Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Page 2 of 14 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8 ... 14  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Ivan on Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:37 pm

First topic message reminder :

Bertrand Russell once said that “the immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion”, and research appears to support that remark. Michael Shermer, in ‘How We Believe: The Search For God In An Age Of Science’, describes a large survey of randomly chosen Americans that he and his colleague Frank Sulloway carried out. Among their many results was the discovery that religiosity is negatively correlated with education (more highly educated people are less likely to be religious). Paul Bell, writing in ‘Mensa Magazine’ in 2002 told us: “Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold ‘beliefs’ of any kind.”

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science, suggests that more intelligent people are more likely to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values. He said: "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists.”

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (NLSAH) supports Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who identify themselves as 'not at all religious' have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as 'very religious' have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

Shermer says that religiosity is also negatively correlated with interest in science and strongly with political liberalism. And the NLSAH data suggests that young adults who subjectively identify themselves as 'very liberal' have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as 'very conservative' have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Does this mean that people with left-wing views are more intelligent than those on the right? I’ve long thought that those with the independence of mind to be unaffected by the constant brainwashing attempts of the right-wing media must have a critical faculty which those who succumb to Tory and Republican propaganda clearly lack. It also appears to be the conclusion of experts at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, who studied research comparing childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood in 15,000 people. They found that intelligence, rather than education, wealth or social status, decides whether people are narrow-minded or bigoted in later life. Their report has been published in a journal called ‘Psychological Science’ and states: “Those with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo. That is because it provides a sense of order". The authors found a strong link between low intelligence both as a child and an adult, and right-wing politics.

Sources used, and for further details:-

Richard Dawkins, ‘The God Delusion’, Bantam Press, 2006, p.102-3

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/48586-intelligent-people-more-likely-to-be-left-wing-atheists

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2012/02/04/labour-supporters-are-cleverer-than-tories-canadian-study-claims-115875-23734718/


avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 6903
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down


Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by blueturando on Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:09 pm

I think the problem is OW that many working class people have come to the conclusion that the last Labour government lost sight of who their core voters were and were more interested in mass immigration and keeping people happy on benefits....Rightly or wrongly that is the perception

Immigration on the scale allowed under the last government effects ordinary people who use local services and who are being pushed out of jobs and down council waiting lists....and the wider perception is that 'Minorities' rights come before theirs.......all too PC

Many working class are unhappy that they work crazy hours every week to feed and clothes their families for less money that someone can get sitting on benefits. It's not their fault, they are claiming what they can get...but the politicians were seriously at fault here and once again the working class got ignored......That's why so many turned away from Labour and voted Tory

Labour lost an estimated 4.9 million voters between 1997 and 2010

Sorry to be so off topic....

blueturando
Banned

Posts : 1203
Join date : 2011-11-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by oftenwrong on Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:29 pm

Benefits are simple bribery against Civil War.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11621
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by AwfulTruth on Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:22 am

oftenwrong wrote:Benefits are simple bribery against Civil War.

Your gem of wisdom: of course they are yet without benefits who could afford to rebel? What a Face

AwfulTruth
Deactivated

Posts : 318
Join date : 2011-11-16
Location : Cambridgeshire

http://www.rhodesgreece.webs.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Papaumau on Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:25 am


Rebellion, ( or even the lesser version of rebellion that is strike action ), always brings with it poverty and suffering and the courageous people who rebel know this only too well.

That aside and back to the topic:

Blueturando said:

If you are Religious and Left Wing then you will obviously agree with this view...I am an Atheist and Centre/Right so I obviously disagree.

There is nothing, in my opinion, as simple as that as far as intelligence and the following of religious habits is concerned !

You did not list the ones who are left-wing and atheist, ( as a lot of them are both ), as it is much easier to be left-wing and atheist than it might be to be right-wing and atheist or even right-wing and religious.

I don't think that anyone in their right mind would try to suggest that any left-wing-leaning has ANYTHING to do with a person's level of intelligence, as intelligence is not equated with any kind of political or religious or class-marked upbringing. Basic intelligence is in the child at birth and everything after that, that makes up the person, is learned.

Regards....

Papaumau.
avatar
Papaumau
Deactivated

Posts : 219
Join date : 2012-01-24
Location : Scotland

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:45 am

Just a thought. A simple, but wise man, well, in my eyes anyway, once said this to me.

It's not the amount of intelligence you HAVE, it's whether you use what you DO have wisely. Smile
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1323
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by polyglide on Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:45 am

There is one real problem regarding evolution and the lack of belief in a creator which I would like an explanation for in simplistic terms.

It is far too easy to get tied up in a lot of nonsense regarding pools of water and technical terms that many people do not understand, the more understandable a subject is to the majority of people the the more different views can be considered and expressed.

There is no doubt whatsoever that an atom can be split into differernt pieces. There is also no doubt that what can be put into pieces must have been put together in the first place.

Quesion ? who put the atom together and by what means using what.


avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by blueturando on Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:27 pm

Quesion ? who put the atom together and by what means using what.

Yes Polyglide.....Indeed that is the question? Human nature is a strange creature at times and many people on this planet are afraid of the unknown. They are afraid of not knowing where we came from, how and why. They are afraid of what's going to happen to them after death.

