Thread: An Intelligent Discussion on Nature

I've been thinking about my second point and believe our numbers could be wrong. Whereas we considered the total number of sperm which can be possible, we only considered the number of ova which are actually released. Perhaps we should have considered how many ova can be released OR how many actually exist even though only a small percentage are ever used. Is there a statistician in the house?

X

Originally Posted by gregs656

Nature fascinates me. The patterns are astonishing.

I am a great believer in nurture when it comes to people though, I do believe that there are certain biological conditions that restrict or promote certain types of behavior, but I also believe that our environment plays it's part - at the very least an equal part.

IMO nature vs nurture should not be a debate. There is an interaction. Nature via nurture - some people call it.

Society influences us in a great many ways, it is interesting to me that there is almost no evidence to support the idea that we have free will. Our legal system is based upon an idea that is completely unfounded. The only evidence is we all like to think we do.

I agree with the first part, but do take exception with the last part. I make decisions every day which go against my "nurture". We are not automatons, programed by biology and past experience only. We can learn from experience and make decisions based thereupon. Yes, society does play a large part both in influence and in the kinds of opportunities available from which to choose - but it does not need to dictate. This is how progress is made.

Biology obviously will play a part in our capabilities, but we are also making inroads there.

I am watching the Ida discovery with great interest - I would like to see more peer review of the theories around it, and am a bit put off by the publicity blitz surrounding it. I will likely read the book (due out any minute)
but have to agree with some scientists who are a bit skeptical about the importance as of yet. I want more examination and analysis before I commit to it. However, a fossil of that size, intact, of that age is quite something.

Originally Posted by Elliette

I agree with the first part, but do take exception with the last part. I make decisions every day which go against my "nurture". We are not automatons, programed by biology and past experience only. We can learn from experience and make decisions based thereupon. Yes, society does play a large part both in influence and in the kinds of opportunities available from which to choose - but it does not need to dictate. This is how progress is made.

You kinda just made my point, we all believe we have free will, but pretty much every bit of psychology suggests that our actions are determined by what's going on around us - not just based on our past but also the present situation. This allows for progress as well, you know, just because our actions may be influenced by what it going on around us - it does not mean we all make the same choices. Even reactionary behavior can be explained with out free will.

If free will exists, what's doing the willing?

IMO, the less we know about 'nature' the more we will learn in the long run - we can cure a whole lot of ills by changing the way our 'developed' society runs.

I'm not quite sure the direction or guidelines to the thread?

It starts with "missing link fossils"

The fossil, he says, bridges the evolutionary split between higher primates such as monkeys, apes, and humans and their more distant relatives such as lemurs.

"This is the first link to all humans," Hurum, of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, said in a statement. Ida represents "the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor."

Ida, properly known as Darwinius masillae, has a unique anatomy. The lemur-like skeleton features primate-like characteristics, including grasping hands, opposable thumbs, clawless digits with nails, and relatively short limbs.

"This specimen looks like a really early fossil monkey that belongs to the group that includes us," said Brian Richmond,

I have highlighted the parts that stood out to me as what is observable, and not conjecture on the part of media hype, or overreaching in scientific terms. It looks like an early lemur, why not assume it is a link to the evolutionary path of lemurs, not necessarily humans?

Originally Posted by xman

I've been thinking about my second point and believe our numbers could be wrong. Whereas we considered the total number of sperm which can be possible, we only considered the number of ova which are actually released. Perhaps we should have considered how many ova can be released OR how many actually exist even though only a small percentage are ever used. Is there a statistician in the house?

X

I'm not numbers guy. But don't you have to factor in how many variables/different DNA combinations in each individual sperm/ova as well? It;s not just sperm A,B,C,D.....but that sperm A has subset DNA combination GGGAAACCC........etc. And factor in the number of DNA combinations that go to make up the child you are postulating the chances of matching, right?

A lottery ticket has what, 6 digits usually, with perhaps the variable of each digit being between 1 and 36.

And then there are two ways to then look at that possibilty: how many combinations can that make, which is one thing, and the other is what are the chances that that combination would happen again spontaneously?

Originally Posted by xman

I've been thinking about my second point and believe our numbers could be wrong. Whereas we considered the total number of sperm which can be possible, we only considered the number of ova which are actually released. Perhaps we should have considered how many ova can be released OR how many actually exist even though only a small percentage are ever used. Is there a statistician in the house?

X

The answer you get depends on numerous things.

An applied statistician would most likely have you repeat the "experiment" and observe the results. Adequate replication would mean you'd be going at it like rabbits for the rest of your reproductive lives.

A Bayesian would want to observe the distribution of your posteriors. They'll mention vague priors, but all they really want is to examine your posterior.

A Theoretician might seem like your best bet, but generally they are so socially inadequate that, frankly, all they will do is ask you if they can watch while they doodle something about the Borel-Cantelli Lemma to take your attention away from the fact they have a video camera hidden in their coat pocket.

An expert in stochastic processes will generally try to create a sequence of events whereby they attempt to string you along for as long as possible, and snigger to their colleagues about "copulas".

James.