Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Study traces the evolution of the human brain
telegraph.co.uk — Women can take comfort from the discovery that it is the quality of connections in the brain, not the overall size, that really matters.For decades, men have gloated over how they have bigger brains, and thus must be smarter, a simple side effect of how they tend to have bigger bodies.
warrior007- 590 diggs
- digg it
- alapoet, on 06/09/2008, -1/+10So it's not just the number of synapses, but also the complexity of synapses! Makes sense.
This is fascinating stuff!- SamuraiPanda, on 06/09/2008, -0/+9Oh God, this article is ridiculously silly. As a Neuroscience major, hearing things like "brain size doesn't matter anymore!" is like, "welcome to 100 years ago when we discovered that." Enrichment and, I guess, 'brain power' of certain areas of the brain IS the number of synapses. The difference between an 'intelligent' mouse and a 'stupid' mouse is basically determined by the number of their synaptic connections. Here is a good example for you: In the UK, before the GPS was invented, taxi drivers had to memorize the streets which is ridiculously difficult and complicated. Streets in the UK don't have a very good cohesive structure like you see in the states. So observing the behavior and properties of the brains of these taxi drivers showed significantly more synaptic connections in the areas of the brain associated with memorization than a normal person has.
This article was not comparing human to human, but it was comparing human to animal. It was moreso a discovery for evolutionary biology than for neuroscience (to an extent).- norman619, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1Correct. Finally someone who isn't buying the pseudoscience of this stupid article. We still don't know how to really measure intelligence yet we are going to believe we know what it looks like in the brain. A great memory does not equate to high intelligence. Many animals and insects have great memories yet we do not count them as intelligent. This article is crap.
- MxM111, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1Did you actually read the article or only digg abstract? The article is talking about complexity of synapses, not the brain size.
- MxM111, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2Actually, it does not "make sense". Correlation does not mean causality! They are yet to prove that the change of composition somehow changes or capabilities.
The function of the synapse is actually quite simple - to conduct excitation of one nerve to another with some "weight". How much you can improve this simple function by different molecular composition of the synapse? They either did not prove anything, or the article have very bad job explaining it.
- SamuraiPanda, on 06/09/2008, -0/+9Oh God, this article is ridiculously silly. As a Neuroscience major, hearing things like "brain size doesn't matter anymore!" is like, "welcome to 100 years ago when we discovered that." Enrichment and, I guess, 'brain power' of certain areas of the brain IS the number of synapses. The difference between an 'intelligent' mouse and a 'stupid' mouse is basically determined by the number of their synaptic connections. Here is a good example for you: In the UK, before the GPS was invented, taxi drivers had to memorize the streets which is ridiculously difficult and complicated. Streets in the UK don't have a very good cohesive structure like you see in the states. So observing the behavior and properties of the brains of these taxi drivers showed significantly more synaptic connections in the areas of the brain associated with memorization than a normal person has.
- DerangedPenguin, on 06/09/2008, -1/+12Both my synapses really appreciate this story.
- thcobbs, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2you must be a wizard at binary math.
- prleet, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2he is just missing the myelin sheath, so he never gets the message.
- Sanduu, on 06/09/2008, -5/+4A really interesting and fascinating study.
- empiric, on 06/09/2008, -8/+4""It is amazing how a process of Darwinian evolution by tinkering and improvement has generated, from a collection of sensory proteins in yeast, the complex synapse of mammals associated with learning and cognition," said Dr Richard Emes, Lecturer in Bioinformatics at Keele University, and joint first author on the paper."
Anthropomorphization, teleology...
Some people just can't help themselves. ;) - Arcticfx, on 06/09/2008, -2/+11Am I the only one who noticed the bit about the yeast culture that had been developed to mimic synapse function? There is only one possible outcome from such experimenting: we will soon all be controlled by the thinking yeast beasts. I, for one, welcome my doughy overlords.
- Ghoztt, on 06/09/2008, -7/+24Einstein was a MAN.
Now get back to the kitchen and make me dinner. - Wiini, on 06/09/2008, -4/+21Do they (women) take comfort in knowing that despite the description of this article, men are statistically more intelligent than women, with the gap widening even more with age? *OH SNAP!*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence- ligyron, on 06/09/2008, -15/+3For future reference, if you want to be taken seriously, I suggest not using Wikipedia as your source. That is laughable at best
- Wiini, on 06/09/2008, -2/+9Are you serious? You must be new to the internet. Allow me to be the first of many to digg you down.
- Ryancwa, on 06/09/2008, -3/+9If you're looking for some kind of Wikipedia-haters Bandwagon... boy did you come to the wrong website.
- RedReplicant, on 06/09/2008, -6/+1Yeah, Diggers don't need verifiable facts or dependable sources to prove that women are inferior! They know it *intuitively.* Just say what they want to hear and slap a Wikipedia reference on there for good measure.
