| Author | Message | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 58 Registered: 7-2011 |
In the nineteenth century, many people had this scrund, and not all of them were Darwinists. A simple test proved that it was wrong. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14077 Registered: 4-2010 |
Is evolution relevant? Creationism? Any form of science at all? | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 59 Registered: 7-2011 |
Is evolution relevant?An aspect of evolution. Creationism? Yope Any form of science at all?yes. | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1668 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was it more likely for Darwinists to have this scrund? For non-Darwinists? Non-Darwinists: Creationists? Those opposing Darwin's theories in other fields than the classical evolution/creation binomial? Could one have this scrund before Darwin published his work (say, in the 17th century)? The test: was it a scientific test, designed to prove one or the opposite theory? Or was merely a coincidence (trying to prove something else, it accidentally revealed the scrund)? Was the test performed in the 19th century? 20th? 21st? Is it likely or possible that someone today would have the same scrund? Does it refer to biology? Geography? Geology? Religion? | ||
| Fionakelleghan (Fionakelleghan)
New member Username: Fionakelleghan Post Number: 211 Registered: 7-2011 |
Solitiare, I like how you use the vague term "people." Rbruma, forgive me if I overlap!: Among the people who might be relevant to this puzzle, do you include: children with some education? children with no education? teenagers with some education? teenagers with no education? college students? college graduates? college or university teachers? I would love it if you told us which part of the 19th century. But maybe that would be too Spoilerish, or maybe that would be giving away clues too soon. I'm fairly familiar with the literature of that time, if not all of the social rituals. Does either L. Frank Baum or Lewis Carroll (real name Charles Dodgson) have any connection with your puzzle? Hugs from cloudy and humid Miami, Fiona | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 1436 Registered: 2-2011 |
was the scrund that a particular species was related to another species? primates? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 2750 Registered: 7-2009 |
Is Lamarckism relevant? Sorry if it does turn out to be relevant and I gave too much away. I'm trying to figure out whether I can participate in this or not. If the answer is yes, no one should google Lamarckism! | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 60 Registered: 7-2011 |
Was it more likely for Darwinists to have this scrund? I would think it would be, although Darwin himself didn't, tho Alfred Wallace did. For non-Darwinists? Non-Darwinists: Creationists? Some people who believed in creation believed this scrund also. Those opposing Darwin's theories in other fields than the classical evolution/creation binomial? Hard to answer. I'd say not relevant. Could one have this scrund before Darwin published his work (say, in the 17th century)? Yes. The test: was it a scientific test, designed to prove one or the opposite theory? To test a particular aspect of evolution, not evolution per se. Mostly, I suppose, because a scientific theory _requires_ testing. Or was merely a coincidence (trying to prove something else, it accidentally revealed the scrund)? Was the test performed in the 19th century? this 20th? 21st? Is it likely or possible that someone today would have the same scrund? Possible, but not likely. Does it refer to biology? Yes Geography? a little, but could be misleading. Geology? Religion? No to both Solitiare, I like how you use the vague term "people." Rbruma, forgive me if I overlap!: Among the people who might be relevant to this puzzle, do you include: children with some education? children with no education? teenagers with some education? teenagers with no education? college students? college graduates? college or university teachers? could include some from all categories. I would love it if you told us which part of the 19th century. But maybe that would be too Spoilerish, or maybe that would be giving away clues too soon. Latter half of the 19th century, and I don't think that is giving away very much. I'm fairly familiar with the literature of that time, if not all of the social rituals. Does either L. Frank Baum or Lewis Carroll (real name Charles Dodgson) have any connection with your puzzle? To the best of my knowledge, not at all. Hugs from cloudy and humid Miami, And right back at you from the Texas Gulf Coast, which manages to be humid and arid at the same time! Fiona was the scrund that a particular species was related to another species? No Is Lamarckism relevant? No Sorry if it does turn out to be relevant and I gave too much away. I'm trying to figure out whether I can participate in this or not. If the answer is yes, no one should google Lamarckism! Don't let my answer keep you from paraticipating. The scrund doesn't have any relation to a particular theory of evolution. Excellent questions from our erudite forum! Too early to tell if any of you are on the right track yet, so keep them coming. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14082 Registered: 4-2010 |
