A science nerd thread.

Arete

Likes Dirt
So, I’d been thinking about making a thread for my own and other’s general science nerdlingering, then I got snowed under at work (literally and figuratively) and it didn’t happen. Now I’m procrastinating so it happened.

Feel free to add any science nerd content/musing/rantings you want.

Yes science includes evolutionary biology and a lot of what I have to say is based on the theory of evolution. I DON’T INTEND TO DEBATE SCIENCE VS RELIGION AGAIN. Make a new thread or dig up an old one for that if it's what you want to do.

Now that’s said;

I’d been considering the fact that when apparently stupid people procreate/exist, it’s sometimes stated it contradicts natural selection. Thinking about it, people of higher than average intellect/ education are - at least in my anecdotal experience - more likely than average to not have children or have fewer than average children later in life.

It logically follows that humans of above average intellect contribute a lower percentage to the proceeding generation and therefore intelligence is actually selected against.

The counter to this is of course resource allocation and survivorship of offspring – a person of higher intelligence is more likely than average to procure a higher level of resources with which to raise offspring and thus more likely than average to successfully raise their fewer number of offspring to breeding age. Conversely, a person of lower intellect is less likely to have adequate resources to raise a high number of offspring ad thus if they have a large number, more are likely to suffer mortality before breeding age is reached, thus leveling the genetic input of high and low intelligence to the next generation.

Interestingly, in the current welfare state, if you have more offspring than you are capable of supporting the general populous will pool resources and provide for a parent’s potential failure to adequately allocate resources to their offspring. Therefore by ensuring the survivorship of all humans in a welfare state, you potentially tip the balance of selection against above average intellect/the breeding strategy of low output and high investment.

Without opening the ethical can of worms that is the removal of welfare and the starvation of people who we can otherwise afford to feed, it is interesting to note how recognition of basic human rights affects natural selection on the human populous.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
You're basing all of that on the premise that fitness is indicated by intelligence as that is the best way to amass resources. Two premises there are that intelligence is defined by employability and that resources allow one to increase the chances of survival, creating great amounts of offspring, ensuring their survival and also their fitness.

few problems I can see there.
 

Arete

Likes Dirt
I am making the assumption that increased intellect is correlative with increased resource acquisition -> in modern human society that means increased intellect is correlative with increased ability to acquire wealth - not necessarily through employment and salary. Of course the assumption is modelistic in that there is many variables which also factor in ones ability to accumulate wealth which the assumption ignores.

As such - it's not that intellect is the BEST measure of resource acquisition necessarily but an assumption of a general positive linear trend where intellect is the predictor and wealth the dependent.

It also assumes a general negative trend of reproductive output where intellect is the predictor and no. of offspring the dependent.

Both assumptions I don't actually have any data to support :)
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
your final assumption os correct, I have seen the data (UN I think, may have been Wold Bank) however it is based on developed and underdeveloped nations rather than average intellect. However there is also the question of what is intellect/intelligence. There is no agreed upon definition of the term.

But is seems that your definition here is that the ability to acquire resources indicates intelligence. Or one indicator if intelligence, maybe?
 

Arete

Likes Dirt
I deliberately left the definition of intellect vague, but to actually test the hyopthesis you'd have to a) define a measurable concept of intellect b) determine the heredity of your measured trait. Not easy trending towards impossible.

I guess to keep it grey - I'm assuming "intelligence", however you decide to define it is a) heritable (studies of the heritability of intellect, while controversial indicate a high degree of heritability e.g. Jacobs et. al. 2007 Aus. Ac. Press) b) correlated positively with wealth acquisition and c) correlated negatively with reproductive output.

Basically the assumptions are that if two people were exactly identical in all other respects, except person a was more intelligent than person b, person a would tend to better at earning money and more likely to have fewer children than person b
 
Last edited:

Fruitbat

Likes Dirt
I’d been considering the fact that when apparently stupid people procreate/exist, it’s sometimes stated it contradicts natural selection. Thinking about it, people of higher than average intellect/ education are - at least in my anecdotal experience - more likely than average to not have children or have fewer than average children later in life.

It logically follows that humans of above average intellect contribute a lower percentage to the proceeding generation and therefore intelligence is actually selected against.
I blame Disco- I am probably wrong, but isn't that when people started choosing their procreation partner based on ability to dance rather than intelligence, strength or even ability to hold a conversation?
 

martinpb

Likes Dirt
mmm...
i've got a few female friends who are highly inteligent (or at least very educated and holding down jobs you'd hope the occupant has a high level of clue for) and activly do not want to have children. In one case going as far as to say that she feels that high female inteligence is selected against.

on the male side, there is the seemly greater predispostion to high functioning ASD, leading to men of high inteligence, but poor social skills.