- Wiini, on 06/09/2008, -1/+5You're obviously not familiar enough with the wikipedia. Several studies have been done and found that the wikipedia is about as 'error prone' as most other encyclopedias. Although those same studies show that the Wikipedia will have many more typos and poorly formatted documents, the general fact accuracy is about the same.
In addition to that, when in doubt, the wikipedia lists it's sources so you can check them yourself. I'm not sure what you meant by *intuitively* but pased on your past ignorant comments, I'm not sure it's worth my time to find out. - RedReplicant, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1This coming from someone who regularly responds to threads with "in my pants!"?
- Wiini, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1@RedReplicant:
Good call. Although to be honest, that's a trait of my personality, not my ability to reason. There is a strong difference. - RedReplicant, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1My Pope jokes are also a trait of my personality. I was going to argue with you reasonably, but your "past ignorant comments" comment convinced me you were a troll.
I don't see Wikipedia as a viable source of reliable information. Sure, you can back-check the studies, but any page has the potential to be erroneously edited at any time. It just makes for a very unstable information source. On things like pop trivia and less controversial items I'd be more willing to rely on it, but the "are men smarter than women" so-called debate is just so ugly that I can't see using a non-academic source for support.
The study that article quotes also does not say anywhere that men are more intelligent than women. It does talk about IQ tests, which continue to be up for debate as to whether they present an honest evaluation of someone's intelligence or just another ego stroke for the Mensa members among us.
All in all, I do not see where all this is getting us. The only thing that you will garner from posting comments such as the one above are angry responses from ladies (and/or dudes) who find your snapping obnoxious, and virtual chest bumps from fellow "bro"s. I guess if you're out to troll the female population, you're on the right track. Sadly, it's been done to death already.
- Wiini, on 06/09/2008, -1/+5You're obviously not familiar enough with the wikipedia. Several studies have been done and found that the wikipedia is about as 'error prone' as most other encyclopedias. Although those same studies show that the Wikipedia will have many more typos and poorly formatted documents, the general fact accuracy is about the same.
- StaticThunder, on 06/09/2008, -0/+7Wouldn't you rather be happier than score well on an IQ test? Maybe women are just more likely to realize that analytics isn't serving them as well as emotional intelligence.
Its not as if there is a shortage of men who want to tinker with gadgets, play chess, or develop a new mathematical proof. Furthermore, generally people who toss bombs like yours aren't one of the more intelligent men, and should be thanking their mother for cleaning up their messes.- Wiini, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3The "*OH SNAP!*" was meant to be sarcastic, and generally rhetorical. I apologize, apparently the mud was too thick.
- ligyron, on 06/09/2008, -15/+3For future reference, if you want to be taken seriously, I suggest not using Wikipedia as your source. That is laughable at best
- ElAssoWipo, on 06/09/2008, -3/+7Very inaccurate title.
Interesting article, but the claim in the title is so far off I have to bury.
And the article also makes a flawed affirmation:
"men have gloated over how they have bigger brains, and thus must be smarter, a simple side effect of how they tend to have bigger bodies.
Now female intuition that this is simplistic, misleading, even just plain wrong"
The study never said that the size of the brain didn't matter. It just said that size alone cannot account for "brain power".
"Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, suggests that it is not size alone that gives more brain power. "
While the complexity of synapses affect the complexity of thought, the number of synapses must necessarely have an impact on cognitive activity, since they're responsible for it. Maybe in terms of volume capacity rather than complexity of thought.
We also know that the size of synapses plays a very significant role.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/neuron.html- gryphon50, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Einstein's brain wasn't bigger than anyone else's so I doubt size has much to do with it.
- BoneheadFarker, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2Men may have bigger brains. But placed in front of a woman, and their intelligence becomes inversely proportional to the size of the woman's breasts. I know this, because I'm a man who likes breasts...
- rootneg2, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1I think that *is* precisely what the article is addressing. That the number of synapses/neurons is far less important than how "intelligently" they are connected.
There are many other animals that have many more neurons than humans do.
In terms of analogy: you can't make a supercomputer faster by simply adding more nodes, they must be organized; in general, for large clusters, the connectivity and bandwidth become the limiting factors to speed, not the number of nodes.
Likewise, one couldn't simply grow a bunch more neurons (perhaps with the help of stem cells, or future transplant techniques) and expect to get smarter. In fact, I would hazard a guess that you would merely increase the likelyhood for psychological and mental problems like schizophrenia or epilepsy.
Of course, I'm not a neurologist; but I'm guessing that you aren't either.
- drmangrum, on 06/09/2008, -3/+10Why do articles like this always start out pandering to women while at the same time denigrating men?
