Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evolution Extinct

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • eldrick
    replied
    Originally posted by imaginative
    I see a strong (albeit statistically uncertain) negative
    correlation between intelligence/level of education and the number of children.

    I would, however, be happy to be wrong.
    on that basis, we'd have to say all of western europe between 800 ~ 1500 AD was stupid as it was virtually all catholics, who don't believe in contraception & therefore all had big families :wink:

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by imaginative
    who in turn is more intelligent than the average bachelor
    I think the bachelors win the IQ contest every time. :wink:

    [no, I'm kidding, dear - it was just a joke, no - ow,ow,ow, that hurts . . .!)

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Originally posted by Mennisco
    Originally posted by Pego
    Sorry, Daisy's woman is gone. I guess, it was copyrighted. Most participants of this thread have likely seen it .
    Are you referring to the obese Barbie sculpture I posted? Cannot figure out why that was "pulled", did gh round up a few college throwers to move the massive object?

    Must have been the big stone vagina that offended someone. What a weird little place this is. The Christian rite is at it again....

    :roll:
    Yes, that's the one :wink: .

    Leave a comment:


  • Mennisco
    replied
    Originally posted by Pego
    Sorry, Daisy's woman is gone. I guess, it was copyrighted. Most participants of this thread have likely seen it .
    Are you referring to the obese Barbie sculpture I posted? Cannot figure out why that was "pulled", did gh round up a few college throwers to move the massive object?

    Must have been the big stone vagina that offended someone. What a weird little place this is. The Christian rite is at it again....

    :roll:

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    Originally posted by Daisy
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    ........they hate you.
    Not all the time. Sometimes they want your money.

    No wonder he hates me, i have no $.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    How about in countries where very few people get a formal education? Maybe the intelligent have bigger families under such circumstances?

    More kids to look after you when you're old. More kids to help you grow/earn food etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • imaginative
    replied
    Originally posted by Daisy
    Originally posted by imaginative
    I see a strong (albeit statistically uncertain) negative correlation between intelligence/level of education and the number of children.
    But does level of education equal intelligence?
    Under no circumstances: There are bright people who dropped out of college; I
    have seen a number of post-graduates that I would consider depressingly stupid.
    However, there is still a strong correlation, and the average Ph.D. is more
    intelligent than the average Master of X, who in turn is more intelligent than
    the average bachelor, and so on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    ........they hate you.
    Not all the time. Sometimes they want your money.

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    Originally posted by imaginative
    Originally posted by Daisy
    Originally posted by imaginative
    In the current society, highly intelligent people are
    often content with no children at all, or just the one; the unintelligent tend
    to have more.
    I'm not sure I buy this phenotype of intelligence.
    The statistics I have seen from various sources seem to make that claim (cf.
    e.g. ``The Bell Curve''). Further, based on the people I have known in person
    over the years, I see a strong (albeit statistically uncertain) negative
    correlation between intelligence/level of education and the number of children.

    I would, however, be happy to be wrong.
    The fact that people with big brains chose not to make messy little need machines comes of no surprise to me.

    You spend 18 years nurturing them to maturity and your reward........they hate you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by imaginative
    I see a strong (albeit statistically uncertain) negative correlation between intelligence/level of education and the number of children.
    But does level of education equal intelligence?

    Leave a comment:


  • imaginative
    replied
    Originally posted by Daisy
    Originally posted by imaginative
    In the current society, highly intelligent people are
    often content with no children at all, or just the one; the unintelligent tend
    to have more.
    I'm not sure I buy this phenotype of intelligence.
    The statistics I have seen from various sources seem to make that claim (cf.
    e.g. ``The Bell Curve''). Further, based on the people I have known in person
    over the years, I see a strong (albeit statistically uncertain) negative
    correlation between intelligence/level of education and the number of children.

    I would, however, be happy to be wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by imaginative
    In the current society, highly intelligent people are
    often content with no children at all, or just the one; the unintelligent tend
    to have more.
    I'm not sure I buy this phenotype of intelligence.

    Leave a comment:


  • imaginative
    replied
    With some simplification, evolution has two components:

    1. Genetic changes (including mutations, but also ``gen drift'' and similar
    phenomena).

    2. Survival and reproduction of the fittest (for some meaning of ``fit'').

    The overall effect on 1. is probably comparatively small, although we are
    almost certainly moving towards greater homogenity, and we miss the
    opportunities from population diversification.

    The big issue is 2.: In the current society, highly intelligent people are
    often content with no children at all, or just the one; the unintelligent tend
    to have more. The former tend to reproduce at a greater age than the latter,
    leading to longer generations. Medical care removes the disadvantages of poor
    health (including areas like eye sight). People who would have been beggars
    with little hope at reproduction, can now live semi-comfortable lifes supported
    by the state (at least in e.g. Germany and Sweden). Etc.

    All things considered, we should consider ourselves happy, if evolution does
    not cause a degeneration of humankind.

    (I stress that I do not necessarily consider medical care and public support of
    the less fortunate to be a bad thing. They do, however, have negative
    side-effects in this particular area.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by Pego
    Sorry, Daisy's woman is gone. I guess, it was copyrighted. Most participants of this thread have likely seen it .
    It took me a while to try and figure this out. i think you mean Mennisco's woman.

    Recently, I mentioned lactase persistence and here it an appropriate time to bring it up again. Just one example of an evolutionary change that has happened recently in some populations. Possibly not that dramatic, but important enough that it has become very dominant in some (herding) cultures. Who knows what other mutations are out there in the population just waiting for selection, or have already been selected, unknown to us.

    To go back to Jones' premise that there are less mutations out there than there used to be. I suspect this is absolutely wrong given the number of chemicals out there in the environment and the larger number of births per day than ever before. As malmo pointed out, the lack of a few good panedmic recently is likely to be a bigger cause for any stagnation than a decrease in the number of mutants. Jones also suggests that recent medical success means that certain mutations are no longer purged, but this will increase genetic diversity meaning that when the next big environmental change does occur there will be more genetic diversity to challenge. That might be the difference between evolving and going extinct.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by gh
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by Pego
    It has evolved even over the past 1000 years (a measly 50-70 generations). Causes are variable, but it has.
    If you're counting us being taller and healthier and smarter, that is not evolution. It is better nutrition, medicine, and living conditions.
    We don't know that for a certainty, of course.
    Taking Pego's Third Rule, we know it's not evolution that has caused the changes - to what else may we attribute it? The change in the last 1000 years HAS been substantial.

    Originally posted by Pego
    3. It takes many generations (longer than the Homo Sapiens existence) to actually see a substantial change.
    I said "significant". Like Daisy's woman a few posts above.
    The ones you mentioned earlier are minute evolutionary changes, no need to speculate for some "hidden attribute".

    Sorry, Daisy's woman is gone. I guess, it was copyrighted. Most participants of this thread have likely seen it .

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X