EnviroLink Forum

current modern theories are stating that all humans today may have their
origins traced to this first "real family" 3.2 million years ago...they named
one member 'Lucy'.

however another hominid skull was discovered from 4.4 million years
ago but scientists are still conducting research and analysis on whether it
was bipedal or not.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolu ... rints.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/en ... o94hu.html

_________________
join the Ron Paul Revolution!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

if I could wake up tomorrow morning and push a button and all the AR's would be gone, I would lay awake tonight in anticipation of pushing the button.~~OHIOSTEVE

I believe we evolved from another less advanced species. The first member of our new species can be called Adam if male, Eve if female, or any other name one might choose. There is always the first member of a new species whose genes will become dominant if you follow the tenets of the Evolutionary Theory. I see no reason for the science to appear to attack the beliefs of anyone unless those beliefs are counter scientific. In this case the science and beliefs can exist without problem.



Life began, yes. Life evolved, yes. Neither of these preclude calling the first Homo sapiens either Adam or Eve. It is clear from the genetic research that the species would expand from that point with interbreeding with the prior species but with the new genes causing a continual change in the offspring.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Sorry, I don't remember.

_________________
"Yes like I said it all boils down to morals. What you think is right doesn't make a person wrong because they think different " X-Black

So, how much have people evolved in the last 2,000 or 3,000 years? Sure don't seem any different to me. Seems long enough for something to have happened.

_________________
"Yes like I said it all boils down to morals. What you think is right doesn't make a person wrong because they think different " X-Black

In the terms of macro evolution it is not very long at all given the hundreds of thousands of years between known changes. You were around 2000 to 3000 years ago? In any case the average height has increased for many of the races of homo sapiens for one thing.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

That's sort of what I said, isn't it? The "comparison of the data for the population" part says that a score of 100 is "the middle" (half below/half above).

Not to confuse you, but it's simply a score (in this case a quotient) that's standardized (massaged) in such a way that the resulting frequency distribution of the population is Gaussian (symmetrical about the mean) with an arbitrary mean of 100.

IOW - the mean (100) and the distribution (half above/half below) is what defines it.

_________________
I'm just a soul who's intentions are good,
Oh lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.

- The Animals

Confuse me? I have been discussing the Chinese dog cull with Grace and Israel with X-Black ... how could I ever become confused!!! (What day is it anyway?)

That defines the range but not the IQ. The IQ range defines the mean, the median, the mode, the upper limit and the lower limit, but the individual IQ is separate from this. Of course, this depends on the way you look at the situation and the semantics used.

The IQ of humans could have been set at an average range of 200 +5 in the current scale by an intelligent design just as easily as the current range, which I believe was the point Johnny was trying to make.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

No, but they had some really good artists back then.

Well, don't we evolve for the better? Isn't that why we evolve, because the worse traits are bred out and the better ones go on? So in what ways have we improved? Why is being taller better?

_________________
"Yes like I said it all boils down to morals. What you think is right doesn't make a person wrong because they think different " X-Black

Not really. We evolve to increase our reproductive fitness. Evolution is all about passing on your genes.

_________________
I'm just a soul who's intentions are good,
Oh lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.

- The Animals

Not exactly, the traits that benefit survival at the time tend to direct the evolution but it is not a given. If it were such a given there would have been no extinction of species on an ongoing basis. If it were an intelligent design one would also expect no ongoing extinctions either.




Improved may be subjective, but we have become more intelligent, taller, faster maturing, and longer lived on average than at other times in history. That is just off the top of my head so I am sure there are other aspects I am missing. These would be cases of micro-evolution which does not take the extended time frame required for macro-evolution.



I do not know exactly, but it is an ongoing change (or evolution) which was the question posed. It could be that women like taller men and thus there is more breeding going on as a result. It could be that nature dislikes short people like that old song implies ....

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I wonder how much of this 'taller', 'faster-maturing' has more to do
with the foods consumed today...i.e. growth hormones in beef, milk
and dairy products.

longer-lived I would attribute to advances in modern medicine and not
so much 'evolutionary'.

_________________
join the Ron Paul Revolution!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

if I could wake up tomorrow morning and push a button and all the AR's would be gone, I would lay awake tonight in anticipation of pushing the button.~~OHIOSTEVE

That defines the distribution, not the range. The range is the upper limit - lower limit (max - min). The distribution is what johnny was referring to. A single IQ measurement is a point estimate of a variable. A variable that is defined by it's mean (100) and distribution (Gausssian/normal). In a normal distribution the mean=median=mode.

To say you have an IQ of 90 means nothing absent of knowing the mean and distribution of the variable in a population. If you have a valid IQ test and measure the IQ of 1000 people, by definition ~500 should have an IQ below 100 and ~500 should have an IQ above 100. It's not semantics, it's simple statistics.

Here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_dis ... telligence

_________________
I'm just a soul who's intentions are good,
Oh lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.

- The Animals

This is all very interesting.

_________________
"Yes like I said it all boils down to morals. What you think is right doesn't make a person wrong because they think different " X-Black

You are correct that I should have included the distribution with in the range in my haste to reply. You must assume there is an actual Gaussian/normal distribution in intelligence as measured by the IQ tests, which we know is not the case even though that is the desired effect.



Thus, you have exhibited the flaw in your position for if it must be an equal number both above and below by definition the outcome would have to be known in advance in order to construct the scale. Also by definition the current scale of IQ would be limited to an upper range of 150 to maintain the curve. However, my first IQ test was several percentage points above that level.



Yes, and this is the statistical target but not the true situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ

IQ tests are designed to give approximately this Gaussian distribution. Colors delineate one standard deviation. But the true frequency of low and high IQs is greater than that given by the Gaussian curve.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

so according to the link 50% of the US population falls between
90-110...that seems awfully low.

_________________
join the Ron Paul Revolution!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

if I could wake up tomorrow morning and push a button and all the AR's would be gone, I would lay awake tonight in anticipation of pushing the button.~~OHIOSTEVE