To stop or hold back this fear mankind had to invented God, Gods and Religion....Now they feel through invention of stories, miracles and collectiveness that they now belong to something and are here for a reason. Now that's fine with me if it makes people feel better about themselves, but unfortunately organised religion has used this fear to control the masses for their own idiological reasons and financial gain.

The truth is nobody on this planet truely knows the answers and we probably never will. Religious people will just stick with the collective line and may alter a thing or two for their convenience when Science comes along and proves a religious theory to be wrong.

Science doesn't pretend to have all the answers, but at least Science attemps to seek out the truth. Some theories are proved correct, some are proved false and others remain theories until they can be proved one way or the other.....but the burden is on the proof unlike religion, where you are conned by that word...Faith!

Polyguide.....I do not know if you belong to a particular religion or just believe there must be a creator, but I am happy to discuss with you on either


blueturando
Banned

Posts : 1203
Join date : 2011-11-21
Age : 50
Location : Jersey CI

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Shirina on Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:48 pm

Quesion ? who put the atom together and by what means using what.

Hello, polyglide!

The problem with your question is that it presupposes a "who" instead of a "what."

Creationism relies on the existence of a premise that is not accepted in many circles outside of religion: the use of magic. The arcane practice of invocation and evocation is using magic to create something from nothing, and ostensibly that's what a creator does. Unfortunately, there just isn't any evidence of real magic in the universe. There is mystery, there is the unknown, and there is the unexplained. Yet thus far, "magic" had never been used as an official explanation for anything in the modern Western world. One of the problems inherent in believing in Creationism is the need to believe in magic, and it would seem according to religious books that magic was used quite liberally in the past - and then it began to wane. No longer to seas part, winged horses no longer whisk prophets off to Heaven, no longer do might artifacts like the Ark of the Covenant bring down thick walls of stone. Somewhere it all just vanished - including the artifacts!

I know the followers of religion do not like equating the power of God to Merlin or Gandalf casting a spell, but in truth they are essentially the same thing. And while it was once thought Merlin built Stonehenge with magic, we no longer believe that. As our scientific knowledge increased, these incidents of magic use decreased, and there's a pretty good reason why. Science trumps magic each and every time.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by AwfulTruth on Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:58 pm

You do not need to be 'religious' to have a moral framework firmly embedded in your life.

To bring children up to treat themselves and all others with respect, dignity and fairness, and to cherish democracy and fair laws, would help a great deal to make the world a much better place. Something religion has sometimes failed to do.

The trouble with some religious people is that, by the nature of their religious tenets, they seek to violate someone else's basic human rights.

The preaching of condemnation on the grounds of, as an example, someone's sexuality is to me a thoroughly uncivilized and abhorrent pursuit.

If only they (these religious knockers) would direct their energy at something positive like knitting or flower arranging, society would be the happier for it.

You can lead a religious fascist to holy water but you can't make them drink it! Basketball



AwfulTruth
Deactivated

Posts : 318
Join date : 2011-11-16
Location : Cambridgeshire

http://www.rhodesgreece.webs.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:40 pm

You can lead a religious fascist to holy water but you can't make them drink it! Basketball

True. It's meant for sprinkling. Smile
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1323
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Papaumau on Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:55 pm


polyglide wrote:There is one real problem regarding evolution and the lack of belief in a creator which I would like an explanation for in simplistic terms.

It is far too easy to get tied up in a lot of nonsense regarding pools of water and technical terms that many people do not understand, the more understandable a subject is to the majority of people the the more different views can be considered and expressed.

There is no doubt whatsoever that an atom can be split into differernt pieces. There is also no doubt that what can be put into pieces must have been put together in the first place.

Quesion ? who put the atom together and by what means using what.

Hi again Polyglide.....

It is terribly difficult to answer that question of all questions without going deeply into science and quantum mechanics, but I will try: ( I don't have that knowledge anyway BTW ).

The main theory, ( as theory it still is ), is that the "Big bang" started everything whereby after a few milliseconds all of the light matter, ( as opposed to the dark-matter that we simply cannot see ), that we will ever need to build a universe was "created". Of course, to some of the religious ones the next question is "who or what lit he touch-paper for that big bang ?"

( It has been suggested that our universe is just one of many such universes that are being created and destroyed as each of them grow to full size or shrink again back to a point of singularity - as seen in any of the black holes that are surmised to be present at the heart of all galaxies - produced over unknown and unimaginable millenia ).

I think that all that scientists can say with any safety is that at the point of the "big bang" the gasses and matter that started to quickly coalesce afterwards provided all of the materials that would be needed to make everything we see today, including the lifeforms that inhabit the planets that can support this direction of nature.

It is much easier and more fulfilling for me to try to understand all of the intricacies that are built into science and mathematics and astronomy and physics than to try to understand how any plenipotentiary God might, with the wave of one supernatural hand, create all that we see and are when one considers how really badly it turned out to be. In other words, Science is full of flaws and mistakes and we must try very hard to find these flaws and mistakes if we are to understand all that is in science, but if all of this was made by some perfect entity and it is imperfect then we have to just accept that this entity is not perfect.

That is not a God or the Godlike productions we might expect.

Regards......

