PhDP

It's also not consistent with our current philosophy of classification. If you have an ancestor in the animal kingdom; you are an animal, even if you loose the characteristics common to animals. It's highly, very highly probably it's the case with the myxozoa. They aren't multicellular, one of the main characteristics of animals, but still we consider them animals because they developed from multicellular animals. Our new system of classification is based more on "evolution" than on anatomy, physiology or behaviour (even if we use those to infer evolution). Again, it's a question of arrogance, we want to be more than "just animal", but scientifically, we are animal, and there's nothing wrong with it, there's lot of beauty in the animal kingdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myxozoa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal

Homo Sapiens Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Family: Hominidae Most "we are not animal" arguments predate biology and are based on misconceptions about what an animal is. The only way I see not to include ourselves with the others animals is by sticking to the term "animal" false attributes like "savage" or "without conscience".

Why somebody would want to be in a HighIQ society anyway ? And gnpatterson, maybe it's because I partyied a lot, but your explanations make my head hurt a lot, it isn't that complicated...

It's not very accurate. The biophysicist do a job clearly more related to biochemistry than to biology. Biophysicists aren't trained to understand how physics act on living beings, they are trained to understand biology at the molecular/cellular level with a good knowledge of physics. Biophysics is the union of cell/molecular biology and physics. And it's very interesting.

There's no real "bible" of evolution, but I do like Futuyma's books on evolution. The only thing I don't like about those books is the lack of mathematics, but most people see that as a plus. Here's the "big book" on evolution; Douglas J. Futuyma. 1999. Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Associates. It's big, but you don't need any previous knowledge to understand it... He also published a shorter one; Douglas J. Futuyma. 2005. Evolution. Sinauer Associates. There's also his other book which is purely a defence of evolution versus it's many foes and an explanation why scientists are so enthusiastic about evolutionary biology. Douglas J. Futuyma. 1995. Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. Sinauer Associates

He is the father of psychoanalysis, a modern form of psychological chamanism

The modern theory of evolution has predictive and descriptive power, it's science. Creationism is based on religion, on faith.

There's no such thing as the first man. Evolution is a phenomenon at the population level, it's often defined as the change in the frequency of an allele (a form of a gene at a specific place on a chromosone). There's no way to trace a clear distinction between humanity and nonhumanity, we don't have a very specific definition like "if you've got that X allele you're human, without it you're not". If we had that kind of definition we could've said "that baby, with the X mutations, is the first humans", but as we cannot, I say there's no first man, only a group of individuals we though look different enough from another species to be placed in a new species; humans. It's hard to say when two groups on the fossils record are really distinct species, there's no way to say if they could breed between each other, so it's arbitrary.

I don't know why, but I'm skeptical... You have references or anything ?

If it is unconfirmed it should be called a scientific hypothesis, no ? As long as a hypothesis haven't showed any predictive power, it shouldn't be called an theory, there's already enough confusion around scientific terms.

Work with Wikipedia. If many scientists/mathematicians/amateurs were working on it, it could become a very comprehensive scientific encyclopedia, it's free, it's easy to add information and, most important of all, it's using LaTeX ! In my opinion, there's too many duplication on internet, websites doing essentially the same thing...

Is that so ? Conservatism correlate negatively with IQ results, and it's been proven "right" is, very often, synonymous with "religion", again, not something very scientific. I would really like to see a study that show doctors of science (not physician) are leaning on the right, I'm skeptical...

I don't know how much you know about biology, but you really should read Sheldrake before even considering he's a serious person, because he's not...

Why do you think women are more likely to believe in life after death, in religion, in astrology, et cetera...

Well that's a better justification

The idea that the "human model" is the "best" is quite ridiculous, and it's an incredibly arrogant in a world dominated by insects and arthropods... There's a limit to convergence and It's more like an excuse for a lack of imagination... or of $$$ (probably a little of both).

I'm not working on that particular subject but it's quite interesting... I'm looking for books/articles on heterochrony and the arthropods (and only on the arthropods, I've seen enough works on salamanders...).

It's an interesting reasoning, but it's flawed, because it's group selection... You have to ask, why would an individual A have a higher fitness than B if... We age and we die because it maximize our fitness, I already wrote why in another topic; http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8988&page=2

I really don't trust the text you included (Darwin's "Law" isn't a "law" and with the new synthesis it IS an equation) but serious applications of system theory and nonlinear dynamics has been made, for exemple by Günter Wagner (of Yale), a leader in evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology). But beware the hysterical anti-"reductionist", the more I know about science, the less I care with this kind of classification (holistic, reductionist, neo-darwinist...), the more I care about facts and predictive/descriptive power.

I'm just curious to know if somebody know some exemples (articles, quotes...) of heterochrony in the evolution of arthropods...

If I was an American (Maybe I will be someday), I would maybe give my vote to In My Memory, but I'm not sure, I'm mostly voting for efficience, redistribution, environment, education. And I don't like the pro-gun ownership. I've never touched a real gun, don't know anybody who has a gun... and that's a good thing, vive le québec... And on politicalcompass.org I got -7,38 Eco./ -5,38 Soc., I'm an atheist, worst, a student in evolutionary biology and maths, and I speak French so I'm not electable. Good idea and I'm sure people will like it (BTW It's incredibly how cheap gas is in the U.S.) haaaa, now I see cleary your christian side

That's not what I said. In fact I wouldn't believe racism is such a "deviant strategy" if genetical differences among group didn't exist. I just accept the fact that diversity is greater within groups than between groups. In my case it's not that I have personnal issue with "races", it's just that I don't like seeing evolutionary biology, genetics and sociobiology being dragged down by pseudoscientifics ideologies. I believe in evolution. I study evolution. And I believe you have a problematic conception of evolution. "Less evolved" has no sence in evolution, gorillas and other great apes aren't less evolved than us, we share a common ancestor. I care, because it's maybe not the fact that they are black... It was proven that people from the North (like me) have generally an higher IQ than people near the equators. Because of many environmental factors... The fact is, it's not in there genes, it's not "biological" in the traditional sence, it's environmental. You can prove blacks have a lower average IQ, they do, however when you eliminate the environmental factor, they have the same I.Q. So it's not because they are blacks. When you say "blacks have higher testosterone", it imply it's because they are blacks while we don't know if it's really in their genes or it's because of other factors... Obvious to you, but not to me. In fact I cannot think of any reason to believe that, as many of us aren't afraid to prove we aren't different species, divergence isn't probable, nor beneficial to anyone anyway...

I knew it would come to the "it's not scientific it's just politically correct" crap. It's an excuse for the lack of evidences and your poor understanding. Just try to give SERIOUS articles. About the differences between blacks and whites I know that they exist, however I know enough of genetics to understand they are thin and it does'nt even mean we are from a different race. By applying the rigor of modern classification to humans we cannot distinguish any races (Templeton, 1998), how it that "politically correct", it's a rigorous application of science. A difference in phenotype (like your list) doesn't mean anything, it's just... phenotype. I don't even try to dispute the "differences", but I want the sources. About "species", it's the most ignorant and stupid thing I've never heard about "blacks", "white", and "asians". How can you say I'm not scientific while you obviously don't even know what a species is. 2 individuals are of the same species if they can breed and have a fertile child ! Are you saying it's impossible between blacks, white and asians ? Templeton, A. R. 1998. Human races: A genetic and evolutionary perspective. American Anthropologist, 100(3), 632-650.

The thing you do not seem to understand, even if you are highly evolved, is that there's no such thing as "less evolved", gorillas and ants aren't "less evolved" than us. You may describe for a thousand years differences among "blacks" and "whites", it won't change the fact that there's no such thing as "less evolved". You really lack the knowledge in evolution, biology and genetics to have any credibility and your argumentation is incredibly similar to the racist "scientists" of the late 19th century. You even use skin color like it was the ultimate tool to biological division among humans, which is factually false. Ultimately your argument are probably drawn from racist group with little credibility, Pagan Front, Resistance or maybe other Zundel-like paranos. Can you prove that "blacks" is a valid division, a "race" ? With peer-reviewed articles ? Can you prove they have a lower I.Q. due to biological reason ? (How could you explain the minnesota adoption studies?) With peer-reviewed articles ? Not just Lynn or Rushton lousy opinion, real science, real articles (although Rushton do have a extraordinary given name)...

Well, Mokele, maybe you are the "biology expert", but I was faster than you on this one Agreed. But you don't need a PhD in genetics to know the difference between phenotype and genotype. The fact "blacks" (not a valid group but anyway...) have a lower average IQ doesn't mean it's biological. In fact, studies show that adopted child, wheter black or white, have the same IQ (Scarr & Weinberg, 1983), it's a very strong refutation of the claim blacks are genetically bound to have lower IQ. Then why did you said blacks were "less evolved". And I agree that there is genetical differences among many human groups, I would certainly not use deceptive and superficial terms like "blacks" or "whites", but the fact is most of the genetical diversity is within and not between groups (Lewontin, 1973). And by the way, I'm not supporting biological egalitarism, but racist, à la Lynn and Rushton, are really fallacious in their use of biology and evolution to support their ideology. Lewontin, R. C. 1973. The Apportionment of Human Diversity. Evolutionary Biology, 6, 381-397 Scarr, S. et Weinberg, R. 1983. The Minnesota adoption studies: Genetic differences and malleability. Child Development, 54, 260-267.