Spontaneous generation relevant? Redi's experiment? | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 62 Registered: 7-2011 |
Spontaneous generation relevant? No Redi's experiment? What is this? | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14097 Registered: 4-2010 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Redi#Research Are microorganisms at all relevant? | ||
| Fionakelleghan (Fionakelleghan)
New member Username: Fionakelleghan Post Number: 215 Registered: 7-2011 |
Should we be thinking about clues to evolution - solid clues, such as bones or teeth or other fossilized relics; or preservative sites such as peat bogs, glaciers, canyons, deserts? Or forensic analyses of food in the stomach, injuries to the body, that sort of thing? Any relevant? Or should we focus on the thoughts and/or beliefs of the people of that time? (Noel: "If the answer is yes, no one should google Lamarckism!" Hee hee! But those of us who would like to be wise can probably further that goal by reading about foolishness to avoid it, don't you think?) Cheers all, Fiona | ||
| Fionakelleghan (Fionakelleghan)
New member Username: Fionakelleghan Post Number: 216 Registered: 7-2011 |
Solitiare, did this have to do precisely with human evolution? Such as the idea that humans are, or are not, descended from apes and monkeys? Because I am always amazed by the number of people I've met (and I worked in the information biz at a major university for over 20 years) who casually say that it's all nonsense that humans "are descended from monkeys" or who have no idea that the term "primate" exists for a reason. We've had great rain storms this week. How's your arid Texas neighborhood doing? xoxo Fiona | ||
| Fionakelleghan (Fionakelleghan)
New member Username: Fionakelleghan Post Number: 221 Registered: 7-2011 |
Solitiare, did this have to do precisely with human evolution? Such as the idea that humans are, or are not, descended from apes and monkeys? Because I am always amazed by the number of people I've met (and I worked in the information biz at a major university for over 20 years) who casually say that it's all nonsense that humans "are descended from monkeys" or who have no idea that the term "primate" exists for a reason. We've had great rain storms this week. How's your arid Texas neighborhood doing? xoxo Fiona | ||
| Wunderland (Wunderland)
New member Username: Wunderland Post Number: 1367 Registered: 3-2005 |
Is the scrund less likely today because we know more about genes? Is it related to heredity? Mutation? Speciation? Selection? | ||
| Fionakelleghan (Fionakelleghan)
New member Username: Fionakelleghan Post Number: 224 Registered: 7-2011 |
Wunderland, those are great questions. Are there good answers here, about the scrund, specifically, which we need to solve? | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 64 Registered: 7-2011 |
Are microorganisms at all relevant? Ugh! No. Should we be thinking about clues to evolution - solid clues, such as bones or teeth or other fossilized relics; or preservative sites such as peat bogs, glaciers, canyons, deserts? No to all. Or forensic analyses of food in the stomach, injuries to the body, that sort of thing? Nope, nothing like that. Any relevant? No Or should we focus on the thoughts and/or beliefs of the people of that time? Yessish (Noel: "If the answer is yes, no one should google Lamarckism!" Hee hee! But those of us who would like to be wise can probably further that goal by reading about foolishness to avoid it, don't you think?) Cheers all, Fiona Solitiare, did this have to do precisely with human evolution? With the evolution of _something_ in humans. That's a HINT. Such as the idea that humans are, or are not, descended from apes and monkeys? N.R. Because I am always amazed by the number of people I've met (and I worked in the information biz at a major university for over 20 years) who casually say that it's all nonsense that humans "are descended from monkeys" or who have no idea that the term "primate" exists for a reason. We've had great rain storms this week. How's your arid Texas neighborhood doing? Send some our way! Grass crinkles underfoot here. Is the scrund less likely todaydon't know about that. People believe some pretty strange things. That's what scrunds are about, isn't it? because we know more about genes? Yessish. But people knew that children took after their parents long before genes were heard of. Is it related to heredity?\b {Mostly this.} Mutation? Speciation? Selection? Are there good answers here, about the scrund, specifically, which we need to solve? My answer that it's not about evolution in general (or creationism in general) but the evolution of something specific. Explore this. | ||
| Wunderland (Wunderland)
New member Username: Wunderland Post Number: 1368 Registered: 3-2005 |
