SkepticLance

lucaspa said ; I thought the reason was that 1) their physiology was lighter build and 2) their culture involved more long distance running. I am not an expert on this subject and just repeated a comment I saw in a newspaper. I am sure that the excellence of African athletes has many causes. However, it will not be just lighter build, since there are also heaps of Africans in sports requiring heavier build. Talking about Africans as 'their culture' is a bit misleading also. Africa is a continent, and contains numerous cultures, some of which are very different to others. lucaspa also said : Yes, exceptional athletes can be made thru environmental manipulation. That's the whole point of training programs. That's part of it. However, to get to olympic standard is beyond the vast bulk of humanity. You need both the genetic advantage and the training.

insane alien is, of course, quite correct. The key to safety is testing. GM crops and foods are subject to greater regulatory testing requirements than any other food or crop developments at any time in the past. This, no doubt, explains the excellent safety record to the present date. I read a few years back of a disaster with potatoes, using conventional breeding. As many readers will know, potatoes are part of the family Solanaceae, reknowned for its nasty and very toxic alkaloid poisons. Potato leaves are very toxic, containing the poison solanine. Potato tubers, though, tend to be solanine free. In the example I am mentioning (sorry, I lost the reference) cross breeding of a cultured variety with a wild variety resulted in a new strain that had high levels of solanine in the tuber as well as the leaves. One of the researchers took some potatoes home that had been surplus to testing requirements, and cooked them up. He died. There is nothing inherently good or bad about conventional breeding, or about GM. Both are extremely valuable, and both carry hazards. The key is testing. Products must be thoroughly tested be used. To date, unlike conventional breeding, GM has caused no human fatalities. This is due to the robust testing requirements.

To someguy I have already admitted the possibility that some cetaceans are up there in the same intelligence area. It is going to be difficult to perform an objective test, though.

bombus said The idea of Golden Rice was just a way of maintaining the status quo so that we don't have to do anything to really help the poor of the world. (Even the tribes of the Amazon basin have a varied diet. The very poorest in the world are denied a healthy diet by western economics.) Quite the contrary. The two researchers who developed this product - Swiss scientists Dr. Ingo Potrykus and Dr. Peter Beyer - were not working for any company, but an independent research group, with the intention of releasing the crop free of charge to those who needed it. They even gained written permission from a number of companies to use their patented techniques free of charge to allow golden rice to be free to all. Almost half the human race (3 billion people) rely upon rice as a staple. A large fraction of this group - hundreds of millions - are unable to buy or grow enough other foods to provide full nutrient balance, and 2 million die every year from vitamin A deficiency related illness. WHO estimates, for example, that 100,000 women die every year from childbirth due to vitamin A deficiency related body weakness. Golden rice has the potential to improve the health of hundreds of millions of people. This is not tied in with the profit motive, or else it would not be designed to be given away free of charge. SkepticLance, you're not really very skeptical! I am extremely sceptical of the motives and actions of the anti-GM groups.

To lucaspa Re EQ. It appears that you delight in detail criticism. I already said that EQ is a crude measure, and you spend half a very long posting describing in detail what those crudities are. However, EQ has one very important scientific virtue. It is perhaps the only comparative measure of intelligence that is objective. With intelligence, it is almost impossible to come up with measures that are not affected very strongly by the preconceptions of the researchers. This is shown by the ignominious history of researching differences in intelligence based on race. EQ is clearly not a good guide when we look at those organisms that are very large or very small. However, with the exception of a few very large organisms (the elephant and some whales) the candidates for 'most intelligent' are all in the intermediate size range. I doubt anyone is seriously going to suggest that a house mouse is the most intelligent animal. Looking at the EQs of intermediate size animals, and accepting that it is an imperfect measure, we are left with a clear indication that the 'most intelligent' will be either humans or a cetacean. This ties in well with alternative indicators. I am firmly of the opinion that humans are the most intelligent, and this idea is supported not only by EQ, but also by relative frontal lobe size, language ability, ecological success, technological development, success in social groupings etc. I find it hard to see how, with the overwhelming weight of evidence, that anyone could consider another species more intelligent than humans, except for the very unlikely possibility that a cetacean (unable to develop technology due to lack of arms) may have developed high intelligence as an aid to social interaction.

To dichotomy You are correct in suggesting that single factor causation can be erroneous. I doubt that selection for good health as slaves would be a major factor, though, since many of the exceptional African athletes came from Africa, and never had slave ancestors. eg. the Kenyan and Ethiopian runners. The surprising thing about African athletes is that there are so many exceptional ones, despite an incredible lack of wealth, good diet, and athletic amenities and coaching to develop them. Exceptional athletes, like exceptional thinkers, cannot be simply made through environmental manipulation, though diet, exercise etc are important. They must start with an exceptional genome.

