Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 3]
Discussion
popeyewhite said:
Was Stone Age man's brain smaller? No way of making it bigger overnight. Even if you could that's still no guarantee he learn to fly a jet. Isn't there quite advanced mathematics and physics involved? You'd have trouble teaching the average bloke off the street. And anyway Stone Age man would be so terrified of the 'plane he wouldn't go near it.
Man is not evolving, and hasn't been for a while. Species evolve to adapt to their environment - man now adapts the environment to suit him.
1) If man is not evolving, then brains aren't getting bigger.Man is not evolving, and hasn't been for a while. Species evolve to adapt to their environment - man now adapts the environment to suit him.
2) There is no guarantee anyone can fly a jet but the question is whether stone age man was inherently less capable for evolutionary reasons, not cultural ones.
Dr Jekyll said:
1) If man is not evolving, then brains aren't getting bigger.
You knew what I meant, if you like I'll spell it out for you.Dr Jekyll said:
2) There is no guarantee anyone can fly a jet but the question is whether stone age man was inherently less capable for evolutionary reasons, not cultural ones.
Yes. Do you think anyone, ever, for any reason, has evolved to fly a jet? To parachute out of a 'plane? To scuba dive etc etc.popeyewhite said:
Dr Jekyll said:
1) If man is not evolving, then brains aren't getting bigger.
You knew what I meant, if you like I'll spell it out for you.Dr Jekyll said:
2) There is no guarantee anyone can fly a jet but the question is whether stone age man was inherently less capable for evolutionary reasons, not cultural ones.
Yes. Do you think anyone, ever, for any reason, has evolved to fly a jet? To parachute out of a 'plane? To scuba dive etc etc.
king don't and never said anything that could conceivably be regarded as suggesting that.
singlecoil said:
SpeckledJim said:
popeyewhite said:
Man is not evolving, and hasn't been for a while. Species evolve to adapt to their environment - man now adapts the environment to suit him.
Why are we getting taller then?I'm 6'4"
Taller people also earn more money, which gives another reproductive advantage. The benefits are compounded.
Evolution.
SpeckledJim said:
singlecoil said:
SpeckledJim said:
popeyewhite said:
Man is not evolving, and hasn't been for a while. Species evolve to adapt to their environment - man now adapts the environment to suit him.
Why are we getting taller then?I'm 6'4"
Taller people also earn more money, which gives another reproductive advantage. The benefits are compounded.
Evolution.
I'm afraid you're wrong. If evolution was responsible for relatively recent changes in height we'd actually be getting shorter. My guess is better nutrition and hygiene.
Out of interest what is the genetic advantage in being taller? Love the link about taller people earning more money though.
popeyewhite said:
SpeckledJim said:
singlecoil said:
SpeckledJim said:
popeyewhite said:
Man is not evolving, and hasn't been for a while. Species evolve to adapt to their environment - man now adapts the environment to suit him.
Why are we getting taller then?I'm 6'4"
Taller people also earn more money, which gives another reproductive advantage. The benefits are compounded.
Evolution.
I'm afraid you're wrong. If evolution was responsible for relatively recent changes in height we'd actually be getting shorter. My guess is better nutrition and hygiene.
Out of interest what is the genetic advantage in being taller? Love the link about taller people earning more money though.
Note, this is happening in times of plenty. If we were struggling for food, women might find smaller guys more attractive, as their children will be easier to feed.
SpeckledJim said:
The reproductive advantage to being taller is the same as being handsome and slim - girls fancy tall more than they fancy short, so tall guys have more children.
Note, this is happening in times of plenty. If we were struggling for food, women might find smaller guys more attractive, as their children will be easier to feed.
Not sure you've really grasped the subject matter properly here SJ. Natural selection is an extremely gradual process - males in our culture have only been getting taller since the mid 19 century (or thereabouts), this coincides with life getting easier, not harder.Note, this is happening in times of plenty. If we were struggling for food, women might find smaller guys more attractive, as their children will be easier to feed.
popeyewhite said:
SpeckledJim said:
The reproductive advantage to being taller is the same as being handsome and slim - girls fancy tall more than they fancy short, so tall guys have more children.
Note, this is happening in times of plenty. If we were struggling for food, women might find smaller guys more attractive, as their children will be easier to feed.