Papaumau.


avatar
Papaumau
Deactivated

Posts : 219
Join date : 2012-01-24
Location : Scotland

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Shirina on Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:55 pm

Here is a logical conundrum when dealing with Creationism:

The primary argument believers of all faiths use against the Big Bang Theory is: "How can something come from nothing?" Well, an honest answer to that argument is: "We don't know ... YET!"

There are many things that we were once ignorant of but are now common knowledge. We weren't even aware that we existed within a galaxy until the early 1900's. Many believers make the mistake of assuming we know all there is to know about the universe - no new information will be discovered. Therefore, if we don't know how the Big Bang occurred right now, this very moment, then we never will. As such, the only answer must be that a creator made it happen.

But there is a problem inherent in that argument as well - a conundrum embedded within the logic itself, independent of the Big Bang or science.

The unavoidable fact is that, in order for a Creator, no matter how powerful, to create an entire universe complete with all of the intricately planned laws of physics, magic would need to be used. Oh, I know believers don't like to perceive God's power as "magic" ... certainly God is above the level of Harry Potter, yes? But the bottom line is that whatever power a Creator used to construct a universe - perhaps an entire reality - is magic.

"Magic" can be loosely defined as any force or action that is physically impossible - something that bends or defies the known laws of physics. The act of creating something from nothing is actually called Invocation (something from nothing) and Evocation (turning something into nothing) so there is precedent for this in arcane lore. Normally, however, we are conditioned to believe that magic must be cast - like a spell. Therefore, even with magic, there must be a Creator ... right? Nope. The reason is because magic, by its definition, is physically impossible. After all, just what are the "rules" of magic? Does anyone know them? Does it say anywhere that magic must be cast like a spell from a wizard's fingers? Since magic itself encompasses so much and is unfettered by any natural laws, who is to say that magic can't manifest from nothing, all by itself?

So ... if we were to assume that "magic" indeed created the universe - that it just *poofed* into existence - then there is no reason to believe that a Creator or a God was necessary to facilitate this magical creation. Once we bring the supernatural and magic into the equation as possibilities - which believers certainly do - then physical laws no longer apply. Once physical laws no longer apply, then it becomes very possible for something to be created from nothing without the guidance of a Creator.

Unless, of course, we're going to start inventing limitations on how magic works just to keep it within the purview of an intelligent Creator - and that wouldn't be a very good argument.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by oftenwrong on Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:12 pm

Creationism comes quite close to the above definition of Magic, but the reaction from some Scientists has been to make Science into yet another Religion.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11621
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Papaumau on Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:52 pm


As usual Shirina..... an excellent postulation ! Twisted Evil

I can also see just how close "magic" and "religious belief" can be connected as neither of these beliefs need proof to sustain them in our minds.

It has been eminently easy for the ignorant people of yore to put anything they don't understand into one or other of these brackets but since we really started to measure things against scientific fact and started to use empirical knowledge instead of folklore or stories in "magical" or "religious" books to shape our world of understanding we have found that less and less credence is given to supernatural events.

Of course as we strive to understand all of the intricacies of science, mathematics, physics and cosmology we will almost always come up empty as far as empirical proof is concerned over subjects that are simply beyond our ability to acquire this proof.

The big question about "what is the answer to life, the universe and everything", ( discussed in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ), is a question that I do not think we will ever have the answer to as we are just not clever enough or think big enough to be able to ever get even close to that knowledge. In the recognition of this we are probably always going to have to postulate a lot of possible scenarios and these scenarios - being beyond proof - will also include magic, religious faith, and supernatural events as they are reported.

Regards......

Papaumau.
avatar
Papaumau
Deactivated

Posts : 219
Join date : 2012-01-24
Location : Scotland

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:06 pm

Shirina wrote:Here is a logical conundrum when dealing with Creationism:

The primary argument believers of all faiths use against the Big Bang Theory is: "How can something come from nothing?" Well, an honest answer to that argument is: "We don't know ... YET!"

There are many things that we were once ignorant of but are now common knowledge. We weren't even aware that we existed within a galaxy until the early 1900's. Many believers make the mistake of assuming we know all there is to know about the universe - no new information will be discovered. Therefore, if we don't know how the Big Bang occurred right now, this very moment, then we never will. As such, the only answer must be that a creator made it happen.

But there is a problem inherent in that argument as well - a conundrum embedded within the logic itself, independent of the Big Bang or science.

The unavoidable fact is that, in order for a Creator, no matter how powerful, to create an entire universe complete with all of the intricately planned laws of physics, magic would need to be used. Oh, I know believers don't like to perceive God's power as "magic" ... certainly God is above the level of Harry Potter, yes? But the bottom line is that whatever power a Creator used to construct a universe - perhaps an entire reality - is magic.

"Magic" can be loosely defined as any force or action that is physically impossible - something that bends or defies the known laws of physics. The act of creating something from nothing is actually called Invocation (something from nothing) and Evocation (turning something into nothing) so there is precedent for this in arcane lore. Normally, however, we are conditioned to believe that magic must be cast - like a spell. Therefore, even with magic, there must be a Creator ... right? Nope. The reason is because magic, by its definition, is physically impossible. After all, just what are the "rules" of magic? Does anyone know them? Does it say anywhere that magic must be cast like a spell from a wizard's fingers? Since magic itself encompasses so much and is unfettered by any natural laws, who is to say that magic can't manifest from nothing, all by itself?

