(i do not know what it is about you that closes and opens; only something in me understands the voice of your eyes is deeper than all roses) nobody, not even the rain, has such small hands.
hm, you do realize that our greater brains - thus greater ability to reason and philosophize - are a result of biological evolution right ? bigger skulls lead to bigger brain sizes, and all the other good stuff that comes along with it.
i disagree that we should look at things that sets us apart from animals - throughout history, and in fact much of today, many people are way too egocentric and think humans are something completely special from everything else. it's my belief that this is one of the reasons why evolution is so contested - because a majority of people can't stand the idea of us having evolve from apes ("apes as ancestors ? ridonkolous ! *laughs*). but i digress.
btw, what of descartes ? i don't recall him saying much about "talent", though i must admit i haven't delved too, too deeply into philosophy
2nd year biology course. argue with my prof if you want.
edit: since you were too damn lazy to even back up your complaint, here's a scientific paper
ok, it looks like size isn't the only thing - or even the major differentiator. but the fact that we have advanced thinking abilities is still due to biological evolution, which was my original point anyway.
in the future, put some facts - some modicum of effort - into your thoughts before you post, please. you're not adding anything significant besides saying "i disagree".
Last edited by echoblaze; 02-01-2008 at 07:54 PM.
^I wasn't arguing with bioevolution. I was arguing with the assertion bigger brain size= more capability. In that case Neanderthals would be more intelligent and 'evolved' if that were true. But it is not.
And give me 24-48 hrs. I will get some evidence.
Last edited by Urameshi-sama; 02-01-2008 at 10:46 PM.
No. Talent can be mental or physical, i.e. it can be caused by a superior brain or a superior body. Or do you really think that talented athletes are talented because of their "subjective mind"?Originally Posted by darksoulzero
Wow. Apparently you don't understand the basic biological fact that your mind is generated by your brain.Originally Posted by darksoulzero
You don't seem to get the concept of heritable traits. Maybe you should go and read some of Mendel's work as well.Originally Posted by darksoulzero
In short, talents can be considered traits, as they ultimately have a genetic origin. Basic biology tells us that traits are passed down, therefore talents are as well. As for creation, have you heard of the concept of mutation?
It does appear as if biology once again holds the answer to our question.
Yeah, we're totally inferior. That explains why we rule this goddamn planet, doesn't it?Originally Posted by darksoulzero
Higher intelligence, and opposable thumbs? Because that's pretty much it.Originally Posted by darksoulzero
honestly, it's not really "high level (science)". any intro biology course (or wiki/google info-hunting) will tell you anything you need to know about evolution, and the evidence for human's origins. but anyway, this is really diverging from the main topic. i only brought up evolution only to argue against darksoulzero's claim that talent doesn't have much to do with biology.
Descartes is ancient. Psychology is theoretical. Biology can be proven.
Biology > Psychology.
(And keep in mind, a lot of MODERN psychology IS actually just applied biology to psychology)
For the other part of Psychology... the nurture rather than the nature part... They would tell you the environment is what influences developing humans the most.
But then theres facts like you are 70% more likely to get a mental disorder if your parent(s) had that disorder. (and actually, I think the # is closer to 95 percent if BOTH parents had it). Mind you, this is based on statistics and case studies, which can be in themselves misleading but it is far more concrete than any theory.
The environment does indeed HELP to shape us. The CORE however, tends to be inherited. (I say tends because there are exceptions, but they are exceptions and FAR smaller in number than the norm).
Brain size DOES mean more capability. Which is why rats can learn things like navigating mazes and stuff - but not more complex things. Whereas monkeys can learn more than rats and we can learn more than monkeys.Originally Posted by Urameshi-sama
The problem is that we do not UTILIZE most of the potential of our brain. In fact the highest percentage "use" of the brain to my knowledge is with people who have photographic memeory... those people utilize 45-60% of their brain. The simple fact is that our brain is MORE than we need at this point in time, and I frankly don't see us evolving soon because we don't NEED to.
Your not going to get evidence because it doesn't exist - and thats not even considering that Scientists aren't even sure we EVOLVED from Neanderthals. There is still anongoing debate whether they were a variation of homo sapiens or their own race homo neanderthalis. Brain size = More potential capability. If all you have to work with is stick and rocks and no knowledge being written down and little passed from parent to parent (no language ooh)... not gonna matter how fucking smart you are, you ain't making plastic in a day.
In a nutshell, yup. Although we ARE the only species that adapts the environment to OUR needs, rather than adapting ourselves to the environment.Originally Posted by Saizou