Not sure you've really grasped the subject matter properly here SJ. Natural selection is an extremely gradual process - males in our culture have only been getting taller since the mid 19 century (or thereabouts), this coincides with life getting easier, not harder.Note, this is happening in times of plenty. If we were struggling for food, women might find smaller guys more attractive, as their children will be easier to feed.
Five of the guys are 6 foot tall and five of the guys are 5 foot tall.
9 of the 10 girls are more attracted to taller guys than shorter guys.
How many generations before the average height of the breeding stock of adults is noticeably taller than at the start? 2 or 3? 4? Not 100, anyway.
Yes, life is easier, food is plentiful, and being tall or big is not a challenge or penalty.
So the other perceived and real advantages of being tall - being strong or offering protection for example - outweigh the cost of feeding the lanky lummocks.
SpeckledJim said:
Imagine the population is only 10 guys and 10 girls.
Five of the guys are 6 foot tall and five of the guys are 5 foot tall.
9 of the 10 girls are more attracted to taller guys than shorter guys.
How many generations before the average height of the breeding stock of adults is noticeably taller than at the start? 2 or 3? 4? Not 100, anyway.
Yes, life is easier, food is plentiful, and being tall or big is not a challenge or penalty.
So the other perceived and real advantages of being tall - being strong or offering protection for example - outweigh the cost of feeding the lanky lummocks.
In the mid 19 century we were all shorter. There was no need for us to evolve to be taller. Women happily mated with shorter guys. The fact some women now fancy taller men is a facet of current western culture and fashion, which I fear you are reading far too much into!Five of the guys are 6 foot tall and five of the guys are 5 foot tall.
9 of the 10 girls are more attracted to taller guys than shorter guys.
How many generations before the average height of the breeding stock of adults is noticeably taller than at the start? 2 or 3? 4? Not 100, anyway.
Yes, life is easier, food is plentiful, and being tall or big is not a challenge or penalty.
So the other perceived and real advantages of being tall - being strong or offering protection for example - outweigh the cost of feeding the lanky lummocks.
popeyewhite said:
In the mid 19 century we were all shorter. There was no need for us to evolve to be taller. Women happily mated with shorter guys. The fact some women now fancy taller men is a facet of current western culture and fashion, which I fear you are reading far too much into!
Indeed, us being taller is absolutely nothing to do with natural selection.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23896855
"Prof Tim Hatton of the University of Essex said there was no "Darwinian explanation" to the trend."
I think the question on stone age man flying or not owing to evolution is skewed because people are thinking about taking an adult.
If we took a stone aged child and brought them up in the 21st century then I don't see any reason why they couldn't learn how to cure cancer, run the ISS and/or become president.
Frankly they probably have far faster reaction times and eyesight if anything, making them MORE suited to be an F16 pilot.
Hence evolution wouldn't prevent stone aged kid staring in a magnificent Top Gun 2/Jurassic Park 5 cross-over movie.
Exige77 said:
BristolRich said:
I assume an air wrench can provide greater torque reliably and is a lighter tool.
For the electric solution the greater the torque the heavier the battery. An over torqued nut or one that was difficult to remove would kill the battery, not a problem in the home garage but at a crucial pit stop....
With regards the question of speed...do the teams all use the same air supply?
The F1 boys are running 80 Bar pressure in this gunsFor the electric solution the greater the torque the heavier the battery. An over torqued nut or one that was difficult to remove would kill the battery, not a problem in the home garage but at a crucial pit stop....
With regards the question of speed...do the teams all use the same air supply?
That seems very, very high. Used to use air operated wrenches at work which would move all but the most chemically corroded nut and bolts which ran on around 4.5 Bar.
walm said:
Frankly they probably have far faster reaction times and eyesight if anything, making them MORE suited to be an F16 pilot.
All motor skills are learnt, then improved by practice, so their reactions would be slower initially. Eyesight would be the same as ours - foveal fixations are considered the point at which information is 'taken in', for these fixations the eye is stationary. Whether they would be able to learn more quickly than a modern human is debatable as they would be (one imagines!) so anxious any learning or coping with cognitive tasks would be extremely hard. For a contemporary thinking on why, take a look at processing efficiency theory. It's one of the better anxiety theories IMO. walm said:
Hence evolution wouldn't prevent stone aged kid staring in a magnificent Top Gun 2/Jurassic Park 5 cross-over movie.
