Human evolving faster

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: paulxcook

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: AmpedSilence
I would have though the exact opposite, considering that medicines now allow people that normally would not be allowed to reproduce, to reproduce; like in-vitro.

Though, maybe aren't evolving faster but maybe just differentiating.

Evolution isn't about changing for the better, but changing. Just because an genetic change does not provide an advantage or even provides a disadvantage does not mean it doesn't fall under evolution.

I wish Creationists would start believing that they aren't allowed to reap the benefits of the science they don't believe in.

It took 13 posts for the trolling brigade to get here?

ATOT: always alert for a situation worth scoffing at, imaginary or not.

I blame them for our chunk of humanity devolving. Have you seen Idiocracy? Those people are the ones having 10 kids with in-vitro fertilization, not using protection because God wants them to "be fruitful and multiply", thereby reducing average intelligence, and then home schooling their kids.
It's like a powerful feedback loop for stupidity.

What the hell do large families and home schooling have to do with "reducing the average intelligence" and stupidity? Close-mindedness is the source of idiocy not large families or home schooling, and I'd say there's just as much of that (close-mindedness) within the conventional schooling system as there is with the blindly faithful.

This trumps your PC card
http://www.modestapparelchrist...essescustomsewing.com/

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
This trumps your PC card
http://www.modestapparelchrist...essescustomsewing.com/

I really don't get it. Their dress code bothers you? Explain yourself.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Crono
"For example, Africans have new genes providing resistance to malaria. In Europeans, there is a gene that makes them better able to digest milk as adults. In Asians, there is a gene that makes ear wax more dry."

Yay Asians!

The jargon term for ear wax is cerumen. It's been suggested dry ear wax is an adaptation to living in a cold environment (dry cerumen is more common in north Asians than south Asians); wet ear wax results in cooling via evaporation - there isn't much of a cooling effect from this, but the ear canal is small, and that's a sensitive (not to mention important) region of the body that certainly isn't tolerant to a wide range of temps.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Humans are devolving really. Instead of natural selection killing off the worst and letting the best reproduce, the worst are the ones reproducing in mass numbers while the better humans have fewer, if any, children. Idiocracy is the future.

Survival of the species is always about reproduction and finding ways to survive in the toughest environment, fighting for scraps of food with your 11 other siblings, such as the ghettos or some rural area. The "better humans" with their Lexus and BMW and with their superior intellect are fine people, but can they survive driving domestics? Oh my, what deprivation!

 

[Mo0o]

You generally need some kind of environmental isolation or specialization for that to happen. You can't form a species as long as people keep mating with one another across the board. Plus we haevn't been on the planet for nearly enough time for speciation to happen. Plus we more or less punched evolution in the face when we invented civilization and the concept of welfare... not necessarily a bad thing but it is what it is.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
You generally need kind of environmental isolation or specialization for that to happen. You can't form a species as long as people keep mating with one another. Plus we haevn't been on the planet for nearly enough time for speciation to happen. Plus we more or less punched evolution in the face when we invented civilization and the concept of welfare... not necessarily a bad thing but it is what it is.

But isn't that just another form of evolution? We evolve to care of the old and the weak. We adapt to live in a civilized world. A caveman isn't likely to survive in our world as we are in his world.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
This trumps your PC card
http://www.modestapparelchrist...essescustomsewing.com/

I really don't get it. Their dress code bothers you? Explain yourself.

The womans' rants about how women should not try to be equal to men prove her stupidity. She's passing on those dumb genes to her 8 kids, which she had because of her stupidity. Those 8 kids are homeschooled, so there's no hope of improving things for them. They'll each have 8 dumb kids who will be homeschooled.

That's 2->8->64 along the course of two generations.
Meanwhile, educated and intelligent people will have two kids, maybe three who they will pass their intelligence and probably values to. 2->2->2

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Pocatello

Originally posted by: Mo0o
You generally need kind of environmental isolation or specialization for that to happen. You can't form a species as long as people keep mating with one another. Plus we haevn't been on the planet for nearly enough time for speciation to happen. Plus we more or less punched evolution in the face when we invented civilization and the concept of welfare... not necessarily a bad thing but it is what it is.

But isn't that just another form of evolution? We evolve to care of the old and the weak. We adapt to live in a civilized world. A caveman isn't likely to survive in our world as we are in his world.

Well, if you're looking at a population stand point, evolution of the human mind to develop technology is a plus but wasting resources on the old and weak is technically nonbeneficial, unless you factor in psychological dependence etc

 

[Bacstar]

I think I'm going to be sick.... Did anyone else read the article linked at the end of this story about the Chinese and their "eating" preferences... gag!!!

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: AmpedSilence

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: AmpedSilence
I would have though the exact opposite, considering that medicines now allow people that normally would not be allowed to reproduce, to reproduce; like in-vitro.

Though, maybe aren't evolving faster but maybe just differentiating.

Evolution isn't about changing for the better, but changing. Just because an genetic change does not provide an advantage or even provides a disadvantage does not mean it doesn't fall under evolution.

I wish Creationists would start believing that they aren't allowed to reap the benefits of the science they don't believe in.

Are you calling me a creationist? I would be pretty insulted if that was the case!

Seriously, where the hell did that come from?

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
This trumps your PC card
http://www.modestapparelchrist...essescustomsewing.com/

I really don't get it. Their dress code bothers you? Explain yourself.

The womans' rants about how women should not try to be equal to men prove her stupidity. She's passing on those dumb genes to her 8 kids, which she had because of her stupidity. Those 8 kids are homeschooled, so there's no hope of improving things for them. They'll each have 8 dumb kids who will be homeschooled.

That's 2->8->64 along the course of two generations.
Meanwhile, educated and intelligent people will have two kids, maybe three who they will pass their intelligence and probably values to. 2->2->2

I see. I think you misunderstand that close-mindedness is what breeds stupidity, not intellectual strength. I guess it's easy for people to categorize others (which isn't necessarily wrong) based off of common traits. A lot of people who home school their children and have large families tend to have ideologies like the ones you describe, but you can't attribute that to all creationists.

I have no problem with parents who raise their children the best way they think they can, whether they raise them on the Bible or on science; but I do have a problem with parents who don't teach their children to challenge everything they've been taught, even if it's from them. Being smart doesn't automatically give a person good morals and values or make him open-minded, but having the frame of mind to assess what one has been taught will go a very long way towards making that person a better contribution to society, even if he isn't so intelligent.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: intogamer

Originally posted by: pontifex
lol, whats the purpose of dry earwax?

Makes good lube?

Yeah, that would be the other way around...

Graphite powder is dry, right? Maybe this earwax works in a similar fashion.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: intogamer

Originally posted by: pontifex
lol, whats the purpose of dry earwax?

Makes good lube?

Yeah, that would be the other way around...

Graphite powder is dry, right? Maybe this earwax works in a similar fashion.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Pocatello

Originally posted by: Mo0o
You generally need kind of environmental isolation or specialization for that to happen. You can't form a species as long as people keep mating with one another. Plus we haevn't been on the planet for nearly enough time for speciation to happen. Plus we more or less punched evolution in the face when we invented civilization and the concept of welfare... not necessarily a bad thing but it is what it is.

But isn't that just another form of evolution? We evolve to care of the old and the weak. We adapt to live in a civilized world. A caveman isn't likely to survive in our world as we are in his world.

No. "Social Darwinism" is a misapplied use of evolutionary theory to explain social and economic tendencies that are not influenced by Biological properties.