We've known for a long, long time that sex doesn't dictate intelligence and the brain of each sex is simple better at different tasks. Females tend to be much better are relational data, male brains tends to be better at spatial data. Nothing new there.- Wiini, on 06/09/2008, -3/+2Source?
- johnnysaucepn, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2That doesn't stop men in bars repeating the nonsense to their friends. Just because some groups of society have studied things in depth doesn't mean that misconceptions don't still circulate.
- gryphon50, on 06/09/2008, -3/+1how does it denigrate men to say that the sexes are equal? But that is how you perceive it because you are used to feeling superior.
- kirado4, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2It's sexist because it states that men don't have special abilities to perfom certain tasks better than woman.. when they do. Womens brains can perform certain tasks better than men.. but it's unacceptable to say men can do anything better.
- StaticThunder, on 06/09/2008, -0/+6Anybody of any biological gender can be trained to do the other type of tasks as well as any person of the other gender. The brain is remarkably plastic. So these generalities are just that; generalities.
- kirado4, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2It's sexist because it states that men don't have special abilities to perfom certain tasks better than woman.. when they do. Womens brains can perform certain tasks better than men.. but it's unacceptable to say men can do anything better.
- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -13/+1Neverlution is a fraud and a farce. Get a beginning or get out. Buried.
- Hetman, on 06/09/2008, -1/+5And what do you believe is the beginning?
- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -7/+1Something as opposed to the nothing that the THEORY has been riding up until now.
- Mnementh2230, on 06/09/2008, -0/+5Evolution doesn't touch on the field of abiogenesis. Get your facts straight.
- johnnysaucepn, on 06/09/2008, -1/+10Yes, neverlution is a fraud and a farce. That you just made up. Get an education or get out.
- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -6/+1Real education teaches reality about real things. Neverlution has no beginning yet here we are. You are comfortable ridiculing me in your arrogance but I don't see you answering the question. Account for it -- if you are educated.
- covertbadger, on 06/09/2008, -1/+8The beginning of evolution is the point where imperfect genetic reproduction resulted in variations that could be selected for by environmental pressures. Saying "it has no beginning" is both meaningless and stupid, not to mention wrong.
- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -6/+1"imperfect genetic reproduction" of what? Something that needed no beginning? It's been over 100 years; completely prove your theory or abandon it.
- covertbadger, on 06/09/2008, -0/+9The theory of evolution does not depend on how those reproducing creatures arrived. They are a precondition for the theory, not a result of it. There are other theories for how they got there, and any of those theories could be true without affecting the validity of evolution.
No matter how much you want it to be true, abiogenesis and evolution are NOT the same thing, and the validity of one does not affect the validity of the other. - CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -7/+1"There are other theories for how they got there, and any of those theories could be true without affecting the validity of evolution."
----------------------------------------------------------------------->
First, *I'm* not the one who postulated "abiogenesis" as a solution for any particular problem.
Second, the validity of evolution--even as a concept separate from the discussion about beginnings--is terminally flawed since the fossil record does not support it and no number or flaws in the copying process can account for the staggering complexity we see in humans (for example). Then there's Behe's law of irreducible complexity. You got nothing on that. - Ramble, on 06/09/2008, -0/+81. Yes, the fossil record does support it, why don't you look at some?
2. You can produce staggeringly large numbers of combinations from meiosis, couple that with other things like sex selection, mutation and you can get a huge range of complexity.
3. Irreducible complexity has been shown to be totally false time and time again.
I'm wondering if you're completely ignorant or lying on purpose. - CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -7/+11) I did; it doesn't. (I guess this is where this branch of the discussion ends).
2) so why isn't it found in the fossil record? No, it's not.
3) That's just absurd. Irreducible complexity stands as a life principle and cannot be disproven. If you want to test it, open your PC (while it's still on) and start pulling out some chips.
By your 'logic', you can pull out the entire motherboard and it will still work. No wonder you believe such a foolish religion as Neverlutionism. - ApokalypseNow, on 06/09/2008, -0/+7"Second, the validity of evolution--even as a concept separate from the discussion about beginnings--is terminally flawed since the fossil record does not support it"
BZZT! Incorrect. Look up foraminifera sometime - we have a perfect and continuous day-by-day and year-by-year recording of almost an entire PHYLUM of life, going back to the mid-Jurassic. Here's a list of prehistoric foraminiferans, organized alphabetically for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prehistoric_f ...
"Then there's Behe's law of irreducible complexity."
You can't be serious - in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
Behe himself conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims. So much for this "law" of yours. - nitsuj, on 06/09/2008, -1/+8Given current in-depth knowledge of the fields of geology and biology, the fossil record as it stands is exactly what we'd expect to find if evolution were true and is NOT what creationists would expect. No flood evidence and no rabbits in the pre-Cambrian I'm afraid.