Evolutionary psychology describes the importance to early man to staying in the family group. Move away from the group and you're an outcast. If you're an outcast then effectively you die of starvation or eaten by wolves or big cats. Stone age man would be very reluctant to even swap grunts with modern man, and that's if he let you approach him without running away. Get in a 'plane? Unlikely! Might be a premise for a Hollywood movie in there somewhere?
popeyewhite said:
walm said:
Frankly they probably have far faster reaction times and eyesight if anything, making them MORE suited to be an F16 pilot.
All motor skills are learnt, then improved by practice, so their reactions would be slower initially. Eyesight would be the same as ours - foveal fixations are considered the point at which information is 'taken in', for these fixations the eye is stationary. Whether they would be able to learn more quickly than a modern human is debatable as they would be (one imagines!) so anxious any learning or coping with cognitive tasks would be extremely hard. For a contemporary thinking on why, take a look at processing efficiency theory. It's one of the better anxiety theories IMO. walm said:
Hence evolution wouldn't prevent stone aged kid staring in a magnificent Top Gun 2/Jurassic Park 5 cross-over movie.
Evolutionary psychology describes the importance to early man to staying in the family group. Move away from the group and you're an outcast. If you're an outcast then effectively you die of starvation or eaten by wolves or big cats. Stone age man would be very reluctant to even swap grunts with modern man, and that's if he let you approach him without running away. Get in a 'plane? Unlikely! Might be a premise for a Hollywood movie in there somewhere?
Ayahuasca had two questions really:
1. Have human brains evolved in the last 100,000 years?
2. Could we teach a stone age man to fly an F16?
I was really addressing question 1 and suggesting that the brain won't have changed that much and in fact it would be similar enough we could raise that stone age KID to be a damn good fighter pilot.
popeyewhite said:
Not sure you've really grasped the subject matter properly here SJ. Natural selection is an extremely gradual process - males in our culture have only been getting taller since the mid 19 century (or thereabouts), this coincides with life getting easier, not harder.
Another way of looking at it is that we are now at our natural height and life expectancy as opposed to a stunted growth and life expectancy caused by the malnutrition prevalent in the 19C. As a side note of course the wealthy in the 19C would have been quite obvious because without their growth being constrained by malnourishment they would have tended to be quite a lot taller than the poor.
walm said:
I think you missed the bit where I suggested taking a kid, newborn say, and raising them.
You said 'kid'. What age kid were you thinking of? A kid's brain is like a sponge. By the time a child is 6/7 they'll already have picked up Stone Age schema and trait by the bucketload. Newborn? Also very very unlikely. Not all behaviour is learnt after birth.
walm said:
Ayahuasca had two questions really:
1. Have human brains evolved in the last 100,000 years?
Not much in the last 100,000 years 1. Have human brains evolved in the last 100,000 years?
. The brain can evolve (plasticity) but that's not in the sense meant here.walm said:
2. Could we teach a stone age man to fly an F16?
Very, very unlikely. How would you explain the technology even if you got him to watch the 'plane fly without running off?walm said:
I was really addressing question 1 and suggesting that the brain won't have changed that much and in fact it would be similar enough we could raise that stone age KID to be a damn good fighter pilot.
As I've said, the brain won't have changed that much, but I fear is that it would still be somewhat of a struggle for other reasons. popeyewhite said:
Newborn? Also very very unlikely. Not all behaviour is learnt after birth.
I agree with most of the rest but this I disagree with.If the brain hasn't evolved much (which we seem to agree on) then why wouldn't a newborn Stone Aged baby, raised as a regular 21st century kid struggle to pilot an F16??
I mean Matthew Broderick trained a bunch of chimps to do it...
RobinOakapple said:
walm said:
If the brain hasn't evolved much (which we seem to agree on)
You and he agree on it, but I don't. I'm ready to be persuaded otherwise if anyone has any good evidence.Reaction time, aggression, manual dexterity and spatial awareness have all become LESS important over time rather than more.
In fairness, I have no idea what it takes to pilot a jet successfully but it seems more about physical skills than book-work. Certainly Maverick was an excellent volleyball player for someone only 5ft tall.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff