On Darwinism

[DC Tom]

Agreed. Even the furher himself would laugh hysterically if you tried to tell him the "true value" of a die is 3.5

 

"Regression toward the mean is a great Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy against the Aryan race!"

[woolley]

First off, I said "anthropocentric". Not "anthropomorphic". Big difference.

 

Yah, I was typing fast, my bad.

 

Second, I never said science was anthropocentric nonsense.

Yah, it was me who made the relation.

 

I said this was anthropocentric nonsense. And it is. You just demonstrated that again: you just said that our ability to affect our environments was materially different from an animal's (specifically, a beaver) ability to affect its environment because we're somehow special.

 

We're essentially different. We theorize and we apply knowledge. We conceptualize. You label that as "special", and that's fine, I don't have a problem with the word, and you do, which is why you use the word "special" derisively, when I never use it. It appears to me that you have a problem with the concept of "special" and are exercising an itch here.

 

That's anthropocentricism. And from an evolutionary standpoint, it's nonsense.

ONCE AGAIN, this is going *past Darwinian evolution*. The majority of the majority of my posts are not about the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. If you want to preach Darwinian evolution that's fine, but my posts aren't directly and specifically about Darwinian evolution, so why the hell do you need to bring up how this isn't 100% kosher with the "evolutionary" standpoint. YEAH, that's exactly the POINT.

 

There is absolutely no objective or empirical basis for it; your entire argument is circular, in that you're ultimately using your postulate that humans are somehow special and above nature to prove that humans are somehow special and above nature.

 

First, the concept of special, something which you continually invoke, is apparently a real concept. You are quite sensitive about it. You don't like to think that humans are special. Message received.

 

I've never used that word, and you keep using it for me, again, to exercise that itch of yours. I think you're talking past me, so I'm not sure if I care to respond to this bugaboo anymore.

 

Humans can theorize and apply knowledge in ways that no others species can. Fact. You dub that special, and then get all hot and bothered about it being special. I'm not even saying it is special. It is what it is.

 

Humans are natural, of course. I'm not saying they are supernatural, or above the natural. Gravity works on us just like it works on anything else. Now, can we theorize and construct ways to escape gravity (physicists call it escape velocity, I reckon that's another manisfestation of scientists thinking about humans as *special*)? Sure. We do that by comprehending the force of gravity, something that other species just don't do. That's a fact. Is it a *special* fact? You tell me, you're both the expert and iconoclast of that word.

 

Third, I specifically stated that, as anthropocentric nonsense, this wasn't science. And it's not. At best, it's metaphysics.

 

You missed my point.

 

What is science? Articulated and tested theory which rises to any number of levels, be it simple theory or the exalted position of law. Is science necessary for nature to do what nature does? No. So what's the point of science? A coping mechanism for humans. Do any other species give a damn about science? No. Sure, science can be classifed as anthropocentric nonsense. Your turn to get hot and bothered. -Woolley

[woolley]

Before you start defending your little butt-buddy, why dont you go back and read the 50 pages of his where he's attempted to say that the "true value" of a 6-sided die is 3.5.

 

How old are you?

 

-Woolley

[woolley]

I see this is now six pages. The last time I checked it was three and I don't feel like reading through this junk. If someone explained how a person gets antlers, please re-post.

 

Thanks.

 

Shoot a buck, then have them culled, or cull them yourself. The antlers.

 

-Woolley

[woolley]

Although in fairness to the Nazis, they weren't as stupid as HA. Ass holes, yes...but not ignorant ass holes.

 

???

 

The Nazis in general, or in particular? If you want pseudo-science, Nazi Germany was a veritable motherload.

 

I guess one way of looking at pseudo-science is that it takes intelligence to come with some of the more wacky bits.

 

-Woolley

[Orton's Arm]

Once again, you're hung up in IQ as though its a realistic determination of intelligence. Its shaky at best.

 

And referring to your tests, lets have people take a test under ideal circumstances. They then can take a second test after being repeatedly woken up every 15 minutes the night before with loud music and noise. We'll also annoy them repeatedly during the testing. Guess what? you'll find scores on the second test are significantly different than scores on the first test. And the genetics of the people are the same. its the ENVIRONMENT thats different.

 

 

 

And once again, since your little brain cant comprehend this concept. You can selectively breed for behaviors. Intelligence is not a behavior. You cannot selectively breed for intelligence based on your asinine criteria. .

 

With nuclear physicists, you can take 2 of them from anywhere, and there's nothing that says they'll have a kid thats smarter than average. because being a nuclear physicist doesnt make someone smart. it could be they are smart. it could also be that they have a lower IQ and work their ass off to get the job done. You have a tough time seeing that as a possibility, when it occurs everyday.

