Hah, that's what scientifics discovered after chopping einstein's brain into small dices

And yet humans still have the largest relative brain size...

Yep, relative to body size.

I believe elephants have larger brains in terms of volume, but their brain size is relatively small in proportion to their body mass...?

I hope you realize you're continually failing to add anything to the discussion. All you do is restate what others say, really.

I'm not restating other people's statements because I was actually the person who originally said that:

I was just furthering my point that big brains does not mean high intelligence. I reiterated my point my using the elephant as an example.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Wildlife-2507/Size-elephant-brain.htm
No, you're wrong. Elephants are actually quite intelligent. And a with simple google search you would've found that webpage...

That was already after Syphon had said this:


and this:


If you look at what he was replying to and what he was really saying, then no you weren't the original one to say "Intelligence is usually correlated with the brain mass as a proportion to body mass.", Syphon was. The only things you post in this thread that aren't restatements of what others have said are just conjectures and things you found online.

I never said they're not intelligence. I'm just saying their intelligence is lower than humans despite their bigger brains.

In that quote, he was talking about the Neanderthal.

In that quote, he was talking about gorillas:

In his first quote, he was talking about Neanderthals. In his second quote, he was talking about gorillas. If he did mean intelligence is correlated with brain mass as a proportion to body size, all I did was summarize his statement by piecing it together and reiterating it with a single animal as an example. So if that was his point, I just made his point clearer by using an example.


Which is what this entire thread is about isn't it? In fact, this entire section is about political/scientific/religious articles that we've found online. I doubt any of us are fully tenured scholars or professors in science who discovered new ideas or phenomenons in science.

I don't know why I bother sometimes. I could explain to you all the ways your wrong but I think I'd rather not waste the time.

Get back on topic now.

You said that their brain size is relatively small in proportion to their body mass. I'm just saying that even smaller than humans it's not small at all.


Why would *only* gorillas follow that rule? That doesn't make sense at all. He was obviously talking about any animal...


No? I came up with most of the ideas I used in post #1 by myself, without having to read them anywhere. And anyone can discover a new phenomenon, all you need is the right idea coming up at the right moment.... I'ts not my problem if all that you do is copy stuff from online science articles to start disussions.
And if you haven't noticed all the argument about brain sizes is not at all what this topic was about. Is just a secondary argument that you started on post #9 by directly copying a long article from an internet link...

I know I said get back on topic, but I have to say this:

<3 Clokr_

Wait, what? "I'm just saying that even smaller than humans it's not small at all." <---- that sentence made no sense at all.

What I said was:
1. Elephants brains are larger and more massive than human brains
2. The proportion of elephant brains to elephant body mass is smaller than the proportion of human brains to human body mass
3. Elephants are less intelligent than humans


Because he was talking about different characteristics for different animals, as shown here:
He was talking about "smaller body size and larger cranium" for Neanderthals, and larger craniums for gorillas.
Characteristics that apply to one animal doesn't necessarily apply to another.


So you magically knew about the principles of evolution from the day you were born, and came up with the right idea that matches recent scientific findings?
Hardly! You didn't come up with any original ideas. You learned about evolution and everything in your post from school, books, and the internet.
All you did was apply what you learned from other sources to start a discussion. Which is exactly what I did.

As for my article. I posted it because it related to evolution. Don't you think brain size of close human species has something to do with
natural vs human designed evolution? And I brought up a point for discussion...it wasn't an argument until accusations of spam started flying around.



Now back to the main topic. If you want to argue some more, then pm me in private.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on May 9 2008, 9:54 pm by Intranetusa.

You know, Intranetusa, it's really quite annoying when someone gets in the last word and attempts to immediately end the discussion. You'll notice that when Dapperdan tried to direct the discussion back on topic, he abandoned the argument; he didn't just tell everyone else to do so. Furthermore, you've been told several times to get back on topic, and have avoided doing so.
Hence, your last statement is actually quite hypocritical. If you truly wanted to end the argument, you would have done so (it's really quite easy). Rather, you want to move the argument over to PM where you can concede while swallowing a much smaller piece of humble pie.

