Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@High Seas,

Oh no, not another brain size study. These things always struck me as about as valuable as counting genes in a DNA strand to figure out how "evolved" something is.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

http://www.livescience.com/history/091113-origins-evolving.html

http://i.livescience.com/images/080418-human-brain-01.jpg

There's no 2-ways about it - our brains are getting smaller in comparison to our body mass - even the Neanderthals had bigger brains. Now what?!

3 Replies

@High Seas,

Which is cause and which effect HS? It's an assertion that social interaction causes larger brains. Larger brains might cause, or allow, social interaction and if social interaction was positively adaptive it would only be selected in by species which had the capacity.

The ants and bees are highly socially interactive but their brains are obviously miniscule.

It's smarter to have certain fleshly formations in other parts of the body in some creatures. What does "smarter" mean??

Oh yes--of course. It means being able to pass the exams that the Oxford experts have passed. That was an easy question.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

I wouldn't mind betting that there are a few of those big, balding foreheads on the Oxford study like the caricature scientist is usually shown to have.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Quote:

our brains are getting smaller in comparison to our body mass

That might be because hamburgers and fries don't put fat on the brain. You changed levels there HS. You went from "smaller by comparison" to "bigger" with no comparison to the Neanderthal's body mass.

2 Replies

@spendius,

This "smaller by comparison to body mass" technique suggests some NFL players are morons.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

There's no 2-ways about it - our brains are getting smaller in comparison to our body mass - even the Neanderthals had bigger brains. Now what?!

Maybe our bodies are just getting bigger faster than our brains are. As long as there are the same number of neurons does it really matter how much "water-weight" (fat) our brains carry, or how much volume they occupy?

2 Replies

@spendius,

Nah, dummkopf, it's always a ratio of brain to body mass - if not, whales would rule the world. We only have fewer than half the number of genes than the humble tapeworm - we seem to have won the probabilistic lottery on that one. Btw, DID you have ANY comments on the link I posted a few pages back?!

Quote:

...The key to complexity is not more genes,
but more combinations and interactions generated by
fewer units of code and many of these interactions (as
emergent properties, to use the technical jargon) must
be explained at the level of their appearance, for they
cannot be predicted from the separate underlying parts
alone.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

I don't know the answer to that. How do we know it's the same number of neurons anyway, or how many connections they can make instantaneously?

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

I don't know the answer to that. How do we know it's the same number of neurons anyway, or how many connections they can make instantaneously?

Exactly.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Connections in the brain move at the speed of electricity as you know, not the speed of light; are you suggesting smaller brains react faster, ergo are more efficient? Somewhat along the lines of Seymour Cray's original idea, forget about fancy hardware designs, just cut all the wiring to the micron-identical length? But no computer can dream of doing what brain cells do, throw out over 10,000 connections to other cells at the same time. Anyway would like you to look at this article posted a while back and post your opinion to the thread http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1011/1011.4125v1.pdf

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

Btw, DID you have ANY comments on the link I posted a few pages back?!

Which was--

Quote:

...The key to complexity is not more genes,
but more combinations and interactions generated by
fewer units of code and many of these interactions (as
emergent properties, to use the technical jargon) must
be explained at the level of their appearance, for they
cannot be predicted from the separate underlying parts
alone.

No I didn't. I don't usually comment on absolute gibberish.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Connections in the brain move at the speed of electricity as you know, not the speed of light; are you suggesting smaller brains react faster, ergo are more efficient?

No, I was suggesting that the relationship of brain to body proportionality is of very little relevance to the effective measurement of intelligence or in it's relationship to the short-term evolution of humans.

0 Replies

I mentioned Widow Wadman earlier. This is how Mr Sterne described the lady--

Quote:

Let love therefore be what it will, --
my uncle Toby fell into it--And possibly, gentle reader, with
such a temptation -- so wouldst thou :
For never did thy eyes behold, or thy
concupiscence covet any thing in this
world, more concupiscible than widow
Wadman.

In the next chapter (38 of Vol 6) he leaves almost 2 pages blank for the reader to describe her himself.

And as she could obviously have been nowhere else located but at the very apex of Darwin's tree of life one has to wonder why all the experts at Dover pissed away a load of taxpayers money discussing such lowly creatures as chiclids and a sodding bacterium.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

The theory of evolution is a scientific fact.

No it isnt. Facts are short sharp and simple. They are used to build theories that can be tested by the facts they produce. At no stage is a theory a fact. Theories are complex and change with the next study produced.

Quote:

because outside of science there are no rules to bound the definition of "fact".

Rubbish. It is in any dictionary, you dont need a science book to know what a fact is.....it is used in courts of law amongst others.

Quote:

When most people talk about evolution being a fact, I think it's implicit that they are recognizing that it's a "scientific fact", not an "absolute philosophical fact".

No, scientific facts are short and simple, like E=mc^2. The theory of the origin of the universe is not a fact. Evolution is not a fact as details will be changing as facts emerge.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The vast majority of biological ascientists claim that evolution is a fact.

They have minced their words. They mean they believe it to be true.

Quote:

We teach "Structures of MAterials" in a fashion that is about 180 degrees different from "facts" available 100 years ago.

Welcome to my lair. How are the FACTS different for cast iron now ? Or wood ? Or glass ? Have the laws of thermodynamics changed ?

Quote:

Must you be there to verify zeta potentials so that every surface reaction on cell walls is valid?

Must you claim things that will change with improved kbowledge are facts ?

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Scientific theories do not need to be "finished" to be considered facts.

Which science is it of which you speak ? You do know that the definition of theory changes with the science, dont you ?

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

No, scientific facts are short and simple, like E=mc^2.

Based on the theory of relativity.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@High Seas,

You do realise the larger brain link to intelligence is very general. VERY general. Otherwise most men would be smarter than women.....wait...they may have something there after all.... Very Happy

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Brains are not the seat of everything. There are knots in the spinal column left over from ancestors long extinct that help control movement. Most of the brain is used for memory of sense data, that is why the senses are chuming up to it.

There is a good argument to be made for chemical memory to reside in organs.....organ transplants have had remarkably clear memory of the deceased most traumatic events. Surgeons are more interested in women and football so this goes under-reported.

1 Reply

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know