Jump to content


How does intelligence evolve?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
47 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_admin3_*

Guest_admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 March 2005 - 11:30 PM

Good information. Gives me some things to think about. Fixing to watch a movie on dna, maybe learn some more here.

#22 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 11 March 2005 - 01:38 PM

Oh my word there is, one an organism is in a high stress environment, evolution is at it’s fastest.

View Post


You actually have it backwards, de-evolution is at its fastest in a high stress environment, and likelyhood of extinction is increased, not decreased. That is why Haldane assume a large population and low selective intensity because it was the best he could do to move "beneficial" mutations to fixation. It all boils down to the cost on reproduction, an important factor that is commonly ignored.

I'm going to plagiarize myself from a prior discussion of this at EvCForum:

[Referring to Haldane, 1957, 'Cost of Natural Selection', pg 520]
Notice that fitness is e^(-30n^-1), and intensity is I=30n^-1. As intensity increases, n (number of generations to fix one gene) decreases, causing a logarithmic decrease in fitness! To illustrate this, Haldane gave an example of n=7.5, which represents an enormous intensity of 4. This yields a fitness of .02, which Haldane calls “hardly compatible with survival” (it means that 100 offspring are needed just to get one without a new harmful mutation). The relationship between intensity and substitution cost really only manifests itself as you start moving intensity above .1 (which is even considered atypically high selection by biologists). That is why Haldane said that cost and selection are essentially independent provided you don’t plug in ridiculously high values for selection. As I said earlier, intense selection is an enemy of reproductive cost.

Fred

Haldane, J. B. S. 1957 The Cost of Natural Selection Journal of Genetics 55:511-524

#23 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 11 March 2005 - 02:38 PM

You actually have it backwards, de-evolution is at its fastest in a high stress environment, and likelyhood of extinction is increased, not decreased. That is why Haldane assume a large population and low selective intensity because it was the best he could do to move "beneficial" mutations to fixation. It all boils down to the cost on reproduction, an important factor that is commonly ignored.

I'm going to plagiarize myself from a prior discussion of this at EvCForum:

[Referring to Haldane, 1957, 'Cost of Natural Selection', pg 520]
Notice that fitness is e^(-30n^-1), and intensity is I=30n^-1. As intensity increases, n (number of generations to fix one gene) decreases, causing a logarithmic decrease in fitness! To illustrate this, Haldane gave an example of n=7.5, which represents an enormous intensity of 4. This yields a fitness of .02, which Haldane calls “hardly compatible with survival” (it means that 100 offspring are needed just to get one without a new harmful mutation). The relationship between intensity and substitution cost really only manifests itself as you start moving intensity above .1 (which is even considered atypically high selection by biologists). That is why Haldane said that cost and selection are essentially independent provided you don’t plug in ridiculously high values for selection. As I said earlier, intense selection is an enemy of reproductive cost.

Fred

Haldane, J. B. S. 1957 The Cost of Natural Selection Journal of Genetics 55:511-524

View Post



Your point is sort of correct if you replace de-evolution with extinction. I can’t think of any way to drive evolution in reverse. Extinction is probably more likely but as long as the chance for a beneficial mutation to occur at that time is grater than 0 then evolution is likely in a statisticly significant number of events.

#24 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 11 March 2005 - 03:41 PM

We are no more inteligent today than man was in biblical times, as a matter of fact we are less inteligent, just running off of accumilated knowledge over the years, instinct is something thats instilled in the bodily functions of all creation by God, such as insects(ants) carrying food back to the colony.

Instinct, humans, when startled/caught by surprise, jump or get short of breathe.



Louie

#25 Guest_Yehren_*

Guest_Yehren_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 March 2005 - 06:49 AM

We are no more inteligent today than man was in biblical times, as a matter of fact we are less inteligent, just running off of accumilated knowledge over the years, instinct is something thats instilled in the bodily functions of all creation by God, such as insects(ants) carrying food back to the colony.

Instinct, humans, when startled/caught by surprise, jump or get short of breathe.
Louie

View Post


Babies, when touched on the bottom of their feet, clench toes, just as they clench fingers when palms are touched. This is so that they can grasp mommas fur to hang on when she moves about.

Momma humans don't have fur any more, but the reflex remains. It's no longer adaptive, but it does no harm, so it stays with us.

#26 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 13 March 2005 - 08:17 AM

Babies, when touched on the bottom of their feet, clench toes, just as they clench fingers when palms are touched. This is so that they can grasp mommas fur to hang on when she moves about.