So ... if we were to assume that "magic" indeed created the universe - that it just *poofed* into existence - then there is no reason to believe that a Creator or a God was necessary to facilitate this magical creation. Once we bring the supernatural and magic into the equation as possibilities - which believers certainly do - then physical laws no longer apply. Once physical laws no longer apply, then it becomes very possible for something to be created from nothing without the guidance of a Creator.

Unless, of course, we're going to start inventing limitations on how magic works just to keep it within the purview of an intelligent Creator - and that wouldn't be a very good argument.

I'm not getting involved in God or magic arguments. I'll leave that to priests and potters (Harry, of course). The truth is 'We don't know -YET'. The truth is we are still 'infants' in understanding ALL things. We just get the hang of something and realise there's more to come.

A leading science fiction writer wrote in one of his stories of a race that had progressed so far they had first transferred their thoughts into artificial beings and left their bodies to corrupt. Then in the next few million years they found a way to transfer their thoughts into 'statices of light' and travelled the Universe in those 'statices' of light. Fantastic story - impossible? As yet and for many millions of years, yes. But in the far distant future?
No one has the answer to the future. We go step by step, mostly forward, but sometimes backward. You and I can only go on what we know today. Let tomorrow take care of itself.
Oh and when I say my prayers tonight I'll say a special one for you all Smile
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1323
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Guest on Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:10 pm


Thirteen point six billion years ago, everything exploded into existence from nothing. That’s what the data says. Sounds like magic.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Shirina on Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:52 am

Thirteen point six billion years ago, everything exploded into existence from nothing. That’s what the data says. Sounds like magic.
Scientists are not saying that the universe exploded into existence from nothing. That's a very misleading argument. What scientists are saying is that they don't yet know the mechanism that caused the Big Bang (though some interesting theories are now coming to light). Therefore, science is not claiming a magical First Cause - unlike religion which claims to know for certain how the universe was made, and by whom.

Now, if any one of these creation myths truly stood out, really presented itself as plausible and unique, it would be easier to take it more seriously. However, as it stands, most cultures have their own creation stories always involving gods doing all sorts of things.

The Greek myth of Pandora and Christianity's Eve have had remarkably similar lives, yet many (especially in the US) can somehow dismiss Pandora with a chuckle while believing wholeheartedly that Eve really did eat a forbidden fruit. It's the same thing as believing in Santa Claus while snubbing your nose at St. Nicholas or Kris Kringle. It really doesn't make a lot of sense unless one looks at it from a demographic and geographical point of view. There is no reason ... absolutely NO reason ... to believe Eve was real but regard Pandora as a myth aside from the fact that we are taught these things.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Guest on Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:51 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Thirteen point six billion years ago, everything exploded into existence from nothing. That’s what the data says. Sounds like magic.
Shirina wrote:
Scientists are not saying that the universe exploded into existence from nothing. That's a very misleading argument.

That’s exactly what scientists are saying that the data says. Empiricism requires that one says what the data says, so any statements to the contrary are conjecture. Moreover, the alternative is some version of Steady State, which also sounds like magic.

Shirina wrote:
What scientists are saying is that they don't yet know the mechanism that caused the Big Bang (though some interesting theories are now coming to light). Therefore, science is not claiming a magical First Cause - unlike religion which claims to know for certain how the universe was made, and by whom.

I’ve mentioned neither “a magical First Cause” nor “religion which claims to know for certain how the universe was made.” I’ve no comment upon that which I’ve not mentioned.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Shirina on Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:05 am

That’s exactly what scientists are saying that the data says.
Nope, they're saying they don't really know. All they have are a few embryonic theories. It stands to reason that they're not going to throw up their hands and proclaim, "Eh, God did it." They will continue to search for the answer, and they will probably find it.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Guest on Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:08 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
That’s exactly what scientists are saying that the data says.
Shirina wrote:
Nope, they're saying they don't really know.

You’ve got that a bit off, kind of a horse and cart error.

The data says what it says, that everything exploded inti existence from jothing at the singularity, which is but a point that exist at a “time when” (in quotes because time doesn’t yet exist) there is no space/time in which to locate a point and from which everything tht is, i.e., existence, exploded outward.

What the data doesn’t reveal is how this could have happened. In order for what the data says happened to happen, incomprehensible power had to impel everything out from the singularity. What power? Where did it come from? Those, nd a host of other similar quesations, are the unanswered questions.

Meanwhile, the data say what it says.

Shirina wrote:
All they have are a few embryonic theories.

These theories address the unanswered questions, the “hows”, mentioned above. Scientists have got it pretty straight as to “what” happened, backing up time to less than a nanosecond before The Event.

Shirina wrote:
It stands to reason that they're not going to throw up their hands and proclaim, "Eh, God did it."

One physicist that I knew personally didn’t throw his hands up as he stated (not “proclaimed”) that design is inherent within existence; therefore, there is a designer.

Shirina wrote:
They will continue to search for the answer, and they will probably find it.

They’ll continue to search, because that’s what physicists do. What they find I’ll leave to the time that findings are published in non-mathematical terms.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by oftenwrong on Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:12 pm

"They’ll continue to search, because that’s what physicists do. What they find I’ll leave to the time that findings are published in non-mathematical terms."