Irreducible complexity has been shown time and time again to be a falsehood. Not one part of ANY organism, alive or dead, has been show to be irreducibly complex. Mention the eye and you will be laughed out of here.
Behe is a nutjob who repeatedly gets spanked by evolutionary scientists. I almost feel sorry for him except that it's his own idiocy that puts him in those situations. Don't believe me? Go look it up.
In the meantime CrazedLeper maybe you'd like to explain Endogenous Retrovirus, observed speciation and Phylogenetics, in fact all of this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/.
On top of that suck this up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Would you care to explain that? - Ramble, on 06/09/2008, -0/+7I was going to respond to your outlandish and rediculous claims but everyone else has already done it.
- Fordi, on 06/09/2008, -0/+9We're comfortable in saying, "we don't know for certain, but these are some ideas we have" when it comes to abiogenesis. You're more likely to assert total knowledge based on some fiction written eons ago for which you can present no supporting evidence.
And we're arrogant. Riiight. - Fordi, on 06/09/2008, -0/+7LULZ@CrazyLeper on irreducible complexity & the fossil record.
You haven't read a single scientific journal in your LIFE, have you?
- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -6/+1Real education teaches reality about real things. Neverlution has no beginning yet here we are. You are comfortable ridiculing me in your arrogance but I don't see you answering the question. Account for it -- if you are educated.
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/09/2008, -1/+11...and what special study or degree in the field of evolutionary biology do you hold to make such an assertion? What evidence do you have that shows that all the experts in the field are wrong?
Oh wait, you used the term "neverlution" - you must be a Creationist. All you have is a book full of inconsistencies, contradictions, and errors. That's not evidence, that's not study, that's *****.
http://www.notjustatheory.com- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -8/+1So you have a beginning for your nonsense theory, then? What is it? Your degree is worth dick without a beginning because all your "evolutionary" observations could still be a *part* of something else.
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/09/2008, -0/+11As stated, abiogenesis is separate from the field of evolution. If you cannot wrap your brain around that, then you have no business commenting on EITHER field.
- StaticThunder, on 06/09/2008, -0/+9The first time anything was imperfectly copied, that was the start of evolution. Moron. STFU AND GTFO.
- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -7/+1Ok, I googled "abiogenesis" and this is what I found:
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
Also, this "thing" that got imperfectly copied; where'd it come from? See, no beginning. You're dismissed. - ApokalypseNow, on 06/09/2008, -0/+11Oh sure, an article written by a young-earth creationist - that's not biased at all. /sarcasm
Next time, check your sources before you decide to get snarky - you might end up looking slightly less like a douchebag. - StaticThunder, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3'"thing" that got imperfectly copied; where'd it come from?'
It just was. Maybe Satan did it. Why don't you ask when you meet him.
As long as we're saying science must have an answer whenever I don't have one of my own, I might as well have fun with it. Science says "it came from stupid people, who were always here messing stuff up!"
- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -8/+1So you have a beginning for your nonsense theory, then? What is it? Your degree is worth dick without a beginning because all your "evolutionary" observations could still be a *part* of something else.
- Ramble, on 06/09/2008, -1/+7Thank you! When will these lefty idiots learn that neverlution is a lie and that we were made by a magic sky man and his zombie son?
- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -7/+1More ridicule but no answer. A beginning, please or silence.
- Ramble, on 06/09/2008, -1/+6Genesis of life has a scientific hypothesis, go and look it up. It's called abiogenesis.
- 4321234, on 06/09/2008, -3/+1A beginning or silence? In the beginning there was the word. So STFU.
/more ridicule. - StaticThunder, on 06/09/2008, -0/+6Where's your god's beginning?
- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -6/+1This is not about my God, it's about yours. If you want to "prove" your theory, explain it from the beginning all the way through sentient, extraordinarily complex human beings with capabilities far exceeding what would be necessary for "survival". But, since you asked, *my* God invented beginnings and, therefore, does not require one.
Furthermore, since you asked, *my* God does not reside *inside* the universe since he would have had to have existed before the universe could. Remember: "in the BEGINNING God created the heavens...." No point saying how, you really couldn't grasp it any better than Moses would have been able to. - ApokalypseNow, on 06/09/2008, -0/+8"This is not about my God, it's about yours."
What god? I'm an atheist, I don't worship anything.
"If you want to "prove" your theory..."
Stop right there - the only science in which there exists proof is mathematics. All other sciences are evidence based. There exists a preponderance of evidence for evolution, and none for your creationist fantasies.
"But, since you asked, *my* God invented beginnings and, therefore, does not require one."
