Sarah Palin favors teaching creationism in schools.

[Everett]

It's a shame natural selection doesn't seem to apply to threads.

I suspect that 90% of the forum would be immediately eliminated if natural selection applied. Some unknown percentage of the surviving threads would gradually fade into nonexistence. I fully support this, not that it will ever happen, of course.

[John Dibble]

It's a shame natural selection doesn't seem to apply to threads.

Well, threads don't reproduce, but perhaps if you viewed posts as the children of threads then natural selection does occur. Threads that attract a lot of posters (let's say that's the thread equivalent of food) have more posts and are thus more successful. It just so happens that for some reason dumb threads are more successful, so this forum's natural selection favors dumb threads.

[Alcon]

It's a shame natural selection doesn't seem to apply to threads.

Well, threads don't reproduce, but perhaps if you viewed posts as the children of threads then natural selection does occur. Threads that attract a lot of posters (let's say that's the thread equivalent of food) have more posts and are thus more successful. It just so happens that for some reason dumb threads are more successful, so this forum's natural selection favors dumb threads.

We should have a six billion word debate on this.  GO!

[John Dibble]

It's a shame natural selection doesn't seem to apply to threads.

Well, threads don't reproduce, but perhaps if you viewed posts as the children of threads then natural selection does occur. Threads that attract a lot of posters (let's say that's the thread equivalent of food) have more posts and are thus more successful. It just so happens that for some reason dumb threads are more successful, so this forum's natural selection favors dumb threads.

We should have a six billion word debate on this.  GO!

You know, you're only making this thread more successful.

[J. J.]

The evolutionary theory, insofar as I'm familiar with it, teaches that divergent species evolve differently with different evolutionary capacities.  Saying that chimps evolving metaphysical thinking would explain it, doesn't make much sense.  It would just give us another incidence.   There would still be no explanation offered.  I figure you'd probably still be making the same argument.  For consistency, you very well should.

Well, you've ask why I would expect the "mental block."  That's why.  I'd kind of expect it (and it does span species).  That's at least halfway there, though it doesn't quite explain the preoccupation with the question.  If I could find another incidence, I wouldn't think it was anything too special and say, "Great, this developed naturally, beyond question.  It is nothing special in that regard."

I've seen that with other things, ranging from aspects of physical evolution to the development of the intellect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, it isn't my intent to stymie you.  Merely to ask a question, one that frankly has bothered me for a long time.  My mind is far from made up and the only substantiation is that we don't have evidence one way or another; I was hoping, and still hope, for the link.  It might explain it.

Second, I don't claim expertize.  That's why I asked the question.

Third, we've a number posters saying in effect, "It's science, we should believe it (and we should believe Palin is wrong for even suggesting talking about something else)."  I say, "Okay, where is the science?"  I'm not a hard sell on this, as I think you can see.  So far, I have not seen it, and it's been like putting teeth to get an answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, my "taunts" were in response to yours.    And I hope proportional.  

[J. J.]

It's a shame natural selection doesn't seem to apply to threads.

Well, threads don't reproduce, but perhaps if you viewed posts as the children of threads then natural selection does occur. Threads that attract a lot of posters (let's say that's the thread equivalent of food) have more posts and are thus more successful. It just so happens that for some reason dumb threads are more successful, so this forum's natural selection favors dumb threads.

I actually thought that this should be moved to the religion area.

Frankly, I think the questions raise are interesting.

[Everett]

It's a shame natural selection doesn't seem to apply to threads.

Well, threads don't reproduce, but perhaps if you viewed posts as the children of threads then natural selection does occur. Threads that attract a lot of posters (let's say that's the thread equivalent of food) have more posts and are thus more successful. It just so happens that for some reason dumb threads are more successful, so this forum's natural selection favors dumb threads.

We should have a six billion word debate on this.  GO!

You know, you're only making this thread more successful.

The absolute smartest or absolute dumbest threads tend to generate the fewest responses for obvious reasons; some threads are just too intelligent for most people to understand them, whilst others are so painfully stupid that no one will bother with responding. I suppose that dumb threads generally receive a disproportionally high amount of attention, both from people who actually enjoy the stupidity and exasperated others who add comments anyhow. However, intelligent threads can and do receive attention, though perhaps not often enough to drown out the less intelligent ones.

Is it just a horribly funny coincidence that sex-related threads are oftentimes the most successful at reproducing?

[Alcon]

I'm sorry.  I don't notice when I'm dropping taunts.  They probably were proportional.  But the "your god" thing stung.  I thought things had escalated more than that.  I didn't realize you were still being playful.