Which reminds me that there has been a development in the story from CERN that Einstein might have made a mistake about the speed of light being finite.

He didn't.

The CERN scientists found a loose soldered-joint on the apparatus doing the measuring.

We all suspected that the machines were trying to take over.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11621
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by polyglide on Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:16 pm

When considering creation I leave God out of the matter all together and concentrate on that which I am certain of.

It is impossible for something to come from nothing unless we find anti matter which will change all our previous theories etc.,

So until we do, it is obvious that everything came from something and however anyone feels about an actual creator and whatever form may be involved the universe must have been created.

My own thoughts on the matter are based on the likelyhood or lack of the likelyhood that everything came about by chance.

As a simple example, could anyone walking into ST Pauls Cathedral think for one minute that it could have been created by chance the materials jumping on top of each other etc.,

No one in their right mind would believe it but there are those who think man himself came about by chance and all the other interdependant lifeforms also came about by chance, I know which makes more sense to me.



avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Shirina on Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:55 pm

As a simple example, could anyone walking into ST Pauls Cathedral think for one minute that it could have been created by chance the materials jumping on top of each other etc
The problem that I've always had with this analogy, and others like it (including the famous tornado through a junkyard story), is that the examples focus on inanimate objects that do not evolve or change. A block of granite will still be a block of granite a million years later - minus some erosion and weathering. There is no chance that a block of granite will become the Venus de Milo if left to sit for long enough. A block of granite has no internal organisms to adapt and change in response to external forces.

That's not to say that there can't still be a creator, but I know I cannot believe that this led to Adam and Eve.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by oftenwrong on Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:05 pm

If Holy scriptures had actually been produced by God, it would be easy to believe in what they contained.

The reality is that every single word in every single Holy Book of every single one of the World's religions .... has its origin in the hand of Man.

Too many intermediaries.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11621
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Stox 16 on Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:18 am

Ivan wrote:Bertrand Russell once said that “the immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion”, and research appears to support that remark. Michael Shermer, in ‘How We Believe: The Search For God In An Age Of Science’, describes a large survey of randomly chosen Americans that he and his colleague Frank Sulloway carried out. Among their many results was the discovery that religiosity is negatively correlated with education (more highly educated people are less likely to be religious). Paul Bell, writing in ‘Mensa Magazine’ in 2002 told us: “Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold ‘beliefs’ of any kind.”

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science, suggests that more intelligent people are more likely to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values. He said: "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists.”

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (NLSAH) supports Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who identify themselves as 'not at all religious' have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as 'very religious' have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

Shermer says that religiosity is also negatively correlated with interest in science and strongly with political liberalism. And the NLSAH data suggests that young adults who subjectively identify themselves as 'very liberal' have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as 'very conservative' have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Does this mean that people with left-wing views are more intelligent than those on the right? I’ve long thought that those with the independence of mind to be unaffected by the constant brainwashing attempts of the right-wing media must have a critical faculty which those who succumb to Tory and Republican propaganda clearly lack. It also appears to be the conclusion of experts at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, who studied research comparing childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood in 15,000 people. They found that intelligence, rather than education, wealth or social status, decides whether people are narrow-minded or bigoted in later life. Their report has been published in a journal called ‘Psychological Science’ and states: “Those with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo. That is because it provides a sense of order". The authors found a strong link between low intelligence both as a child and an adult, and right-wing politics.

Sources used, and for further details:-

Richard Dawkins, ‘The God Delusion’, Bantam Press, 2006, p.102-3

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/48586-intelligent-people-more-likely-to-be-left-wing-atheists

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2012/02/04/labour-supporters-are-cleverer-than-tories-canadian-study-claims-115875-23734718/



i am not sure if I would say atheists and left-wingers more intelligent...However, would say they are more open minded than the Right wing...less easy lead too..
avatar
Stox 16

Posts : 1064
Join date : 2011-12-18
Age : 58
Location : Suffolk in the UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Papaumau on Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:33 am

polyglide wrote:When considering creation I leave God out of the matter all together and concentrate on that which I am certain of.

It is impossible for something to come from nothing unless we find anti matter which will change all our previous theories etc.,

So until we do, it is obvious that everything came from something and however anyone feels about an actual creator and whatever form may be involved the universe must have been created.

My own thoughts on the matter are based on the likelyhood or lack of the likelyhood that everything came about by chance.

As a simple example, could anyone walking into ST Pauls Cathedral think for one minute that it could have been created by chance the materials jumping on top of each other etc.,

No one in their right mind would believe it but there are those who think man himself came about by chance and all the other interdependant lifeforms also came about by chance, I know which makes more sense to me.


Polyglide, that is a very interesting view !

It was me that said that I think that everything that happens in the known universe happens - in my opinion - by chance. When I said that I was talking about the things that just happen every day that seem to need no direction or thinking behind them rather than the things that humans make by using their marvellous minds.

The point of difference here - I think - is when things happen that we have no direct bearing on that might have been "created" by any plenipotentiary Godlike entity. As we have no proof and as the faithful require no proof that any supernatural hand is part of the creations found in nature then we MUST allow for the chance that chance is what is coming about here.

I know that if we look a bit closer into nature and into the words of Charles Darwin and his theory of Natural Selection we do see a pattern there that seems to be directed. I say that this is only nature working as the "chances" in nature are tried, tested and failed until they find the right path for that particular living entity.