There is a strong correlation (high 80s) between how well a person does on one I.Q. test, and how well that person will do on a second test. People who were sleep deprived (or whatever) the first time they took the test could always be allowed to retake it.

 

You think you can't selectively breed for intelligence, but you're wrong. Natural selection is a far blunter instrument for identifying intelligent people than an I.Q. test. And yet, natural selection has resulted in some animals having progressively higher levels of intelligence; until finally the modern human appeared on the scene. Average brain size (after adjusting for body weight) has been going up in both mammals and birds for tens of millions of years. Natural selection can (and has) resulted in dramatic increases in intelligence. Selective breeding can do the same.

[Orton's Arm]

Please don't take this post as evidence I support either the Ramius / DCT side or the HA / wooley side. I think in your example where you manuipulate the environment, and consequently get a lower raw IQ score, you would find the same variation in scores across the general population if each subject took the second test in the altered enviroment. I believe that is what IQ tests measures, the variance across the general population. A subject achieving a score two standard deviations above the mean in prime test taking conditions would likely achieve a score two standard deviations above the mean in the altered test taking conditions, as the entire population would have lower scores. If that was to be the case, I think it would strengthen the validity of the IQ (or whatever you want to call it) test.

 

You probably need a better example to discredit IQ tests, I am sure they are out there.

 

Regarding crayonzquestions, I recall reading somewhere that yong men,(ages 20 - 25, or so) are now having imlpants being placed under the skin on their skulls so it looks as if they have small devil horns. Perhaps Ed can tell us something about that. (haven't heard from him in a while)

Good point about the I.Q. tests.

 

I.Q. tests aren't perfect, but they're far better than Ramius would have you believe. Some people discredit I.Q. tests (and standardized aptitude tests in general) because they think they're smarter than their test scores indicate. Having known and worked with a few such people, I'm of the opinion the test scores are usually right. I'm not saying Ramius necessarily falls into that category, but it wouldn't come as a complete shock if he did.

[Orton's Arm]

We're essentially different. We theorize and we apply knowledge. We conceptualize. You label that as "special", and that's fine, I don't have a problem with the word, and you do, which is why you use the word "special" derisively, when I never use it. It appears to me that you have a problem with the concept of "special" and are exercising an itch here.

What you're saying is straightforward and quite obvious. Human beings have clearly reached a higher level of thought than has any animal. It's not just a difference in degree; it's a difference in kind. As you've alluded to, animals are incapable of the types of abstract thought that humans engage in.

 

You shouldn't have had to go through all this work to prove something so obvious. Sometimes having a conversation with Bungee Jumper (a.k.a. DC Tom) is like trying to run a race when you're stuck in chest-high quicksand.

[justnzane]

There is a strong correlation (high 80s) between how well a person does on one I.Q. test, and how well that person will do on a second test. People who were sleep deprived (or whatever) the first time they took the test could always be allowed to retake it.

 

You think you can't selectively breed for intelligence, but you're wrong. Natural selection is a far blunter instrument for identifying intelligent people than an I.Q. test. And yet, natural selection has resulted in some animals having progressively higher levels of intelligence; until finally the modern human appeared on the scene. Average brain size (after adjusting for body weight) has been going up in both mammals and birds for tens of millions of years. Natural selection can (and has) resulted in dramatic increases in intelligence. Selective breeding can do the same.

 

I am sorry i really tried to avoid this trainwreck here, but your first paragraph is exactly Ramius' point. If you gave somebody ideal conditions for one test and horrendous conditions for the second test, an overwhelming majority would score better when ideal conditions are present.

 

Also, for someone who argued about results of an IQ test for 50 pages, it seems a little fishy that you are discrediting it now (or at least minimizing its credibility).

 

Personally, intelligence is an outsider's perception of what one knows. yes natural selection plays a bit of why humans and other mammals have become more intelligent, however, selective breeding isn't foolproof either (just look at European royalty as an example as they are inbred hemophiliacs), and some people basically exhibit a lot of unwanted recessive traits which make them "genetic waste".

 

I'm gunna do my best to keep out of this trainwreck from here on out

[Ramius]

Good point about the I.Q. tests.

 

I.Q. tests aren't perfect, but they're far better than Ramius would have you believe. Some people discredit I.Q. tests (and standardized aptitude tests in general) because they think they're smarter than their test scores indicate. Having known and worked with a few such people, I'm of the opinion the test scores are usually right. I'm not saying Ramius necessarily falls into that category, but it wouldn't come as a complete shock if he did.

 

1470 SAT, 2280 GRE (old format) and i still think standard tests are bull sh--. they test nothing more than your ability to take the test.