That doesn't answer the question, that just dodges it. Same with the rest of your post. - nitsuj, on 06/09/2008, -0/+8"But, since you asked, *my* God invented beginnings and, therefore, does not require one. "
Where is your extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim?
"Furthermore, since you asked, *my* God does not reside *inside* the universe since he would have had to have existed before the universe could."
Time exists as a property of the universe. Therefore, saying 'before' the universe existed does not make any sense. Face it, you don't have a clue what you're really talking about do you? - Fordi, on 06/09/2008, -0/+6We don't know how it was formed yet (we're working on that), but all evidence points to a simple organic self-replicator. There are theories around as to how it was formed in the first place, but that's about all we know at the moment.
Now, if you will, state your origin theory. If you posit a supernatural entity, remember, you must state the origins, and provide evidence of that entity; it's only fair. - StaticThunder, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4I answered your question, which was the beginning of evolution. You want to go further back? Then its cosmogenesis.
I'm not interested in arguing with someone who makes a claim (God exists), doesn't support it (God doesn't need a beginning), and then demands that it return I support mine (neither does the universe -- it always was). See how that works?
Your whole problem is that you don't have the foggiest notion of what the universe is, and how that relates to time and causality. But every statement you make about God, probably applies just as easily to it. It doesn't need a beginning. There was no TIME before it existed. - StaticThunder, on 06/09/2008, -0/+5"all evidence points to a simple organic self-replicator"
It might have even been just a metabolic cycle, that spread along consuming nutrients, occasionally making a bit of a catalyst as it went as a side reaction. - Fordi, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5@StaticThunder:
The requirement for abiogenesis is a simple organic self-replicator. A basic metabolic cycle may have bee a precursor to that, or part of the formation process, but evolution must begin with simple self-replicators in order to work; if you don't have replication, you can't have generational selection.
Consider that the border condition between abiogenesis and evolution. - StaticThunder, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5Look, this is just hand waving, but it doesn't have to be a single self replicator, a collection of simple molecules that propagates through substrate and has the ability to occasionally make a better catalyst would be sufficient to get the ball rolling. Think of it as a fire that learns how to consume more and different fuels. Wrap that up in a membrane and you have the first cell, a little self-contained biochemical engine. Eventually it learns to record how to make a catalyst, in the form of a catalytic RNA, but it doesn't have to start there. All it has to have is an energy gradient.
Life is just a complicated biochemical fire. The catalytic molecules themselves can be the memory and substrate for evolution for a while. Sets of molecules that were better at making catalysts would be selected for. - Mnementh2230, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2I particularly love that when two people disagree, or have a discussion in science (See StaticThunder and Fordi), they can discuss it in a civil manner without calling each other names.
- Fordi, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4Static, I get what you're saying, but any coherent abiogenesis theory needs to terminate in self-replicators, or at least, self-catalyzers (which is all a self-replicator is, really; the distinction is that replicators collect and store the required materials, while self-catalyzer require them to be present in the surrounding environment).
It's fine if the basic catalysis metabolic engine is a stage in that theory, but there's a clear precondition to evolutionary theory, which abiogenesis must fill within the bounds of what we know about early earth conditions. I'm not saying you're wrong about the possibility of life beginning at a simple redox reaction - but there does need to be some sort of primitive reproduction going on for natural selection to become the driving force of production.
Hell, it could be a form of organic crystallization and still meet the preconditions - but some sort of retranscription of a molecule onto another is *required* before we can get into evolution.
I also think that cell membranes would have necessarily come later in the game, during the early evolutionary period, so to speak. If all you have is self-catalysis, limiting the amount of material you come in contact with is disadvantageous - although, a semi-permeable cell wall may *be* the difference between self-catalysis and self-replication.
Oh, that's an interesting thought: that in addition to reproduction, a definition of life may include 'capture and store your food', so to speak.
- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -7/+1More ridicule but no answer. A beginning, please or silence.
- ozydingo, on 06/09/2008, -1/+10See why people like you are dangerous? You blindly bury what could be valuable science, probably without even looking through the content, because it mentions something you're scared of. Please realize the alarming stupidity and irrationallity that your actions represent.
- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -8/+1I'm sorry, I would have honored the value of your "science" had I detected any. As it is, Neverlution has all the trappings of the most errant mythology--except for a cause. In that, it fails to even equal even the most implausible creation myth.
Furthermore, nothing has been (and will be) as dangerous to the planet's inhabitants than the Neverlution crazed, white supremacist maniacs who are hell-bent (ironically) upon very *unnaturally* selecting themselves to be the planet's only remaining human "species". 2 world wars, so far, and counting.- ApokalypseNow, on 06/09/2008, -0/+8"I'm sorry, I would have honored the value of your "science" had I detected any."
Your inability to discern any value in science is your problem, not science's.