If one is satisfied with that scenario then one needs to look no further for "Life,the universe and everything ".

Regards.....

Papaumau.
avatar
Papaumau
Deactivated

Posts : 219
Join date : 2012-01-24
Location : Scotland

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by polyglide on Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:18 pm

The only problem with Darwin is that he takes no account of the fact that there are numerous instances in nature that cannot possibley be explained by his theory.

You have many instances where the existance of one species depends entirely on the existance of another and this also includes a string of species in many cases.

Just one example, there is a tree, a flower and an insect, none can exist without the other, the tree and flower depend on the insect to polonate and the insect feeds from both.

The only possible explanation {rational] is that all three were created at the same time.

Darwin also presupposes that even the most primitive forms of life must have had far more intelligence than we have to be able to follow a certain road of evolution towards a given end.

How long do you think it would take man without any outside help to grow eyes at the back of his head? and there is more.



.

avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Papaumau on Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:46 pm


I am sorry Polyglide, but I think that that is looking at Darwin through the eyes of a "creationist"

I believe what you are talking about there is called symbiosis and it can be found all through the natural world. Even we are symbiotic with nature when we choose to be. ( We, unlike the rest of the flora and fauna, are sentient and we have the choice; they don't ).

Darwin said in his "Origin of Species" writings that nature finds ways of ensuring that many plants and animals and insects find that symbiotic behaviour is good for their increased survival chances and that along with his "Natural Selection" theories easily allows for these traits to develop. They did not all need to develop this sort of symbiosis at the same time, ( many still don't ), as before Natural Selection decided to work on them they were on their own and probably struggling to survive.

I have great belief that every time that nature finds a flaw it simply takes time and through natural selection it either repairs that flaw or if the lifeline is not viable it simply lets it die and disappear.

Regards....

Papaumau.


Last edited by Papaumau on Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Papaumau
Deactivated

Posts : 219
Join date : 2012-01-24
Location : Scotland

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Shirina on Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:43 pm

The only possible explanation {rational] is that all three were created at the same time.
Like I said in my other post, this premise is based on what we don't know rather than on what we do. It's essentially saying, "Well because we don't precisely know a thing then the only explanation can be X." The problem here is that a lot of new discoveries can lurk in the darkness of our ignorance. There's no evidence that species were all created simultaneously, either, except that we haven't discovered precisely how they weren't.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:49 pm

The only possible explanation {rational] is that all three were created at the same time.

Not necessarily. An insect may have originally fed on another source of 'food'. As that source slowly died out it adapted to feed on a new emerging source - flora. Throughout the world there are species which are obviously related and yet remote from each other. As continents divided and these species were separated formed its own peculiar traits, depending on its environment.

This is especially so on remote islands in the oceans. Species have adapted to their particular island although the same family as those on other islands perhaps a 1000 km away.

Evolution

Bees, like ants, are a specialized form of wasp. The ancestors of bees were wasps in the family Crabronidae, and therefore predators of other insects. The switch from insect prey to pollen may have resulted from the consumption of prey insects which were flower visitors and were partially covered with pollen when they were fed to the wasp larvae. This same evolutionary scenario has also occurred within the vespoid wasps, where the group known as "pollen wasps" also evolved from predatory ancestors. Up until recently, the oldest non-compression bee fossil had been Cretotrigona prisca in New Jersey amber and of Cretaceous age, a meliponine. A recently reported bee fossil, of the genus Melittosphex, is considered "an extinct lineage of pollen-collecting Apoidea sister to the modern bees", and dates from the early Cretaceous (~100 mya).[14] Derived features of its morphology ("apomorphies") place it clearly within the bees, but it retains two unmodified ancestral traits ("plesiomorphies") of the legs (two mid-tibial spurs, and a slender hind basitarsus), indicative of its transitional status.

The earliest animal-pollinated flowers were pollinated by insects such as beetles, so the syndrome of insect pollination was well established before bees first appeared. The novelty is that bees are specialized as pollination agents, with behavioral and physical modifications that specifically enhance pollination, and are generally more efficient at the task than any other pollinating insect such as beetles, flies, butterflies and pollen wasps. The appearance of such floral specialists is believed to have driven the adaptive radiation of the angiosperms, and, in turn, the bees themselves.

Among living bee groups, the "short-tongued" bee family Colletidae has traditionally been considered the most "primitive", and sister taxon to the remainder of the bees. In the 21st century, however, some researchers have claimed that the Dasypodaidae is the basal group, the short, wasp-like mouthparts of colletids being the result of convergent evolution, rather than indicative of a plesiomorphic condition.[1] This subject is still under debate, and the phylogenetic relationships among bee families are poorly understood.

Quote from Wiki.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1323
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Shirina on Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:16 pm

Not necessarily.
Thanks, trevor, for posting that.

Your position was mine, as well, but I realized my hands simply didn't have the stamina to type it all out. I was going to use a similar example, too: The Asian Giant Hornet and its nemesis, the Japanese Honey Bee.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Guest on Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:21 am

trevorw2539 wrote:
This is especially so on remote islands in the oceans. Species have adapted to their particular island although the same family as those on other islands perhaps a 1000 km away.