 

you strike me as a person with high scores who is really dumb as hell in the real world (as you have displayed here). Everyone knows how you lack basic social intelligence, but you scream and yell and point to test scores as if they mean something.

[Ramius]

There is a strong correlation (high 80s) between how well a person does on one I.Q. test, and how well that person will do on a second test. People who were sleep deprived (or whatever) the first time they took the test could always be allowed to retake it.

 

Which proves what? A person performs the same on one test that they perform on that test taken again another time? Guess what? theres a high correlation too if you take a person, have them add 2+2, and then take that same person, and have them add 2+2 again.

 

How does the same person performing to the same level on the same test when taken again, say anything about that test's ability to predict the outside world. Oh yah, it doesnt, and you're wrong, like usual.

 

Also, you cant selectively breed for intelligence. You can selectively breed for behaviors that can be associated with intelligence in animals, but you cant breed for intelligence itself.

 

once again, you are advocating a program in which YOU would be the first in line to be sterilized.

[Ramius]

Anyone else see the irony in the fact that holcombs arm is all about taking high skill level/smart people and selectively breeding, yet his favorite football player is the VERY DEFINITION of mediocre.

[Ramius]

Natural selection is a far blunter instrument for identifying intelligent people than an I.Q. test. And yet, natural selection has resulted in some animals having progressively higher levels of intelligence; until finally the modern human appeared on the scene. Average brain size (after adjusting for body weight) has been going up in both mammals and birds for tens of millions of years. Natural selection can (and has) resulted in dramatic increases in intelligence. Selective breeding can do the same.

 

So darwinism was bull sh-- in page 1 in your first post, but now its the letter of the law. Got it.

 

Nice flip-flop herr kerry.

[DC Tom]

So darwinism was bull sh-- in page 1 in your first post, but now its the letter of the law. Got it.

 

Nice flip-flop herr kerry.

 

He didn't flip-flop, he's regressing toward the mean.

[Orton's Arm]

I am sorry i really tried to avoid this trainwreck here, but your first paragraph is exactly Ramius' point. If you gave somebody ideal conditions for one test and horrendous conditions for the second test, an overwhelming majority would score better when ideal conditions are present.

 

Also, for someone who argued about results of an IQ test for 50 pages, it seems a little fishy that you are discrediting it now (or at least minimizing its credibility).

 

Personally, intelligence is an outsider's perception of what one knows. yes natural selection plays a bit of why humans and other mammals have become more intelligent, however, selective breeding isn't foolproof either (just look at European royalty as an example as they are inbred hemophiliacs), and some people basically exhibit a lot of unwanted recessive traits which make them "genetic waste".

 

I'm gunna do my best to keep out of this trainwreck from here on out

Nobody here (other than Ramius) wants to discredit I.Q. tests. That'd be like saying 40 yard dash times are utterly meaningless because someone can run faster if they're well-rested than if they've just finished a marathon.

 

European royalty was not selectively bred for any desirable genetic characteristic. Marriages were often arranged to cement alliances between nations; or were guided by other political considerations. You mention unwanted recessive traits that have resulted from excessive inbreeding. On the one hand that shows too small a variety in European royalty's gene pool; on the other hand it shows that selective breeding probably wasn't used to get rid of, say, hemophilia.

[Orton's Arm]

So darwinism was bull sh-- in page 1 in your first post, but now its the letter of the law. Got it.

This from page 1 in my first post:

I believe that the basis for Darwinism is sound. Consider that the chihuahua is descended from wolf ancestors! Given a steady source of genetic pressure, and enough generations, animals can and will experience large changes. These changes aren't limited to traits that are 100% heritable, but seem to include any trait that's largely influenced by genetics.

I take it your alleged high score on the SAT wasn't due to strong success on the reading comprehension section.

[Ramius]

I'm discussing the relationship between evolution and regression toward the mean. For example, tall parents tend to have children who are also tall; but not quite as tall (on average) as their parents. Does this mean evolutionary forces don't apply to height? I feel all traits are subject to evolutionary forces; including those traits which experience regression toward the mean. Others feel that if a trait experiences regression toward the mean, evolutionary forces don't apply to that particular trait. According to this way of thinking, if something in the environment made it so that tall people tended to have more children than short people, the population wouldn't get taller. Regression towad the mean would make it so that in the long run, the population's average height would stay more or less the same. Because just about all traits are subject to regression toward the mean, that line of thinking constitutes a rejection of Darwinism.

 

Here was your asinine rejetion of darwinism, halfwayf down the page, f*ckstick.

[Orton's Arm]

Here was your asinine rejetion of darwinism, halfwayf down the page, f*ckstick.