While we are constantly adapting as humans (tall, thinner people with Wide nostrils, long ears live in desert/warm climates; short, stockier people inhabiting cooler environments), I would argue that we are essentially immune from speciation. Our mobility and ability to survive nearly any terrestrial environment more or less eliminates drastic geological/ecological changes as a selective pressure on our species.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: AmpedSilence

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: AmpedSilence
I would have though the exact opposite, considering that medicines now allow people that normally would not be allowed to reproduce, to reproduce; like in-vitro.

Though, maybe aren't evolving faster but maybe just differentiating.

Evolution isn't about changing for the better, but changing. Just because an genetic change does not provide an advantage or even provides a disadvantage does not mean it doesn't fall under evolution.

I wish Creationists would start believing that they aren't allowed to reap the benefits of the science they don't believe in.

Are you calling me a creationist? I would be pretty insulted if that was the case!

Seriously, where the hell did that come from?

those kind of assumptions come from internet scientists. they defend to the death scientific principles that they understand very little about.

Indeed, evolution has nothing to do with benefit. It has no "goal." Change happens. In fact, far more deleterious mutations will occur throughout the genome of an organism than will those that are beneficial. The tendency is for mutations that provide better adaptations to filter through. What most would think of as an improvement is a very relative term. What would be seen as a disadvantage in the current environment, could very well be the advantageous feature in the next.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: AmpedSilence

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: AmpedSilence
I would have though the exact opposite, considering that medicines now allow people that normally would not be allowed to reproduce, to reproduce; like in-vitro.

Though, maybe aren't evolving faster but maybe just differentiating.

Evolution isn't about changing for the better, but changing. Just because an genetic change does not provide an advantage or even provides a disadvantage does not mean it doesn't fall under evolution.

I wish Creationists would start believing that they aren't allowed to reap the benefits of the science they don't believe in.

Are you calling me a creationist? I would be pretty insulted if that was the case!

Seriously, where the hell did that come from?

those kind of assumptions come from internet scientists. they defend to the death scientific principles that they understand very little about.

Indeed, evolution has nothing to do with benefit. It has no "goal." Change happens. In fact, far more deleterious mutations will occur throughout the genome of an organism than will those that are beneficial. The tendency is for mutations that provide better adaptations to filter through. What most would think of as an improvement is a very relative term. What would be seen as a disadvantage in the current environment, could very well be the advantageous feature in the next.

I understand evolution very well, kthx. I'm pointing out the irony of Creationists benefitting from modern science which they don't believe in, and being allowed to have 8 kids who all survive to become adult Creationists. I'm assuming that their genetic intelligence level is lower to begin with.

What you said about advantage/disadvantage is true- Being dumb or gullible is a reproductive advantage in modern society. That's the premise of Idiocracy, which is why I mentioned it!

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: AmpedSilence

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: AmpedSilence
I would have though the exact opposite, considering that medicines now allow people that normally would not be allowed to reproduce, to reproduce; like in-vitro.

Though, maybe aren't evolving faster but maybe just differentiating.

Evolution isn't about changing for the better, but changing. Just because an genetic change does not provide an advantage or even provides a disadvantage does not mean it doesn't fall under evolution.

I wish Creationists would start believing that they aren't allowed to reap the benefits of the science they don't believe in.

Are you calling me a creationist? I would be pretty insulted if that was the case!

Seriously, where the hell did that come from?

those kind of assumptions come from internet scientists. they defend to the death scientific principles that they understand very little about.

Indeed, evolution has nothing to do with benefit. It has no "goal." Change happens. In fact, far more deleterious mutations will occur throughout the genome of an organism than will those that are beneficial. The tendency is for mutations that provide better adaptations to filter through. What most would think of as an improvement is a very relative term. What would be seen as a disadvantage in the current environment, could very well be the advantageous feature in the next.

I understand evolution very well, kthx. I'm pointing out the irony of Creationists benefitting from modern science which they don't believe in, and being allowed to have 8 kids who all survive to become adult Creationists. I'm assuming that their genetic intelligence level is lower to begin with.