"As it is, Neverlution has all the trappings of the most errant mythology--except for a cause. In that, it fails to even equal even the most implausible creation myth."
Well that's fine - the Theory of Evolution was not intended to address origins, either of life or the universe in general. Your continued ignorance on the subject is your problem, not science's.
"Furthermore, nothing has been (and will be) as dangerous to the planet's inhabitants than the Neverlution crazed, white supremacist maniacs who are hell-bent (ironically) upon very *unnaturally* selecting themselves to be the planet's only remaining human "species". 2 world wars, so far, and counting."
Even if this preposterous assertion was true (and it isn't), that certain people decide to disguise their racism under the trappings of evolutionary theory is not germane to the study of evolutionary biology. This has already been explained to you - why do you persist in stating this falsehood? I suppose I shouldn't mention to you how many people have died due to the Crusades, due to religious bigotry and persecution in the Inquisition, and due to the religious suppression of science during the days of the bubonic plague? Don't even try to compare numbers here - Darwin has only had a hundred years and some change for people to misuse it. People have been misusing religion since before recorded history to justify their intolerance and use it as an excuse for murder.- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -5/+1"Your inability to discern any value in science is your problem, not science's."
Incorrect, sir. What I fail to detect is any science in Neverlution.
--------------------------------------------------->
"the Theory of Evolution was not intended to address origins, either of life or the universe in general.
well, then what was it intended to address? Let's look at the fact: Here's the entire title of the errant work commonly referred to as "Origin of Species":
"On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of FAVOURED RACES in the struggle for life"
See the part about "favored races"? Yes, that was the intent; Darwin was trying to prove white supremacy "scientifically" and every effort to shore up his ridiculous theory advances (whether knowingly or unwittingly) the same underlying principle of racism and white supremacy. - ApokalypseNow, on 06/09/2008, -0/+7"What I fail to detect is any science in Neverlution."
Again, that is your failing, not science's.
"well, then what was it intended to address?"
The how's and why's of the fact that populations change over time - that populations adapt to better fit and compete in their environments due to selection pressures acting upon heritable traits.
"See the part about 'favored races'?"
Race, as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all.
When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.
Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.
In any case, the views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not on people's opinions. - Mnementh2230, on 06/09/2008, -0/+6You're so thick headed it astounds me. There is a mountain of science in evolutionary theory. Perhaps you should actually READ some of the articles Apok has linked to.
The Theory of Evolution is mean to address the origin of SPECIES, not the origin of LIFE. They are two completely different subjects. Evolution is an observable FACT (Apok has some great examples in his comments history), and the theory of evolution is meant to explain this.
"Favoured Races" isn't about white supremacy at all, you fool - it's about those races FAVOURED to survive, from ANY species. As humanity has developed tools for getting around most selection pressures (clothing, central air/heating, farming, hospitals), we're pretty well exempt from most of the methods within the theory of evolution except sexual selection and random mutation, barring a global catastrophy. Speaking from that standpoint, and the size of the holes in the ozone layer, white folks are NOT a favoured race (again, if we didn't have things like sunscreen and... clothes) because their skin is more susceptable to burn and skin cancer.
Perhaps, instead of shooting your mouth off with half-thought out ideas, you should do a little research and try to understand exactly what you're arguing against. As it is, for those of us who actually know a thing or two about science, critical thinking, or evolutionary theory, you just sound like a tool. - Mnementh2230, on 06/09/2008, -0/+7I wish I knew what creationist propoganda you have been reading to convince you that evolution is just a tool for white supremacists... Looking at your profile pic, I see you're not caucasian. You know what? If your heritage traces back to africa, and your skin is darker, that's a product of evolution. Those with darker skin didn't die of skin cancer as often and were better able to handle the copious amount of sunlight, so they survived and bred. That's it. No supremacy except in the context of survival in a particular environment.
- Fordi, on 06/09/2008, -0/+6CrazedLeper:
Your inability to grasp a basic understanding of scientific theory, language, context, or current events, is not Digg's responsibility to correct. Please spend a few dollars on a proper education, and come back when you're ready to have an intellectually honest discussion. - StaticThunder, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4"Incorrect, sir. "
Really? I fail to detect any correctness in your statements, including this one. Dismissing things out of hand doesn't score you points in this game.
- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -5/+1"Your inability to discern any value in science is your problem, not science's."
- ashfish, on 06/09/2008, -0/+6Blaming evolution for crack-pots who follow eugenics is asinine. And actually in reference to the second world war the instigator of it, Hitler, thought he was doing God's work by eradicating the Jews. Now lets go back to the time of the crusades when Christians were eliminating everyone who wasn't one. Talk about supremest zealots. If evolution is such a phony science why is it the one of the central concepts of every field of biology?
