Sarah Palin favors teaching creationism in schools.

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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?

At this point, we're going in circles on the "correction" thing.  They're not mutually exclusive.  You're assuming one "corrects" the other arbitrarily.  Unless you can demonstrate they're mutually exclusive, you're arguing to conclusions.  And, as I already said, I doubt she cares about issue enough to govern about it.  I can still disagree with her personal opinion, even if it doesn't affect governance.  Where have I said it would?

Sorry, I meant "Group A," not "Group B"; it was a typographical error.  In any case, Group A is the one which I posit would not gain the upper hand via mutation, making your point entirely academic.

[Alcon]

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.

I never said this has anything to do with my vote for President.  It doesn't.  I'm disagreeing with her personal opinion.  Why are you assuming that I was saying anyone should base their vote on this?

Why does Group A have an advantage?  Because, in your scenario, they're less distracted.  Now explain how a mutation that causes Group A could happen, given the ridiculously specific, un-random changes it would require in the structure of the primate mind.  As I said earlier, evolution doesn't just happen because it would be a good idea; a mutation has to happen, and have headroom to take hold.  That's a fundamental part of the theory of evolution, and demonstrable in microevolutionary studies too.

[Alcon]

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.

"Distraction" and "diversion" are freaking synonyms.

No, it didn't occur in the whole genus at the same time.  That's not how evolution works.  No one is proposing that.  But it has to be advantageous and common enough (in combination) to eventually gain genetic dominance.

What other animal species have metacognition?  I said they have abstract thought.  You're misunderstanding my use of "metacognition," and using a definition I've never heard before.

[Alcon]

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?

The rat thing is interesting, and you're right, I shouldn't have been using "metacognition" simultaneously!  However, my prior point still stands -- in the primate brain, you would need drastically different wiring to have our level of tool-making/hunting skills without being able to think metaphysically.

You, again, still have not answered to that.

[Alcon]

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.

You clearly haven't read the Bruce Lahn study if you "see no evidence that metaphysical thinking comes along with 'critical thinking.'"  That's what the latter third of the study is about.  I gave you that citation three times.  You're not even trying to be intellectually honest, you're just arguing to conclusions.  So, I'm done.  All the best.

[Alcon]

Sigh.

"Palinesque second comment"?  So, instead of actually responding to my point they're not mutually exclusive, you totally mis-apply (I wasn't correcting) a conversational reference in an attempt to poke fun.  Totally mind-bogging, man, really is.

You read the wrong Lahn study.  Lahn (being an academic) has been involved in more than one study.  That there would be Evans, et al..  I would have referred to it as the "Evans" study.  It would have been relevant to the topic at hand.  If the primary study author is different, and the topic is different, chances are you have the wrong study.

I'm laying down my burden here.  We could probably go through an advanced discussion about the function of the brain.  I know I'd probably learn some stuff.  I'm pretty sure you (since you're no expert in this field, not knowing the HGP's relevance) would too.  But, honestly, I don't think you're at all interested in changing your mind.  I've never seen you do that on this forum.  I may be obstinate or prone to confirmation bias sometimes, but I do try.  Perhaps we could both learn something from Governor Palin, or not, as the case may be.

[Alcon]

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. 

Which, really, you'd think I should have done about 11 hours and 50 minutes ago.

[Alcon]

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

<something muttered under breath about Wisconsin trending>

[Alcon]

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.)

[Alcon]

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...

I've really never seen you change your mind on the Atlas.  I don't mean that disrespectfully--you could have just coincidentally always been right.  Maybe you have that power.  But it seems useless to me to bother, considering your record.  You also still haven't substantiated your claim re: "blocks" on brain development, and that was more critical to your central claim (that natural genetic evolution would not explain the leap) than my reference to the Lahn article (which was essentially peripheral substantiation)

I'm really not close-minded.  Have I seemed that way in other discussions?  In fact, I openly admit to not knowing much on this subject, and I'm pretty sure you don't either.  Besides, you keep calling me a slave to science--so I don't understand why you're bothering with having me look up the science.  Doesn't that just encourage my dependency?

Unless you make an honest attempt to explain how such a mental block would develop by mutation, I'm done.  You can have the last word.  But if it's not a word about that, don't expect a response.

[Alcon]

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. 

I have no database access now, so I can't give you a link until later.  And honestly, I'm getting a little fatigued.  This got too personal and I'm not enjoying it -- not because I'm suspicious I'm wrong, which I'm fine with (especially on topics I'm new to), but because I'm worried I'm just in it to "win."  And that's lame.

So, here, a position clarification:  I don't know if science provides an answer.  I really don't!  I don't "know" anything until I'm immersed in a topic and can analyze it from every level, poke holes in it, and fill those holes.  And there's still some inherent trust involved in what could be a flawed process.  Totally.

I'm not convinced that "science has an answer."  That would be against science, my god, or whatever mockism we're going with.  I'm also not convinced in science because I want to believe in science.  Science is application and interpretation of empirical evidence.  I do tend to "believe" in empirical evidence.  I think that you do, too, maybe with an addition metaphysical faith in God.  But belief and faith are not the same thing.  The latter may be demonstrable to you, but your religious dogmas teach that even if it weren't, you would still have faith in it, because that's faith.  But there is a distinction there.  (I don't really want to get into an epistemological argument; I'm putting that out there.)

[Alcon]

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.

I'm not sure if you've won, other than stymying me (not hard ).  You're kidding us both if you're claiming to be intimately familiar with the research on this matter.  I don't feel that you've rebutted my argument; you do.  I don't feel you've substantiated your argument; you do.  I'm not enjoying this, and I don't recall you ever have changing your mind in your 17,000+ posts.  So, I'm conceding that I can't change your mind, pleading no contest.  You've effectively won.  I wish you the same result in your ongoing battle with the QUOTE tag.

Other than that, I actually think your conclusion is very fair.  It's also a very scientific way of going about things.  I'm just saying, we should all be aware of regressive thinking, confirmation bias.  We all do it.  And I'm aware of that, which is exactly why your taunts were misfounded.

[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!

[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.

[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...