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe you got the SAT score you say you got. Here are the exact same words you quoted, with the relevant sentence bolded.

I'm discussing the relationship between evolution and regression toward the mean. For example, tall parents tend to have children who are also tall; but not quite as tall (on average) as their parents. Does this mean evolutionary forces don't apply to height? I feel all traits are subject to evolutionary forces; including those traits which experience regression toward the mean. Others feel that if a trait experiences regression toward the mean, evolutionary forces don't apply to that particular trait. According to this way of thinking, if something in the environment made it so that tall people tended to have more children than short people, the population wouldn't get taller. Regression towad the mean would make it so that in the long run, the population's average height would stay more or less the same. Because just about all traits are subject to regression toward the mean, that line of thinking constitutes a rejection of Darwinism.

You missed the point of that first post completely, didn't you? Bungee Jumper (a.k.a. DC Tom) tried to argue a eugenics program wouldn't increase the average level of intelligence, because of regression toward the mean. Two people with I.Q.s of 140 would be expected to have children that were generally in, say, the 130s range. Over time, he felt this regression toward the population mean would cause the eugenics program to fail. The point of that first post was to show that if Bungee Jumper's line of reasoning was actually valid, it would undermine the basis for Darwinism. Just about all traits are subject to regression toward the mean. For example, very tall parents tend to have children that, while also tall, aren't as tall as their parents.

[Ramius]

Nobody here (other than Ramius) wants to discredit I.Q. tests. That'd be like saying 40 yard dash times are utterly meaningless because someone can run faster if they're well-rested than if they've just finished a marathon.

 

No i am not trying to discredit IQ tests. I am downplaying their role and relevance in determining "intelligence". Perhaps you need to brush on your reading comprehension as well as your statistics, and you definitely need to brush up a ton on your genetics.

 

Your analogy is useless, because speed IS a measureable characteristic. It is not highly debated. There arent many scientists who debate that a 40 time isnt an accurate measure of speed. There arent scientists who are aruging that you cant realistically measure speed. They are however, arguing these points reagrading intelligence and IQ tests.

 

Ask any sicentist (a real scientist, not a psychologist) and they'll tell you that while intelligence has a genetic component, it is highly dependent on environment. They'll also explain that using IQ as the basis for any intelligence determination is highly laughable, especially given the Nazi agenda you are trying to push here.

 

You are trying to use IQ as though its a 100% foolproof method of somehow measuring this thing we call "intelligence". If you actually tried to present this case to a scientist, you'd be laughed out of the room, much like the last time you tried to talk to a woman.

 

My God, you are an idiot.

[Orton's Arm]

No i am not trying to discredit IQ tests. I am downplaying their role and relevance in determining "intelligence". Perhaps you need to brush on your reading comprehension as well as your statistics, and you definitely need to brush up a ton on your genetics.

 

Your analogy is useless, because speed IS a measureable characteristic. It is not highly debated. There arent many scientists who debate that a 40 time isnt an accurate measure of speed. There arent scientists who are aruging that you cant realistically measure speed. They are however, arguing these points reagrading intelligence and IQ tests.

 

Ask any sicentist (a real scientist, not a psychologist) and they'll tell you that while intelligence has a genetic component, it is highly dependent on environment. They'll also explain that using IQ as the basis for any intelligence determination is highly laughable, especially given the Nazi agenda you are trying to push here.

 

You are trying to use IQ as though its a 100% foolproof method of somehow measuring this thing we call "intelligence". If you actually tried to present this case to a scientist, you'd be laughed out of the room, much like the last time you tried to talk to a woman.

 

My God, you are an idiot.

Environment plays a very weak role in determining intellectual differences

You say environment is very important in determining differences in intelligence. That sentiment doesn't fit the facts. When two unrelated people are raised together, by adulthood there is zero correlation between their levels of intelligence. They ate the same meals. They were raised by the same people. They (generally) attended the same schools. Their environments were as close to the same as you could possibly hope to find. But there's no correlation between their test scores.

 

Genetics strongly determine intelligence

Identical twins raised apart show very strong levels of correlation on I.Q. test scores; and that correlation grows even stronger once they reach adulthood.

 

Our ability to measure intelligence is high

Your statements about intelligence tests display very little understanding of the field of psychometrics. I suggest you read up on tests involving reaction times, and how those results strongly correlate with results from more traditional aptitude tests. There is extensive literature and research supporting the validity of standardized aptitude tests. You should look into it.

 

Selective breeding could reverse the present decline of the gene pool

The idea that I consider an I.Q. test "100% foolproof" was pulled out of your anal orifice. I.Q. tests aren't perfect, but they don't need to be perfect to reverse the present degeneration of the gene pool.