Can you not quote scriptures independently from the rest of the bible? That's the same thing as the Theory of Evolution, it can be used independently and also as a part of the bigger picture. Hell, Christians and the other God-fearing populations can't even decide which part of their book to follow and is ultimately right. And that is the precise reason for peer-review of quantifiable evidence, and why science requires it.- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -7/+1Hitler was a devil worshiper (just like Bush); he knew he wasn't doing God's work (just like Bush) but he pandered to people who wanted to hear that he was like minded in their most commonly held belief in order to get behind him (just like Bush).
--------------------------------------------->
"If evolution is such a phony science why is it the one of the central concepts of every field of biology?"
Because of the same religious zeal which Ben Stein addressed in "Expelled". You Neverlutionists just don't want to hear the other side--which has serious scientific basis. You use influence, ridicule and psychology to convince everyone (that will listen) that "intelligent design" is religion. It is not but you will never know that because you won't even listen to the argument. A juror who has heard one side is not qualified to judge a case.
---------------------------------------------->
"That's the same thing as the Theory of Evolution, it can be used independently and also as a part of the bigger picture."
WHAT BIGGER PICTURE!?? - ApokalypseNow, on 06/09/2008, -1/+9"Hitler was a devil worshiper"
Source for this claim? Or are you just talking out of your ass, as usual?
"Because of the same religious zeal which Ben Stein addressed in 'Expelled'."
http://www.expelledexposed.com
That should help clear up that misconception.
"...which has serious scientific basis."
Thanks, I needed a laugh. Now, what science?
"A juror who has heard one side is not qualified to judge a case."
When the other side is being told by a delusional crack-head without any evidence to back up his case, there's really no point in listening. That's called "checking your source". - Mnementh2230, on 06/09/2008, -0/+7Comparing Hitler and Bush? Ok, no I'm wondering if I'm not being trolled. Hitler wasn't a devil worshipper, nor is Bush, and I doubt you have any evidence to support these crazy ideas.
I.D. IS religion, or is religiously based. This "creator" espoused in I.D. is a stepping stone for trying to teach about god in school. Besides which, there is no evidence for this creator, other than some people saying "it MUST have been designed! Look at it!"... yeah, really strong evidence for I.D. there. Show me one shred of evidence that I.D. has some valid points... just one. - ashfish, on 06/09/2008, -1/+4The bigger picture of putting abiogenesis and evolution and every other biology discipline together to explain where and how we came to be. And please do not bring Ben Stein into this, he's the master of political spin if ever I've seen one. I've seen his interviews, he doesn't even address what evolution actually states. What he does do is pander the the religious fundamental zealots to get them all riled up behind him. And yes, I do know the other side of the story. I was raised Catholic/Christian through most of my life and I still think evolution is better at explaining how we got here as we are. As to the beginning of everything, quite frankly I just cannot fully comprehend most of the scientific theories about the beginning of the universe so I choose not to speculate on that front.
- nitsuj, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4"You Neverlutionists just don't want to hear the other side--which has serious scientific basis."
Okay, let's hear it. Please put forward the scientific basis for ID. - CrazedLeper, on 06/10/2008, -2/+1Bush is a Nazi and a devil worshiper. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/reich
Intelligent Design is not religion.
You are educated, not informed. They are not interchangeable terms. If you can't have both, informed will server you better. - ApokalypseNow, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3Bush is a Republican and an fundamentalist Christian.
Again, you are failing to check your sources - but then, you're a moon-landing denier as well, so that should come as no surprise. Being "informed" is only worthwhile when one's information sources are accurate - yours are demonstratably lying.
Intelligent Design itself is not religion, but neither is it science - it is pseudo-science made by creationists to try to get some of their ideas taught in science classes. Ever hear of the Wedge Doctrine?
- CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -7/+1Hitler was a devil worshiper (just like Bush); he knew he wasn't doing God's work (just like Bush) but he pandered to people who wanted to hear that he was like minded in their most commonly held belief in order to get behind him (just like Bush).
- nitsuj, on 06/09/2008, -0/+8"As it is, Neverlution has all the trappings of the most errant mythology--except for a cause. In that, it fails to even equal even the most implausible creation myth. "
Are you proposing that it's better to make ***** up rather than admit that we don't know something for sure? Ah! of course you are. Such is the creationist mentality.
Now think about it - if the theory of evolution really was made up, why do you think that it doesn't cover the origins of life? Surely that would have been easy to make up too?- Fordi, on 06/10/2008, -0/+7As it stands, I rather like that people like Crazed Leper - with their insane ideas and ultimately ignorant opinions - have an outlet this public. Fallacy thrives in a vacuum, and exposing fallacy to the multitudes like this will serve only to reduce its credibility. As such, his essentially broken line of reasoning will slide from a widely adopted fallacy, to a widely criticized quirk, to a mostly forgotten quaintness of the pre-communication age.
