Ringer

Well, if you're going to go for an appeal for authority, Lloyd Pye holds only a B.S. in psychology, so for discussion of bones I'd go with the archeologist. I went to starchild project, they contradict themselves and ignore virtually everything that contradicts what they have decided is a forgone conclusion. For example in their discussion of the DNA update they specifically state, correctly, that nuDNA is genetic material from both parents. Then they make the statement that the failure to obtain clear PCR results for nuDNA is due to non-human DNA not being able to match to the primers used. The problem is that since nuDNA is from both parents, and it is established that the mtDNA is human, they should have gotten at least one band, though not two if the other parent is non-human. Another problem is simple genetics, during mitosis chromosome homologs must match for recombination and segregation to occur. If they don't have pairs there are very disturbing side effects even if the parents are close enough relatives to actually reproduce, to assume that something that didn't even evolve on Earth is close enough genetically to do this is extraordinary in the extreme. A failed PCR run isn't even evidence, let alone the kind of extraordinary evidence one would need for this kind of claim.

This site has a fairly thorough examination of the skull and its history: http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=1417

I have heard the opposite conversation happen though.

Yeah, that is exactly what he said. I don't see what point you're trying to make.

Which mode of speciation? Are your notes under autopolyploidy or something else?

Try explaining exponents to someone who hasn't learned multiplication. Also a basic problem is that you said that chemical is released in the blood, so you restrict yourself to hormones (or neurohormones) and their interactions between different parts of the nervous system as well as the other parts of the bodies. But a single hormone (or neurotransmitters) can have a different reaction to different tissues depending on the other things going on. Basically all any of them do selectively excite or inhibit other neurons and tissues, but that doesn't really give a good answer to your question. But an integral is something that is fairly specific, though it can work generally. You are asking for a specific answer to an extremely vague question. A better example is me asking you what does a particle do? It's such a vague question that any answer that explains anything a particle can do is right, but it probably wouldn't answer the question I wanted. You see what I mean? Like I said, feelings and experience are just excitation or inhibitions in certain areas of the brain and nervous system. These can be caused by a wide range of factors.

The book was printed much earlier than that, it's just new editions come out (apparently people really do read his stuff).

Read this book. Pinker does a wonderful job showing that it seems like many people are dying due to the ease with which have the ability to kill. But in percentages, very few people die violent deaths in modern times and the world is much safer for people, on average, than it ever has been.

Sugars were usually in ripe fruit because they are really just ovaries preparing to feed the budding plant and hunting was a fairly difficult when trying to feed an entire tribe with rival predators everywhere. So both of these things would either only come every once in a while (for fruit) or had a high energy tradeoff (for hunting). Thinking of it this way it is not difficult to see why evolution would select for eating high amounts of these two types of food when the availability is high, otherwise during the winter when these things weren't around (and sex tends to occur more IIRC) they may not have had the energy and nutrients to survive the months without those things. That being said people do like foods that are good for you, they just don't tend to like them as much as the other types of food. Fruits being the most commonly eaten because they have sugars we enjoy. Vegetables are edible to us, for the most part, but give us very little in the way of nutrition because we can't digests the cellulose, we can survive for a while on them but not indefinably.

I think there are a few fundamental flaws with the 'facts' presented that make their factualness either void or not worth commenting on. First, many take a, slightly blanketed, moral stance. Take Fact 1, it assumes one doesn't want to break up once one is a couple. But, taken to it's logical conclusion, it tells us that a person who hasn't had premarital sex may tend to stay with someone regardless of the situation. Which tells us those who have premarital sex may be able to make better relationship advice. So whether or not this is true, it is attempting to make breaking up a bad thing while in reality it usually isn't. Second, these facts, like I pointed out earlier, were written before major research has been done in this area. On another thread I talked about the only study I remember being done on premarital sex and marriage hinting that married couples are more satisfied if they didn't have premarital sex. But the study participants were by and large made up of people informed of the study by their church or students at the university were both of them need both recommendations from religious leaders and to sign a pledge saying if they broke any of the moral rules, such as premarital sex, they would be expelled or fired. This makes both bias on the sampling and expectation virtually impossible to avoid. Just like the Kinsey studies have a strong bias for more liberal sexual views, because who else is going to be comfortable enough to have sex and masturbate in front of a group of people with electrodes and 'arousal analysis machines' on them. Third, nothing I have found shows any evidence that the man writing this book cited where he got these facts. This is unsurprising for a Sociologist, or many social scientists, from that time period. So it makes it damn hard to find where he got these. Forth, and one of the strongest indicators of the BS, is that the entire thing is written in emotionally loaded language with strong presumptions about how you will feel when reading it. It assumes it knows your morals are the same as the writer's and goes from there. You learn not to do that in psychometrics 101, it frames a question to get the answer you want. Take the one about guilted into marriage. It assumes premarital sex causes guilt because premarital sex is bad. It's circular logic, and it either forces you to accept premarital sex is wrong to show that it is wrong and, if you don't believe it's wrong, you have to jump through mental hoops to make it make sense to you so you start assuming it's correct. It's one of the ways many people get results they want, they make an argument that makes little sense so you have to sit and think until it makes sense to you. You go through all the mental gymnastics and your brain starts telling you 'this could totally be right.' It's the same concept of cold readings, you did all their work and give them credit for being so right.

