its no big deal if you're wrong (597 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.44 on 25 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by ampersand (View user info) at 2007-05-24 22:34:11 EDT
if a person were to ask me whether I believed in god, I would tell them no. Because whenever someone
in America says god, its implied that they are referring to the Christian god, every other faith is
tossed aside. And I certainly don't believe in the Christian god. I do believe that theres something
though. Something more to creation and life in the universe then just one planet. Granted its one hell
of a beautiful planet, but in a galaxy 90 billion light years wide, theres probably more then one, whether
it was divine power or dumb luck that created it, despite how many variables there are and how precise
some of them have to be, odds are theres more then one planet in the universe thats habitable by carbon
based life forms (to say nothing of the possibility of life based on another element).
have you ever noticed, though, that there seems to be something unnatural about mankind. the patterns of
nature, and life in particular, tend away from extremes. granted there are always exceptions like the
bacteria that live in the deep sea vents and the shrimp that feed on them. but the bacteria and the
shrimp evolved to deal with the heat and pressure of the vents. but mankind gravitates towards extremes
unlike anything else on the planet. is it a tiny hint of divine will; the imprint of our maker? or did we
just evolve this way too?
its been suggested that the human brain evolved to serve in a capacity similar to the peacocks tail.
that is to say, the brain may have evolved to help men get pussy. but bird feathers didn't invent
the internal combustion engine. bird feathers aren't deforesting the amazon or putting holes in the
ozone layer or melting the polar ice caps. granted bird feathers had nothing to do with building
the Parthenon either, but is art worth the rain forests? Or the oceans? Its a hard question to
answer but I think its going to become academic anyways. The collective sex drive of a single
species, mankind, has become the dominant power on earth. and, that species is expanding its
habitat to engulf the rest of the planet and the habitats of all the other life forms with it.
soon earth will just be a crust of concrete and metal and mankind will be completely dedicated to
its new hedonism.
so what if I'm wrong then? What if there are no gods or aliens and earth is all there is? What if
the sum intent of all sentience in the universe is to get its dick wet? And what if sentience in
the universe completely extinguishes itself in order to satisfy that appetite? would that not be
a catastrophic failure on our part?
User Reviews
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-05-27 14:02:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
interesting thank you
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-05-27 03:50:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Its ubersite...when has a snide comment stopped me from debating.
Keep on idly philosophizing about interesting topics and ill always be there.
This is what im saying though...there were indirect ancestors to humans who had similar brain size and features. Within the past 4 million years, it was ABNORMAL for there to be only one hominoid species on the Earth...
40,000 years ago there were 3 known hominids, with up to 5 depending on cross-breeding.
It was only after the Neanderthals and the hobbits in Indonesia died off that humans, AS WE ARE TODAY, were left alone as the sole hominids on the earth.
*****
Ok but what were the neanderthals doing with their brains that chimps aren't right now?
_________________________
Ok...Imagine going back about 4 million years ago. Africa has two types of areas: jungles (where trees and such are plentiful) and savannas (aka grasslands). There is, to my knowledge, only one type of hominid species that is around, which live in the jungle. Now, there is some sort of event, maybe a fungal plague or a forest fire, that forces some of these hominids to move into the savannas. Now...this is the first divergence. You have one hominid in the trees who is already *almost* perfectly adapted to the jungle...BUT now you have another diverging hominid species that has left the jungle, for which they are best suited for survival, and entered the savannas. This rapid change in environment meant that in order for this hominid species to survive, they needed to adapt, and FAST...this is where Gould's assertion of quick bursts of rapid genetic change is most plausible. Now, this species is constantly adapting to this new environment...the most important change being the addition of muscle mass to the upper legs and the straightening of the spine...both of these essential adaptations are needed for hominids to run. An important thing to know about the savannas is the the food supply is highly variable...which means that this new hominid species is going to have to be RESOURCEFUL in order to find food and such for survival (too making -> homo habilis). Also because of the highly variable food conditions, there is frequent migration by this hominid species, which will lead to even further differentiation as different tribes move to different areas. Since it is obvious that most hominids cannot physically survive in a savanna area (have you ever seen pictures of a gorilla or a chimp or an orangutan near a lion/elephant, etc), a new form of evolution had to take place, and that my friends, was when cognitive evolution took its first foothold in this hominid species.
From there, further cognitive evolution and specialization brought us to where we are today...and ALL achievements are simply the addition of these thousands of years of knowledge, summed up together due to our ability through language and writing, to pass knowledge on to the generations to come.
And that is why Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, which by the way had different brain structure, were and now Cro-Mangons are, so different from chimps...in my semi-learned opinion.
Bed time.
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-05-25 17:21:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But is your skeletal system the best FOR moving in trees?
If you cant out jump/climb/run a leopard (for example) in the trees, your species is going to go extinct.
****
Fair enough. I'm not sure how trees got into though, thats why I found the initial comment irrelevant. The ancestors of homo sapiens moved out of trees a very long time ago I think.
_____________
I disagree. When you compare the human brain to literally ever species save its direct ancestors, its waaaaayyy out there and i'm not sure why thats not a valid comparison. i mean its got a sample size of what? billions? i dont really know, but millions at least.
_____________
This is what im saying though...there were indirect ancestors to humans who had similar brain size and features. Within the past 4 million years, it was ABNORMAL for there to be only one hominoid species on the Earth...
40,000 years ago there were 3 known hominids, with up to 5 depending on cross-breeding.
It was only after the Neanderthals and the hobbits in Indonesia died off that humans, AS WE ARE TODAY, were left alone as the sole hominids on the earth.
*****
Ok but what were the neanderthals doing with their brains that chimps aren't right now? Thats the part of it that I cant get my head around and the part that (I think) suggests sexual selection.
______________
But if we go back to the paleolithic, what possible purpose could there be for such a large brain? natural selection favors traits that improve an organisms chances for survival. how does the ability to comprehend, for example, vector calculus, assist survival? all cro magnon had to recognize was the difference between predator and prey. if a trait doesnt assist survival but it spreads through the species anyways, doesnt that suggest sexual selection to you?
_______________
Sexual selection fits into the larger area of genetic survival...so it does make sense for it to be ONE OF THE factors, but it is highly doubtful, in my eyes, that it is the only reason.
*****
Sexual selection does not fit into the area of genetic survival. If I choose to have sex with girl A rather then girl B because I prefer brown hair to blonde, that has no bearing on the survival of the species. If Neanderthal bob choses girl A because she can draw pretty pictures on their cave wall but girl B cant, well that has no bearing on survival either.
Keep in mind that tool making, problem solving, and knowledge of the consequences of one's actions are HIGHLY COMPLEX features of the human brain that was definitely needed for the survival of our species...such things as vector calculus is the summation of thousands of years of knowledge.
********
To answer Feys question I didnt expect to get anything out of this, I just enjoy idle philosophizing, but Bob kindly obliged me despite my rudeness and we had a nice little debate which he probably won before it started and I'm just too dumb to see it. Cheers.
Submitted by MidnightToSix (user info) at 2007-05-25 13:46:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The most extreme factor is the arrogance of mankind.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-05-25 09:10:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Fey (user info) at 2007-05-25 02:53:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Your lack of capital letters and apostrophes is annoying.
And everything you write about how the brain evolved and for what purpose directly contradicts what I've been taught, what I've read and what feels logical.
And if your point with this post is to inspire actual discussion, as in exchange of ideas plus possible widening of perspective, then opening your rebuttal to a comment with "most of what you said is wrong/irrelevant" is a truly horrendous way of doing that.
If your point with this post was to wow us with your intellect, deep thoughts and brazen confidence, you've failed.
Try again.
Or perhaps, better yet, don't.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-05-25 02:18:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-05-25 01:55:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bipedal movement has never stopped me from moving through trees.
_____________
But is your skeletal system the best FOR moving in trees?