What you said about advantage/disadvantage is true- Being dumb or gullible is an advantage in modern society. That's the premise of Idiocracy, which is why I mentioned it!

it still begs the question, where the hell did that come from? We're talking about humans evolving

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: AmpedSilence

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: AmpedSilence
I would have though the exact opposite, considering that medicines now allow people that normally would not be allowed to reproduce, to reproduce; like in-vitro.

Though, maybe aren't evolving faster but maybe just differentiating.

Evolution isn't about changing for the better, but changing. Just because an genetic change does not provide an advantage or even provides a disadvantage does not mean it doesn't fall under evolution.

I wish Creationists would start believing that they aren't allowed to reap the benefits of the science they don't believe in.

Are you calling me a creationist? I would be pretty insulted if that was the case!

Seriously, where the hell did that come from?

those kind of assumptions come from internet scientists. they defend to the death scientific principles that they understand very little about.

Indeed, evolution has nothing to do with benefit. It has no "goal." Change happens. In fact, far more deleterious mutations will occur throughout the genome of an organism than will those that are beneficial. The tendency is for mutations that provide better adaptations to filter through. What most would think of as an improvement is a very relative term. What would be seen as a disadvantage in the current environment, could very well be the advantageous feature in the next.

I understand evolution very well, kthx. I'm pointing out the irony of Creationists benefitting from modern science which they don't believe in, and being allowed to have 8 kids who all survive to become adult Creationists. I'm assuming that their genetic intelligence level is lower to begin with.

What you said about advantage/disadvantage is true- Being dumb or gullible is an advantage in modern society. That's the premise of Idiocracy, which is why I mentioned it!

it still begs the question, where the hell did that come from? We're talking about humans evolving

Number of surviving offspring is central to evolution for any species

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Plus we haevn't been on the planet for nearly enough time for speciation to happen.

This is not true. Given the right suite of factors speciation can happen very rapidly (within less than 100 generations).

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Plus we more or less punched evolution in the face when we invented civilization and the concept of welfare... not necessarily a bad thing but it is what it is.

Did you read the article? Civilization, welfare, etc. have all resulted in novel environments for humans to inhabit. The article specifically mentions agriculture (a pillar of civilization) as having been a catalyst for rapid evolution in humans.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I understand evolution very well, kthx. I'm pointing out the irony of Creationists benefitting from modern science which they don't believe in, and being allowed to have 8 kids who all survive to become adult Creationists. I'm assuming that their genetic intelligence level is lower to begin with.

On what evidence do you support your claim that creationists are less intelligent than people who accept evolution? What is 'genetic intelligence'? How much someone knows about genetics, or are you suggesting that intelligence can be defined & has a measurable level of heritability?

Your statements support eugenics. If you understood evolution, you'd realize eugenics doesn't work with humans unless you're willing to abandon humanity.

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
What you said about advantage/disadvantage is true- Being dumb or gullible is a reproductive advantage in modern society. That's the premise of Idiocracy, which is why I mentioned it!

Please support this sweeping generalization with evidence.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

I blame them for our chunk of humanity devolving. Have you seen Idiocracy? Those people are the ones having 10 kids with in-vitro fertilization, not using protection because God wants them to "be fruitful and multiply", thereby reducing average intelligence, and then home schooling their kids.
It's like a powerful feedback loop for stupidity.

:laugh:Next your going to claim that "V for Vendetta" was based on the Bush administration.

Let's hope that YOU don't breed.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I understand evolution very well, kthx. I'm pointing out the irony of Creationists benefitting from modern science which they don't believe in, and being allowed to have 8 kids who all survive to become adult Creationists. I'm assuming that their genetic intelligence level is lower to begin with.

On what evidence do you support your claim that creationists are less intelligent than people who accept evolution? What is 'genetic intelligence'? How much someone knows about genetics, or are you suggesting that intelligence can be defined & has a measurable level of heritability?