- Fordi, on 06/10/2008, -0/+7As it stands, I rather like that people like Crazed Leper - with their insane ideas and ultimately ignorant opinions - have an outlet this public. Fallacy thrives in a vacuum, and exposing fallacy to the multitudes like this will serve only to reduce its credibility. As such, his essentially broken line of reasoning will slide from a widely adopted fallacy, to a widely criticized quirk, to a mostly forgotten quaintness of the pre-communication age.
- Fordi, on 06/09/2008, -0/+7Eh. The difference between creation mythos and evolution is that evolution has libraries of physical evidence supporting it, while creation mythos merely has adherent trolls defending it.
- ozydingo, on 06/09/2008, -0/+5ApokalypseNow and ashfish I think provide appropriate rebuttals to your points. I think the more important part of my point however you not only missed but still managed to highlight in your ignorance. The study mentioned in the article, at least according to the cursory glance offered by the article, does not seem to actually address evoltuionary theory in any detail. It is mentioned as part of a plausible "big picture" explanation of how their data fits into the world, almost definately only mentioned in the discussion section of the paper on this research. That you would bury it for mentioning evolution is the danger of irrational fear of a topic that I mentioned. The validity of these data basically do not depend at all on the validity of evolutionary theory, yet you bury it anyway, shunning what could be highly valuable science due to your irrationality and stubborness on a largely unrelated topic simply because of a vaguely perceived association.
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/09/2008, -0/+8"I'm sorry, I would have honored the value of your "science" had I detected any."
- Hetman, on 06/09/2008, -1/+5And what do you believe is the beginning?
- armorking, on 06/09/2008, -1/+7Are men in general still that ignorant to say they are more intelligent than women because of a larger brain? I thought this theory was destroyed years ago...is it so hard to read about the great women of the past and present and realize that it doesn't matter what gender a person is to rank intelligence?
- k3rfuffl3, on 06/09/2008, -1/+0Amen... Men don't need to justify their greater intelligence by talking about brain size.
- ninepointfive, on 06/09/2008, -0/+7In other news, science has found a correlation between women watching the Sex and the City movie, and being really really stupid!
- tweetsa, on 06/09/2008, -13/+1men's inventions:
society
democracy
nations
weapons
vehicles
aircraft
languages
math
buildings
roads
mining
agriculture
nuclear power
women's inventions:
windshield wiper blades
kevlar
bra? nah I bet a man invented it for his ho - kelstock, on 06/09/2008, -2/+5I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am. You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science.
- terminal157, on 06/09/2008, -2/+1"men have gloated over how they have bigger brains, and thus must be smarter, a simple side effect of how they tend to have bigger bodies."
Men have bigger brains even when the difference in body size is accounted for. Very stupid article about interesting science. - prleet, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2I am with stupid!
- usingpond, on 06/09/2008, -3/+2GAWRSH, BUT EVOLUTION AIN'T REAL!!! AH-HYUCK
- Psynaut00, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Damn, well I guess that's the end of the all the 'Male-Only' "Gloat over our bigger brain parties." Now all we men will have left is our "Gloat over our better balance due to our larger big toe" parties that we have all been attending for decades.
- jrackow, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1Wow, any time the word Evolution can be thrown in there, huh?
So, what does this have to do with Evolution. We just now are fully realizing how the complexities of the female brain work, so evolution is proven? - plugues, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2it has always puzzled and fascinated me that a pattern of neurological configurations, such as synapses firing, could be the physical correspondence of the subjective experience each individual is going through right now. something doesn't seem to add up. i'm not a religious person, but i tend to believe that the brain is merely a communication tool (actually, the body as a whole, but that's another topic)
i know next to nothing of neuroscience, but i tend to think of the workings of a brain in terms of a spreadsheet with next to infinite lines and columns, with each general configuration of cells firing on as a representation of something, be that the experience of the color green, or a childhood memory. but still, it would just be the "map". the experience is going on somewhere else.
subjectivity freaks me out. what's going on here? - 4321234, on 06/09/2008, -3/+1This is all good and fine. But what about my penis?
- StaticThunder, on 06/09/2008, -1/+399% of people are stupid, and the remaining 1% are in serious danger from contagion. Gender really doesn't matter all that much.
- AlwaysAwake, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Brains are verry intelligent. It is the child of the brain, an idea called the mind which is ignorant, stupid, as most of the comments here prove.
- Ortheos, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2The more you have, the more you have to work with. We aren't the animals with the highest brain to weight ratio in the world for nothing.
Now if your synaptic connections suck balls you will be dumb, but still smarter than any other non-human organism on earth.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by