One problem with viewing an apparent evolutionary continuum is that lots of fossils represent side branches - not the direct line of descent. It is actually damn difficult, indeed impossible, to know if a fossil represents a direct ancestor, or a side branch - a cousin, so to speak. The human line is especially difficult. We cannot be sure if Homo habilis or Homo erectus, or Australopithecus afarensis or any others are ancestors, or side branches of the hominid line.

bombus said GMOs have nothing to do with feeding the world. They are to do solely with profit for the companies that develop them. This statement is one of those horrible generalisations frequently made by the pseudoreligious. True, many GM crops and foods are very much to do with profit. However, there are many others also. For example : the vitamin A enhanced rice, called golden rice, was developed by a pair of Swiss researchers who were working to develop a better food for the third world, based on the fact that 2 million rice eaters die every year from diseases related to vitamin A deficiency. It was their plan to release it free of charge to those who needed it. Sadly, this has not happened, due to the protest action of the anti-GM organisations. As a result, those 2 million deaths continue each year unabated. bombus also said : Others have the 'doomsday gene' so the second generation is infertile thus tying growers to the companies. This gene, later labelled as the 'terminator' by the anti-GM movement, was developed by the US Dept. of Agriculture (not industry) in order to meet the anti-GM demand for a means to prevent cross pollination. It is quite ironic that a trait developed to meet their demands was immediately attacked by them as a tool of capitalism to tie farmers to one supplier. As a result of the hysterical response of the anti-GM organisations, this gene is not used commercially. The irony is that a very effective tool for stopping cross pollination has been prevented from use by those who claim to be most concerned about that cross pollination. However, the anti-GM organisations have a long history of outright stupidity.

foodchain said : Personally I don’t think the anti GMO crowd is purely dogmatic beliefs. A little history here. The first few years of GM foods and crops saw remarkably little opposition, though Greenpeace and others were making a few murmers. The situation changed with an experiment by a chap called Professor Pusztai. He tested some raw GM potatoes on rats and showed serious health problems, primarily starvation. Sadly, he was carrying out what appeared to be a highly incompetent experiment. For example, he did not have a proper control, and it was later shown that feeding ordinary (non GM) raw potatoes to rats had the same effect. However, in the six months or so it took to demonstrate this, Greenpeace and a whole swathe of others took up the anti-GM mantle. In due course, the anti-GM lobby groups were shown to have no scientific backing, as Pusztai's experiment was shown to be so much garbage (strangely, the anti-GM lobby still quotes these experiments, as though the results had not bee shown to be rubbish). Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the rest have been searching ever since for a scientific reason to oppose GM. This is a clear case of lobby groups taking up a cause in the light of scientific evidence, and then refusing to let go when the evidence evaporates. The levo-tryptophan nonsense is a further example of the grasp for scientific validity to support their stance, and their refusal to let go when the evidence disappears. Another good example is monarch butterflies. An experiment showed that the pollen of corn, genetically modified for insect resistance, was toxic to monarch larvae in large doses. This was taken by the anti-GM lobby as 'proof' that GM is environmentally harmful, and they still quote this to the present day. The problem is that monarch larvae do not encounter enough GM pollen to harm them. And researchers then discovered that GM corn fields actually supported far more monarchs than non GM. This is logical bearing in mind that non GM corn fields are routinely sprayed with insecticide. There are lots more examples like this. I would suspect that eventually, the anti-GM lobby will get their wish, and find a modified crop that is genuinely harmful. That crop will, of course, be immediately removed from cultivation. However, it will instigate another round of hysteria.

To CDarwin Was that a slip of the keyboard? Cro magnon man was Homo sapiens. Comes after neanderthalensis.

Keep an open mind on this. It may not even be related to alcohol. If it does not go away in a day or two, find another doctor. I remember an occasion where we were camping, and a friend woke up with a similar rash. We did not know what it was, and took her to a doc. It was shingles, which responds to treatment, but gets bloody painful without. Shingles is caused by an outbreak of the old chickenpox virus.

To CDarwin Ah, but you should have seen us before the sea level rise that followed the end of the ice age.

