reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 24, 2006 19:46:04 GMT -4
GWAR is rumored to have started with the Neandertals.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 24, 2006 21:26:04 GMT -4
Who? What? Where? When? and How?I'd link to it, but it was a doco. They run a series of test with a dolphin,seeing how long it took to solve a problem to get a fish. It learned first to press a button for a fish, then press it three times for the fish, then to go and get a stick to push the fish from the opening when it wouldn't drop out, but it started failing when it had to go and get the stick first because the opening was timed to close again so if it opened the container, by the time it got the stick the slide had closed again. That seems like physical agility. Wasn't it? Moving quickly through the water in short bursts in a confined area is hella difficult. I think this test is boobish and shows how unintelligent we are, not how intellgent they are.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 24, 2006 21:39:04 GMT -4
Actually, there's precious little evidence that "we" are much, or indeed any smarter than Neanderthals (spelling it with an "h" is correct: the modern spelling would be 'Neandertal', but Homo neanderthalensis was named in the 1870s, some time before German spelling was reformed in 1899). Neanderthals had a large cranial capacity than we do, and there is evidence that Neanderthals had tools and musical instruments. Those tools tended to stay very much the same throughout the lifespan of the species, but Cro-Magnon tools took up to 30,000 years to show improvements, which is hardly a dramatic burst of inventiveness... Thank you, Al. Here is why I think it is possible how and likely that they really were smarter than us. There is something called The Bell Curve to show a species overall and average intelligence. The Neanderthals were always a small group. They had to have an overall higher intelligence than we have in order to survive because an average small group of human beings could not cut it in the harsh environments that the Neanderthals managed to survive in. Without waiting for a chance to draw this out in a graphics software and post it online, let me try to describe this to you. A bell curve is a sloping line that peaks in the middle -- in our case, the IQ of 100. and it slops down equally on each side there are fewer and fewer people who have higher and higher IQ's. A graph showing the bell curve of the human race and the Neanderthal race would show the Neanderthals having a peak at about 120 IQ points -- their smaller population would have to be smarter in order to survive. The human peak would be at 100 but it would trail off further (the horizontal is the intelligence and the vertical is the population) just because our population is higher. Human beings did not survive because we out smarted the Neanderthals. Human beings just out - mated the Neanderthals. They just made lots and lots more babies and just by the luck of a numbers game, they had a few smarter babies. This is the only way they were able to invent anything. It was the few humans that had an IQ over 150. But we humans didn't really have to be smarter. We had the numbers. Evolution favors strength, not intelligence. When I was in the Navy, I was told that if the Red Sea Air Force had decided to attack our Air Craft Carrier we would loose without any doubt. We had the technology but the Soviets had the numbers. Even if every jet got off the flight deck and even if every air-to-air missile had made contact with a soviet jet, their numbers were so great that they would overcome us. So is a similar fate for the Neanderthals. The PBS special about the Neanderthal suggest that they were very smart and our disrespect for them is not justified. The earlier posts in this discussion thread shows how our society has painted them wrongly. About every second, a human baby is born on Earth. About every three seconds a human dies. This sort of overpopulation did not occur in the hundreds of thousands of y ears of the Neanderthal rein. We are not as smart as they were.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 25, 2006 1:03:33 GMT -4
If larger brain size automatically meant higher intelligence, than elephants should be training us And to my recollection, I've not heard of any Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, Physics, Literature, et al, ever being awarded to a recipient named Jumbo or Dumbo..
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Oct 25, 2006 2:43:11 GMT -4
Actually, there's precious little evidence that "we" are much, or indeed any smarter than Neanderthals (spelling it with an "h" is correct: the modern spelling would be 'Neandertal', but Homo neanderthalensis was named in the 1870s, some time before German spelling was reformed in 1899). Neanderthals had a large cranial capacity than we do, and there is evidence that Neanderthals had tools and musical instruments. Those tools tended to stay very much the same throughout the lifespan of the species, but Cro-Magnon tools took up to 30,000 years to show improvements, which is hardly a dramatic burst of inventiveness... When I was in the Navy, I was told that if the Red Sea Air Force had decided to attack our Air Craft Carrier we would loose without any doubt. We had the technology but the Soviets had the numbers. Even if every jet got off the flight deck and even if every air-to-air missile had made contact with a soviet jet, their numbers were so great that they would overcome us. So is a similar fate for the Neanderthals. Maybe during a brief window of the late 60's to early 70's, OR if the Russians had concentrated their asset on just one or two CVBGs; I was was fed similar crap in the U.S. Army in in the late 80's in Europe. I believe the west saw a 5'7" slow, fat man as an 8' tall giant. This of course, doesn't invalidate your arguement, but I suspect the demise of our first cousins will always be a matter of debate.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 25, 2006 6:13:13 GMT -4
You're welcome. Not necessarily: their physical hardiness and adaptations to their environment would have served just as well. At one time it was thought that Neanderthals were part of our ancestry, but DNA evidence seems to suggest that that is not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 25, 2006 11:43:49 GMT -4
If larger brain size automatically meant higher intelligence, than elephants should be training us And to my recollection, I've not heard of any Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, Physics, Literature, et al, ever being awarded to a recipient named Jumbo or Dumbo.. Once again, no hands. Besides, we feed them when we "capture"(rescue) them from being eaten by lions. They perhaps do have us trained.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 25, 2006 12:02:31 GMT -4
Lions don't eat elephants: at least not mature ones. for reasons amply illustrated by the old joke:
A lion approached several animals in turn, in each case roaring and asking "Who's the King of the Jungle?", receiving the reply "You are, O mighty Lion!"
When he tried this with the Elephant, Jumbo picked him up in his trunk, shook him, bashed him against some trees and hurled him into the dust, at which point the Lion said "OK, no need to lose your temper just because you don't know the answer..."
I'll get my coat ;D
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 26, 2006 3:31:57 GMT -4
If larger brain size automatically meant higher intelligence, than elephants should be training us And to my recollection, I've not heard of any Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, Physics, Literature, et al, ever being awarded to a recipient named Jumbo or Dumbo.. I have not seen every elephant alive or even a large enough sample to know if they are smarter than we are. I did see an elephant do some tricks at Six Flags and walk around and make about three shovel-fulls of droppings right after his trainer said how heavy he was and then restated that he was probably about 12 pounds less then.
I have not seen every human alive or even a large enough sample to know if they are smarter than elephants. I did see The Dixie Chicks on Oprah tonight trying to explain how they were not really traitors and that freedom of speech should be free in wartime when unofficial ambassadors travel overseas.
I think elephants are smarter than humans.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 26, 2006 3:56:18 GMT -4
I did see The Dixie Chicks on Oprah tonight trying to explain how they were not really traitors and that freedom of speech should be free in wartime when unofficial ambassadors travel overseas. Absolutely. We have the First Amendment for a reason, you know. Have you looked at some of the things written about Lincoln?
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 26, 2006 3:57:14 GMT -4
I think it's kind of scary when dissent is met with death threats and witch hunts. Freedom of dissent is one of the strongest and most important distinctions between a free democratic country and an oppressed tyrannical country. To say that dissent is "traitorous" as you described it is completely ignorant of the ideals this country was founded on.
I don't care for the Dixie Chicks. I find their music bland and uninspired. But whether I agree or vehemently disagree with their comments about our government, I stand by their right to speak them. Their comments only made the news because of hateful people like you who think that freedom of speech only applies to the good things said about our country.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 26, 2006 4:04:14 GMT -4
If you truly love your country, you must be willing to keep a vigilant eye on the people running it. Blind faith will ultimately pave the way for people who aim to abuse our system for personal gain. Without the vigilance maintained by freedom of dissent our country will fall into decay, and will rot from the inside out. Dissent may not always be voiced in the name of vigilance but it must always be welcome in our country.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 26, 2006 4:12:34 GMT -4
I did see The Dixie Chicks on Oprah tonight trying to explain how they were not really traitors and that freedom of speech should be free in wartime when unofficial ambassadors travel overseas. Absolutely. We have the First Amendment for a reason, you know. Have you looked at some of the things written about Lincoln? it does not apply in wartime and especially overseas. For instance, Free Speech does not apply to telling the enemy troop movements, or providing them moral support and comfort. Which is the equivalent of what these women have done. The Insurgents in Iraq have made statements suggesting they would have given up if not for the encouragement that Americans like the them have provided them. Free Speech is in the constitution of the united states but that does not make it a global phenomenon. Free Speech is not free. Their comments have ironically prolonged the war by giving our enemies moral and emotional support. Ironically they are pro-war without having the mental capacity to grasp that they are. Elvis was famous during the Vietnam war. When asked what he thought he had the intelligence to say he was just an entertainer and he was in no place or occupation to comment on it. So anyway, we are not so bright afterall. Other species can be thought of as smarter. Neanderthals, Elephants, Whales, and Dolphins might have a leg up on us.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 26, 2006 4:13:52 GMT -4
If you truly love your country, you must be willing to keep a vigilant eye on the people running it. Blind faith will ultimately pave the way for people who aim to abuse our system for personal gain. Sounds like the Clintons to me
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 26, 2006 6:11:16 GMT -4
it does not apply in wartime and especially overseas. I'm sorry, Bill. Exactly how much of Lincoln's presidency wasn't wartime? And what makes you think that limit exists in the first place? The First Amendment itself doesn't mention it. The Founding Fathers, if you read what they actually said, don't agree with you. Show me one iota of historical precedence that you can't oppose the government in time of war. The Alien and Sedition acts, for one, were largely considered throughout US history to be unconstitutional and therefore invalid. Why in God's name should the Dixie Chicks have knowledge of enemy troop movements in the first place? And, like it or not, saying that you disagree with the government's actions is perfectly legal. How? I think they're playing on the fears of people like you, frankly. There's much more evidence that an increasing number of Iraqis are becoming insurgents to get us the hell out of their country. True. One of the costs of it is that you have to be willing to let people say things you don't agree with. So you say. Like to show a little evidence, for once? I, for example, think our military tactics are largely to blame, and all sorts of people--generals, James Baker, et. al.--agree with me. Yeah, and John Wayne thought anti-war demonstrators were unAmerican. I don't think being an entertainer means that you cede your right to have political opinions. I think everyone who is a citizen of the US has the bound duty to have opinions, and I think there must be reasonable dissension. (Hint to Rush Limbaugh: calling the President's teenage daughter a dog isn't reasonable dissension.) Might. But cross-species IQ tests are notoriously unreliable, and as has been mentioned, brain size does not directly correlate toward greater intelligence, though brain size relative to body size tends to, and there, we beat the whales.
|
|