the survival department.

conclusions: very low IQ's are selected against. very high IQ's are not selected against any more than average one's they simply don't occur as often because they are not neccessary for survival. nature is lazy.

i think a seclection of this sort would appear as a normal curve. or something similar...Gaussian?
does this sound correct in any way?


--------------------
All refrences to and statements concerning mushrooms, mushroom cultivation, and mushroom related paraphrenalia refer specifically to the cultivation of legal species.

Edited by vaporbrains (10/12/02 08:47 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: don't bite the creationist bait! [Re: vaporbrains]
    #955833 -

oh, i also found this on the net...

If the logarithms of IQs are Gaussian-distributed, then Dr. Guy Fogleman has observed that the factors that give rise to intelligence would be multiplicative rather than additive (since their logarithms are additive). Chris Langan has pointed out that the Central Limit Theorem would ensure that even if the logarithms of the individual multiplicative factors are not Gaussian-distributed, the sum of a large number of them would yield an approximately normal distribution.

other sources also indicate that a gaussian curve is very similar or identical to a normal curve and that a gaussian curve can stretch into a normal curve if you increase your sample of the population.


--------------------
All refrences to and statements concerning mushrooms, mushroom cultivation, and mushroom related paraphrenalia refer specifically to the cultivation of legal species.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: don't bite the creationist bait! [Re: vaporbrains]
    #956222 -

Your premises presuppose that evolutionary traits are linear in progression.


--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: don't bite the creationist bait! [Re: chemkid]
    #956223 -

Oh by the way....glad to see that science is now part of the forum.


--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #956362 -

Although I like what vaporbrains said, I have something to add.

Memes don't work like genes.  Once a critical mass of gray&white matter is achieved genetically, the meme takes over in the intelligence department.  From there, it's a matter of the connections within the brain (a parallel-distributed processor) and the metafunctions that arise from said connections (which, in some cases are NOT subject to the law of cause and effect).
*breathes*
:wink: 


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #956433 -

Premise (A): fitness among humans is a monotonically increasing function of IQ, that is, the smarter you are the more successful you are at breeding...

Premise (A) is flawed. Intelligence is in no way an advantage for breeding if we disregard modern societal standards. For that matter, even if we don't.

Question: Who indulges in promiscuous sex, popping out offspring like watermelon seeds?

Answer: Bimbos and dumb jocks.

Question: Who has the hardest time getting laid?

Answer: Spindly geeks and bookworms.

This holds true not only in modern day society, but in primitive cultures as well. For the vast majority of the human race the primary determining factors in choosing a mate have always been physical attractiveness and robustness (capability to bear many children) for the women, and physical prowess for men (ability to hunt and defend the mate and offspring successfully).

Next question, please.

pinky



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Phred]
    #956630 -

Damn you Pinky, you said it before me (but you it worded better than I would have). Yes intelligent people tend to have fewer children but invest more effort into raising them, whereas those on the lower end of the scale take a different tact, they tend to produce copious amounts of offspring (while the males have a greater tendency to ignore child rearing) to compensate for the lower survival rate and spread their genes. In our 'modern' society, the second strategy seems to be the winning one.


--------------------
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.

Edited by Evolving (10/13/02 09:13 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #956830 -

There is a flaw in each premise.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #956982 -

Well most of that math is over my head for the moment, but I'll throw in my little theory on evolution anyway.

I believe that:
(A) Genetic evolution is real and occurs through genetic mutation
(B) Biodiversity and complex organisms are the result of evolution
(C) Evolution is not the result of random genetic mutations or drift, as Darwin stated

I believe that genetic evolution could never result from simple random mutations in a gene pool. (B) makes an excellent point which is exactly in line with my reasoning. There are many examples of functions of life which would have no benefit or use without other related functions. If evolution was entirely based on random mutation it would be a fairly small chance that all separate genes in a grouping of genes would mutate at the same time to provide a special function.

So what if complex life, and intelligence, are a natural result of the nature of DNA? I think that the DNA molecule and it's properties may form a chaotic system (life) and that "order" (complex life, intelligence) is the natural result of the system.

Other examples of this can be made. Our universe, for example, can be considered to be a massive complex system. Stars are a natural result of the properties of our universe: hydrogen is the simplest and thus most abundant atom, gravity will always act to contract clouds of hydrogen into dense balls, dense balls of hydrogen contain a lot of energy, compressed balls of hydrogen containing a lot of energy (heat) will begin to undergo nuclear fusion, and fusion will produce enough energy to keep the force of gravity from destroying the star.

I think that we humans (and all life) are a natural and unavoidable result of the very existence of the DNA molecule.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #957244 -

Premise A, as others have pointed out, is false; and I see the red herring is yours...

Premise B is probably true, but because you do not know what these genes are exactly, the way you assume they interact is overly simplified.

Premise C- It's probably not as purely random as it seems. Evolution itself is an evolvable trait. It should be expected that organisms whose mutations create more positive traits than negative ones will outcompete those that are the reverse. Sexual reproduction arose because it sped up the possible rate of evolution vs. asexual reproduction.
Most genes do not code for just one trait.

The simplified 4-gene process you have described happened, in a fashion, eons ago. It's been sorted, those genes are no longer competing. The "big brain, can manipulate symbols, do deductive & inductive logic" geneset gradually pushed out all the other options, despite its relative improbabilty, and is now locked into the genome of our species. It -defines- "homo sapiens sapiens" -except for the occasional mutant case of retardation.

Most individual differences in intelligence among living humans are *not* mutation-based, and not drastic.
The distribution of random variation around a 'target' value, the same as you see with height, is to be expected.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #958121 -

You crazy son of a bitch :wink:


--------------------
Namaste.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #958437 -

I think genetics and evolution are quite a bit more complex than this, and there I believe there is a spiritual side to evolution. This is based on propability, and is not open to the idea that genetics are quite a bit more complex then we realize. It is quite possible that there are other things governing genetics and evolution that we have not observed or do not have the ability to observe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Remy]
    #959161 -

It is quite possible that there are other things governing genetics and evolution that we have not observed or do not have the ability to observe.

Although you have an interesting perspective...
I take it you haven't had a university-level class on evolution yet, have you?
Take statistics first.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Sclorch]
    #963105 -

spangled monkey lips.


--------------------
All refrences to and statements concerning mushrooms, mushroom cultivation, and mushroom related paraphrenalia refer specifically to the cultivation of legal species.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #1092056 -

Maybe one of the smart genes encodes a protein that also contributes to body odor.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: infidelGOD]
    #1092128 -

Yes, ignoring the math, I'd have to say that the premises were devised by someone with little knowledge of genentics, biology, and the theory of evolution. I'll forward this to my dad, who is a molecular biologist specializing in genetics and oncology, I'm sure he can give me some details explaining how this is flawed.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Phluck]
    #1092966 -

Ah by all means, forward it to your father.  I'd like to see if he can get it. 

Oh, and by the way, it was devised by me.  My knowledge may not be as complete as your father's but I do know a few things.

Your father doesn't worship science, does he? :wink:

:grin: 

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

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds

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 12,445 103 05/17/09 02:49 AM
by Darwinian
* For Evolutionists?
( 1 2 3 all )		 gettinjiggywithit 3,412 53 04/16/05 02:51 AM
by Ganesh2005
* The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate
( 1 2 3 all )		 Divided_Sky 5,047 42 10/06/05 05:05 PM
by dr0mni
* Sacred Geometry... A Challenge
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 DiploidM 9,455 180 02/16/10 05:49 PM
by ModularMind
* philosophy the result of idol, bored & self-indulgent minds?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Zen Peddler 6,541 49 01/08/19 12:58 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Can education interfere with intelligence? RandalFlagg 1,707 17 02/15/05 03:55 PM
by gettinjiggywithit
* "Artificial Intelligence"
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 raytrace 9,510 141 01/10/06 05:35 AM
by Seuss
* There isn't intelligent life on other planets
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Dogomush 5,737 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
3,898 topic views. 1 members, 511 guests and 41 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 0.035 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 18 queries.