To Phi for All The levo-tryptophan story is a perfect example of the total crap that is spread by the anti-GM movement. Here is a government health description of what really happened. http://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/programme/programme_gmf/programme_gmf_gi_info3.html Myths and Facts Did L-tryptophan from GM source cause severe illnesses, the Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome (EMS), and even deaths? In 1989, there had been an outbreak of the disease Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome (EMS) affecting over 1500 people with at least 37 deaths in the USA. EMS is characterized by flu-like symptoms, intense muscle pain and skin inflammation and even memory disturbances. The cause of this outbreak was linked to certain batches of a dietary supplement, L-tryptophan (an essential amino acid), manufactured in Japan. Some people believed that the use of GM bacterium for the production of L-tryptophan was the main cause. It has been reported that the manufacturer had changed the production procedures by reducing amount of activated carbon used in a purification step. The development of EMS was, in fact, found to be linked with the presence of contaminants, which was probably introduced by the poor purification step, rather than the GM bacterium itself. Levo-tryptophan is one of those bullshit food supplements that do absolutely nothing to assist health, but which have made millions of dollars for those companies prepared to sell garbage. The manufacture involves the use of bacteria in fermenters to make the stuff. The process also produces a number of toxins. In the case above, the manufacturers were using a GM bacteria which was OK, but then changed the toxin removal process in order to save money. Result, lots of toxins were not removed. Government studies that followed squarely pointed the finger at the reduction in toxin removal and not at the use of GM bacteria. However, the anti-GM movement refuse to believe this, since it does not fit in with their own little dogmatic beliefs. Personally, I would like to see all bullshit food supplements removed from the market, along with all other scams.

Of all topics we could discuss, this is the one with the most bulldust attached. For example : the statement that 'superweeds' arise from cross pollination. Over the past 12 odd years, in excess of 250 new weeds resistant to the herbicide glyphosate have come into existence as a result of natural selection. At the same time, less than six have come into existence from cross pollination with GM glyphosate resistant crops. However, those six make a great horror story to foist off onto an unsuspecting population! In any case, clearing up those 'superweeds' is easy, and is done repeatedly. Spray them with a different herbicide and they are gone. In the 12 odd years that GM foods have existed, it is estimated that over 2 billion people have eaten them, and millions eat them every day. For example, GM insect resistant corn in the form of corn flour is eaten daily by millions of people of Mexican descent. It is basically a staple in their diet. In spite of this, there has never been a single case where a health detriment, no matter how minor, has been ascribed to the fact that someone's food is genetically modified.

foodchain said I am not 100% sure as to the extent of QM in human thought. I don’t know if per say information processing in the human brain is simply a product of QM, or again really the extent of QM again. That reminds me a bit of the techno-babble in the Star Trek series, where the doctor says that something is wrong in someone's brain at the subatomic level. Heeeeey. Pretty cool since the brain does not work at the subatomic level. Brain function is electrochemistry. Molecules, ion movement, and chemical reactions. Quantum mechanics is probably not an issue, except as it impinges on chemistry.

There is an interesting idea about time travel. And before anyone tries to shoot it down in flames, let me up front admit it is speculative and unproven. In quantum physics there is a multi-universe theory which states that a photon heading towards a double slit can go either way. The multi-universe theory says it goes both ways, and creates a new universe for each choice. The time travel speculation I mention suggests that time travel into the past is possible (there is nothing special about time travel into the future - we are doing it all the time). When the traveller goes into the past, he/she alters the past, and creates a new universe. When that time traveller returns to the 'present' it is all changed, because it is part of the new universe. However, the old universe is still there. Just that the time traveller cannot return.

CDarwin said : New Zealand is just a little bump on the Australian plate. I am going to challenge you to pistols at dawn for that comment! NZ is a small country above water. But our continental shelf is enough to make us a continent, believe it or not. And Australia is a small part of the New Zealand plate. From our view point, it is just a large and very dry sand bank off to the west.

To CDarwin I am not sure how good a claim you can make on the basis of continental shelf extensions. New Zealand has an enormous continental shelf area. If we accept that any part of that shelf is NZ territory, then we own Norfolk Island and MacQuarie Island. I suspect that such a claim might get the Australians a bit annoyed!

Dichotomy said : A person who easily gains weight, and has great difficulty losing it, generally has a shorter and less healthy life expectancy than someone who doesn’t automatically pack on weight This is not a criticism of the above statement or an argument - just an aside on a point I find interesting. It is possible, and often happens, that a gene or genes for some undesirable trait may stay in the population for a hell of a long time before being weeded out, if it has its nasty effect after the age of reproduction. So if a person has a gene for 'middle age spread' and goes obese after, say, the age of 45, then that gene will not be easily eliminated. The classis is the Huntington's Disease gene, which kills people in their late 50's and 60's. It is damned persistent in the human gene pool. This effect is also a prime candidate for one of the causes of ageing. The population accumulates genes that are harmful, but have an effect only late in life. Since these mutations are not readily weeded out, they build up in number. Today, humans have lots of genetic mutations in the genome which kick in at an older age, and cause harm. ie. ageing. We may have as many as 1000 harmful genes that kick in with age, and cause us to degenerate as we get older.

