Sisyphus

Right, it would never be identical, but evolving into something that has more in common with a more distant ancestor than a later ancestor? Probably happens all the time, especially over the relatively short-term. As for the value of intelligence... well, yes, it's extremely valuable to us. Humans dominate the entire planet, expanding far, far beyond our original competitors and closest relatives. And sure, it's arguable that it would be valuable to any organism. But valuable enough to justify the expense? As was said, brains require a lot of energy. More importantly, they require a lot of learning. Nothing is more helpless or helpless for a longer period of time than a human infant. Our rise to functional independence is longer than the entire lifespan of most mammals. That's a tremendous price, and immediately raises two questions about any organism that might spend it. First, is it possible? Can the organism actually care for its young to that extreme degree for that amount of time? Second, is it worth it? Is the cost outweighed by the benefit? I mean, sure, a tiger with human level intelligence might have some advantage, but actually not all that much. Their physiology just doesn't allow them the capability of tool-making or tool-use, and without any kind of technology, how worthwhile is intelligence, really? Compare two races of human. They are outwardly identical, but one has human intelligence, and the other would be considered functionally retarded, but possesses all the instincts needed to aquire food and escape most predators. Both are naked and aren't allowed to make any kind of tools, clothes, or even carry anything except in their mouths. Now imagine that the retarded race reaches full maturity by age two. Put them in direct competition. Who wins?

What do you mean by de-evolve? Evolve into something which closely resembles an earlier form? Sure, especially in terms of small changes, and an environment which resembles the earlier one. Evolve to be less intelligent? Sure. Intelligence is extremely "expensive," biologically speaking, and needs an organism that can take major advantage of it in order to evolve and maintain itself.

Actually, the more we learn, the greater the number of unanswered questions, because our knowledge shows us new and more specific directions of inquiry. Without any knowledge, the only question you can ask is, "whu..?" It's not really that mysterious a process...

You didn't say what?

What you've done is demonstrate one of the reasons why there is a theoretical upper limit to the elasticity of objects. That does make me wonder, though, and maybe Swansont could shed some light on this. How does that translate into the subatomic level? Like, pushing on a single neutron can't possibly move the "other side" of it instantaneously, since it has a finite diameter, and hence must deform and somehow internally transmit a "shockwave?" Or does quantum uncertainty make the question irrelevant somehow?

yourdadonapogos, you have a very rigid and simple idea about what is moral and what is not. Does that mean you don't think it's a result of evolution, wherein it would inevitably be a much more vague and fluid notion?

Light does not need a medium to travel through. Either you misunderstood what your teacher was saying, or your teacher was very, very wrong.

Yup. Though it can travel through any matter of all but the least density, and travels better through more dense media, like water or rock. What we hear is mostly through air, though, because our ears are generally in air, and sound doesn't transfer too well between media of different densities. As Swansont said, light can travel through air, but that air is just a hindrance, it's not a medium. Light travels best through vacuum. You are correct that there would be no sound without a medium for it to travel through. However, that is not the case with light, which is why it's an entirely different sort of "wave" altogether. You wouldn't notice it in everyday life, just because it's such a small effect compared with all the other forces we continually deal with. However, under special circumstances, it's quite observable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_sail No, it doesn't slow down. It's just slower than it would be in empty space.

I was under the impression he was asking about more substantial differences, like superior brain function. Obviously people look different.

That whole thing sounds like a mess. "IQ" is pseudoscience to begin with. Intelligence is not some substance that one has a greater or lesser quantity of. It's much, much more complicated than that. Also, as Dak points out, the traditional cultural division of "white, black, and asian" doesn't really reflect genetic realities all that well, and if this guy doesn't even know that, or chooses to ignore it, well... I'm not saying there can't be large statistical differences in genetic groups. There probably are. It just seems like we're not really prepared to approach the problem scientifically.

May as well link to this: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25092 I make a parallel sort of observation as you, Airmid, only in relation to morality instead of socialism. It's basically the same idea, though. Oh, Mokele. No matter how slighted you are, you always find a way to overreact ridiculously, don't you?

