27-01-2005 18:40									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I have a toolbox containing a bunch of tools. I only use one or at most a couple of them at a time, though, because using more would be pretty damn hard to coordinate. Therefore those tools that I'm not using right now are useless and could just as well be thrown away .

	27-01-2005 20:11									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Xin Yu, it's more like "grasping at straws"!

	27-01-2005 20:32									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

How does creation come into this at all? If you buy that we only use 10% of our brains, then why is it logical to assume a creator made us to only use a fraction of what we have?

	27-01-2005 20:38									#34
	Re: If Darwin was correct Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu If Darwin's evolution theory was correct, then we should have already used the full potential of our brains and bodies.

Please explain the reproductive advantage in that, as opposed to the required increase in energy consumption.

	27-01-2005 20:55									#35
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Yeah, I don't even understand the premise that, if it were true we only used 10% of our brains, that it would somehow refute evolution. On the contrary, such a thing would be more in favor of evolution than creation, as I see it.

Regardless of that, the human body is full of suboptimal systems that are evidence of evolutionary juryrigging, as well as superfluous organs and bits. Who needs a tailbone, anyway?

	27-01-2005 21:02									#36
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

OMG!!1! We have an appendix! Darwin was wrong!

And there's at least one advantage I can see to having a larger brain than necessary, so to speak: redundancy.

If someone would suffer head trauma and lose part of the functionality of his brain, someone with a brain with more redundancy will be more likely to survive because other parts of the brain can take over.

Even if we only use 10% of our brain, I can't see any clear disadvantage to that either, so there's so reason why evolution would weed out the superfluous bits. And maybe we actually already are evolving to use more of our brain.

	27-01-2005 21:13									#37
	hello! Support Apolyton

XinYu,
Let me say "hello".
I almost never browse the OT forum, and what do I see?
Threadstarter: Xin Yu!
IMO you are a living example of the fact that the 10% theory is wrong (since you used more than 10% when playing civ2 ).
Can we expect to read a post from you on the strategy forum once in a while?

	27-01-2005 21:33									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Welcome back Xin Yu!

I haven't seen any of your posts in OT yet, but your civ2-skills are legendary ... heck, I remember even reading about them back when I was hanging out at CFC.

	27-01-2005 21:40									#39
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Yeah, I don't even understand the premise that, if it were true we only used 10% of our brains, that it would somehow refute evolution. On the contrary, such a thing would be more in favor of evolution than creation, as I see it.

What Boris said.

	27-01-2005 21:55									#40
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki How does creation come into this at all? If you buy that we only use 10% of our brains, then why is it logical to assume a creator made us to only use a fraction of what we have?

It's well-known that Creators are too stupid to construct optimal systems.

	27-01-2005 23:06									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu Like to see an article with a similar title to Mordoch's, but with 'evolution' replacing '10% mind'. There must be a bunch of such articles, right?

No. Because you're assuming that there is a generally-accepted theory that we use X% of our mind. I'd really like to know which scientific journal you got that one from...

	27-01-2005 23:38									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

St Leo! La Fayette! Mecator! Howdy guys!

I worked in Seattle from end of 1999 to end of 2004, under two Chinese bosses. If you are a Chinese, let me tell you , never work under another Chinese! I was in the process of getting my greencard (still am) so I could not leave. It was really tragic. At first I worked very hard and handled 5 out of 7 total projects, but at the year end they told me that they needed to give bonus to 'low-paid' employees to retain them, so my share had to be smaller. I said ok, but from then on I only did my share of work and that pissed them off. They gave me 'ME (meet expectation)' at first then gradually downwards to 'ME minus'. The reason for the downdrading was that I did not come in before 9am everyday (other people came later than me but they never had any problems). They talked to me like this: 'I have never seen a Chinese as lazy as you!' Hehe, they did not know that I invented lazyciv

Anyway, the group was eliminated by the company and I was relocated to CA. So now I'm enjoying an easy life. Still waiting for the green card but I can change job any time I want. I swear never ever work under another Chinese boss again.