Science shouldn't be believed.  Science should be questioned, dissembled, tagged with caveats, and pushed off a four-story building.  "Reality is exactly how people say reality is, how can you question that?" is the most LOLiously depressing sentiment in the world.  It's religious faith transferred over to science and removed of all of the mysticism, faith, etc., that I guess attracts other people to religion.  Shrug.

I don't agree that we don't have evidence one way or another.  We're going in circles, though -- I've addressed why, and you keep re-explaining why you disagree.  I don't think your explanation addresses my objection.  I do have the burden of evidence, here.  I could go into the detailed functioning of the brain.  I think, if we did, I'd "win" that count  But at this point, I'm skeptical of your interest in changing your mind (honestly), and "educating" someone else is the most ridiculous rationalization for trying to "win" there is.  If you're genuinely interested in this, you'll read more into it, or talk to someone who understands the concepts fluently.  I know I will.

[John Dibble]

It's a shame natural selection doesn't seem to apply to threads.

Well, threads don't reproduce, but perhaps if you viewed posts as the children of threads then natural selection does occur. Threads that attract a lot of posters (let's say that's the thread equivalent of food) have more posts and are thus more successful. It just so happens that for some reason dumb threads are more successful, so this forum's natural selection favors dumb threads.

We should have a six billion word debate on this.  GO!

You know, you're only making this thread more successful.

The absolute smartest or absolute dumbest threads tend to generate the fewest responses for obvious reasons; some threads are just too intelligent for most people to understand them, whilst others are so painfully stupid that no one will bother with responding. I suppose that dumb threads generally receive a disproportionally high amount of attention, both from people who actually enjoy the stupidity and exasperated others who add comments anyhow. However, intelligent threads can and do receive attention, though perhaps not often enough to drown out the less intelligent ones.

Is it just a horribly funny coincidence that sex-related threads are oftentimes the most successful at reproducing?

So, in other words our forum topics are like the human race. In truth nobody likes the mentally disabled, and geniuses are too smart to get laid. The ultimate result is that the stupid and mediocre get lots of attention and reproduce on a large scale, but occasionally some really smart nerd might get laid. Is that what you're trying to say?

[J. J.]

I'm sorry.  I don't notice when I'm dropping taunts.  They probably were proportional.  But the "your god" thing stung.  I thought things had escalated more than that.  I didn't realize you were still being playful.

Science shouldn't be believed.  Science should be questioned, dissembled, tagged with caveats, and pushed off a four-story building.  "Reality is exactly how people say reality is, how can you question that?" is the most LOLiously depressing sentiment in the world.  It's religious faith transferred over to science and removed of all of the mysticism, faith, etc., that I guess attracts other people to religion.  Shrug.

That has not been the opinions expressed by many on this thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I'll look.  Post the link.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is exactly the same standard I've used with the other evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good, I'll look.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like I said, I "win" when it is explained.  This is like a puzzle.  In my own mind, I have all the pieces, but two.  I actually think that one might be established, found, experimentally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I am and have been interested.  Anyone who would know that chimps make tools without looking is (fashioning twigs to probe termite nests).  I've had the question, but never had a forum (no pun intended) to do so.

I was hoping you might have some answers.

[J. J.]

So, in other words our forum topics are like the human race. In truth nobody likes the mentally disabled, and geniuses are too smart to get laid. The ultimate result is that the stupid and mediocre get lots of attention and reproduce on a large scale, but occasionally some really smart nerd might get laid. Is that what you're trying to say?

That might explain trophy wives. 

[Alcon]

Well, man, I'm sorry, I can only be responsible for my own opinions.

As I said, I'll get you the link, but I don't have academic access journal subscriptions at home, only through college.  You have access to one, I'd think?  Is Lahn only coming up with one result?

As for: Like I said, I "win" when it is explained.  It's weird that you're so confident.  Can you even tell me the part of the brain, offhand, responsible for metaphysical thinking?  Do you understand how it evolved?  I'm not sure I'm right, and I think we know comparable levels on this subject.

I'm sorry I don't have the answers, but you seem to prefer they fall into your lap here...

[J. J.]

Well, man, I'm sorry, I can only be responsible for my own opinions.

As I said, I'll get you the link, but I don't have academic access journal subscriptions at home, only through college.  You have access to one, I'd think?  Is Lahn only coming up with one result?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm basically looking for a plausible explanation, that for me is the "win."  Me saying, "You found the source, and there is a plausible explanation."  It's something that I've thought about.  From what I could gather on the Internet, it isn't a human phenomenon; it occurred across the genus.

Some of this is about sources.  I understand the concept of the "upregulation" of genes, not the mechanism of how it works; I certainly am willing to take the word (a bit of faith) of those people who do understand it.  If these experts can say, this section of the brain developed recently, in the genus Homo, and this genetically resulted in an upreguation that explains why people think differently than chimps, I'll buy it.  It won't take a lot, believe me.