Oh, sure. Any attempt to strictly and simply define morality quickly becomes absurd if you take that definition to its logical extreme. But that makes perfect sense if you explain it in terms of instinct, as such a phenomenon would not follow simple logical rules, and would even contradict itself quite often. That's why trying to find the "true" moralility and act by it in a conscious and rational way inevitably makes one look ridiculous.

I don't know much about this stuff, but I'm pretty sure it's not nearly as simple as "black, white, and asian," which is merely a traditional division and not necessarily reflecting genetic realities. For one thing, there's much more genetic variety among "blacks" than in all other "races" combined. A more scientifically rigorous division (if that's possible, which is somewhat doubtful) might consist of several races of "blacks" and one of "everyone else." In answer to your question, however, I can only assume the first humans would be black, as they lived in east Africa. Skin pigments are not unique to humans, so your observation about "albino animals" is not really correct. In any case, any pigment at all would make humans not albino, as "white" people are not really closer to albino than black people, since both "races" produce skin pigments in the same way and for the same reasons. Disclaimer duly noted. No idea. Maybe. More likely it's just random. Yes. I've never seen anyone with yellow skin, and I don't understand where that cultural idea comes from. They don't have yellow skin. Not so much big vs. small as stout vs. lanky. A tall, thin body has more surface area and is easier to keep cool. A more compact body retains heat better. Remember, though, that that is just a general tendency, and there are bound to be exceptions. Also, remember that diet has a big effect on height, which explains most regional differences. Oh, and that "tall nordic people" thing is a myth.

Hey, wheels are crazy things. Think about the wheels on your car. At any given instant, the bottom of the wheel is motionless. It's gripping the road, which is motionless. The top of the wheel, however, is moving forward at twice the speed of your car. The center moves at the same speed as your car. But its one object, and it stays together. Chew on that for a while!

Ok, a few things. First, sound: It is a wave, yes, a compressive wave through a medium of matter. It does not in itself have mass. It is a successive, "chain-reaction" movement of the matter it moves through, which does have mass. Just like a wave through water: it's the water that has the mass, the wave is a just a motion. Now, light. Light is NOT a wave in the same sense. It does, more or less, move like a wave when it's travelling. However, there are important differences. For one thing, there is no medium through which it moves, so it's not a compressive wave like sound. Second, it only hits things in one location, as a particle, a "photon." What this means, in an extremely over-simplified way, is that you can statistically predict where the photon will go based on the same mathematics you would use to describe a wave like sound, but, when that photon actually shows up, it can only be at a single point, not a whole wave-front. Basically, "wave" and "particle" are both inaccurate descriptions of what light actually IS, but are useful translations into concepts we have some grasp of and which share some of light's properties. Actually, EVERYTHING is both/neither a wave and a particle, but the wave aspects are unnoticable in all but the smallest beings, like photons and electrons. As for whether it has mass, that is also not really a simple answer. General relativity says that an objects mass as perceived by us is dependent on both it's "rest mass" (how massive it is with a relative velocity of zero) and it's relative velocity. It says that the mass of an object moving at light speed relative to us (like, for example, light), must have an infinite mass if it has any "rest mass" at all. Since photons obviously do not have infinite mass, they have no rest mass, which is what is meant by "mass" most of the time. HOWEVER, they DO have "inertia:" it does exert pressure and put holes in things. Its inertia is very small and proportional to the "frequency" of the "light wave." But it does exist.

My take is that morality is only a part of what is called "religion," and it seems like it isn't even a necessary part. I would think the more essential aspect of religion would be the beliefs about what is, of gods and mysterious forces, how the world began and where the rain comes from, etc. It seems like you could have that without any sense of morality, and it would still be "religion." A moral code of behavior without those kinds of beliefs, however, would not be "religion." I suspect the intermingling began with animism, ancestors, and personified natural forces, and, evolved as extensions of them, "gods," all of whom need to be appeased. Thus religion contained notions of prudent behavior, to stay on these beings' good side. One also "ought" to do these things as well, as an extension of preexisting codes of respect for elders. As religions evolved, and gods became more and more powerful and distant and, more importantly, wise and/or loving, it would be inevitable that, since God is infinitely wise, what He asks of you is necessarily the ultimate expression of what you "ought" to do, and supercedes all other moralities. [/speculation]

Morality and religion evolved independently, but both greatly increased in influence when they began to intermingle with one another. Also, "morality" can mean a lot of different things. The notion of 'survival of everyone' is not at all necessarily part of it. That's just a familiar, you might say "Christian" family of moralities. But that's kind of OT. It's not difficult to understand that sort of morality from an evolutionary perspective. Those groups of humans with stable codes of behavior who work together to help each other survive would have a major evolutionary advantage over those that did not, even if an amoral individual within that group would have an advantage of his own. Therefore you would expect to see both tendencies - selfishness and a sense of group obligation - in a kind of perpetual tension and equilibrium, which is in fact what we do see.

