Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 3]

[RobinOakapple]

walm said:

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.

Surely if anything the brain will have evolved to be WORSE at fighter jet piloting.

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.

I know Maverick was a good gambler and gun-slinger, I hadn't realised he played volleyball as well.

I'd be interested to get the reaction of some fighter pilots to the implication that intelligence isn't especially important in their line of work.

[popeyewhite]

walm said:

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??

It would need to be able to read advanced physics and mathematics and be computer literate. It would need to be physically fit, and in perfect health. It would probably require an extremely high IQ. It would need to be able to make important decisions under stressful conditions when its first natural instinct would be to run or blubber.It would need a talent for flying fast jets. Because it will be carrying the genes of it's ancestors.

I very much doubt 99.9% of new-borns today would make the grade, let alone a Stone-Age baby.

[walm]

popeyewhite said:

walm said:

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??

It would need to be able to read advanced physics and mathematics and be computer literate. It would need to be physically fit, and in perfect health. It would probably require an extremely high IQ. It would need to be able to make important decisions under stressful conditions when its first natural instinct would be to run or blubber.It would need a talent for flying fast jets. Because it will be carrying the genes of it's ancestors.

I very much doubt 99.9% of new-borns today would make the grade, let alone a Stone-Age baby.

It's not "can 100% of stone age kids pilot an F16?".

Simply put the question is asking, have our brains evolved so much over 100,000 years that we can do all these highly complex tasks such as piloting an F16 which wouldn't be possible if we had stone aged brains in our heads instead?

I happen to think a similar proportion (0.01% or whatever) of stone aged babies AS current babies could grow up to do it since our brains aren't THAT different.

[RobinOakapple]

walm said:

I happen to think a similar proportion (0.01% or whatever) of stone aged babies AS current babies could grow up to do it since our brains aren't THAT different.

But what do you base that on? Size of the cranium?

[walm]

RobinOakapple said:

I'd be interested to get the reaction of some fighter pilots to the implication that intelligence isn't especially important in their line of work.

"more about physical skills than book work" is what I said.
Nothing about intelligence implied, although I note that RAF Pilot requirements are 2 A-levels grade A-C.

[popeyewhite]

walm said:

It's not "can 100% of stone age kids pilot an F16?".

I know - your question, the one I answered, is above.

walm said:

Simply put the question is asking, have our brains evolved so much over 100,000 years that we can do all these highly complex tasks such as piloting an F16 which wouldn't be possible if we had stone aged brains in our heads instead?

I've given you my opinion.

walm said:

I happen to think a similar proportion (0.01% or whatever) of stone aged babies AS current babies could grow up to do it since our brains aren't THAT different.

Our modern brains are also better at learning. Through plasticity neural pathways are created and the brain becomes more efficient. Our brains are actually getting smaller.

[walm]

RobinOakapple said:

walm said:

I happen to think a similar proportion (0.01% or whatever) of stone aged babies AS current babies could grow up to do it since our brains aren't THAT different.

But what do you base that on? Size of the cranium?

As above mostly based on Project X, Top Gun and Hot Shots.

[98elise]

popeyewhite said:

walm said:

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??

It would need to be able to read advanced physics and mathematics and be computer literate. It would need to be physically fit, and in perfect health. It would probably require an extremely high IQ. It would need to be able to make important decisions under stressful conditions when its first natural instinct would be to run or blubber.It would need a talent for flying fast jets. Because it will be carrying the genes of it's ancestors.

I very much doubt 99.9% of new-borns today would make the grade, let alone a Stone-Age baby.

I hate to burst your bubble but qualifcations needed to join the forces as a pilot are 2 A Levels. Training is a couple of years. High IQ is also not a requirement.

I'm not trying to make out pilots are stupid BTW, just that the initial entry requirements are not that high. I suspect a lot that can get through the initial requirements lack the ability to make the grade though.

[deeen]

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.

There are many mechanisms for evolution. Evolution by natural selection is a subset of evolution. Natural selection itself can be subdivided , it's not just survival of the fittest individual. For example, when a person chooses a tall mate because they find them more attractive, is that natural?

As for the time-scale, I suspect improved nutrition led to people being able to reach their full potential height, then this is being reinforced by sexual selection.

[Dr Jekyll]

RobinOakapple said:

I'd be interested to get the reaction of some fighter pilots to the implication that intelligence isn't especially important in their line of work.