Is the scrund that some particular thing is inherited, when in fact it is an acquired characteristic? Or vice versa? | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 67 Registered: 7-2011 |
Is the scrund that some particular thing is inherited,More this than the other when in fact it is an acquired characteristic? But it's not an acquired characteristic either. Or vice versa? Really not relevant, sorry. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14114 Registered: 4-2010 |
Is it related to the evolution of a physical thing? An idea? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1672 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is it related to the evolution of an organ in the body? Of some characteristic of the body that can be seen with naked eyes (like skin color / hair color / eye color / being tall or the opposite / having great physical strength or the opposite)? Does it relate to intelligence? Character of a person? | ||
| Fionakelleghan (Fionakelleghan)
New member Username: Fionakelleghan Post Number: 234 Registered: 7-2011 |
Rbruma beat me to a lot of good detailed questions. For now, I'll go with adding: brain tissue? healing abilities? strictly physical abilities? strictly mental abilities? | ||
| Kayleetonkslupin (Kayleetonkslupin)
New member Username: Kayleetonkslupin Post Number: 4151 Registered: 9-2010 |
o hai soli kitteh! =) being more intelligent than the average person relevant? being less intelligent than the average person? neurological disorders relevant? epilepsy? non-epileptic seizures? iz gud puzzel. yuo can haz cheezburgur =) | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 70 Registered: 7-2011 |
Is it related to the evolution of a physical thing?Yessish An idea?No Is it related to the evolution of an organ in the body?Yessish Of some characteristic of the body that can be seen with naked eyes (like skin color / hair color / eye color / being tall or the opposite / having great physical strength or the opposite)? No to all. Does it relate to intelligence?Some people at the time may have thought it was related to intelligence, but irr. Character of a person? No Rbruma beat me to a lot of good detailed questions. For now, I'll go with adding: brain tissue? located in the brain, but depends on definition of 'brain tissue' healing abilities? No strictly physical abilities? more physical than mental, but could be misleading. strictly mental abilities? o hai soli kitteh! =) Meeeooow being more intelligent than the average person relevant? being less intelligent than the average person? No to both neurological disorders relevant? Yope - tho not a disorder in the sense of a sickness. epilepsy? non-epileptic seizures? No iz gud puzzel. yuo can haz cheezburgur =) Easy on the ketchup, please! | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14125 Registered: 4-2010 |
Is consciousness relevant? Unconsciousness? | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 72 Registered: 7-2011 |
Is consciousness relevant? Unconsciousness? DOYD consciousness. I will say n.r. because this whatsit could exist withouy anybody being aware of it. | ||
| Kayleetonkslupin (Kayleetonkslupin)
New member Username: Kayleetonkslupin Post Number: 4156 Registered: 9-2010 |
o yez, iz ezee awn ketchup, foar shur =) wuld liek anythin else speshul awn cheezburgur, soli kitteh? iz gud nomz. Are MRI or CT scans relevant? Other tests? | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 74 Registered: 7-2011 |
o yez, iz ezee awn ketchup, foar shur =) wuld liek anythin else speshul awn cheezburgur, soli kitteh? iz gud nomz. mustard is gud. Are MRI or CT scans relevant?No Other tests? Not this type of test. | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 92 Registered: 7-2011 |
Recap and Hints: Some people in the 19th century (Prime Minister Gladstone was one) believed that a certain human attribute had only recently evolved, and was still evolving in some people. There was evidence for this, but not scientific evidence. A scientific test proved them wrong. It did not require any special equipment, and did not take place in a lab. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14165 Registered: 4-2010 |
Intelligence? | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 1843 Registered: 6-2008 |
Did the test involve dissecting a cadaver, of someone who died long ago, and examining the organ? or dissecting an animal, and showing that its version of the organ looked quite a bit like a human's? Is it a gland? the pituitary gland? or the pineal gland? | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 94 Registered: 7-2011 |
Intelligence? No Did the test involve dissecting a cadaver, of someone who died long ago, and examining the organ? No. No dead people in this puzzle - aat least no recently deceased people. or dissecting an animal, and showing that its version of the organ looked quite a bit like a human's? No. In fact, those who believed this scrund thought people were more like most animals, in a particular way, than they actually are. Is it a gland? the pituitary gland? or the pineal gland? Not a gland. | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 95 Registered: 7-2011 |
