EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:04 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:39 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 2314
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:48 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20580
Location: Southeastern US
X-Black wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
X-Black wrote:
Archer wrote:
It was taught to me in school as a fact, and I was taught that we evolved from apes.

In accordance with the theories you're familiar with, Wayne, what did we evolve from?


Not Adam and Eve that's for sure :lol:


In a way, possibly. The first evolved human could have been called either Adam or Eve and their mate would be the other. That is how evolution stands without necessarily attacking the religious beliefs.


So you believe we evolved from Adam and Eve?


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.

Quote:
No you don't so look again at the question instead of playing with words Mr Strolling. Life began, evolved from?


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:08 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:34 am
Posts: 6321
Location: Texas
denni50 wrote:
Archer...do you remember the textbook that was used in your science
class if the scientific theory was being taught as "fact"...would like
to research it.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:10 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:34 am
Posts: 6321
Location: Texas
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:16 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20580
Location: Southeastern US
Archer wrote:
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.


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? :wink: 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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:45 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:50 pm
Posts: 445
Location: Alaska
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Red wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Too bad He made it so half are below 90 IQ, and breed like rabbits.


Well, actually, half are below 100 IQ. That's more or less the definition of IQ.

I don't know about the rabbits part. Sounds like another bible story to me.


Actually, that is the definition of 'average' because IQ measurement does not deal with any particular level, but the comparison of the data for the population does.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:56 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20580
Location: Southeastern US
Red wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Red wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Too bad He made it so half are below 90 IQ, and breed like rabbits.


Well, actually, half are below 100 IQ. That's more or less the definition of IQ.

I don't know about the rabbits part. Sounds like another bible story to me.


Actually, that is the definition of 'average' because IQ measurement does not deal with any particular level, but the comparison of the data for the population does.


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.



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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:49 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:34 am
Posts: 6321
Location: Texas
Wayne Stollings wrote:
You were around 2000 to 3000 years ago? :wink:


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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:36 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:50 pm
Posts: 445
Location: Alaska
Archer wrote:
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?


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:45 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20580
Location: Southeastern US
Archer wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
You were around 2000 to 3000 years ago? :wink:


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

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?


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.


Quote:
So in what ways have we improved?


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.

Quote:
Why is being taller better?


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:53 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 2314
Quote:
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 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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:57 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:50 pm
Posts: 445
Location: Alaska
Wayne Stollings wrote:
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.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:12 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:34 am
Posts: 6321
Location: Texas
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:55 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20580
Location: Southeastern US
Red wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
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.


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.


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.

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:


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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:23 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 2314
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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group