Sarah Palin favors teaching creationism in schools.

[J. J.]

Alcon bringeth the ownage.

Well, why don't you try to answer this question, since Alcon hasn't.

We have two groups of genus Homo, A and B.  They are the same species, have the same culture, two or three generations ago, they were the same group.  The group became separated a while back and equal numbers live about 100 miles apart.  Both groups are hunters/gathers/scavengers, tool makers with language; the have a certain level of intelligence and they reproduce.  While separate, each group lives in the same environment, same food, same water, same predators.

Group A stays the same.  Someone in group B starts asking the metaphysical question, "Why is the fruit here."  I'll even assume that the question enters the guys mind through perfectly normal natural means.  The other members of the group start asking it; when they think about it, they are not doing the things group A are doing, i.e. hunting/gathering/scavenging/having sex/making tools.

All thinks being equal, in 50 years, which group will be more viable?  Which group has better chance of producing descendants that will be around in 100 years, less than a blink of the eye in the scale we're discussing?

Both groups can make technological advances, better tools.  Where are those technological advances more likely to occur?

Hint: It isn't a god question.

[J. J.]

J. J.,

I understand your contention is that there's no evolutionary basis for metaphysical thinking.  My contention is that it is part of critical thinking, is not a separate function, and has no reason to appear as such a mutation.  I may be wrong, but I don't think you've explained how it would.  Either way, I've answered your question--"why did homo genus begin to ask 'why is the fruit her?'"  Because their brains evolved to that point, and nothing stopped them from thinking that way.  Your over-use of the smiley doesn't change the fact that you keep ignoring that.

I didn't say no evolutionary basis for metaphysical thinking.  I am asking, how is this an evolutionary advantage?

You seem to be saying that they would ask the question because they could, is that correct?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, it is quite apt.  We have something that does not seem logical and isn't based on observation.  An animal, a primate, a baboon, a chimp, does think abstractly, but it does not think metaphysically; we don't have observation.  We can, logically, say that some things that genus Homo did (and does) gave it an evolutionary advantage; abstract thinking is one of them.  I've not seen an argument that metaphysical thinking is one of them; I have not seen an argument that diverting resources to the results of metaphysical thinking is one of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you are, her second statement is a "correction" of her first statement; it is very clear that her first statement is not the operative one.  The statement relates to the position that she was running for.

If you get to the personal, this is almost like, "I don't drink, but I don't favor banning alcoholic beverages."  I'm not sure with what her personal opinion has to do with her ability to be governor or VP, or President.

[J. J.]

I did answer tacitly -- I called the question "rhetorical."  Group A will be more viable.  That's obvious.

But the implication of your question is that Group B is likely to have existed.  I have rebutted that point.  If that isn't the implication of your question, your question isn't indicative of anything, and it's an entirely theoretical exercise.

You are totally wrong.  Group B not only existed, but you and I descended from it.

The question really is how much do people value curiosity?

Close.  Some curiosity is clearly related to survival, e.g., it there food in the valley, is their a predator behind the next hill.  I'm interested in "metaphysical" curiosity. 

[J. J.]

J. J.,

Metaphysical thinking does not have to be an evolutionary advantage.  It has to be the most successful mutation.  The mutation that you're suggesting is more successful is ridiculously improbable because of the way our brains are structured.  Do you dispute this, and how?

But, according to you (and me), the group that begins to think metaphysically is least advantaged.  In theory, at least, it should be an unsuccessful mutation (if it is a mutation).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, so I don't like Michelle Obama's hair (I actually didn't like her old 'do).  Is that truly a qualification to elect her husband?  Is tht something to complain about?

Looking at what she said, that the second comment modified the first, no, it would not be abritrary. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well then, explain how there is an advantage, and note that I didn't attribute a cause. (and, a likely story.)

[J. J.]

J. J.,

My argument is that:  Advanced thinking, but perhaps sometimes distracted by metacognition > Less advanced thinking  The survival skills of the former outweigh the focus of the latter.  I don't think that's an unrealistic argument.  Look at animals today; do you think our metacognitive distractions very derisively affect our standing in the animal kingdom relative to the more focused animals?  I don't.

Except these other animals do not (yet) show any signs of metaphysical thinking, so really don't have that comparison. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is not the "distraction" but the diversion of resources, even time.  Ah, how this change be "un random."  I bluntly doubt that when this change started, it did not occur is the whole range of the genus Homo at the same time.

Both groups have metacognition; as you've pointed out some animal species have metacognation, but they don't think metaphysically.

The question is that one group, for whatever reason, begins to think about its surroundings in a different way.  It ask a hypothetical question and diverts resources to this question and the other group doesn't.  All other factors are the same.  Which group is more viable.

[J. J.]

J. J.,

They show signs of abstract though, which is a basic form of what leads to metacognition.  Same parts of the brain.  Etc. etc.  You're going in circles, I've already answered that twice.

Yes, the answer is animals have metacognition, in all probability, at some level but they don't think metaphysically.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Distraction" is not a synonym of "diversion of resources."    That idiocy deserves another.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good, I was having a hard time with a scenario for that one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Primates, and believe it or not, rats. 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070308121856.htm

[J. J.]

J. J.,

I told you how it's advantageous several times.  High critical thinking skills are evolutionary beneficial in tool-making, hunting, etc.  Ability to think metaphysically comes along with those, because they are the same part of the brain.  You still haven't rebutted this argument at all.  This must at least be the fifth post where I've asked you to.  What's with that?

No, see no evidence that metaphysical thinking comes along with "critical thinking."  We have species, non Homo, that do make tools and have "language," and they don't make the jump to metaphysical thinking.  That, BTW, is "science," in the broadest sense of the word.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I question you premise.  What makes think that this is the case? 

Why did the jump to metaphysical thinking occur and how did it become evolutionary advantageous?

[J. J.]

No, see no evidence that metaphysical thinking comes along with "critical thinking."  We have species, non Homo, that do make tools and have "language," and they don't make the jump to metaphysical thinking.  That, BTW, is "science," in the broadest sense of the word.

No, they didn't, and if I claimed they'd have to, I'd be misrepresenting basic evolutionary theory.  So, assume that I'm not.

I'll treat this as Palinesque second comment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did read it.  It doesn't.  It does note that one type of amino acid changed most dramatically before the evolutionary branching into genus Homo, i.e. prior to the divergence of great apes and genus Homo, and prior to tool making and language.  It also changed more quickly in ancestral chimpanzees than in genus Homo.  That tells me this is not what were looking for.

It also generally deals with genetic changes that occurred prior to genus Homo (and note that I do not say humans) diverging from the ancestors of chimpanzees, which adds little to the case.

It doesn't deal with any linkage between "critical thinking" and metaphysical thinking.  That seems to be your own spin.  If I may use an an example of analogous thinking, you become to genetic evolution what jmfcst is to the Bible.

The Evans, et al. paper did include one comment, an observation, that is relevant. "There is an inherent fascination in the genetic underpinnings of human evolution, especially with regard to the human brain. " 

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/13/11/1139

I think that is correct, but why is that fascination now inherent.   Genetics do not seem to be the answer.

[J. J.]

I'm the "give up and save your time" cheerleader.

Your team won when I realized I've probably spent like 12 hours researching/arguing a topic I have no passion about whatsoever, with no practical application to boot. 

Why?  That is a serious question and that is part of the question that I have.

[J. J.]

Why?  That is a serious question and that is part of the question that I have.

<something muttered under breath about Wisconsin trending>

Well, let's see.

So far in this thread you've misrepresented science.  It looks like your god, the one called Science (as in method, not conclusion), is beginning to hemorrhage. 

Or what Jimfsct is to the Bible is what Alcon is to science.

(Hey, I'm just holding everyone to the same standard.)

[J. J.]

Well, let's see.

So far in this thread you've misrepresented science.  It looks like your god, the one called Science (as in method, not conclusion), is beginning to hemorrhage. 

Or what Jimfsct is to the Bible is what Alcon is to science.

(Hey, I'm just holding everyone to the same standard.)

You're mocking me because you read the wrong study, and refused to substantiate your claim that an evolutionary block in the brain is a likely mutation.  OK. 

(Jmfcst, by the way.)

Well, why don't repost the link.  As you know I'll read it.  Unlike you, I'm not closed minded.  The others you've linked to conflict with your premises.

[J. J.]

I really promised myself that I wouldn't continue this.  I was looking at another Lahn study, the one that has Lahn as the primary author.  I'll look it up next time I have access to my college's academic database.  But I really don't think you have much interest in actually researching this, since you didn't look into footnotes, the HGP, anything...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't recall posting anything about something that "blocks" brain development.  I posited an example where one separated group of the same species develops in one way while another develops in a different way.  I think another name for that is "natural selection."

The Evans article was interesting, these were some of the points:

1.  Genetic changes likely increased brain function (I won't use "brain size").

2.  The genetic changes were likely associated with amino acids.

3.  Some increases in these key amino acids occurred before the split between great ape and human/chimp ancestry.

4.  Some of those changes occurred after that split.

I agree that this is an example of genetic brain evolution.  It makes sense.  Humans make tools and use language.  Chimps make tools (very rudimentary) and use language.  Other closely related species don't.

Now comes point five.

5.  The amino acid in #4 is higher in modern chimps than in modern humans (if I read it correctly).

Huh, if this is correct, why aren't chimps more advanced?  This can't be the mechanism.  There has to be another mechanism.

Now, if this was the mechanism, I'd say, "Hey, that explains it."  There may be another mechanism, but this can be it.

And, this isn't a question of me changing my mind.  I haven't found any evidence to reach any conclusion (except the mechanism wasn't the one in the Evans paper).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you are being closed minded when you say, science provides the answer to this question, and then can't produce the answer.  If you say, "You know what, in this case, science does not provide an answer, at this point in time, at least," I think that would be a start.  The question itself is important and is the basis of why science itself exists.

You have not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I've said, I don't recall discussing a mental "block."  If you are referring to the two groups from a separated parent group, I can give an example.

 In the parent group there is no mutation.  The groups become separated into two groups, A and B.  In group A, no mutation occurs.  In group B, a mutation occurs and, in several generations, the mutation spreads through group B.  There is no "block" in this example, because the mutation never occurred in Group A.

[J. J.]

My understanding of this issue is different from yours.  I do not think, from my understanding of the brain, that a mental block as you suggest could be a result of a mutation.  The "mental block" I'm talking about would allow us to only think about survival, and therefore prosper more.  Frankly, I feel that you haven't addressed this. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I win fully, when you say, here is the answer.  I win only partly when you say, **Gee, science does not yet have the answer.**

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I'm looking for a reasonably plausible answer.  I actually have reasonably plausible answers for most of human evolution that involves perfectly natural processes.  I don't yet have one for the question I'm asking.  So far, I don't have it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm trying to keep my faith and belief out of it, but, let me be clear, if the answer is: "science doesn't (yet) have an answer," my answer is not "God did it." Or the Vorlons, or the FSM.  I'm actually looking for empirical evidence that "The is plausible explanation within science for this." (Crudely, "God didn't do this.")  With most of human evolution I can say that.  So far, I can't.

I'd hate to blame God for science if it wasn't Her fault. 

[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.

[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. 

[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.