First of all we aren't talking about fighter pilots line of work, we are talking about flying a jet fighter. Simply flying the thing is probably the easy bit, just as simply driving a London Taxi is considerably easier than driving it and still having the spare capacity to know the correct route from the Hilton to peppermint Rhino while simultaneously talking bks about immigration.

Some very rich but otherwise fairly ordinary middle aged civilians have learnt to fly jet fighters acceptably safely so unless you are hoping for the taxpayer to finance your flying you don't need to be part of a physical and intellectual elite. The rigorous selection processes of the military are more to do with getting someone who will end up outflying the enemy guy or gal and having hundreds of times more applicants to choose from than they need.

Norman Tebbit used to fly jet fighters for a living remember.

Could a stone age man be born with the intellect to fly an F16? Even if they were marginally less bright than us I don't see the problem. I don't even think the cultural issues of someone plucked from the stone age would be that significant. There are cases of Saudi Arabian pilots born into nomadic societies barely changed from the iron age who ended up flying Lightnings and F15s.

[Dr Jekyll]

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.

Adapting to the environment is the effect of evolution not the mechanism. The mechanism is members of a species that have particular characteristics having more offspring as a result, consistently for many generations. We might not need to evolve, that doesn't mean we aren't evolving.

[Einion Yrth]

Dr Jekyll said:

Could a stone age man be born with the intellect to fly an F16? Even if they were marginally less bright than us

Given the technology of the time, antler picks, flint axes, stuff made out of wood; could you work out how to get bluestone, in multi tonne monoliths, from the Preseli hills in Pembrokeshire to Salisbury plain? These people weren't dimmer than us they just knew less, in certain areas at least.

[Ayahuasca]

Dr Jekyll 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.

Adapting to the environment is the effect of evolution not the mechanism. The mechanism is members of a species that have particular characteristics having more offspring as a result, consistently for many generations. We might not need to evolve, that doesn't mean we aren't evolving.

On that basis we are evolving into people with little understanding of contraception.

[MissChief]

It can't be that difficult. Randy Quaid managed it with a stonking hangover in a documentary about an Alien invasion I once saw?

[popeyewhite]

Dr Jekyll said:

Adapting to the environment is the effect of evolution not the mechanism.

According to Darwin it's the need to adapt to environment that causes evolution. The reason is survival. If a species survives it breeds, this is natural selection. I'm sure you'd argue semantics with Darwin if you could, though.

[Dr Jekyll]

popeyewhite said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Adapting to the environment is the effect of evolution not the mechanism.

According to Darwin it's the need to adapt to environment that causes evolution. The reason is survival. If a species survives it breeds, this is natural selection. I'm sure you'd argue semantics with Darwin if you could, though.

It's not semantics though. A species does not collectively say 'Oh bugger, the environment has changed better get evolving'. Individual genes or combinations of genes end up being reproduced more than others. The genes that give an advantage once the environment has been altered to suit mankind are likely to be somewhat different to those that gave an advantage in the original environment. Inventing fire does not stop evolution occurring. EG One way mankind has historically adapted the environment to suit itself is using fermentation to purify drinking water, so Europeans in particular have evolved an increased tolerance for alcohol. Those who couldn't drink alcohol were that much less likely to survive.

[deeen]

popeyewhite said:

According to Darwin it's the need to adapt to environment that causes evolution. The reason is survival. If a species survives it breeds, this is natural selection. I'm sure you'd argue semantics with Darwin if you could, though.

Even Darwin realised there was more than one mechanism for evolution, we have since discovered more, e.g. re-combination of genes (sorry can't remember scientific name). The point is, "survival of the fittest" is only one of many drivers of evolution.

[popeyewhite]

deeen said:

popeyewhite said:

According to Darwin it's the need to adapt to environment that causes evolution. The reason is survival. If a species survives it breeds, this is natural selection. I'm sure you'd argue semantics with Darwin if you could, though.

Even Darwin realised there was more than one mechanism for evolution, we have since discovered more, e.g. re-combination of genes (sorry can't remember scientific name). The point is, "survival of the fittest" is only one of many drivers of evolution.

I purposefully didn't say 'survival of the fittest'. Darwin noted how cornerstone species were sometimes allowed to die out and some quite surprising species evolved.

[MissChief]

It's not the fastest, tallest, strongest or fittest that survives, but the most adaptive to change.

[slyelessar]

MissChief said:

It's not the fastest, tallest, strongest or fittest that survives, but the most adaptive to change.

It is easy to get smurfed.