Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

[buffalo]

What does not – makes common sense or the truth of the assumption?

Bigger brains are not necessarily smarter

Scientists Find That Bigger Brains Aren’t Necessarily Smarter​

FIONA MACDONALD

15 OCT 2015

For centuries, scientists have been investigating the link between human brain size and intelligence, with several studies suggesting inconclusively that the bigger the brain, the smarter a person.

But a review of 88 studies involving more than 8,000 participants has now shown that even though a small link between brain volume and IQ exists, there’s no evidence to suggest it’s a causal one. Instead, it’s the structure of your brain that seems play a larger role in determining how smart you are.

Scientists Find That Bigger Brains Aren't Necessarily Smarter

For centuries, scientists have been investigating the link between human brain size and intelligence, with several studies suggesting inconclusively that the bigger the brain, the smarter a person.

www.sciencealert.com

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

But pain is only part of the problem. I doubt giving birth is pleasant for any mammal. It’s the higher risk of infant and maternal mortality that the bipedal restrictions on the width of the pelvis (and hence the birth canal), along with the much larger head of humans as compared to other primates that’s the problem. Intelligence has been highly enough selected (due to the obvious advantages) that an increased risk of death and injury from dangerous births is, shall we say, worth it. That’s the nature of evolution. It builds on existing features. It can’t rejig an entire part of the body or organ system in a few generations. By and large, the human body plan is the same as all mammals, indeed all tetrapods, so as ancestral populations became more selected for intelligence, requiring ever larger brains, it meant our ancestors were born more and more prematurely, because bipedalism and big brains are both extremely important to genus Homo.

What about those with bigger heads yet?

So much story telling.

Common design is a better explanation.

Comparative anatomy is a real thing.

 

[niceatheist]

True enough, but the dimensions of the human brain are definitely outliers. The brain-to-body-mass ratio of humans is among the highest in the animal kingdom. What you’re referring to is pretty minor differences in size of human brains, not a comparison with encephilization numbers in other animals. About the only animals that really have us beat or cetaceans and dolphins.

 

[buffalo]

It can’t rejig an entire part of the body or organ system in a few generations.

Micro evolution did and the finches show it. And then when the pressure was relieved the finches beaks changed back again.

Cell directed mutations can be very powerful and relatively rapid.

 

[niceatheist]

There is no difference between macro and microevolution. They are the same thing.

 

[buffalo]

There is no difference between macro and microevolution. They are the same thing.

That is what the claim is. However, an evo guy came up with the difference.

Here is the difference. Adaptations (aka micro) happen. Macro does not happen.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

There is no difference between macro and microevolution. They are the same thing.

That is what the claim is. However, an evo guy came up with the difference.

Here is the difference. Adaptations (aka micro) happen. Macro does not happen.

Not according to virtually every biologist in the world. And evolution at all stages has been observed, if you want to make macroevolution as simple (which it isn’t) as speciation.

But this is just a back and forth. You’ll throw in links to Creationist sites, quote Behe, and ignore the overwhelming evidence and opinion of the scientific community for 150 years.

 

[buffalo]

Not according to virtually every biologist in the world. And evolution at all stages has been observed, if you want to make macroevolution as simple (which it isn’t) as speciation.

But this is just a back and forth. You’ll throw in links to Creationist sites, quote Behe, and ignore the overwhelming evidence and opinion of the scientific community for 150 years.

Show me the top five proofs.

What creationist sites do I link to?

Behe has the experimental evidence. You should take it seriously. However, see for yourself what the top evo’s have to say and the Royal Society. Spend some time checking it all out.

 

[Bradskii]

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution .

For the planet’s 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity “is about the same,” he told AFP.

The study’s most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler told AFP.

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said."

IDvolution.org: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

Yaaay! It’s back! The link that leads to an article by recognised scientists who have written about facets of evolution. And which Buff wants us to think disproves evolution.

You’ll be quoting Neil Armstrong next in an attempt to show that the moon landings never ocurred.

Classic…

 

[o_mlly]

Bigger brains are not necessarily smarter

Then either way – bigger heads through wider hips or not, evolution does not explain intelligence.

(Just trying to keep this related to the topic. Getting harder to do – maybe my head’s not big enough.)

 

[rossum]

Uh no. The first one was dated well before the intermediary was purported to be.

Yes, you are using the wrong definition of “transitional”. The scientific definition relies on the characteristics of the fossil, not on its date.

Some Europeans are dated well after the founding of the USA. That does not prevent many Americans being descended from Europeans.

 

[buffalo]

“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution .

Yeah - just so so/ You still do not understand the findings. It is OK. You can hold out. (but not for long)

 

[buffalo]

Yes, you are using the wrong definition of “transitional”. The scientific definition relies on the characteristics of the fossil, not on its date.

So the dating is wrong? Interesting. You really want to go there?

 

[Bradskii]

niceatheist:

Not according to virtually every biologist in the world. And evolution at all stages has been observed, if you want to make macroevolution as simple (which it isn’t) as speciation.

But this is just a back and forth. You’ll throw in links to Creationist sites, quote Behe, and ignore the overwhelming evidence and opinion of the scientific community for 150 years.

Show me the top five proofs.

What creationist sites do I link to?

This is the truly wierd bit. You keep linking to sites that for example are based on the fact that evolution has occured or that the planet is billions of years old believing that there is something in there that supports your position. But you don’t believe the basis on which they are written.

It is literally bizarre.

 

[niceatheist]

talkorigins.org is your friend.

But I’m curious as to why you are so critical of evolution, and yet seem so very unfamiliar with the topic. Can you tell me how many books by biologists you’ve actually read?

 

[niceatheist]

Not really. Science deniers frequently link to science that they imagine supports their position, and quickly reject everything else.

I just am not sure what Buffalo’s criticism is about, because he seems pretty unaware of the topic in general. He keeps linking to papers he think supports his assertions, even though he must know the authors of those papers are in fields that could generally be called “evolutionary studies”.

 

[buffalo]

talkorigins.org is your friend.

But I’m curious as to why you are so critical of evolution, and yet seem so very unfamiliar with the topic. Can you tell me how many books by biologists you’ve actually read?

It is more your friend than mine.

Around a hundred books and hundreds if not a thousand of peer reviewed research. I have a pretty vast library.

 

[catholicray]

and ignore the overwhelming evidence and opinion of the scientific community for 150 years.

Don’t worry we’re not bias. We are an equal opportunity opinion rejecter. 150 years doesn’t mean much either. 150 years ago science couldn’t study what we can today. That’s why it’s a theory and subject to change as knowledge increases.

 

[Bradskii]

Not really. Science deniers frequently link to science that they imagine supports their position, and quickly reject everything else.

I just am not sure what Buffalo’s criticism is about, because he seems pretty unaware of the topic in general. He keeps linking to papers he think supports his assertions, even though he must know the authors of those papers are in fields that could generally be called “evolutionary studies”.

Buff is a fundamentalist. I have no problem with that. But he is limited in the number of scientific sources he can use to prove that his position is correct. Because there aren’t any.

So he has to use recognised scientific articles which he might think supports one aspect of his argument whilst failing to realise that he rejects the basis on which the article itself was written.

Part of me says that I shouldn’t take advantage of this. That each person beliefs are not to be denied or ridiculed. But if someone wants to deny science and promote ID for example, then I feel that Bufallo should be encouraged az their representative to post his opinions so they are out in the bright sunlight. And then people that maybe haven’t had much time or much inclination or much oportunity to investigate these matters but who have been brought up to believe what Buff promotes can actually see the arguments for what they are.

I will always promote a platform for people with fundamentalist beliefs. This is it as far as CA is concerned for evolution. It’ll never get to 14 days without a response and be locked. I’ll make sure of that.

 

[o_mlly]

I think we’ve seen this playbook before. They’re just following orders:

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionist of Oxford University, put it this way: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked , but I’d rather not consider that).”