If you cant out jump/climb/run a leopard (for example) in the trees, your species is going to go extinct.
_____________
I disagree. When you compare the human brain to literally ever species save its direct ancestors, its waaaaayyy out there and i'm not sure why thats not a valid comparison. i mean its got a sample size of what? billions? i dont really know, but millions at least.
_____________
This is what im saying though...there were indirect ancestors to humans who had similar brain size and features. Within the past 4 million years, it was ABNORMAL for there to be only one hominoid species on the Earth...
40,000 years ago there were 3 known hominids, with up to 5 depending on cross-breeding.
It was only after the Neanderthals and the hobbits in Indonesia died off that humans, AS WE ARE TODAY, were left alone as the sole hominids on the earth.
______________
But if we go back to the paleolithic, what possible purpose could there be for such a large brain? natural selection favors traits that improve an organisms chances for survival. how does the ability to comprehend, for example, vector calculus, assist survival? all cro magnon had to recognize was the difference between predator and prey. if a trait doesnt assist survival but it spreads through the species anyways, doesnt that suggest sexual selection to you?
_______________
Sexual selection fits into the larger area of genetic survival...so it does make sense for it to be ONE OF THE factors, but it is highly doubtful, in my eyes, that it is the only reason.
Keep in mind that tool making, problem solving, and knowledge of the consequences of one's actions are HIGHLY COMPLEX features of the human brain that was definitely needed for the survival of our species...such things as vector calculus is the summation of thousands of years of knowledge.
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-05-25 01:55:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah drake, michael jackson jokes are a lot more original http://www.ubersite.com/m/108640.
*****
Bipedal movement has never stopped me from moving through trees.
I disagree. When you compare the human brain to literally ever species save its direct ancestors, its waaaaayyy out there and i'm not sure why thats not a valid comparison. i mean its got a sample size of what? billions? i dont really know, but millions at least.
But if we go back to the paleolithic, what possible purpose could there be for such a large brain? natural selection favors traits that improve an organisms chances for survival. how does the ability to comprehend, for example, vector calculus, assist survival? all cro magnon had to recognize was the difference between predator and prey. if a trait doesnt assist survival but it spreads through the species anyways, doesnt that suggest sexual selection to you?
I was not trying to assert that evolution skews from extremes; this couldve stood for more revisions I think.
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-05-25 01:03:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Because THIS hasn't been done to death.
like sarcasm.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-05-24 23:49:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-05-24 23:33:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-05-24 22:42:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i severely doubt that our brain evolved to attract mates.
the brain evolved as a tool of survival..with bipedal movement comes the inability to go through the trees, which brought the necessity for problem solving skills.
Also, to say that human evolution is an extreme is to not know the fossil evidence of human evolution.
Our evolution was not a linear event...there were many species that evolved with some extreme features that became extinct because the species did not be suit the environment. We are the combination of some features of some species and others from other species.
---
most of what you said is wrong/irrelevant
____________________
id love to hear what is wrong in that past statement.
you should understand that the human brain is very literally an extreme of evolution. human mental capacity is leaps and bounds beyond any other (terrestrial)
___________________
There is no doubt that the brain is a special organ due to the abilities that it imparts to the species...but when you place the brain in evolutionary context, it is not as if one event occurred to cause this. Cro-Magnons were not the result of a few massive evolutionary changes that took place over a short period of time. Our brain has been continuously evolving over approximately the last 3.5 million years. This evolution was not direct...there were many intermediary species between chimpanzee and man that allowed our brain to advance this far...So, in comparison to chimpanzees, yes, our brain is an extreme, but not in comparison to the species that arose and disappeared in between.
Now, if you are comparing human evolution to that of species that were placed in other conditions, that simply cannot be done...Evolution depends upon selective pressures, and if they are different, so species will evolve differently...You cannot look at the evolution of shrimp, tigers, horses and humans and point to the human brain as the sole extreme in the group.
life form and the notion that it evolved solely to attract mates is not as far fetched as it sounds. clearly the ancestors of homo sapiens functioned for a very long time without advanced mental faculty, so large brains capable of abstract thinking would not be likely products of natural selection. the more probable answer then, is that they were produced through sexual selection.
______________
Attraction of mates is only a part of genetic survival...to say such a complex organ as the brain is used solely as a tool for attraction would be a gross simplification.
PS: The assertion that evolution skews from the extremes is highly questionable...look at the population shift in the peppered moth that occurred from only a few of the moths having an extreme in their color pattern.
Submitted by hot_pocket (user info) at 2007-05-24 23:38:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
my thoughts when i was in yosemite last week
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-05-24 23:34:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah. About as related as you and I.
Genealogical research is about as vain and pointless a venture as "Ubering." Still, better than viewing porn, I guess, and the wife doesn't mind.
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-05-24 23:33:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-05-24 22:42:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i severely doubt that our brain evolved to attract mates.
the brain evolved as a tool of survival..with bipedal movement comes the inability to go through the trees, which brought the necessity for problem solving skills.
Also, to say that human evolution is an extreme is to not know the fossil evidence of human evolution.
Our evolution was not a linear event...there were many species that evolved with some extreme features that became extinct because the species did not be suit the environment. We are the combination of some features of some species and others from other species.
---
most of what you said is wrong/irrelevant but you should understand that the human brain is very literally an extreme of evolution. human mental capacity is leaps and bounds beyond any other (terrestrial) life form and the notion that it evolved solely to attract mates is not as far fetched as it sounds. clearly the ancestors of homo sapiens functioned for a very long time without advanced mental faculty, so large brains capable of abstract thinking would not be likely products of natural selection. the more probable answer then, is that they were produced through sexual selection.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-05-24 23:23:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
so you're like...4th cousins removed?
maybe he'll buy you a car.
haha.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-05-24 23:21:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
He's a Kentucky boy. We're all cousins.
Now, I'm not from Kentucky, but both sides of my family were, and we have a connection to the Webbs of Kentucky, one of which is Loretta (Webb) Lynn.
I'm of hillbilly stock.
Other cousins: Ralph Stanley (bluegrass man), George C. Scott, but not famous American gunfighter Ben Thompson who was actually born in England.
It's now 8-1 and I'm blogging.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-05-24 23:13:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you "suspect" or you "really, really want"
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-05-24 23:13:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Webb's my favorite. Been following him intently since his first game. Not doing so hot this year, but that'll change.
I suspect he's a cousin of mine.
me=avocational genealogist
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-05-24 23:07:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Im a Dbacks fan every 5th night because I Webb is the #1 SP in my $100 fantasy league.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-05-24 23:06:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yup. We're up 5-1. I have no real argument. And I think I'm just feeling a little cynical on account of all the camwhores.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-05-24 23:05:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-05-24 22:59:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Opinions differ, of course. I tend to think that the human brain is just one huge sex organ. Survival simply equals differential reproductive success; everything is ancillary, but fun too. I have no real thesis here. Just throwing it out there.
________
Id love to debate this thought, but theres probably a Dbacks game on now.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-05-24 23:05:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Everything *else is ancillary.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-05-24 22:59:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Opinions differ, of course. I tend to think that the human brain is just one huge sex organ. Survival simply equals differential reproductive success; everything is ancillary, but fun too. I have no real thesis here. Just throwing it out there.
Ha ha we're all dickheads.
+2 no camwhore.
Submitted by Progr3ss (user info) at 2007-05-24 22:45:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
yes it would be
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-05-24 22:42:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i severely doubt that our brain evolved to attract mates.
the brain evolved as a tool of survival..with bipedal movement comes the inability to go through the trees, which brought the necessity for problem solving skills.
Also, to say that human evolution is an extreme is to not know the fossil evidence of human evolution.
Our evolution was not a linear event...there were many species that evolved with some extreme features that became extinct because the species did not be suit the environment. We are the combination of some features of some species and others from other species.
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2007-05-24 22:39:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I
'll
wait
.