Home | Community | Message Board

Gaiana.nl
Please support our sponsors.


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: PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains, USA West Coast Strains   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Anonymous

Challenge for Evolutionists
    #955533 - 10/12/02 07:30 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

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 08:47 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepattern
multiplayer

Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
don't bite the creationist bait! [Re: ]
    #955655 - 10/12/02 08:49 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

man = ape + mushroom  :grin: 


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineKemist
Soul ComponentsPrototype IssueM11983MF50 (x_x)

Registered: 05/29/02
Posts: 160
Loc: The Orgin
Last seen: 18 years, 16 days
Re: don't bite the creationist bait! [Re: pattern]
    #955787 - 10/12/02 10:44 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinevaporbrains
Cub Scout

Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 539
Loc: ghetto# 03479
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: don't bite the creationist bait! [Re: pattern]
    #955789 - 10/12/02 10:45 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

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 10:47 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinevaporbrains
Cub Scout

Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 539
Loc: ghetto# 03479
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: don't bite the creationist bait! [Re: vaporbrains]
    #955833 - 10/12/02 11:15 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinechemkid
Be excellent toeach other

Registered: 06/21/02
Posts: 506
Loc: Between a rock and a hard...
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
Re: don't bite the creationist bait! [Re: vaporbrains]
    #956222 - 10/13/02 03:37 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Your premises presuppose that evolutionary traits are linear in progression.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinechemkid
Be excellent toeach other

Registered: 06/21/02
Posts: 506
Loc: Between a rock and a hard...
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
Re: don't bite the creationist bait! [Re: chemkid]
    #956223 - 10/13/02 03:38 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #956362 - 10/13/02 05:14 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #956433 - 10/13/02 06:41 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Phred]
    #956630 - 10/13/02 11:11 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

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 11:13 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #956830 - 10/13/02 02:06 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

There is a flaw in each premise.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,780
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #956982 - 10/13/02 03:08 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXibalba
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/00
Posts: 2,114
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #957244 - 10/13/02 05:19 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleRebelSteve33
Amateur Mycologist
Male

Registered: 05/28/02
Posts: 3,774
Loc: Arizona
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #958121 - 10/13/02 11:05 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

You crazy son of a bitch :wink:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRemy
Bitches Brew
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/04/02
Posts: 1,343
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Last seen: 9 years, 10 months
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #958437 - 10/14/02 12:46 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Remy]
    #959161 - 10/14/02 07:32 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinevaporbrains
Cub Scout

Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 539
Loc: ghetto# 03479
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Sclorch]
    #963105 - 10/15/02 03:21 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,837
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 hours, 14 minutes
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #1092056 - 11/27/02 09:36 PM (18 years, 9 months ago)

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


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Don't vibe my harsh, bro.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 3 days, 14 hours
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: infidelGOD]
    #1092128 - 11/27/02 10:04 PM (18 years, 9 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Phluck]
    #1092966 - 11/28/02 03:04 AM (18 years, 9 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleZero7a1
Leaving YourWasteland

Registered: 10/23/02
Posts: 3,594
Loc: Passing Cloud
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #1093060 - 11/28/02 03:53 AM (18 years, 9 months ago)

"the image translators work for the contruct program"


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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Zero7a1]
    #1093092 - 11/28/02 04:08 AM (18 years, 9 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineNomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #1093204 - 11/28/02 05:05 AM (18 years, 9 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #1093275 - 11/28/02 06:57 AM (18 years, 9 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineGoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK

Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 18 years, 29 days
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #1095308 - 11/29/02 03:07 AM (18 years, 9 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineJackal
Well Versed In Etiquette
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/16/02
Posts: 4,576
Last seen: 8 months, 1 day
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: ]
    #1095544 - 11/29/02 07:39 AM (18 years, 9 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMurex
Reality Hacker

Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 14 years, 22 days
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Jackal]
    #1096103 - 11/29/02 03:06 PM (18 years, 9 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinehaku
Stranger
Registered: 11/30/02
Posts: 1
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Murex]
    #1097946 - 11/30/02 08:24 AM (18 years, 9 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleraytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: haku]
    #1098007 - 11/30/02 09:53 AM (18 years, 9 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleraytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: raytrace]
    #1098009 - 11/30/02 10:02 AM (18 years, 9 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: raytrace]
    #1098034 - 11/30/02 10:29 AM (18 years, 9 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleraytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: Evolving]
    #1098229 - 11/30/02 01:20 PM (18 years, 9 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinejohnnyfive
Burning withCircles!
Registered: 07/02/02
Posts: 886
Loc: Hell
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: Challenge for Evolutionists [Re: raytrace]
    #1099912 - 12/01/02 02:27 AM (18 years, 9 months ago)

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 Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains, USA West Coast Strains   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
dr0mni 11,122 103 05/17/09 04:49 AM
by Darwinian
* For Evolutionists?
( 1 2 3 all )
gettinjiggywithit 3,222 53 04/16/05 04:51 AM
by Ganesh2005
* The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate
( 1 2 3 all )
Divided_Sky 4,624 42 10/06/05 07:05 PM
by dr0mni
* Sacred Geometry... A Challenge
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )
DiploidM 8,874 181 02/16/10 07:49 PM
by ModularMind
* philosophy the result of idol, bored & self-indulgent minds?
( 1 2 3 all )
Zen Peddler 5,674 49 01/08/19 02:58 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Can education interfere with intelligence?
RandalFlagg
1,662 17 02/15/05 05:55 PM
by gettinjiggywithit
* "Artificial Intelligence"
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
raytrace 8,767 142 01/10/06 07:35 AM
by Seuss
* There isn't intelligent life on other planets
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Dogomush 4,896 79 02/06/06 05:44 PM
by TheGus

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
3,678 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.035 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.