Gave up civ long time ago. Been playing Everquest for about 2 years now. The drawback for civ games are that they take too long to get to the interesting part. A game should not take more than a day to finish (like playing chess). I was hoping that civ3 would be better but it was worse. It eliminated RR's infinite movement, and once you enter enemy territory your move is as slow as a turtle. If I designed the game I would eliminate step-by-step moving of pieces. You can order a troop to move to a place, or search an area, etc., then forget it. Troops will report back once in position.

As for the evolution theory, that's a long story. I believe that we were created because human behavior is quite unique. For example, we cook (pre-process) food before eat. We worship divine beings. These are not required for us to survive yet we do them while no other species do.

	28-01-2005 00:19									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu Perhaps you did not get my question. I mean, if we only evolute in responding to environment, then we should not have such a huge brain with 90% of it almost never used.

It's a popular fact that 90% of the brain is not used and, like most popular facts, it is wrong. Not even the most stupid Creator would go to the trouble of making the human head carry around several pounds of unnecessary grey goo if its only real purpose was, eg, to serve as a delicacy for certain remote tribesmen in unexplored valleys, it is used. One of its functions is to make the miraculous seem ordinary, and turn the unusual into the usual. Otherwise, human beings, forced with the daily wondrousness of everything, would go around wearing a stupid grin, saying "WOW" a lot. Part of the brain exists to stop this happening. It is very efficient, and can make people experience boredom in the middle of marvels

	28-01-2005 00:26									#44
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu As for the evolution theory, that's a long story. I believe that we were created because human behavior is quite unique. For example, we cook (pre-process) food before eat. We worship divine beings. These are not required for us to survive yet we do them while no other species do.

Behavior such as those you describe are cultural, NOT behaviors derived from our biology. They have nothing to do with evolution, lots to do with learned behavior. Cooking wise thought, it does help somewhat in survival, as it makes digestion a bit easier, and allows us to eat things that otherwise we could not eat raw.

	28-01-2005 00:35									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

That 10% thing is is a myth, we use all our brains. So many people believe this BS it's sickening.

	28-01-2005 00:42									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Ditto Odin

Though it makes evolutionary sense to have some spare brain capacity for extreme situations, or situations that haven't been tested yet. The brain is a ridiculously complex organ, it's insane to think that our lack of understanding constitutes pro-creationist evidence.

	28-01-2005 00:45									#47
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by GePap lots to do with learned behavior.

Exactly. If environment is in constant change, then the ability to LEARN should be utterly important for all species. As such, if a human adopts a rat, for example, then the rat should be able to learn something from the human. (Rat being one of several very successful species outnumbers human being, so natually it should be able to learn very quickly.) However training of rats so far yield limited results.

	28-01-2005 00:52									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu Exactly. If environment is in constant change, then the ability to LEARN should be utterly important for all species. As such, if a human adopts a rat, for example, then the rat should be able to learn something from the human. (Rat being one of several very successful species outnumbers human being, so natually it should be able to learn very quickly.) However training of rats so far yield limited results.

Not all species have the ability to learn- and for many species it is irrelevant really. Besides, if anything, if every species could learn, that would arrest evolution.

Take rats: first of all, their huge success is cause by HUmans, as humans create environments conducive to rats and do it worldwide. Second, rats can eat alost anything, and are hardy- two things that by themselves allows them to live in large areas. More importantly, rats breed rapidly and frequently. In essence, rats are expendable- they multiply so quickly that even if the conditions change severely, a few random ones able to handle it will make it- and the rat species continues. HUmans are slow breeders, and not so expendable. We also are not as hardy as rats.

If humans could not learn, we would still be probalby a successful species in the plains of Africa, but would never have spread world-wide. BUt we would still have a niche. The fact is no species needs to learn to survive- that humans can learn is what has allowed us to break the boundaries of any other species.

	28-01-2005 00:58									#49
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Exactly. If environment is in constant change, then the ability to LEARN should be utterly important for all species. As such, if a human adopts a rat, for example, then the rat should be able to learn something from the human. (Rat being one of several very successful species outnumbers human being, so natually it should be able to learn very quickly.) However training of rats so far yield limited results.

Some species evolve to cope in variant environments, and they usually have either a larger cranial capacity, or numbers (i.e. insects) to cope. Others are specialised which relies on stable environments in which they can exploit an evolutionary niche, so it's not true that all animals have to learn.

	28-01-2005 01:00									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Consider this for a moment. If you used all 100% of your brain at the same time, every memory you had would be flooding into your mind at the same time. All of your muscles would be trying to contract at the same time, all of your endocrine glands would excreting, etc. Basically, you'd be having something akin to an epileptic seizure.

	28-01-2005 01:05									#51
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

My knowledge of how the brain works is taken from 1 hour documentaries on the Discovery channel and the odd medical journal article I read on the subject.

Bottom line. No one on earth has an deep, indepth knowledge of how the brain works.

It cracks me up watching the scientists demostrating an experiment on human subjects where they stimulate the senses of a human and watch what part of the brain lights up with electrical activity. It seems analogous to Edison testing the first lightbulb compared to today's development of laser technologies.

Creator? Evolution? It could be the same thing. There is one true story about how humans came to be, unfortunately, no one can prove "their truth."

	28-01-2005 01:16									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu St Leo! La Fayette! Mecator! Howdy guys!

Hi! Welcome back...

quote: As for the evolution theory, that's a long story. I believe that we were created because human behavior is quite unique. For example, we cook (pre-process) food before eat. We worship divine beings. These are not required for us to survive yet we do them while no other species do.

First of all, the ability to cook or worship divine beings aren't hard-wired into us. They're not physical properties. Evolution theory has nothing to do with that whatsoever. As GePap says, it's a cultural thing. Humans happen to be able to think and communicate. We can pass on knowledge to our descendants without it having to be hard-wired in our DNA.

Secondly, just because some things aren't required for us to survive doesn't mean evolution should get rid of them. Evolution doesn't work like that.

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu Exactly. If environment is in constant change, then the ability to LEARN should be utterly important for all species. As such, if a human adopts a rat, for example, then the rat should be able to learn something from the human. (Rat being one of several very successful species outnumbers human being, so natually it should be able to learn very quickly.) However training of rats so far yield limited results.

It isn't so much the ability to learn that is important but rather the ability to adapt, or just plain survive. Learning is one way to achieve it. Cockroaches know another way.

	28-01-2005 02:42									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I understand that, since cockroaches can survive under any environment, they do not need to learn (changing of environment has no effect on them). But for any other species, learning should be very important. Why only human beings have the ability to learn?

I picture evolution using an analogy: high-level computer languages. At first there is language A, then B, then C (including C++ , and so on, just like environment changes. When a new language is popular, anybody who works in the area needs to learn it in order to find a good job. Cochroaches use machine language so they are not effected by the advancement of languages. Human beings learn fast so they keep up with the development. Other species stop at certain point and eventually can only survive in limited area where old languages are still being used.

If the above picture is correct, then sooner or later all species (except cockroaches) will know that learning is the key to survive. They will develop the ability to learn as a result of evolution. But they didn't. Hence evolution theory is not correct.

	28-01-2005 02:48									#54
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I think you really don't have a proper concept of evolution.

I'd have to agree because the original post displays no knowledge of natural selection or of what evolution says.

	28-01-2005 02:50									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu If the above picture is correct, then sooner or later all species (except cockroaches) will know that learning is the key to survive. They will develop the ability to learn as a result of evolution. But they didn't. Hence evolution theory is not correct.

The above picture is so far from correct, it's rediculous.

	28-01-2005 02:52									#56
	Support Apolyton

I don't understand why you keep mentioning "Learning" as a concept that initiates evolution.

Isn't evolution really more of a genetic mutation that serves a useful purpose that the organism, in question, has no conscious control over or even an awareness of the "mutation" and especially no understanding of the advantage.

Small genetic changes over several generations allowing for a new capability that provides a favorable advantage in the current environment. An environment which the organism has no control over and cannot predict future changes (i.e. ice age)?

So really, it's DNA mutation and opportunistic organisms exercising a new found advantage which they didn't plan for, don't understand, and mindlessly exercise over their less fortunate un-mutated brothers.

	28-01-2005 02:56									#57
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu I understand that, since cockroaches can survive under any environment, they do not need to learn (changing of environment has no effect on them). But for any other species, learning should be very important. Why only human beings have the ability to learn?

HUmans are not the only species able to learn- many mammals and birds show the ability to be trained, and some show the ability to have knowledge passed down amonts generations, specially upper apes, like Chimpanzees.

quote: I picture evolution using an analogy: high-level computer languages. At first there is language A, then B, then C (including C++ , and so on, just like environment changes. When a new language is popular, anybody who works in the area needs to learn it in order to find a good job. Cochroaches use machine language so they are not effected by the advancement of languages. Human beings learn fast so they keep up with the development. Other species stop at certain point and eventually can only survive in limited area where old languages are still being used.

The analogy is incorrect, because DNA is not a "language" in the way you imagine it. DNA is a long code that within it has information of the creation of proteins and hormones.

quote: If the above picture is correct, then sooner or later all species (except cockroaches) will know that learning is the key to survive. They will develop the ability to learn as a result of evolution. But they didn't. Hence evolution theory is not correct.

The analogy unfortunately has nothing in common with the reality of the world.

	28-01-2005 02:58									#58
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu I understand that, since cockroaches can survive under any environment, they do not need to learn (changing of environment has no effect on them). But for any other species, learning should be very important. Why only human beings have the ability to learn?

First, human beings aren't the only species with the ability to learn. Where did you get that idea? It's rubbish.

Primates learn pretty well. Just look up some studies on chimpanzees being taught language.

Humans can learn a lot, yes. But that's due to evolution--namely, increased brain size and improved function over millions of years of evolution.

Species do die out all the time from being unable to adapt, which seems to be what you're getting at. That's why 99.9% of the species of the world are currently extinct.

Humanity has been here for far less time than many other species. We'll see how far our learning potential carries us. Given our penchant for using our knowledge to build superweapons to kill everything, that might not be as long as we hop.

	28-01-2005 03:49									#59
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu St Leo! La Fayette! Mecator! Howdy guys! If you are a Chinese, let me tell you , never work under another Chinese!. So now I'm enjoying an easy life. Gave up civ long time ago.

1) I retired last year (65 years old, that's the rule in France).

2) If you are a Frenchman, let me tell you, never work under another Frenchman! (luckily, I have managed to be my own boss quite a while)

3) Easy life = glad to read that = just go on!

4) Too bad, but I can understand you. Personally I have so much free time and there are so many thrilling scenarios that I remain hooked.

	28-01-2005 04:10									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I'd have to agree because the original post displays no knowledge of natural selection or of what evolution says.

Uh, you got me. I only learned the basic concept of evolution in primary school. Something like, via sudden change of genes, single cell --> multiple cells --> fish --> amphibious --> cold blooded --> mammals --> apes --> human, with somewhere a branch to birds. Also learned some quotes from Engels: 'labor stars from making tools' (something like that).

Sincerely, from my limited knowledge, this theory has a lot of problems (of course you can still defend it against any question I raised against it. In fact I think any theory can be defended by a group of clever people, for example the dream team who defended OJ. ) One single fact is enough to throw it away: Earth is the only planet with life in its affinity. Other planets and satellites, although not as good as the earth, some of them must at least still be good enough for a single-cell creature? So, I don't believe in evolution UNLESS there is evidence to show that other planets have certain kind of life forms.