There are a few good points here. What might "work" in nature could easily be disasterous in something like a global economy, where things happen very quickly and on a global scale. Natural selection leads to "dead ends" all the time, organisms which, though each incremental change resulted in more offspring in the immediate environment, the overall effect was going to down a road of self-destruction. In nature, that might result in an extinct species. But if the "species" is the economy of an entire country or even the entire human race, what happens then? So really, from both a practical standpoint and the more obvious humanitarian one (the economic equivalent to Darwin's eyeball-burrowing parasite), I should think the lessons of nature would instill a great deal of caution regarding unrestrained capitalism. Pangloss, I also agree with you, not necessarily with regards to your dismissal of Mokele's point, but rather with regards to the general subjectivity of politicalization even of scientists. Just yesterday a paleontologist told me a story about these two extinct species of primate, which a colleague was claiming was actually one species, just with dramatic differences between male and female. He had lots of valid reasons for thinking so, though it was still pretty inconclusive. The hypothesis met with a big uproar, not so much because of problems with the science, but because it was idealogically offensive that creatures that closely related to humans would have so much bigger, stronger, probably smarter males than females. The critics had their scientific reasons as well, of course, but it was obvious that the motivations behind everything, the reason people were getting angry, was political. And these were all very intelligent and well-respected scientists, which just goes to show how easy it is to let idealogy carry one farther than the hard science is really capable of supporting.

Interesting commonality with extensive travelling and educational/academic self-improvement. That would basically be my plans as well. Move every year or so to a different part of the world, read voraciously, interspersed by formal education, maybe pick up a couple PhDs in philosophy and mathematics, or even something else entirely. Although, to be honest, for maybe the first two or three months I'd probably wallow in sheer, decadent laziness. You know, get up after noon, go days without pants, sit on the couch eating huge blocks of cheese. Does that not seem appealing to anyone else?

I guess we Americans only have two alert levels. "Complete Ignorance" and "Mass Hysteria."

Aha! Now I understand. And I agree, actually, but you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't calling him "behind the times" in that he was idealogically backward. I was calling him "behind the times" because he was complaining about a growing idealogical phenomenon that, IMO, has been shrinking for some time now, and which nobody takes seriously any more except as something to complain about!

Let's say it doesn't exist at all. (You can, of course, work for charitable organizations, or give away as much of your stipend as you want.) Also, just curious, but what kind of job?

The scenario is the following. You have been given a permanent, completely unconditional salary, equivalent to that of a solidly middle class job, maybe a little above average. You pay no taxes. You can spend as little or as much as you want, however, there are several restrictions. You cannot make any investments. You cannot sell anything for money. You cannot take out any kind of loan. You can have a job, but you cannot accept any salary. You are allowed to save your money, and can access it anywhere, but you can collect no interest on it. If you think up any other loophole to increase your budget, assume you can't do that either. Also, you don't have the option of refusing this deal. It's just the way things are. Ok, now. What do you do with your life?

I think we're probably ready for "smart" again, too. Yeah, like I said, very similar actions could be classified under the umbrella of very different idealogies, depending on the various motivations for them. A "humanitarian intervention" and "peacekeeping" are liberal. "Democracy by force" and establishing subservient allies are neocon. Making things difficult for a brutal, jingoistic dictator of the Islamic world on the verge of violent hostility towards America, in a strategically important country, who accepted our help in the past but made a disobedient puppet, AND who is sitting on a whole lot of oil, fulfills all sorts of idealogical imperatives. Of course, what "making things difficult" entails might vary a great deal.

Hehe. Ok, what's the progressive version of persistent straw men? Were you saying that I was demonstrating it somehow? How?