Now that I've said something, let us (that is, you guys) get back on topic. I don't think any further discussion is necessary. If you want to continue this debate, please do so over PM.

This post took forever, why do so many people need to be WRONG on the internet?

Now back on topic, I was talking about indirectly driven evolution. Like, when you help a specie to persist, you're giving that specie a big advantage over the rest. There's no need of genetic manipulation to create new species.
A related phenomena happens when we try to kill a specie, specially if they're bacteria since they mutate a lot faster. There are a lot of new drug-resistant bacteria species, and they have been essencialy selected by humans as a side effect of antibiotics. I find this one quite amusing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus
Are we helping to evolve the perfect organism that will kill us?

lol, a defendant deserves the last word in a trial, no?

Creating new strains of bacteria via heavy use of anti-biotics is an unintended side effect.
Even by using antibiotics in controlled quantities, bacteria would eventually develop resistance to them...it's all just a matter of time. We'll need to invent more drugs and use them more effectively. Or maybe in the future we can engineer a weaker version version of certain bacteria and have it replace more deadly strains...like grass crowding out weeds in a lawn.

In the future, mankind will not live in the filthy bodies we live in today.

I believe in the live and let die society system. By doing so, we eliminate poor genes passed from parent to child. If a baby girl is born with HD or something else similar, all her children are susceptible to HD. If we let this child die by natural causes and don't go out on every limb to save it, it will never be able to pass on this gene. There is a perfect example of this: A while back there was a clan in Africa called the Zulu, they have since dissociated, but when they were banded together, they all were +6" tall, 1.5x muscle capacity, and had hyper-immunity. They often took the heads of their war victims, and stuck them on posts to rot encircling the villages, with which the smell would drive away ravaging animals. The reason they didn't get sick is their long line of "breeding" as it may be called. All the short height genes were eliminated and their good immune systems were passed down through the line of heritage. They also used natural herbs to cure infection or other minor illnesses rather than the use manufactured medicines. Because of this, they would build their immune system even more.

So back to post 1's question, under II, I think that modern medicines are causing more damage than they are curing. Similar to caffeine, each time you intake it, the less the effect will be next time you take it, along with the more dependent you are to it. On another note, because every year we have to keep mutating the cold virus to produce a vaccine, I believe we are actually developing a "super cold" similar to the infection already mentioned, that eventually will not be treatable by any means. By use of medicines, we are self-inducing our own demise by destroying our immune system. I think the long term effects are beginning to take hold and, are/will be devastating and well deserved to the human race.

[citation needed] Also, wikipedia makes no mention that I can find of the Zulu being super warriors or anything.

JJ, your lack of concern and empathy slightly disturbs me. I bet you would feel a lot different if you were on the "genetically inferior" side of things, or if you had a child or family member on that side. It must also be noted that this way of thinking is a very small step away from Nazi styles. In Nazi Germany, thousands of people were slaughtered for being genetically inferior.
Now you say, "just let them die." What then? Shall we just lay them on the street to suffer? Nay, we should make their deaths comfortable. Of course, going out of out our way to help them with anesthesia and loving care really defeats the purpose. Euthanasia is a good way to go. Since they are going to die, we might as well make it the most humane death possible, right? Makes sense to me. While we're at it, instead of letting all healthy people reproduce, we should just let the tall, genetically ideal humans reproduce. We won't kill breed out anyone who is healthy (read: can fight back), we'll just prevent them from reproducing. This will keep a peaceful society, which will be idealized and ready for peace (because it's not like we'll do anything *cough*world domination*cough* violent with the superior race we've bread).

Slaughter? that isn't what i said at all. Sure I sound really inhumane, but the bottom line is the human race always has been following strong=live, week=die. Now that we have "evolved" into a technologically advanced civilization, we care way to much about a x deaths when the cost of caring is y deaths (y>x). Along with that, the standard of living has dropped for some 90% of people, and those luck 10% feed off the 90%.

That being said, I doubt this is the ONLY solution to our problem. I simply believe it's the only one that will work. Other plans require every selfish individual to quit their lifestyle and have the human race work as a team, which will never happen. There will always be some hollywood star or some rich business plan that isn't going to fly for that...