Maybe we're breeding highly capable couples with no ability to further themselves, but the ability to further the race as a whole.

I'm not sure i buy into the "gay men are useful to protect their sister's kids and therefore a portion of their own genes" evolution argument, but i wonder if the highly capable couples could be placed in a similar position. that they are usless to their own procreation, but allow the species to forge ahead and some of their genes to be passed on via their siblings.

(sorry, this should be written up so much better, but think i've posted a bit too much and need to get back to real work (i'm going to bring up all my science posts on here next time i have a performace review, as a contribution to the public understanding of science!)
 

Norco Maniac

Is back!
ever read this?


The Marching Morons - CM Kornbluth

just going from observation of the locals, i'd say intelligence and employment capability is inversely proportional to the number of children you will have.

having said that, i have three children - twins and a singleton - and i acquired the bulk of my formal education after they were born.
 
Last edited:

3viltoast3r

Likes Bikes and Dirt
I blame Disco- I am probably wrong, but isn't that when people started choosing their procreation partner based on ability to dance rather than intelligence, strength & Physical appearance or even ability to hold a conversation?
Im pretty sure there is some sort of partner selection ritual from the given pool..

I'll post up something interesting tonight when I get some more time..
 

Norco Maniac

Is back!
i read somewhere - and please don't quote me or ask me for hard facts - that a woman chooses her potential mate according to his pheremones. deodorant, aftershave, perfume, and - this i find extremely interesting - the Pill mask a woman's ability to "smell" the right man for her, breeding-wise.
 

3viltoast3r

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Whats everybodies favourite calculator? I love my trusty Casio Fx-82MS:


Although one of those Graphing/matrix calculators look pretty spiffy :cool:
 
Last edited:

Spanky_Ham

Porcinus Slappius
Whats everybodies favourite calculator? I love my trusty Casio Fx-82MS:
The pig lurvs the FX 82 MS, we got 2!! but couldn't find them so went and bought at new 570 MS... been so disappointed with it... button feel is all wrong.... especially with gloves on!!! So now we've got the FX82 back.



s

p.s. anyone know of anywhere to buy really cool lab coats..... need thick cotton ones with some style?????
 

taquar

Likes Dirt
Whats everybodies favourite calculator?
I have a trusty Casio CFX-9850GB PLUS, yes it is one of those graphing/matrix calculators :p. I've had it since grade 8 or 9 and it's never failed me. Can't remember the last time I actually used it though... :(
 
Last edited:

dog boy

Likes Dirt
My calculator. Used if for the past 2 years im math b and c. Can tell school finished 2 weeks ago I just panicked because I couldnt find it. .... Yer it was under my bed.
 

Attachments

Arete

Likes Dirt
Rather than a calculator I have a love/hate relationship with R and bayesian coalescent estimation.

I was annoyed to discover that my new fangled Ipood touch doesn't work when wearing nitrile gloves.
 

thecat

NSWMTB, Central Tableland MBC
I’d been considering the fact that when apparently stupid people procreate/exist, it’s sometimes stated it contradicts natural selection.
Only if you make the false assumption that evolution through natural selection has a goal of producing super intelligent beings, or that evolution starts with pond slime and some how ends with us

As you know evolution has no such goal. Natural selection favours those who can survive to produce viable offspring. Nothing more nothing less.

Thinking about it, people of higher than average intellect/ education are - at least in my anecdotal experience - more likely than average to not have children or have fewer than average children later in life.
Thinking about it really really "intelligent" people tend to be completely socially inept.
Who was it who said "Intelligence is like money, if you have too much of it you become a freak."

It logically follows that humans of above average intellect contribute a lower percentage to the proceeding generation and therefore intelligence is actually selected against.
.
You are assuming that intelligence as we currently measure it is 100% hereditary.

This is harking back to the dim dark past of IQ tests where low scorers were forcibly sterilized.

While advances have been made in how we measure intelligence through IQ tests it can still be argued that they are culturally biased and influenced more by nurture than nature and that a IQ test does nothing more than test your ability to do that particular IQ test.

Lets not forget Einstein was the son of a failed businessman, he struggled in school and failed his entrance exam for secondary school. Even in the work place he was nothing special, getting knocked back for a promotion several times before he went on to rock the scientific world.

The whole idea that having a higher social economic standing and access to better educations makes you inherently more intelligent is seriously flawed. I mean that would suggest the British royal family are super geniuses:eek:
 

g-fish

Likes Bikes and Dirt
While advances have been made in how we measure intelligence through IQ tests it can still be argued that they are culturally biased and influenced more by nurture than nature and that a IQ test does nothing more than test your ability to do that particular IQ test.
This.

Though you may be able to inherit some intelligence, I would assume that intelligence is mainly influenced by your environment.


Lets not forget Einstein was the son of a failed businessman, he struggled in school and failed his entrance exam for secondary school. Even in the work place he was nothing special, getting knocked back for a promotion several times before he went on to rock the scientific world.
He also married his maternal first cousin, who also happened to be his paternal second cousin. Just sayin'.

On a serious note, could someone explain something to me.

I'm not much into biology - chem/physics is far more interesting. But how did the snake end up getting venomous fangs? I understand how a stick insect came to look like a stick. But I just can't understand how something develops new organs seemingly out of nowhere. Where did the venomous organs come from? There couldn't have been a snake millions of years ago that had slightly more venomous teeth than all the other snakes because the basic structure of its organs would have had to change.
 
I'm not much into biology - chem/physics is far more interesting. But how did the snake end up getting venomous fangs? I understand how a stick insect came to look like a stick. But I just can't understand how something develops new organs seemingly out of nowhere. Where did the venomous organs come from? There couldn't have been a snake millions of years ago that had slightly more venomous teeth than all the other snakes because the basic structure of its organs would have had to change.
I would have thought the usual way, survival by the fittest. It needed a way to kill prey, as a snake really doesn't have much, especially the smaller ones, it evolved venom and fangs in order to kill/stun its prey. Constrictors have it different as they are quite large and can constrict they prey and kill it that way.

EDIT: My answer is far from in depth but I assume that it covers the gist of it.

I too have a question, which is more asking for opinions...

Which do you rather: Light as a particle or light as a wave? And obviously reasons as to why. No fence sitters would be preferable yet still acceptable as a definitive answer, as far as I know, is yet to be found.
 

wombat

Lives in a hole
I would have thought the usual way, survival by the fittest. It needed a way to kill prey, as a snake really doesn't have much, especially the smaller ones, it evolved venom and fangs in order to kill/stun its prey. Constrictors have it different as they are quite large and can constrict they prey and kill it that way.
I imagine his question was more along the lines of 'how did it evolve venom?'. Bigger teeth/claws/feet/penis seems is one thing, as I can see it's just a variation on the norm. But the idea of developing an entirely new organ that produces a poisonous substance is a little harder (for a pleb like me) to get my head around.

Where's Arete?

As for the light thing, don't photons simultaneously exhibit the properties of both a wave and a particle?
 

Arete

Likes Dirt
theCat/G-fish:

As the paper I posted earlier pointed out, intellect - measured as analytical/problem solving ability IS, by current research thought to be highly heritable. Also that procurement of resources is a DEPENDENT variable. That means you aren't determining intellect by resource accumulation at all - you are assuming a general, positive correlation given that once all other variables are corrected for, a person of higher intelligence is more likely to have a higher ability to aquire resources.

This is logical - insofar as an increased ability to solve problems would lead to a generalized ability to procure resources in any organism.

To look at it in a broader context, I would argue that intellect - measured by analytical and problem solving capability - is currently affected by stabilising selection in that both positive and negative outliers are selected against.

The evolution of envenomation: Lets step away from the concept of irreducible complexity, quietly and slowly... Reptile envenomation glands are actually modified saliva glands. There's many many examples of primitive reptile envenomation capabilities - all monitor lizards actually have venom glands and it's thought that many agamid lizards also have primitive envenomation capabilities. However they lack injection systems to actively deliver venom to prey - meaning that their saliva is mildly toxic.

This is the reason goanna bites hurt like hell and take forever to heal and also the reason Komodo dragon victims drop dead from shock soon after being bitten - it's actually got nothing to do with septic shock as first thought - Komodo dragons actually have venomous saliva!

Edit - there's also a variety of injection systems - from grooved rear teeth in colubrids to the giant, hinged hollow hypodermic teeth exhibited by vipers - a modification of the salivary ducts deliver the venom either close to the tooth so it runs down the groove or through the tooth rather than a opening in the mouth.

Basically, being venomous - particularly if you are a predator in areas where prey is hard to come by has a massive selective advantage especially if you haven't developed large claws and/or teeth with which to take down prey effectively. Lunch doesn't get away because you've poisoned it, and lunch also doesn't fight back. Thus venom injection capabilities in a wide variety of animals have been fine tuned over millions of years.

They have also been lost in some snakes that have adapted a non-predatory lifestyle such as some Hydrophis sea snakes that specialize in fish eggs which have reduced, non-functional venom glands.
 
Last edited:
Top