Momma humans don't have fur any more, but the reflex remains.  It's no longer adaptive, but it does no harm, so it stays with us.

View Post



That sounds like something straight off the discovery channel, If your referring to the fact the babies move their feet simply because they can, thats a rediculous thing to try to claim that they are instinctively trying to grasp for fur :lol:

When does the unsubstantiated story telling end? :lol:
Thanks for the laugh my friend


Louie <><

#27 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 13 March 2005 - 10:07 AM

"Liberals are trusting and optimistic because they believe people are
pretty much like themselves. Conservatives are fearful and hostile for
much the same reason."


If you want to view liberals as what they truley show the fruits of, you won't find one liberal thats a faithful follower of Christ, that tells me that liberals and all they shoot for, is to be their own gods.

Its pretty much the opposite of whats stated above in the quotation, every liberal politician just about appears as hostile on television debates etc.

Take John Kerry for example, he always appeared hostile when he spoke of Goerge Bush, I don't believe he was a hostile man, I just think that trying to instill liberal agenda into America is a tough sell, so thats all he could do, aggresively assert untruths etc. about Mr. Bush.

I apologize if this is off topic, if anyone is bothered by it, simply contact an admin or mod, and have it moved to a different topic, or if your ok with it, please reply. :lol:

thanX

Louie Buren

#28 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 March 2005 - 02:39 PM

Fred Williams

chance> Oh my word there is, one an organism is in a high stress environment, evolution is at it’s fastest.

You actually have it backwards, de-evolution is at its fastest in a high stress environment, and likelyhood of extinction is increased, not decreased.

Extinction is likely in a high stress environment true, but only when that life cannot adapt quickly enough (there are limits), the more complex and specialised that a life form is the more difficult it can be to adapt to a changing environment. Strictly speaking there is no such thing a de-evolving, there is only evolution in response to pressure, if this results in a ‘simpler’ solution, then so be it. If you look ant any extinction event the first casualties are the specialists, the survivors are often the “can do anything” types. If you could plot environmental stress against an animals ability to respond via evolution you would likely get a sharp cut-off at some point commensurate with that animals complexity and breeding cycle.


That is why Haldane assume a large population and low selective intensity because it was the best he could do to move "beneficial" mutations to fixation. It all boils down to the cost on reproduction, an important factor that is commonly ignored.

I'm going to plagiarize myself from a prior discussion of this at EvCForum:

[Referring to Haldane, 1957, 'Cost of Natural Selection', pg 520]
Notice that fitness is e^(-30n^-1), and intensity is I=30n^-1. As intensity increases, n (number of generations to fix one gene) decreases, causing a logarithmic decrease in fitness! To illustrate this, Haldane gave an example of n=7.5, which represents an enormous intensity of 4. This yields a fitness of .02, which Haldane calls “hardly compatible with survival” (it means that 100 offspring are needed just to get one without a new harmful mutation). The relationship between intensity and substitution cost really only manifests itself as you start moving intensity above .1 (which is even considered atypically high selection by biologists). That is why Haldane said that cost and selection are essentially independent provided you don’t plug in ridiculously high values for selection. As I said earlier, intense selection is an enemy of reproductive cost.

Could you give me a lay version of this please.

#29 Guest_Yehren_*

Guest_Yehren_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 March 2005 - 08:51 PM

Yehren observes
Babies, when touched on the bottom of their feet, clench toes, just as they clench fingers when palms are touched. This is so that they can grasp mommas fur to hang on when she moves about.

Momma humans don't have fur any more, but the reflex remains. It's no longer adaptive, but it does no harm, so it stays with us.

That sounds like something straight off the discovery channel, If your referring to the fact the babies move their feet simply because they can, thats a rediculous thing to try to claim that they are instinctively trying to grasp for fur


Um, no. It's a reflex all primate babies have. They contact the mother's fur and grasp it firmly, thus holding on. We can't even grab efficiently with our feet any more, but we still have the reflex.

When does the unsubstantiated story telling end?


When one collects facts to learn why such a reflex exists. It exists because it is inherited from our ancestors.

Thanks for the laugh my friend


Your response gave me a chuckle, too. What you don't know, can hurt you.

#30 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 13 March 2005 - 10:13 PM

Um, no. It's a reflex all primate babies have.


Maybe primate babies have it, but humans don't.
As we arn't from the same ancestors.