Also of note is the author of the book was a minister, and the list itself was made before major research was done in these areas.

Funny that I said they were findings, meaning evidence points towards this being the case. Soft sciences has many problems, but it seems to get more information in these areas than philosophers using armchair wisdom. Earliest undisputed grave is 90,000 years (http://books.google.com/books?id=3tS2MULo5rYC&pg=PA163&dq=Uniquely+Human++qafzeh&ei=F-AeR_ntI5WGpgLkrsWzBg&sig=k7GcMq8PU_B6tX56Cf95ENxmJIQ#v=onepage&q=Uniquely Human qafzeh&f=false) Evidence these behaviors are much older : http://www.originsnet.org/Harrod IACM 2010 PPT.pdf Please cite them, the only one I know of who uses those dates was Chomsky. Plus this is a blatant admission to confirmation bias. WHAT?! I have asked you to share your definitions of words multiple times so we could communicate better. You have made statements, that doesn't make them facts. In a science setting you cite sources to show something has merit. So, let's forget my asking you for definitions, just cite sources with evidence that whatever claim you are making is the case. What I believe is irrelevant to what data would show. As I have said multiple times, intelligence is an ill defined concept so depending on the definition used I could be both intelligent and unintelligent. Hence why I have asked for a definition. It doesn't matter what most people do, I don't care what they believe or say, I didn't say it. Nor do I believe in he least that even most things are known by someone. If I did my hopes of doing research would be completely moot. People simply don't understand Stars but think we can use human constructs and human language in such a way as to apply to nature or nature's other chemical factories. It's not legitimate and it doesn't illuminate anything Show me scientists working in the field of consciousness who believe humans are the only conscious animal or that animals are not intelligent.

They're not assumptions, they are findings in the field of psycholinguistics. Again, I have never said language implies intelligence. What specific behaviors are you referring to? Anatomically identical homosapiens developed ~250,000 years ago. They were in southern Asia ~60,000 years ago so, I highly doubt those isolated populations all developed language and whatever else you identify with human associated behaviors? I believe the generally accepted time language developed is at least 100,000 years. So we can't use words to explain what we mean when having a discussion? It would seem this whole discussion is moot then. We have been attempting to understand animals since the beginnings of science and before.

So instead of letting me know exactly what is wrong with my reply, and how it damaged the thread beyond repair, so it could be taken care of you want someone to delete my post so the points go away?

Plants have a photosensitive hormone that directs their stem growth toward the strongest source of light and directs their roots to grow away from the light (if light is reaching any of the roots. IIRC they also have cells that are sensitive to gravity as well, so I'm not sure if that would cause the roots and stem to grow downwards. I would think to really grow them up side down would be to block light from the top and have either a light source or something to reflect light upwards to stimulate growing in the preferred direction.

But the only way to be able to make a statement of the kind of bias you mentioned would be in the methodology. You wouldn't be able to draw those conclusions just from the abstract. Or if you looked through the authors other works, such as blogs or talks, and noticed a strict anti-religious stance. But just throwing bias out there without support is dismissing the researchers work for nothing. It's the kind of thing that Creationists or Alternative Medicine people do, and it irks me to no end. I didn't say anything about valuing spirituality, I don't even know where you got that from. What I said was that there is strong correlation with education level and evolution( http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx ).

What my cynical mind thinks is that they're trying to set up the pro-abortion people. If they say this is wrong on moral grounds (such as due to a person being used as evidence as the article says)then they have a point of argument that if it's immoral to force someone to be evidence why can you kill them. It would still be an absolute crap argument and a myriad of ways to get around it (DNA can be obtained from the fetus) but it seems like a strategy that politicians would try to use. Or they could just be incredibly dumb. Actually maybe they all have bets against each other on who can be the most repulsive to the other side.

Superstition tends to be higher in those with less education. Seeing that there were probably not schools for education for education sake, it would be a pretty good assumption that pre-historic people were superstitious. Also, since most primitive medicine is not evidence based, by definition it is superstitious medicine. I doubt primitive people everywhere consistently used evidence based medicine, so by definition it would be superstition. Proper language? What would that be? Proto-Indo-Europian? Proto-Semitic? Because they didn't speak that at the time. Language has never been a static thing, and any no language is more 'proper' than any other. This isn't to say I hold modern people, modern language, or modern science in low esteem merely that few today understand or can incorporate our vast knowledge into their lives or use it for any practical purposes. Modern people are highly superstitious and this is a very serious problem. Nor could ancient people, many lived in poverty other were somewhat well off and they lived with little to no interest in incorporating those things into their lives. Please cite some evidence that the amount of superstition in modern societies is more than non-modern societies. I believe every thread on every site highlights the failure of communication. Yes, there are some great threads on many sites but even in the best you can usually spot two posters who are on different topics. Modern communication is almost never perfect. Generally oral communication is much worse. Even if speakers take the time to listen to each other (few do) anything written or spoken can be deconstructed; it means what the listener believes it means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction This problem is greatly exascerbated by an imperfect understanding of referents and idiosyncratic, improper, or non-standard usage of definitions. The ancient language didn't work this way. You either took the meaning perfectly or you knew you couldn't understand it at all; like computer code. WHAT?!?!?! Oh please have a reference for this, because I'd love to see it. Language wasn't, isn't, and never has been static. So if nobody is looking at them, how did you find out about them? A quick google search for pyramid water pump turns up over a million hits. Looks like people are looking into it. You have committed a cardinal sin of science, do not use the word theory as anything but the best explanation of a phenomena with mounds of supporting evidence. So I don't have to read an entire book, why couldn't ramps be used and why do you believe geysers were used?

