Evolution question.

[oFFbEAT]

Yeah, scientific studies are not the last words, your assertions are
It doesn't matter how much intelligent they were, it is sufficient to show you the mirror about your assertions human like intelligent happened in a very narrow range of species.....

lol....it actually matters how intelligent they were....if they were not as intelligent as 'Homo Sapiens Sapiens' despite having the same ancestor and facing similar Earthly environment, then that IS one of the drawbacks of the 'Theory of Evolution'.....
Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutans are all intelligent to some extent but none like Humans, on top of that, if the 'Neanderthals'(closest but extinct relatives of Modern Humans) are not as intelligent as Humans(which is the proven idea so far), then it actually proves that Human like intelligence happened only in one subspecies of the Genus 'Homo'.....not even in a narrow range......
I think it's time to look at the mirror yourself and try to understand what you are seeing....

Eat the humble pie, with some grass to match your intellect - Slime Time: Continental Jam Linked to Evolution's Long Pause
Not able to digest the fact that you still don't get the simple fact that whenever "natural selection" pauses, evolution pauses. It is the essence of ToE. another .....

This is what happens when people think they are intelligent while actually they are not.....you don't even understand the basics of Evolution still arguing about it....I think, you do not understand the meaning of 'Natural Selection' properly......
Natural selection, by its very nature, cannot be paused/stopped/reduced/increased because it is not a process but a phenomenon. It just happens continuously and its effect(which is Evolution) may be pronounced or vague depending on the random mutations of genes giving rise to genetic variations in the 'Gene pool'......and this vague or apparently unnoticeable Evolution is termed as 'Evolutionary pause' in the article....the word 'pause' is used metaphorically not actually meaning 'stop temporarily'....

Secondly the so called 'Evolutionary pause' is not the matter of actual concern here.....because we're discussing about the end result, what we are seeing now.....and we see only one species with extraordinary intelligence and the rest, not even close.....
The Tectonic movement, when it was relatively more stable, said to have caused the so called 'Evolutionary Pause'.....But the most important thing to consider is that the stability or instability of the environment effects all organisms, when the environment was relatively stable the entire set of living organisms experienced the so called 'Evolutionary Pause', when the environment was unstable, the evolutionary rate of all the species should have 'increased' according to the same logic.
Bottomline is, whatever may be the situation of the environment, it effects everyone, not just a selected few and so, the emergence of only Humans out of all the species(even older than them) as the most intelligent species, defies the logic behind Evolution itself.

Apparently, evolution didn't act on you. You are the best example that dumbfcks are produced during the evolutionary process. You first "asserted" that brain got nothing to do with walking, only leg muscles. When I gave link, you changed color quicker than a chameleon.....

I knew you would be lying(as you're at your wit's end), you gave that indication before, so I gave the post numbers as references in my previous post BUT that didn't stop you.....looks like, I've to quote my own posts so that you cannot lie shamelessly....

No! I never said that brain has got NOTHING to do with walking......
This is what is said in post #91

Regarding brain size, both human and other animal brains mature after birth.....the fact that animals start walking almost instantly after birth while humans cannot, has more to do with strong leg muscles than brain maturity...

Which means, the brain plays its role ofcourse(similar for Human and other animal newborns), but the strong leg muscle is the main reason(not the only reason) why animals stand up quickly.

Now, let me school you again (since your comprehension ability is that of an ant) evolution has no preference with intelligent or non-intelligent creatures. it has only preference for the "survival". If intelligence help survival of species, evolution prefers it. However, if intelligence reduces the survival (like the hypothetical scenario I presented), evolution prefers dumbfcks. How hard is it to comprehend
You are providing logic??? nah, it is only comic....

Buddy, don't try to 'school' everyone with your illogic, it only embarrasses you......
I agree with the first part of your claim that Evolution only helps in survival, it doesn't specifically aim to enhance intelligence, but in the process, increases intelligence just like any other trait of the body, intelligent species are more likely to survive, hence, as a tool of survival, Evolution prefers intelligence.......all that, I said before you in post #75, I'm quoting that again(below), in case you lie...

....evolution doesn't "aim" to do anything, it is not a process designed by someone.......so, the brain, like any other parts of the body should evolve too....and species should become more and more intelligent/adaptive....infact, there is evidence about how the shape and size of the skulls of the primates changed over time, with that, their intelligence......indicating adaptation of the brain(probably depending on its use, just like any other organ)...

The second part of your post I don't agree with, it is outright foolish....
Evolution can never make a species dumber 'cause that will reduce its chance of survival and there is no evidence so far, to prove it.....I asked for your proof though.
If, being more intelligent, which is generally associated with increase in Brain volume and hence the size of the skull, pose any anatomical threat, then Evolution manages it without sacrificing brain size/intelligence and the Human brain is the proof as indicated by the article you provided yourself.
Evolution has managed small pelvis of Human female and ever growing Human Brain volume in such a way that Humans are born with a sufficiently small(immature) brain and then, most of the growth takes place i.e the ultimate size of the brain and hence the intelligence is not sacrificed.......and I said this before too in post #91(even before you posted the article regarding 'Brains' in post #92)....here, I'm posting it again(below)....

...and your 'bigger brain size leading to increase in mother and child mortality' theory is absurd because, most of the growth takes place after birth.....

 

[Sneaker]

You did: "then brain will start shrinking again (species gets "dumber")."
I guess the Google searches were unsuccessful hence resorting to word play.


Nope. Wrong again. Like I said, don't put words in my mouth.

My point is: brain size generally doesn't affect intelligence; neanderthals DID NOT have human matching intelligence.

Your point: decrease in brain size will make species dumber; neanderthals had human matching intelligence.

I asked specifically about differences in brain anatomy. You gave no reply. You have failed to answer the questions again when asked directly, indicating general ignorance on the subject and bigotry.


Asking for proofs in science is pseudoscientific and does not meet the systematics of the scientific method. The word 'proof' is most common in pseudoscientific literature.


Nope, just pointing out the repetitive bigotry: the lengths you go to in every post to incorporate religion for mocking in a thread discussing specifically evolution.

Eagerly awaiting more word play and mocking.

lol... take your religions agenda somewhere else... you can try your new trick with some one else. I wonder who said following - "No offense, but thats a very ignorant statement. There are a myriad of species that show intelligence...." That is right, you did, which was the point I was making, intelligence is not specific to humans. I would take a published research that your assertion: Neanderthals were not inferior to modern humans, says CU-Boulder study | University of Colorado Boulder
My point wasn't whether brain size is directly related to intelligence. My point was, IF it were, and IF getting more intelligent meant bigger brain, evolution MAY favor dumb humans IF that would help their SURVIVAL. Means, evolution doesn't NECESSARILY aid intelligence, but always aids SURVIVAL. If intelligence helps survival, good, else dumbness will prevail. I can't dumb down my position any simpler than this. By by guessing your agenda, you will pretend you did not get this.
One point you say brain anatomy has nothing to with intelligence (ant v/s cow) in the same breath compare brain anatomy to measure intelligence (Neanderthal v/s Human)!!
Again, as I said, your agenda is pretty clear. You only agenda is to push for you religious view, but I think you are little afraid to say it openly...

lol....it actually matters how intelligent they were....if they were not as intelligent as 'Homo Sapiens Sapiens' despite having the same ancestor and facing similar Earthly environment, then that IS one of the drawbacks of the 'Theory of Evolution'.....
Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutans are all intelligent to some extent but none like Humans, on top of that, if the 'Neanderthals'(closest but extinct relatives of Modern Humans) are not as intelligent as Humans(which is the proven idea so far), then it actually proves that Human like intelligence happened only in one subspecies of the Genus 'Homo'.....not even in a narrow range......
I think it's time to look at the mirror yourself and try to understand what you are seeing....


This is what happens when people think they are intelligent while actually they are not.....you don't even understand the basics of Evolution still arguing about it....I think, you do not understand the meaning of 'Natural Selection' properly......
Natural selection, by its very nature, cannot be paused/stopped/reduced/increased because it is not a process but a phenomenon. It just happens continuously and its effect(which is Evolution) may be pronounced or vague depending on the random mutations of genes giving rise to genetic variations in the 'Gene pool'......and this vague or apparently unnoticeable Evolution is termed as 'Evolutionary pause' in the article....the word 'pause' is used metaphorically not actually meaning 'stop temporarily'....

Secondly the so called 'Evolutionary pause' is not the matter of actual concern here.....because we're discussing about the end result, what we are seeing now.....and we see only one species with extraordinary intelligence and the rest, not even close.....
The Tectonic movement, when it was relatively more stable, said to have caused the so called 'Evolutionary Pause'.....But the most important thing to consider is that the stability or instability of the environment effects all organisms, when the environment was relatively stable the entire set of living organisms experienced the so called 'Evolutionary Pause', when the environment was unstable, the evolutionary rate of all the species should have 'increased' according to the same logic.
Bottomline is, whatever may be the situation of the environment, it effects everyone, not just a selected few and so, the emergence of only Humans out of all the species(even older than them) as the most intelligent species, defies the logic behind Evolution itself.


I knew you would be lying(as you're at your wit's end), you gave that indication before, so I gave the post numbers as references in my previous post BUT that didn't stop you.....looks like, I've to quote my own posts so that you cannot lie shamelessly....

No! I never said that brain has got NOTHING to do with walking......
This is what is said in post #91

Which means, the brain plays its role ofcourse(similar for Human and other animal newborns), but the strong leg muscle is the main reason(not the only reason) why animals stand up quickly.


Buddy, don't try to 'school' everyone with your illogic, it only embarrasses you......
I agree with the first part of your claim that Evolution only helps in survival, it doesn't specifically aim to enhance intelligence, but in the process, increases intelligence just like any other trait of the body, intelligent species are more likely to survive, hence, as a tool of survival, Evolution prefers intelligence.......all that, I said before you in post #75, I'm quoting that again(below), in case you lie...


The second part of your post I don't agree with, it is outright foolish....
Evolution can never make a species dumber 'cause that will reduce its chance of survival and there is no evidence so far, to prove it.....I asked for your proof though.
If, being more intelligent, which is generally associated with increase in Brain volume and hence the size of the skull, pose any anatomical threat, then Evolution manages it without sacrificing brain size/intelligence and the Human brain is the proof as indicated by the article you provided yourself.
Evolution has managed small pelvis of Human female and ever growing Human Brain volume in such a way that Humans are born with a sufficiently small(immature) brain and then, most of the growth takes place i.e the ultimate size of the brain and hence the intelligence is not sacrificed.......and I said this before too in post #91(even before you posted the article regarding 'Brains' in post #92)....here, I'm posting it again(below)....

Your whole argument (which is getting ridiculously stupid) is standing on an ASSERTION - "intelligent species are more likely to survive, hence, as a tool of survival" you prove this (or "support this with evidence" other wise another "fellow" will jump on it) and I agree with you, else sorry. We have seen many times that this is not true (for example, cockroaches are here but no neanderthals)... Now for the last time, Human like intelligence is only in some group as it is "human like" but it in no way is against ToE as not all species experienced exact same circumstances as humans. It is like saying platypus is the only egg laying mammal hence ToE is false, WTH??
I like your strategy of not posting full thing about brain development, like you said "for all animals" and the like I posted said otherwise... keep it up...

 

[lifesci]

lol... take your religions agenda somewhere else... you can try your new trick with some one else.

Here we go again with the narrow-mindedness. I'm not pushing any religious views rather you are pushing anti-religious views. You cannot negate my contentions on scientific grounds thus you assume it must have a religious root. I said it before, I see no qualms between religion and science. But you do, and clearly, you lack the intellect to fathom why I don't find qualm between religion and science. That's a cognitive issue on your part that I cannot fix.

I wonder who said following - "No offense, but thats a very ignorant statement. There are a myriad of species that show intelligence...." That is right, you did, which was the point I was making, intelligence is not specific to humans.

Great. We agree on something. But the subject of discussion here is not intelligence rather the magnitude of intelligence. You said neanderthals possess human matching intelligence but provided no explanation. I said no they don't and showed you the anatomical incongruency which elicits the major difference. You never replied on topic after that and continue to ignore this aspect, and it's safe to assume that you are ignorant on the subject.

Published research showing brain anatomy differences in humans and neanderthals that mark the difference in intelligence:

1. Comparing frontal cranial profiles in archaic and modern Homo by morphometric analysis. [The Anatomical Record Vol 257 Issue 6] | Page 217-224
2. A comparative study of stereolithographically modelled skulls of Petralona and Broken Hill: implications for future studies of middle Pleistocene hominid evolution [Journal of Human Evolution Vol 33 Issue 6] | Page 691-703
   
3. Hohlenstein-Stadel and the Evolution of Human Conceptual Thought [Cambridge Archaeological Journal Vol 19 Issue 1] | Page 73-84
4. Middle cranial fossa anatomy and the origin of modern humans [Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) Vol 291 Issue 2] | Page 130-140
   
5. Fossilised Neanderthal Matrilineal Societies, Neo-Neanderthal Hybrids, Endosymbiotic Actinidic Archaea and Civilisational Diseases [Advances in Natural Science Vol 6 Issue 2] | Page 18
   
6. A bivariate approach to the widening of the frontal lobes in the genus Homo [Journal of Human Evolution Vol 58 Issue 2] | Page 138-146
   
7. Executive Functions of the Frontal Lobes and the Evolutionary Ascendancy of Homo Sapiens [Cambridge Archaeological Journal Vol 11 Issue 2] | Page 255-260
   
8. Hominin Evolution in the Middle-Late Pleistocene [Current Anthropology Vol 54 Issue S8] | Page 221-233
   
9. Numerosity, Abstraction, and the Emergence of Symbolic Thinking [Current Anthropology Vol 53 Issue 2] | Page 204-225
   
10. Paleoneurology of an “early” Neandertal: endocranial size, shape, and features of Saccopastore 1 [Journal of Human Evolution Vol 54 Issue 6] | Page 729-742

I would take a published research that your assertion:

Very vague contentions. This research does not address what is posited by countless other research & studies that show anatomical differences in brain and cranial endocasts that mark the differences in intelligence.

My point wasn't whether brain size is directly related to intelligence. My point was, IF it were, and IF getting more intelligent meant bigger brain, evolution MAY favor dumb humans IF that would help their SURVIVAL. Means, evolution doesn't NECESSARILY aid intelligence, but always aids SURVIVAL. If intelligence helps survival, good, else dumbness will prevail. I can't dumb down my position any simpler than this.

Your whole point is founded upon a false statement that is not backed by any scientific evidence, that shrinking of the brain makes species dumber. You never provided any evidence for this. And when you are given evidence on the contrary that brain size is not a causal factor in intelligence, you willfully disregard it. That's called narrow-mindedness, willful ignorance, pushing an agenda.

Published research on brain size and intelligence:

1. The frontal cortex: does size matter? [Information Fusion Vol 5 Issue 3] | Page 190-192
   
2. Does variability in cognitive performance correlate with frontal brain volume? [NeuroImage Vol 64] | Page 209-215
   
3. Cognition in insects [Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences Vol 367 Issue 1603] | Page 2715
   
4. Desert ant navigation: how miniature brains solve complex tasks [Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology Vol 189 Issue 8] | Page 579-588
   
5. Immunocytochemical demonstration of astrocytes and microglia in the whale brain [Neuroscience Letters Vol 167 Issue 1] | Page 59-62
   
6. Neuronal scaling rules for primate brains: the primate advantage [Progress in brain research Vol 195] | Page 325
   
7. Learning and memory in the honeybee [Journal of Neuroscience Vol 15 Issue 3] | Page 1617
   
8. On Being Small: Brain Allometry in Ants [Brain, Behavior and Evolution Vol 69 Issue 3] | Page 220-228
   
9. Biogenic Amines and Collective Organization in a Superorganism: Neuromodulation of Social Behavior in Ants [Brain, Behavior and Evolution Vol 82 Issue 4] | Page 220
   
10. Kin Selection and Social Insects [BioScience Vol 48 Issue 3] | Page 165-175

One point you say brain anatomy has nothing to with intelligence (ant v/s cow) in the same breath compare brain anatomy to measure intelligence (Neanderthal v/s Human)!!
Again, as I said, your agenda is pretty clear. You only agenda is to push for you religious view, but I think you are little afraid to say it openly...

I didn't say brain anatomy has nothing to do with intelligence. I said: brain size generally doesn't affect intelligence. You have comprehension issues. Size of brain =/= anatomy. Size of brain doesn't account for the diversity in neuronal, neuroglial, astro- and oligodendrocytic networks. It's precisely these dynamic arrangements that yield the differences in intelligence and not the overall size of the brain. It's precisely this fact of Neuroscience that explains why Albert Einstein was a bastion of advanced human intellect whilst having a cranial anatomy (in terms of size) that is the same as a dumbfck like you!

All the research I've presented is peer-reviewed and from notable scientific organizations. All of them show how your statements are false. I've even provided the exact page numbers for your reference. If you still choose to believe otherwise, then you are pushing some agenda and willfully being narrow-minded.

Happy reading.

 

[Sneaker]

Here we go again with the narrow-mindedness. I'm not pushing any religious views rather you are pushing anti-religious views. You cannot negate my contentions on scientific grounds thus you assume it must have a religious root. I said it before, I see no qualms between religion and science. But you do, and clearly, you lack the intellect to fathom why I don't find qualm between religion and science. That's a cognitive issue on your part that I cannot fix.


Great. We agree on something. But the subject of discussion here is not intelligence rather the magnitude of intelligence. You said neanderthals possess human matching intelligence but provided no explanation. I said no they don't and showed you the anatomical incongruency which elicits the major difference. You never replied on topic after that and continue to ignore this aspect, and it's safe to assume that you are ignorant on the subject.

Published research showing brain anatomy differences in humans and neanderthals that mark the difference in intelligence:

1. Comparing frontal cranial profiles in archaic and modern Homo by morphometric analysis. [The Anatomical Record Vol 257 Issue 6] | Page 217-224
2. A comparative study of stereolithographically modelled skulls of Petralona and Broken Hill: implications for future studies of middle Pleistocene hominid evolution [Journal of Human Evolution Vol 33 Issue 6] | Page 691-703
   
3. Hohlenstein-Stadel and the Evolution of Human Conceptual Thought [Cambridge Archaeological Journal Vol 19 Issue 1] | Page 73-84
4. Middle cranial fossa anatomy and the origin of modern humans [Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) Vol 291 Issue 2] | Page 130-140
   
5. Fossilised Neanderthal Matrilineal Societies, Neo-Neanderthal Hybrids, Endosymbiotic Actinidic Archaea and Civilisational Diseases [Advances in Natural Science Vol 6 Issue 2] | Page 18
   
6. A bivariate approach to the widening of the frontal lobes in the genus Homo [Journal of Human Evolution Vol 58 Issue 2] | Page 138-146
   
7. Executive Functions of the Frontal Lobes and the Evolutionary Ascendancy of Homo Sapiens [Cambridge Archaeological Journal Vol 11 Issue 2] | Page 255-260
   
8. Hominin Evolution in the Middle-Late Pleistocene [Current Anthropology Vol 54 Issue S8] | Page 221-233
   
9. Numerosity, Abstraction, and the Emergence of Symbolic Thinking [Current Anthropology Vol 53 Issue 2] | Page 204-225
   
10. Paleoneurology of an “early” Neandertal: endocranial size, shape, and features of Saccopastore 1 [Journal of Human Evolution Vol 54 Issue 6] | Page 729-742

Very vague contentions. This research does not address what is posited by countless other research & studies that show anatomical differences in brain and cranial endocasts that mark the differences in intelligence.


Your whole point is founded upon a false statement that is not backed by any scientific evidence, that shrinking of the brain makes species dumber. You never provided any evidence for this. And when you are given evidence on the contrary that brain size is not a causal factor in intelligence, you willfully disregard it. That's called narrow-mindedness, willful ignorance, pushing an agenda.

Published research on brain size and intelligence:

1. The frontal cortex: does size matter? [Information Fusion Vol 5 Issue 3] | Page 190-192
   
2. Does variability in cognitive performance correlate with frontal brain volume? [NeuroImage Vol 64] | Page 209-215
   
3. Cognition in insects [Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences Vol 367 Issue 1603] | Page 2715
   
4. Desert ant navigation: how miniature brains solve complex tasks [Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology Vol 189 Issue 8] | Page 579-588
   
5. Immunocytochemical demonstration of astrocytes and microglia in the whale brain [Neuroscience Letters Vol 167 Issue 1] | Page 59-62
   
6. Neuronal scaling rules for primate brains: the primate advantage [Progress in brain research Vol 195] | Page 325
   
7. Learning and memory in the honeybee [Journal of Neuroscience Vol 15 Issue 3] | Page 1617
   
8. On Being Small: Brain Allometry in Ants [Brain, Behavior and Evolution Vol 69 Issue 3] | Page 220-228
   
9. Biogenic Amines and Collective Organization in a Superorganism: Neuromodulation of Social Behavior in Ants [Brain, Behavior and Evolution Vol 82 Issue 4] | Page 220
   
10. Kin Selection and Social Insects [BioScience Vol 48 Issue 3] | Page 165-175

I didn't say brain anatomy has nothing to do with intelligence. I said: brain size generally doesn't affect intelligence. You have comprehension issues. Size of brain =/= anatomy. Size of brain doesn't account for the diversity in neuronal, neuroglial, astro- and oligodendrocytic networks. It's precisely these dynamic arrangements that yield the differences in intelligence and not the overall size of the brain. It's precisely this fact of Neuroscience that explains why Albert Einstein was a bastion of advanced human intellect whilst having a cranial anatomy (in terms of size) that is the same as a dumbfck like you!

All the research I've presented is peer-reviewed and from notable scientific organizations. All of them show how your statements are false. I've even provided the exact page numbers for your reference. If you still choose to believe otherwise, then you are pushing some agenda and willfully being narrow-minded.

Happy reading.

Nope sorry, give me one source published AFTER the link given by me (which was on sep 2014). You must know about scientific method rigght? New informations trump old ones....While your at it, source for ant being 1000x intelligent than cows too, please. After that, if you can tell me your goddamn point, that would be bonus. And, please stop lying about you not wanting to push your religious views, you have amply made it clear already....
PS: please share the gyan between not updated on current research and pseudoscience. If you name the subject you studied for "identifying pseudoscience", i will try to go through it.

 

[lifesci]

Nope sorry, give me one source published AFTER the link given by me (which was on sep 2014). You must know about scientific method rigght? New informations trump old ones....

HAHAHAHA. In denial already.

Do yourself a favor before you post scientific work and read the actual thing instead of just the title and abstracts. 1 study does not trump a hundred older ones. That one study does not address anything related to brain anatomy being discussed here, neither is it addressing anything mentioned in the 20 research works I posted. So, no, your pathetic little link does not trump anything I've posted.

While your at it, source for ant being 1000x intelligent than cows too, please.

Source: you are an idiot who can't read with comprehension issues. Who said ants are a 1000x intelligent?

After that, if you can tell me your goddamn point, that would be bonus.

Read again and again, it will take you time to comprehend. I can't help you with your own inability to comprehend things that have been repeated again & again. See below:

And, please stop lying about you not wanting to push your religious views, you have amply made it clear already....

LOL!
You still don't get it, do you? IT'S YOU!!! who sees a problem between religion and science, hence mentioning religion in every post (insecure). I don't see a problem, neither with science nor with religion. You have a problem, not me. You are here mocking religion which shows your agenda. I am here mocking neither religion nor science, nor have I solicited any religion. You have severe issues in comprehension, hence the conspiracy. Either that or you just can't argue properly on scientific grounds. Probably both.

PS: please share the gyan between not updated on current research and pseudoscience.

I'm updated and I look at every source in detail instead of just reading abstracts. I'm also not selective when it comes to scientific work because that creates bias, narrow-mindedness. Unlike you; you probably didn't read any of the work I posted, probably because you realized it destroys your false opinions. None of the works I posted are outdated.

You are running out of excuses.

You still haven't answered any of the questions I asked.

You cannot handle scientific discussion.

When given 20 published sources that are peer-reviewed & from notable sources that negate your silly contentions, the fact that your only reply is "its outdated", the fact that you bank on 1 unrelated study against 20 related studies, and not a single, not even a single statement on the content of the studies, is evidence enough that not only are you narrow-minded but clearly choosing to be ignorant.

There's no guideline in scientific ethics or methods that relates outdated information to pseudoscience (sorry bud).

If you name the subject you studied for "identifying pseudoscience", i will try to go through it.

Start with this: 1st year common sciences, university level.

 

[Sneaker]

HAHAHAHA. In denial already.

Do yourself a favor before you post scientific work and read the actual thing instead of just the title and abstracts. 1 study does not trump a hundred older ones. That one study does not address anything related to brain anatomy being discussed here, neither is it addressing anything mentioned in the 20 research works I posted. So, no, your pathetic little link does not trump anything I've posted.


Source: you are an idiot who can't read with comprehension issues. Who said ants are a 1000x intelligent?


Read again and again, it will take you time to comprehend. I can't help you with your own inability to comprehend things that have been repeated again & again. See below:


LOL!
You still don't get it, do you? IT'S YOU!!! who sees a problem between religion and science, hence mentioning religion in every post (insecure). I don't see a problem, neither with science nor with religion. You have a problem, not me. You are here mocking religion which shows your agenda. I am here mocking neither religion nor science, nor have I solicited any religion. You have severe issues in comprehension, hence the conspiracy. Either that or you just can't argue properly on scientific grounds. Probably both.



I'm updated and I look at every source in detail instead of just reading abstracts. I'm also not selective when it comes to scientific work because that creates bias, narrow-mindedness. Unlike you; you probably didn't read any of the work I posted, probably because you realized it destroys your false opinions. None of the works I posted are outdated.

You are running out of excuses.

You still haven't answered any of the questions I asked.

You cannot handle scientific discussion.

When given 20 published sources that are peer-reviewed & from notable sources that negate your silly contentions, the fact that your only reply is "its outdated", the fact that you bank on 1 unrelated study against 20 related studies, and not a single, not even a single statement on the content of the studies, is evidence enough that not only are you narrow-minded but clearly choosing to be ignorant.

There's no guideline in scientific ethics or methods that relates outdated information to pseudoscience (sorry bud).


Start with this: 1st year common sciences, university level.

How much ever your try to push your religious agenda, not gonna work. Sorry. Take that with some gullible people, not with me. Where is "evidence" of ant being (1000X or not) intelligent than cows? I have answered all your queries, you just don't wanna see them because you are too much into pseudoscientific stuff... all you want to here is your pseudoscientific views are correct... The good thing is, after all that prodding, you agreed that there is 1 newer study that exactly says what I said earlier, so there goes your "pseudoscience" red herring... Here is is another thought for you...... Our Brains Are Shrinking. Are We Getting Dumber? : NPR - "One cognitive scientist, David Geary, argues that as human society grows increasingly complex, individuals don't need to be as intelligent in order to survive and reproduce." Pseudoscience, my a$$, tell that to David Geary.

 

[lifesci]

How much ever your try to push your religious agenda, not gonna work. Sorry.

Keep telling that to yourself again & again. Nobody is pushing any religious agenda here. I never spoke of religion here. You are just conspiring because you are out of ararguments.

Take that with some gullible people, not with me. Where is "evidence" of ant being (1000X or not) intelligent than cows?

Who said ants are 1000x intelligent than cows? Go back and read carefully what I said. You have some SERIOUS comprehension issues and I can't help you with that. I suggest reading again & again or get somebody to read it for you.

I have answered all your queries, you just don't wanna see them because you are too much into pseudoscientific stuff...

No, you didn't answer.

You did not explain why ants are more intelligent than cows despite having a much smaller brain.

You did not explain why species get dumber with decreasing brain size.

These were your two statements that I quoted and you've provided absolutely no evidence for either one of them.

It's an empty statement, also known as pseudoscientific lingo. And I already told you what else is pseudoscientific in your posts, i.e. asking for proofs. There are no proofs in science.

all you want to here is your pseudoscientific views are correct... The good thing is, after all that prodding, you agreed that there is 1 newer study that exactly says what I said earlier,

The bad thing is you just completely ignored the 20 scientific works I presented which negate your opinion. That's willful ignorance. What you posted doesn't negate anything I said nor does it negate any research I presented. Your link fails to the address brain anatomy that marks the differences in intelligence. Your study fails to address the enlargement of the visual cortex in neanderthals. Your study fails to address the spatial and distal arrangements of the frontal lobes. Your study fails to address the differences in the forebrain between the two species. The links I posted elaborate specifically these and these are the systems specifically that elicit magnitudes of intelligence. Your study also fails to explain why Albert Einstein was so smart and why you are such an idiot despite have the same cranial capacity. You picked the wrong study to negate my points.

so there goes your "pseudoscience" red herring... Here is is another thought for you...... "One cognitive scientist, David Geary, argues that as human society grows increasingly complex, individuals don't need to be as intelligent in order to survive and reproduce." Pseudoscience, my a$$, tell that to David Geary.

Does not negate anything I've mentioned. Does not show why ants are more intelligent than cows despite having smaller brains. Does not show why species get dumber with decreasing brain sizes.

 

[Sneaker]

Keep telling that to yourself again & again. Nobody is pushing any religious agenda here. I never spoke of religion here. You are just conspiring because you are out of ararguments.


Who said ants are 1000x intelligent than cows? Go back and read carefully what I said. You have some SERIOUS comprehension issues and I can't help you with that. I suggest reading again & again or get somebody to read it for you.


No, you didn't answer.

You did not explain why ants are more intelligent than cows despite having a much smaller brain.

You did not explain why species get dumber with decreasing brain size.

These were your two statements that I quoted and you've provided absolutely no evidence for either one of them.

It's an empty statement, also known as pseudoscientific lingo. And I already told you what else is pseudoscientific in your posts, i.e. asking for proofs. There are no proofs in science.


The bad thing is you just completely ignored the 20 scientific works I presented which negate your opinion. That's willful ignorance. What you posted doesn't negate anything I said nor does it negate any research I presented. Your link fails to the address brain anatomy that marks the differences in intelligence. Your study fails to address the enlargement of the visual cortex in neanderthals. Your study fails to address the spatial and distal arrangements of the frontal lobes. Your study fails to address the differences in the forebrain between the two species. The links I posted elaborate specifically these and these are the systems specifically that elicit magnitudes of intelligence. Your study also fails to explain why Albert Einstein was so smart and why you are such an idiot despite have the same cranial capacity. You picked the wrong study to negate my points.


Does not negate anything I've mentioned. Does not show why ants are more intelligent than cows despite having smaller brains. Does not show why species get dumber with decreasing brain sizes.

Lol... again, where is the "evidence" for cow being less intelligent than ants... you are stuck in the same tape.. this is what clinging to some pseudoscientific views will lead you to... You see, I am not the one who said anything about ant intelligence, heck, I don't even claim ants are intelligent. You did, so you explain. My "hypothetical" scenario was for human brain, I have given link to justify my claim. But now, like a good creationists you want me to explain some completely irrelevant phenomenon or else I am bigoted??? One can't get more creationists than that. The next red-herring you keep bring up is human like intelligence. Even with all the recent publishing, you cling to some outdated views just to cling on to your even older and outdated ideas. Fun thing is, I don't even think you know anything about evolution other than what some pseudoscientific creation website tell... I mean, which sane person makes a statement "all babies are borne by natural selection"? One can wake up sleeping people, but not people pretending to sleep... You can keep continuing denying ToE or twisting it to fit your outdated religious views, but sooner or later you will have to concede, because truth can't be denied for long...

 

[lifesci]

Lol... again, where is the "evidence" for cow being less intelligent than ants...

I provided many research articles showing the marked differences between insect and ungulate cognition. You know.. the ones you completely ignored. I even referenced the exact page numbers directly out of the journals. The evidence lies within but you are clearly afraid of looking at it because it destroys your ignorant opinions. So you choose to remain ignorant and deny estabilished scientific concepts even when the evidence is provided to you.

you are stuck in the same tape.. this is what clinging to some pseudoscientific views will lead you to... You see, I am not the one who said anything about ant intelligence,
heck, I don't even claim ants are intelligent. You did, so you explain.

You said species become dumber with decreasing brain sizes. You provided no evidence for this statement. I said no they don't and gave the example of the ant and the cow, then I provided you with explicit scientific research to backup my claims. Yet still you deny it.

My "hypothetical" scenario was for human brain, I have given link to justify my claim.

Your link does not justify your claim at all (the claim that decreasing brain size diminishes intelligence, and that neanderthals possess human matching intelligence). And it doesn't negate the countless studies that conclude the contrary. I gave you 20 such scientific articles. You deny them all.

But now, like a good creationists you want me to explain some completely irrelevant phenomenon or else I am bigoted???

Oh buddy, your whole contention is based foundationally upon two invalid statements. Even in the light of strong evidence, you cling on to these false conclusions.

One can't get more creationists than that. The next red-herring you keep bring up is human like intelligence. Even with all the recent publishing, you cling to some outdated views just to cling on to your even older and outdated ideas.

Nothing that I posted is outdated. You want to use this excuse because you cannot contend this on scientific grounds.

Fun thing is, I don't even think you know anything about evolution other than what some pseudoscientific creation website tell...

Says the guy who asks for proofs in science.

I mean, which sane person makes a statement "all babies are borne by natural selection"? One can wake up sleeping people, but not people pretending to sleep... You can keep continuing denying ToE or twisting it to fit your outdated religious views, but sooner or later you will have to concede, because truth can't be denied for long...

You have some extremely serious comprehension issues.

I never denied theory of evolution. I support it actually. Only on some biochemical and cellular levels I can see some limitations in it. I also understand evolutionary mechanism where natural selection doesn't occur (cladistic homoplasy).

Theory of evolution has nothing to do with your two statements that I contend: 1) decreasing brain size leads to less intelligence, and; 2) neanderthals possess human matching intelligence.

You are still stuck on this religion vs science debate. I'm sorry bud but all this useless ranting is completely unscientific and doesn't place any merit in your flawed argument.

 

[Sneaker]

I provided many research articles showing the marked differences between insect and ungulate cognition. You know.. the ones you completely ignored. I even referenced the exact page numbers directly out of the journals. The evidence lies within but you are clearly afraid of looking at it because it destroys your ignorant opinions. So you choose to remain ignorant and deny estabilished scientific concepts even when the evidence is provided to you.


You said species become dumber with decreasing brain sizes. You provided no evidence for this statement. I said no they don't and gave the example of the ant and the cow, then I provided you with explicit scientific research to backup my claims. Yet still you deny it.


Your link does not justify your claim at all (the claim that decreasing brain size diminishes intelligence, and that neanderthals possess human matching intelligence). And it doesn't negate the countless studies that conclude the contrary. I gave you 20 such scientific articles. You deny them all.


Oh buddy, your whole contention is based foundationally upon two invalid statements. Even in the light of strong evidence, you cling on to these false conclusions.


Nothing that I posted is outdated. You want to use this excuse because you cannot contend this on scientific grounds.


Says the guy who asks for proofs in science.


You have some extremely serious comprehension issues.

I never denied theory of evolution. I support it actually. Only on some biochemical and cellular levels I can see some limitations in it. I also understand evolutionary mechanism where natural selection doesn't occur (cladistic homoplasy).

Theory of evolution has nothing to do with your two statements that I contend: 1) decreasing brain size leads to less intelligence, and; 2) neanderthals possess human matching intelligence.

You are still stuck on this religion vs science debate. I'm sorry bud but all this useless ranting is completely unscientific and doesn't place any merit in your flawed argument.

Even I provided recent researches which back up my claims. But no, those researchers are pseudoscientists according to you. Thenyou made a claim that ants are smarter than cows. You can give any link explaing only ant intelligence, but failed to give any link to back up the claim (who is pseudo scientist now?). Anyways, I am not claimin NS as only mechanism of evolution. Lot many mechanisms come into picture when selection is weak or absent. But they can't go against NS. Heck, creationists are running around a petition by 200 eminent scientists asking for further study on many mechanisms beside NS, as if it some how invalidates ToE. I am aware of that too. So for the last time, for Darwin's sake, what is your point? To make it simple, if you agree with ToE as of today, you should stop quoting me in this thread. Please open another thread about intelligence and I will happily join the discussion. I am always eager to learn new things and don't mind correcting myself if my understanding is wrong.