Your statements support eugenics. If you understood evolution, you'd realize eugenics doesn't work with humans unless you're willing to abandon humanity.

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
What you said about advantage/disadvantage is true- Being dumb or gullible is a reproductive advantage in modern society. That's the premise of Idiocracy, which is why I mentioned it!

Please support this sweeping generalization with evidence.

Intelligence depends on three things:
Genetics
Childhood nutrition
Education and other "nurture" factors

I don't know why you'd think that I support eugenics.

I don't have any evidence that creationists are less intelligent on average, but belief in creationism correlates with level of education, which correlates somewhat with intelligence.
Do you believe there's any chance that creationists are SMARTER than the general population?

Edit: I wasn't serious when I said creationists shouldn't use modern medicine. If I was one of the doctors in that case with the blood transfusion to the Jehovah Witness I would have forced the transfusion on the kid

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I don't have any evidence that creationists are less intelligent on average, but belief in creationism correlates with level of education, which correlates somewhat with intelligence.
Do you believe there's any chance that creationists are SMARTER than the general population?

Edit: I wasn't serious when I said creationists shouldn't use modern medicine. If I was one of the doctors in that case with the blood transfusion to the Jehovah Witness I would have forced the transfusion on the kid

Wow. Good to know you have so much respect for others. I'm going to laugh if some day a doctor deprives you of medical treatment because you're an infidel.

Looks like oppressive, narrow-minded people never go out of fashion, they just change what they preach.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Intelligence depends on three things:
Genetics
Childhood nutrition
Education and other "nurture" factors

Intelligence depends on a lot more than that. And you still didn't define what it is - is it a quantifiable character that can have its heritability assessed?

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I don't know why you'd think that I support eugenics.

What part of being allowed to have 8 kids isn't a line straight out the Annals of Eugenics?

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I don't have any evidence that creationists are less intelligent on average, but belief in creationism correlates with level of education, which correlates somewhat with intelligence.
Do you believe there's any chance that creationists are SMARTER than the general population?

Please provide evidence supporting these claims. You've merely circled the wagons to a vaguely more palatable (but tenuous) link of correlations. I have no evidence indicating creationists are any more or less intelligent than the general public.

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Edit: I wasn't serious when I said creationists shouldn't use modern medicine. If I was one of the doctors in that case with the blood transfusion to the Jehovah Witness I would have forced the transfusion on the kid

That scenario has been through the courts multiple times & forcing a Jehovah's Witness to accept medical care against their consent is considered in this country to be illegal. Whether or not creationists accept evolution is irrelevant. If they pay taxes in the US, they are supporting evolution research.

It's sad that such an exciting science news thread devolved into an irrelevant creationism bashing thread. Ever seen Flock of Dodos?

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

I don't have any evidence that creationists are less intelligent on average, but belief in creationism correlates with level of education, which correlates somewhat with intelligence.
Do you believe there's any chance that creationists are SMARTER than the general population?

I think it's possible that evolutionists are, on average, more intelligent than the general population, not that creationists are, on average, stupid. Why? Because the theory of evolution is more likely to draw in educated people who think a certain way to believe in it. Just like Scientology draws in successful/famous people. Just like various cults draw in emotionally vulnerable people. Raw intelligence, though, does not mean that a person is any wiser or less gullible than any other person, regardless of what their faith is. It just means that you have to appeal to that intelligence in order to sway them, regardless of whether you are using the truth or just using subtle deception and manipulation.

My point is that the average evolutionist may posses a higher I.Q. than the average creationist, but that doesn't in the slightest bit insure that he/she is correct in his/her belief that evolution is a fact. I am a creationist. Am I a genius? No. Am I an idiot? No. Am I a gullible fool? No. Am I educated and have I examined the presuppositions and tenets of modern evolutionary theory? Yes. Do I hate it when people generalize about and condescend to an entire group of people? Yes.