To lucaspa Re Encephalisation quotient. I find your replies very annoying, because they are so nit picking. EQ is a measure that I already said was crude, so you attack it by saying it is crude. What are you trying to achieve? EQ also suffers from a degree of variablility. When I first started looking for web sites on EQ, I found that the stated EQ for any one species varied somewhat from web site to web site. So one reference might say human EQ is 5, and another might say 8. However, what stayed fairly consistent was comparisons between species. So if web site A says human = 5, then bottlenose dolphin will be a bit less, say 4. If web site B says human = 8, then bottlenose dolphin will be a bit less, say 7. This applies pretty much across all web sites I looked at. However, you attack my point on the grounds that the reference you looked up showed a different EQ to the reference I looked up. Can you understand why I find your arguments unsound? A major cause of the EQ variability is individual variability. Sure, obesity will affect it. So will lots of other factors. That is why human EQ is given such varying values. Nevertheless, regardless of how you twist it, from any credible study human EQ ends up the highest, supporting the view that human intelligence is top of the pole. This is not proof, but good supporting evidence.

chemically whale meat is not much different to cow meat. However, there are two reasons not to kill whales. 1. Many species are scarce, and may go extinct. This does not, of course, apply to Minke Whales, which are the main target of Japanese whales. 2. Whales are highly intelligent. A Minke Whale probably has a degree of intelligence and consciousness equal to that of a young human child. Thus, morally, to kill a Minke Whale is directly equivalent to killing a young human child. That is called murder. Intelligence is frequently shown by a high degree of curiosity. About 20 years ago, I was on an expedition to scuba dive a number of islands and reefs in the South Pacific. We encountered a Minke Whale inside the lagoon of South Minerva Reef. It swam around us for a full two hours - clearly fascinated by us humans who swam with it. One of our number had an electric underwater scooter, and carried out a series of swoops, dives, and ascent at speed. The whale followed him, imitating every swoop, dive, and ascent. Its behaviour was that of a very aware and very curious individual. We left that encounter totally convinced of its intelligence.

To CD Warp fields and wormholes are a lovely idea, but sadly there is no evidence that either one can do the job. There are good theoretical reasons why no matter, energy or information can travel faster than light. In spite of lots of research, no one has succeeded in doing it. Even the recent 'success' with quantum tunnelling did not in fact permit anything to travel faster than light. We cannot exclude the very remote possibility that one day it will be done. However, with today's science, it appears totally impossible.

The colonel said So we end up with no 'good' objective measure for 'intelligence' whatever that is defined as. What a surprise Not entirely correct. I claim EQ as the best objective method. it is not perfect, for reasons I stated, but gives an excellent indication. On this basis, I claim humans as the most intelligent. If you doubt this logic, take another look at the list of species and their EQ. If we exclude the extreme giants, the EQ numbers correlated damn close with what we whould expect, from behavioural observation, to be relative intelligence. Who would deny the intelligence of the bottlenose dolphin? Who would argue against high intelligence in chimps? Or that the lowly opossum is just plain stupid?

The closest thing we have in science to an objective measure of intelligence is the encephalisation quotient (EQ). This is the ratio of brain mass to body mass. This is not, of course, perfect. It is, in fact, a rather crude measure. However, it is a better and less subjective measure than any other I have seen. The result varies a lot from individual to individual. Think of how the EQ of Einstein would be quite different to that of a human moron. This gives a range of EQs for humans from 5 to 8. EQ also does not work as a measure for very large animals. The Blue Whale has an EQ of only 0.15, and is undoubtedly more intelligent than this indicates. However, for mid size animals it gives a good indication of relative intelligence, if not quite up to three decimal point accuracy. Here are some EQs Bottlenose dolphin 3.6 Chimpanzee, and our ancestor, Australopithecus 2.7 Proboscis monkey 1.11 Ringed seal 1.37 Caribou 0.78 Opossum 0.39 For those who are dinosaur freaks, their EQs varied from 0,05 to 5.8. The beast so well portrayed in Jurassic Park - the Velociraptor - had the 5.8. Based on EQs, there is no doubt of which is the most intelligent animal. It is Homo sapiens.

And of course, according to current understanding of physics, it is in fact impossible to travel faster than light. An article by two NASA scientists about ten years ago in Scientific American stated that the maximum potential speed that could be achieved using any means known to be possible would be 0.2c, or one fifth of light speed.