A babies foot moves when touched because it has nerves and is sensitive to the touch and new sensations.
Your assertions are not backed by anything scientific, your either acting as a parrot to an evolutionary doctrine, or making that up on your own, at any rate, its not supported by science what so ever.

As a matter of fact, its pretty hilarious :lol:
No insult intended, but it is pretty goofy.


ThanX,
Louie Buren <><

#31 fishbob

fishbob

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Anchorage, Alaska

Posted 14 March 2005 - 12:59 AM

We are no more inteligent today than man was in biblical times, as a matter of fact we are less inteligent, just running off of accumilated knowledge over the years, instinct is something thats instilled in the bodily functions of all creation by God, such as insects(ants) carrying food back to the colony. . . .

Louie

View Post


I saw this somewhere and it seems applicable here: "When does the unsubstantiated story telling end?
Thanks for the laugh my friend."

Perhaps a bit more substantiation before posting is in order for all concerned.

#32 fishbob

fishbob

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Anchorage, Alaska

Posted 14 March 2005 - 01:03 AM

You actually have it backwards, de-evolution is at its fastest in a high stress environment, and likelyhood of extinction is increased, not decreased. . . .

View Post


Excuse me. Evolution means change over time. What could De-evolution mean except change over time? Why the distinction? It seems meaningless.

#33 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 14 March 2005 - 07:06 AM

Maybe primate babies have it, but humans don't.
As we arn't from the same ancestors.

ThanX,
Louie Buren <><

View Post



Everything we learn from our genes tells us we are.

#34 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 15 March 2005 - 09:22 AM

Everything we learn from our genes tells us we are.

View Post


Instead of saying everything, maybe you can be more specific on what tells us we are? A few examples maybe?

#35 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 15 March 2005 - 09:31 AM

Instead of saying everything, maybe you can be more specific on what tells us we are?  A few examples maybe?

View Post


ERV's, common pseudogenes, nested hiearchy for parsimonious mutations in both ERV's and pseudogenes, and an obvious chromosomal rearrangement in the human lineage, just for starters.

#36 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 15 March 2005 - 11:30 AM

ERV's, common pseudogenes, nested hiearchy for parsimonious mutations in both ERV's and pseudogenes, and an obvious chromosomal rearrangement in the human lineage, just for starters.

View Post


Yeah, what he said. B)

#37 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 15 March 2005 - 08:53 PM

ERV's, common pseudogenes, nested hiearchy for parsimonious mutations in both ERV's and pseudogenes, and an obvious chromosomal rearrangement in the human lineage, just for starters.

View Post


Wally, your statement of what he said, is basicely what Method said, by being a parrot to some evolutionary website or something.

ERV's and pseudogenes are not really
completely researched yet. I would compare it to when
evolutionists once thought that there were over 150
vestigial organs. Now they have come to realise that all 150 do have a useful function, God does not make useless parts. The point is, ignorance about ERV
and pseudogene function does not neccessarily mean
they don't have a function. Ignorance is not a license
to say "see, they are useless evolutionary remnants."

pseudogenes is more evidence that the evolutionists jump to conclusions about things that arn't warranted, but we've seen this time and again.
pseudogenes need much more research done on them before any conclusion drawing is done.

To quote a famous evolutionists "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense".

So use all the big technical words you like, you still arn't making any valid points.

thanX,
Louie Buren <><

#38 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 15 March 2005 - 09:03 PM

Excuse me.  Evolution means change over time. What could De-evolution mean except change over time?  Why the distinction?  It seems meaningless.

View Post


The distinction because one is whats happening and the other is not.
Life is deteriorating not evolving, this is happening via the fall of man account in Genesis.

#39 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 16 March 2005 - 05:17 AM

Wally, your statement of what he said, is basicely what Method said, by being a parrot to some evolutionary website or something.

(snip)

thanX,
Louie Buren <><

View Post


If by “Evolutionary Website” you mean the whole body of modern science, then I guess I’m a parrot. (Actually I prefer to think of myself as a clever monkey). I only made my light-hearted comment because I recognized the other poster had answered the question better than I could.
My favorite example of the validity and proof of our primate origin is examining the raw % of difference between our DNA and other apes. By % difference (or similarity) chimpanzees are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas.

#40 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 March 2005 - 08:43 AM

Life is deteriorating not evolving, this is happening via the fall of man account in Genesis.

View Post

Since you seem to be claiming a scriptural basis for this, would you be so kind as to reference the passages you have in mind? With the possible exception of the serpent, I can't think of anything that suggests that Adam's fall would result in a 'deterioration' of other life forms.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users