What? How is that metaphysics? It's a branch of psychology and biology (also sometimes linguistics but that's more about lexical strategies), not metaphysics. Why? What it 'means' to be any organism is irrelevant on explanations of their abilities. You were saying that you had to understand the organisms language to understand its intelligence. That implies one has to have a language to have intelligence. It doesn't matter what kind of code it is, watch it used for long periods and it can be cracked/decrypted. You still didn't give me an example of your word learning animal.

Well, I'm glad that your doubt doesn't change the fact that evidence strongly implies that there is an instinctual factor in the ability to learn, use, and respond to language. Language is not just learned at a young age, it is learned at an age where one doesn't have basic problem solving skills, let alone the ability to comprehend arbitrary, infinitely complex patterns. Yet children do, and not only do they, they do it without any sort of instruction. They don't just learn words, they learn grammar, syntax, slight phoneme changes that represent past and present tense, homophones, semantics, etc. This is not something you can just write off as, "Oh, they just learn it, no problem." Not to mention saying that people use language as a template for thought is getting it backwards. Have you ever known something and not been able to explain it? Then you just proved language is not the template for thought. So what are you defining as higher level brain function, because it's not any one I've ever heard of if you are leaving out the cerebral cortex. I never said it was indicative of intelligence, I don't see where you got that. Don't straw-man me. Please cite the source where language is the result of one random mutation. . . Actually don't waste your time, just be content knowing that is incorrect. As I have said in the other thread, define "smart", "clever" and "intelligence". Otherwise this discussion will be pointless.

Superstition is not synonymous with religious. It is usually needed to be religious, but kids don't have a separate religious affiliation because they believe in Santa. (as a side note, The Force was an 'entity' worshiped and studied by a group of monks who later formed the Jedi Order. So yes it would be considered a religion). Then you change the definition to suite your argument and make a logical fallacy. I didn't see the implication. The point seems to be that spirituality tends to drop as one becomes more educated, and societies that are more educated tend to have higher levels of societal health. The education -> health seems to be an implied causation, but the drop in spirituality is an interesting byproduct (so far as I can make that judgement from a cursory glance). I wouldn't look to far into that, Biden always looks uncomfortable or asleep. I'm not ydoaPs but I would say that it is a possibility, but I didn't see anything that gives the idea of a glaring bias. They didn't do regression so they couldn't have tweaked that to make things more suitable to their needs. They used ISSP and Gallup for their polls on religiosity, two high quality polling companies. And societal health they got from WHO and the UN. I'm looking at the global health paper BTW. I wasn't going to get into this discussion, but arguing for bias on a paper that you haven't read to make a non-existent point is fairly irritating. [edit] and just to be clear I made a generalization about the paper. They use acceptance of evolution as a marker, I wrote it as more educated because it seems to imply that and education level and acceptance of evolution are strongly correlated.[/edit]

Other species don't have language as we define it. They communicate but languages have a strict definition. You also can't say that language = intelligence because people with damage to Broca and Wernicke's areas still have problem solving abilities independent of language. Give one example animals learning more words than a human in their language. Computer code is not a black box. People solve codes and crypts all the time, that's not the problem. Intelligence isn't dependent on language, unless you define intelligence as linguistic ability. This is a science forum so what most people do isn't really relevant. We know that many animals have a vast array of learning abilities as well as concepts of self vs. others. They can plan ahead, the can play tricks, lie, cheat, etc. This all goes back to a need to clearly define intelligence before a meaningful discussion can begin.

Just to weigh in, there has been one study I know of that found a correlation between abstinence and marital satisfaction. But the research methodology was pretty much crap IIRC. Mainly the sample was completely non-random, a large portion of their sample was from the college which requires both their students and faculty to stay abstinent unless married and must have a church figure give recommendations regularly. So the likely hood of bias is pretty high.

IQ just means intelligence quotient, it's a score from a quiz that is supposed to measure general intelligence. If animals took it they would probably get a zero because they can't read. [edit] What I was getting at is that you are defining intelligence by using the term intelligence, it doesn't make sense.[/edit]

In short, not really. Intelligence is a poorly developed concept that tends to morph in meaning depending on what someone wants it to mean. So as an attempt to not make this into a completely semantic argument, what do you mean when you say intelligence?