Evolution

Trevor,

Intra-species/genus micro-evolution, to be precise. No evidence whatsoever of macro-evolution cab be found in the oceanic island species you mention. Birds are still birds, tortoises are still tortoises. In fact, Lord only knows (and possibly some ornithologists) how many species of finches have been discovered in the Galapagos, but however many there may be, they are all still finches; not one single species (or sub-species) has evolved into diving gannets in an environment within which the greatest storehouse of food is in the sea.

See below, from Wiki:
__________________________________________________________________________________________

The Galapagos finches were especially influential in the development of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. His contemporary Alfred Russel Wallace also noted these variations and the geographical separations between different forms leading to the study of biogeography. Wallace was influenced by the work of Philip Lutley Sclater on the distribution patterns of birds.[37]

For Darwin, the problem was how species arose from a common ancestor, but he did not attempt to find rules for delineation of species. The species problem was tackled by the ornithologist Ernst Mayr. Mayr was able to demonstrate that geographical isolation and the accumulation of genetic differences led to the splitting of species.[38][39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithology#Scientific_studies
______________________________

Finches to finches. Micro-evolution.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:58 am

RockonBrother

The point I was making to Polyglide was that species can 'adapt' 'evolve' given the right circumstances. 'Species have adapted'.

Who knows, man may adapt/evolve to become 'vegans' if meat sources decline. Some have started already. Smile Of course we could become cannibals - but then what would the last man eat - himself. Shocked

I understand that 'adapting' and 'evolution' are different. Nature is capable of both. After all I'm told we evolved from the apes. Now there's a thought. Is that why children get an urge to climb trees? Wink

Thanks for your reply.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1323
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by oftenwrong on Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:33 am

None of which explains why so many people wish they were able to fly, and under the influence of drink or drugs proceed to demonstrate their incapacity so to do.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11621
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:49 am

oftenwrong wrote:None of which explains why so many people wish they were able to fly, and under the influence of drink or drugs proceed to demonstrate their incapacity so to do.

Warshat gotta do wishz it. Runk and drincapable. Never offisher? Hic. drunken Very Happy
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1323
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Guest on Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:38 pm


My college roomie, during a party, seeing me at the open third story window staring intently at the roof of the adjacent second story building, asked what I was thinking. When I told him that I was planning my flight path, he told me that a few of the young ladies at the party wanted to dance with me, and that I ought to take my first flight afterward.

I woke up the next morning with a hangover to write home about, and scared out of my wits about what I had seriously considered doing. Fruit punch liberally spiked with Everclear 180 (one hundred eighty proof) can do strange things to an imaginative mind.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Guest on Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:29 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
RockonBrother

The point I was making to Polyglide was that species can 'adapt' 'evolve' given the right circumstances. 'Species have adapted'.

True. My point is that these observed adaptations, some more “directly” observed than others, are examples of intra-species/genus micro-evolution rather than inter-species/genus macro evolution.

Finches were observed to have adapted, or evolved, to fit their environments. That was “backward observation”, observing the results after the fact, but I’ll accept that observation as true. Intra=species, or perhaps intra-genus, but the evolution did not transform finches into seabirds, much less into other chordates better adapted to the sea life in the surrounding Pacific Ocean, which according to the scientists that go there and get wet, is exceedingly abundant, which is probably why California sea lions seem in no hurry to go “home.”

No finch-to-sea-lion evolution, no finch-to-penguin evolution, not even finch-to-gannet evolution. Why not? I posit that the reason why not is that finch cannot.

Do you follow carnivore behavior documentaries? I do. In fact, I seem to be one of the few people around that remembers Jane Goodall’s book and documentary, The Wild Dogs of Africa, which hit libraries (the book) around 1972 (I read it cover to cover, voraciously, in 1973), and hit non-profit educational TV here in 1973, which may have been before my local PBS station was PBS. By the way, commenting her on a comment I made on another thread, I believe that was a BBC documentary.

It occurred to me recently that dogs as successful as they are at the hunt (Southern African wild dogs “hit” about 80%of the time), lack the full array of killing tools available to almost all cats. Why is that? Should not wild dogs by now have evolved partially sheathed claws with which to latch on to fleeing prey?

The answer, I posit, is that they have not because thy cannot. They’ve gone about a far as possible towards maximizing their effectiveness as hunters within the parameters of being dogs. They can’t evolve cat claws.

Wild dogs, like finches, are examples of micro-evolution, evolving within their own kind to the best possible design to obtain food, and hitting the “evolutionary glass ceiling” that prevents evolving outside their own kind.

Kalahari Bushmen live by the hunt. Their long distance running puts marathoners to shame. They can run for more than twenty-four hours, and by doing so can run down antelope by exhausting the animals to such an extent that all a poor antelope can do is seek shelter, lay down, and in effect wait for the pursuing Bushman to kill it. Amazing stuff which I’ve seen on either The Science Channel, the History Channel, or Animal Planet within the last year.

Bushmen are super skinny, have huge lungs, can draw in enough oxygen to run aerobically for so long that they can run any prey into the ground, and are incredibly strong for their size. They are as perfectly adapted, or evolved, as a human can be to obtain food in this fashion. But they haven’t evolved into wild dogs that run their prey to exhaustion in a matter of three, four five, or ten miles rather than the extreme distances Bushmen must traverse. Once again, micro-evolution, humans evolving within their own kind. of

trevorw2539 wrote:
Who knows, man may adapt/evolve to become 'vegans' if meat sources decline. Some have started already. Smile Of course we could become cannibals - but then what would the last man eat - himself. Shocked

Could be. Arctic Sea Inuit have adapted/evolved into “meat-eans”, obtaining all their dietary needs from available animal sources. In both cases, one speculative, one real, humans will stay or have stayed within he limits of human.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Thanks for your reply.

Thank you for thoughtfully reading my reply.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Papaumau on Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:06 pm


Great stuff folks !

Your fascinating input just goes to show how complicated natural life is and how "Mother nature" has evolved to suit just about every extreme of conditions that can be thrown at her.

The evolution in the flora and fauna that are below us in the intelligence tree has shown that with a bit of time such life can handle any form of environment that it needs to, to not only survive, but to thrive.

In places like the bottom of the oceans, with such massive pressures, we still find creatures living their lives and doing things that we would wish that we could do. The same stands for living in extremely low or high temperatures and in places that have just about no liquid water, with which life cannot normally continue, but does.

The wonder of the eye was postulated above as the work of some great creator but as I look at nature I see wonders all around that compare with or exceed the wonder of the eye and I just cannot imagine how or why any such superior entity might want to play such games with nature.

The old saying that "Ours is not to wonder why, ours is just to do and die" seems to me to be the greatest get-out clause that has ever been spoken by people who are afraid to ask those awkward questions.

Finally, I have to take the stance that it must be wrong to continually laud any God for the creating of things that are good while never blaming the same God for allowing or creating the things that are bad. This is a double standard that I think simply cannot survive in the cold light of empirical examination.

Regards....

Papaumau.
avatar
Papaumau
Deactivated

Posts : 219
Join date : 2012-01-24
Location : Scotland

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Shirina on Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:58 pm

The answer, I posit, is that they have not because thy cannot. They’ve gone about a far as possible towards maximizing their effectiveness as hunters within the parameters of being dogs. They can’t evolve cat claws.
No, they would evolve dog claws.

I'm not an expert on zoology by any stretch, but I think dogs are perfectly capable of evolving sheathed claws, but for whatever reason, they don't. The environmental pressures for such an evolution don't exist. Cats and dogs also hunt differently as well as dogs relying on numbers rather than brute strength (bears) or stealth (cats). I bring up bears only because they have semi-sheathed claws as well. Pack animals don't need claws when you have two dozen sets of fangs tearing at prey. Some cats hunt in packs, but much smaller in number. Most cats hunt alone. The more solitary the animal, the more "equipment" it needs.

avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Guest on Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:59 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
The answer, I posit, is that they have not because thy cannot. They’ve gone about a far as possible towards maximizing their effectiveness as hunters within the parameters of being dogs. They can’t evolve cat claws.
Shirina wrote:
No, they would evolve dog claws.

They’ve already evolved dog claws. If they hadn’t already evolved dog claws, I’d posit that that’s exactly what they’d evolve. Why? Because they’re dogs, and no matte how superior partially-retracting cat claws are for hunting, I posit that dogs have not evolved these superior claws because they cannot.

Shirina wrote:
I'm not an expert on zoology by any stretch, but I think dogs are perfectly capable of evolving sheathed claws…

But they have not. Why? I think I’ve posited the answer.

Shirina wrote:
… but for whatever reason, they don't.

I posit that they can’t; otherwise, they’d have done so.

Shirina wrote:
The environmental pressures for such an evolution don't exist.

Yes they do. Cheetahs use them to great advantage to bring down prey.

Shirina wrote:
Cats and dogs also hunt differently as well as dogs relying on numbers rather than brute strength (bears) or stealth (cats).

Partially-retractable claws would help dogs bring down prey just as such claws help cheetah brothers (usually hunting in packs of three) bring down prey as they close. And by the way, African wild dogs are about as stealthy as cheetahs.

Shirina wrote:
I bring up bears only because they have semi-sheathed claws as well.

They do not. Bears’ claws are “out there” (I’ve seen them on a few black bears from far too close), and looking as formidable as they are.

Shirina wrote:
Pack animals don't need claws when you have two dozen sets of fangs tearing at prey.

Then why do lionesses have retractable claws? One pride featured on National Geographic Channel numbered twenty something hunting lionesses. I mean, “stealing” anther Chris Rock line, pride or pack, pack or pride, does it really matter?

Shirina wrote:
Some cats hunt in packs, but much smaller in number.

Twenty-something not exactly small.

Shirina wrote:
Most cats hunt alone.

Most cats can survive hunting alone partially because they have retractable claws and fangs.

Shirina wrote:
The more solitary the animal, the more "equipment" it needs.

Thus, cats can make it alone far better than dogs. So why don’t dogs evolve partially-retractable cat claws? One again, I posit that they do not because they cannot, just as finches cannot evolve the proper beak, wings, and other equipment to dive for fish like gannets.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by oftenwrong on Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:21 pm

Nobody could reasonably describe the modern Soldier as having evolved, because as time passes he is required to carry an ever-greater weight of body-armour, weaponry and survival gear.

That's accretion, not evolution.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11621
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 14 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8 ... 14  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum