One of many problems with Evolution

[PLAYER57832]

That's sort of cute, I guess. Randomness directed by competition and other selection pressures makes less intuitive sense than infinite Skybro? You aren't alone in thinking that, but you are otherwise adrift in petty vagaries. I feel certain pities that are unique to different religions; tell me which brand you are, SB. Are you missing out on fantastic sexual exploits? Lack of self worth and initiative? Bigotry? Jehovah's Witness? What minutiae of your silly life makes your Grand Deity grumpy?

Except, in the case of evolution, (any long term event most likely) there are so many directing factors that the whole idea that mathematical randomness might apply is ludicrous... with or without God.

I totally agree. I was mostly just commenting on the idea that an infinite god is somehow more believable than certain observable phenomenon like natural selection and heredity. Explaining to creationists the difference between mathematical randomness and selective pressures acting on a complex system of heredity is so 6 years ago.

Also, you hold a bias similar to many antagonistic of theistic beliefs... namely that presence of God MUST, inherently mean breaking any set system. Most Christians would argue the opposite. God created all around us, including the systems and processes, so why would God subvert them?

Note.. I am in no way suggesting you have to believe in God or any such. (that debate we have had ... and it belongs in other threads) I am saying that to make that assumption and pretend it is a necessary pretext is, at best a straw man argument, at worst, plain insulting and ignorant.

I don't necessarily believe that a god would bust up a particular system. I just think it's silly to use one as an answer to problems. Especially ones that already have pretty obvious answers. Having said that, I would be lying if I said my goal wasn't somewhere in the vicinity of "plain insulting."

True intelligence requires having a truly open mind.. that means accepting that any possibility not completely disproven might be real. Anything less shortchanges the intellect.

[Neoteny]

That paints a pretty picture, PLAYER, but is practically worthless. Especially when said hypotheses are constructed to be impossible to disprove. I think I've said before that you can't have your god, and eat it too.

Unless you're Catholic.

I'm not going to consider god as a confounding factor in any of my scientific analyses. Certainly not in my day to day work, nor in any fields as well defined as evolution. I'm happy to participate in pre-singularity thought experiments, but injecting god into anything else is a sham. In any case, you aren't one to concede that God is measurable, are you?

[BigBallinStalin]

To where shall I mail her?

At your house.

Do you agree that IQ is largely determined by genetics? Before answering the rhetorical question, consider the following:

Sure, I don't know what the IQ tests of babies are, but from what I've heard, IQ is not something you can pump up as easily as muscles. There's some genetic constraint. E.g. if I drank all day, then my IQ would decrease. If i didn't, it would rise to my baseline IQ. If I spent more time researching it would increase by some small degree. Nevertheless, if I have an IQ of 130 at the age of 22, it's not like I can increase it to 160 because there's genetic constraints.

I think you just hoisted yourself on your own petard... muscles are limited by genetics, too. Whether they are more or less limited than IQ is another question. The best answer is "maybe, depending on other genetics"

So, to wrap this around, we're all endowed with different IQs at birth.

... which are changeable, though not without constraint.

Do you feel that your comments are in any way incoherent?

When you start in on the personal attacks, I know I made a good point.

Uh, okay. I'm just sayin' that your response made no sense at all to me. I'm talking about A, and you're addressing B. The point of the simile (IQ is like muscles) is show how IQ is temporarily responsive to immediate behavior yet it's confined within a certain range (like muscles) largely due to genetics. (Sure, someone can nitpick with a 'what about steroids', but that's not that relevant).

None of your post addresses that, which is why it doesn't make sense. "Maybe, depending on other genetics" doesn't even follow. It's mind-boggling incoherent.

[crispybits]

True intelligence requires having a truly open mind.. that means accepting that any possibility not completely disproven might be real. Anything less shortchanges the intellect.

Careful with that....



(yeah, just an axcuse to post that song, but I love it )

[tzor]

Uh, okay. I'm just sayin' that your response made no sense at all to me. I'm talking about A, and you're addressing B. The point of the simile (IQ is like muscles) is show how IQ is temporarily responsive to immediate behavior yet it's confined within a certain range (like muscles) largely due to genetics. (Sure, someone can nitpick with a 'what about steroids', but that's not that relevant).

Let's stick to muscles for the moment. Genetics will place structural limitations on all structures (not counting the basic components of muscles which also place limitations as well) but the bulk of muscle development is only partially linked by genetics. Most of the developmental process is based on hormones which are regulated by genetics (so that nitpick about steroids is very relevant as muscle development is significantly hormonal in nature. This means that the environment can have an enormous impact on muscle development as the environment can have an enormous impact on hormonal levels in the body.

This is in addition to the fact that in the body systems that are moderately used (as opposed to not used or over stressed) tend to develop and improve over time. The use of certain muscle combinations will cause those combinations to develop and grow. As a result while there are overall structural considerations, the difference between the average weak person and the average strong person is almost always because of an environmental factor more than a genetic one.

Now one can make the exact same arguments with regards to intellect and IQ. The environmental influences are complete different but the same argument applies.

[shickingbrits]

So you are saying that chimps aren't stronger than humans?

[Neoteny]

Eh heh heh.

[BigBallinStalin]

Uh, okay. I'm just sayin' that your response made no sense at all to me. I'm talking about A, and you're addressing B. The point of the simile (IQ is like muscles) is show how IQ is temporarily responsive to immediate behavior yet it's confined within a certain range (like muscles) largely due to genetics. (Sure, someone can nitpick with a 'what about steroids', but that's not that relevant).

Let's stick to muscles for the moment. Genetics will place structural limitations on all structures (not counting the basic components of muscles which also place limitations as well) but the bulk of muscle development is only partially linked by genetics. Most of the developmental process is based on hormones which are regulated by genetics (so that nitpick about steroids is very relevant as muscle development is significantly hormonal in nature. This means that the environment can have an enormous impact on muscle development as the environment can have an enormous impact on hormonal levels in the body.

This is in addition to the fact that in the body systems that are moderately used (as opposed to not used or over stressed) tend to develop and improve over time. The use of certain muscle combinations will cause those combinations to develop and grow. As a result while there are overall structural considerations, the difference between the average weak person and the average strong person is almost always because of an environmental factor more than a genetic one.

Now one can make the exact same arguments with regards to intellect and IQ. The environmental influences are complete different but the same argument applies.

The point of the simile (IQ is like muscles) is show how IQ is temporarily responsive to immediate behavior yet it's confined within a certain range (like muscles) largely due to genetics.

It doesn't matter if people can bulk up like Ahnold but can't boost their IQs by an equivalent proportion. Sure, muscles are less constrained by genetics than IQ is, but that's beside the point--hence "Sure, someone can nitpick with a 'what about steroids', but that's not that relevant."

[tzor]

It doesn't matter if people can bulk up like Ahnold but can't boost their IQs by an equivalent proportion. Sure, muscles are less constrained by genetics than IQ is, but that's beside the point--hence "Sure, someone can nitpick with a 'what about steroids', but that's not that relevant."

Your argument is based on a fallacy. Who says you can't "boost your IQ?" While there is a major difference between a nerve cell and a muscle cell, the basic notions of the chemical environment to encourage growth, the nutrient environment to allow growth, and the proper "stress" on the cells to promote the correct growth applies as much to a muscle cell as it does to a nerve cell.

It works even with old farts ... my subscription to Lumosity has not been wasted.

Mind you, there is no intellectual equivalent to professional sports to raise such issues to the general public. There are no equivalent of "muscle men" who try to promote their own facilities in the intellectual sphere. But that doesn't mean it is not possible or even already out there.

show

[BigBallinStalin]

If you read my posts, then you'd realize that I don't deny that one can boost their IQ, but the boost is temporary from one's baseline IQ. IQ is constrained, and there's some range for decline and expansion, but it's small.

Luminosity seems to improve one's ability to click things on a screen, but does Luminosity improved one's reading comprehension? (Does it really boost one's IQ, and if so, by how much?)

[PLAYER57832]

That paints a pretty picture, PLAYER, but is practically worthless. Especially when said hypotheses are constructed to be impossible to disprove. I think I've said before that you can't have your god, and eat it too.

Unless you're Catholic.

I'm not going to consider god as a confounding factor in any of my scientific analyses. Certainly not in my day to day work, nor in any fields as well defined as evolution. I'm happy to participate in pre-singularity thought experiments, but injecting god into anything else is a sham. In any case, you aren't one to concede that God is measurable, are you?

LOL. Science begins with an open mind, many, many, many answers have been ignored for too long because people were "very sure" that it was "wrong".

God... certainly, not provable and certainly not something that you can or should use in your day to day life, it not being your faith. That said, being certain about anything you cannot prove can and does limit your thinking in various ways, ways not always obvious.

Anyway, enough threads on that particular topic, and I think you and I have discussed it enough that we basically have "agreed to disagree". However, note that any time you insist on saying that belief in God is unscientific, outside of science/incompatible with science or to voice similar opinions, I will challenge it.

Oh, yeah.. and Holy Communion is a part of the Christian faith, not just Roman Catholicism

[PLAYER57832]

If you read my posts, then you'd realize that I don't deny that one can boost their IQ, but the boost is temporary from one's baseline IQ. IQ is constrained, and there's some range for decline and expansion, but it's small.

I firmly dispute this, but since its not about evolution or Creationism, I will leave it at that in this thread.

Luminosity seems to improve one's ability to click things on a screen, but does Luminosity improved one's reading comprehension? (Does it really boost one's IQ, and if so, by how much?)

I have no familiarity at all with Luminosity, so cannot possibly answer. However, interesting that you seem to imply reading comprehension and IQ are necessarily linked.

[PLAYER57832]

Mind you, there is no intellectual equivalent to professional sports to raise such issues to the general public. There are no equivalent of "muscle men" who try to promote their own facilities in the intellectual sphere.

Uh.. what about universities?

But the real issue is that someone who spends their spare time doing mathematical equations will be in a very different arena from someone who writes versus someone who is researching a variety of other topics. People who build muscles tend to stay within relatively narrow parameters by comparison.

[Neoteny]

That paints a pretty picture, PLAYER, but is practically worthless. Especially when said hypotheses are constructed to be impossible to disprove. I think I've said before that you can't have your god, and eat it too.

Unless you're Catholic.

I'm not going to consider god as a confounding factor in any of my scientific analyses. Certainly not in my day to day work, nor in any fields as well defined as evolution. I'm happy to participate in pre-singularity thought experiments, but injecting god into anything else is a sham. In any case, you aren't one to concede that God is measurable, are you?

LOL. Science begins with an open mind, many, many, many answers have been ignored for too long because people were "very sure" that it was "wrong".

God... certainly, not provable and certainly not something that you can or should use in your day to day life, it not being your faith. That said, being certain about anything you cannot prove can and does limit your thinking in various ways, ways not always obvious.

Anyway, enough threads on that particular topic, and I think you and I have discussed it enough that we basically have "agreed to disagree". However, note that any time you insist on saying that belief in God is unscientific, outside of science/incompatible with science or to voice similar opinions, I will challenge it.

Oh, yeah.. and Holy Communion is a part of the Christian faith, not just Roman Catholicism

We have indeed played this game many times. I suppose I don't really need the last word here.

I've taken some protestant communions, but the joke works best with Catholics, since they take it much more seriously. Also, transubstantiation.

[DoomYoshi]

BBS is partially right. It's more epigenetics than anything though. Give your children fish (or some other source of Omega-3 fatty acids), or they will be stupid.

[tzor]

Luminosity seems to improve one's ability to click things on a screen, but does Luminosity improved one's reading comprehension? (Does it really boost one's IQ, and if so, by how much?)

I'm not sure about reading comprehension. I do know that I have a better chance at rapid short term memorization as a result. Part of my duties at work requires the use of a SecurID. That's a six digit number. The key is on my laptop case opposite the laptop. A few years ago I used to glance at the item twice to get the number in groups of 3 to enter the random number on the screen. Now it's a single glace.

But that's just one example (since Luminosity is more of a visual media). It's sort of like asking if one set of exercises can improve a different set of muscles. Obviously reading would help reading comprehension.

[tzor]

Uh.. what about universities?

That's a good question. For the most part I am going to say that universities don't qualify for what I am talking about. Mind you there are exceptions, and those exceptions are not intuitively obvious.

The primary purpose of a university is to impart information to the student and at times allow the student to apply that information in specific instances.

In the bad old days, such institutions would either ignore the inability to absorb the information or just say goodbye to the student with the insufficient learning ability. (At R.P.I. in the early 80's the saying to the freshman class was "Look to your left; look to your right; one of you will not graduate." The 33% drop out rate from the freshman class was in fact expected.)

Many universities have changed this attitude, but their purpose is still the imparting of information; they only teach methods to improve information comprehension to the point where the they can impart the necessary information.

[shickingbrits]

Luminosity seems to improve one's ability to click things on a screen, but does Luminosity improved one's reading comprehension? (Does it really boost one's IQ, and if so, by how much?)

I'm not sure about reading comprehension. I do know that I have a better chance at rapid short term memorization as a result. Part of my duties at work requires the use of a SecurID. That's a six digit number. The key is on my laptop case opposite the laptop. A few years ago I used to glance at the item twice to get the number in groups of 3 to enter the random number on the screen. Now it's a single glace.

But that's just one example (since Luminosity is more of a visual media). It's sort of like asking if one set of exercises can improve a different set of muscles. Obviously reading would help reading comprehension.

1 to 10

I believe Luminosity to be a training to tool of satan: ?