If my answer was ambigious, maybe this will clarify: No dead peopld = no dead bodies, and it couldn't be determined by examining a cadaver anyhow. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14176 Registered: 4-2010 |
Instinct v. reason relevant? | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 98 Registered: 7-2011 |
Instinct v. reason relevant? No. Nothing to do with thinking ability or the absence thereof. | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 1467 Registered: 2-2011 |
is it to do with a reaction to something? a preference? a skill? does it involve sight? touch? taste? hearing? smell? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 2753 Registered: 7-2009 |
does it involve an emotion? a conscience? recognizing oneself as an individual? morality? | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 99 Registered: 7-2011 |
is it to do with a reaction to something?yessish a preference? a skill? no to both does it involve sight?YES! touch? taste? hearing? smell? No to all does it involve an emotion? a conscience? recognizing oneself as an individual? morality? No to all of these. | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 2756 Registered: 7-2009 |
Does it involve the ability to see something specific? to see color? | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 100 Registered: 7-2011 |
Does it involve the ability to see something specific? to see color? YES ***************SPOILER***************** It was thought, because the classical writers don't mention the color blue, and it is not found in the Bible, that the ability to see in color had only developed recently - last couple of millenia or so. This seemed to be confirmed by the fact that many existing "primitive" people had no word for certain colors, and were still in the process of evolving. Finally, a group of German anthropologists got the idea of testing some of these "primitive" trebespeople with skeins of yarn. They passed with - ahem - flying colors. They could distinguish even small variations of hue, but not being fashionistas or interior decorators had no reason to talk about them. This is from a book called "Through the Language Glass" by Guy Deutscher. He says that his native tongue (modern Hebrew) has no separate words for 'hand' and 'arm,' making one word do for both. But that doesn't mean that Israeli's upper limbs are different from other peoplel's, or that they don't notice there is a difference. Thanks to all you brainiacs who took part! | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14197 Registered: 4-2010 |
Wow, what a weird scrund. Never would've guessed that. | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 1844 Registered: 6-2008 |
Color naming and perception is an interesting area. Linguists have now charted the evolution (cultural, not biological) of color distinctions in a number of languages, which seem to all follow a certain ordered pattern (first light is distinguished from dark, then red is added, etc.). And maybe some of you already know that due to certain light-sensitive proteins being coded for on the X chromosome, not only is color blindness more common in males, but females on average perceive a larger number of distinct colors within the rainbow than males. | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 102 Registered: 7-2011 |
Yes, but color-blindness was only beginning to be discovered at that time. Until the reairoads, with their red and green running lights, became widesprad, it had not been diagnosed and not even the people who had the most common form of color-blindness knew it existed. Only after some tragic train wrecks was it realized that there was a problem. (That is also from the book.) And of course most color-blind people do see colors, just not the same ones that other people do. There are very few monochromatics. I do know that men and women either perceive or talk about color differently. I will say something is blue and my husband will say it is green - but always in borderline cases, where the object is blue-breen, for example. | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 869 Registered: 6-2003 |
Regarding color distinctions in languages: In Hungarian language there are two different words for the color "red": vörös and piros. These do not refer to different shades of red; they are bot generic terms for red and can mean the same red, just in different contexts. Vörös is used for things that are (in some sense) live, animate, warm, like red blood, red wine, while {piros} is used for inanimate, cold, technical things, like a red traffic-light, or a red card in soccer. Some people consider this as an evidence that the concept of a color as something abstract (something that is separate from the thing that has the color) evolved only after the words for the colors themselves. But, on the other hand, why is it then only in Hungarian, and only for red. | ||
| Vesica (Vesica)
New member Username: Vesica Post Number: 1814 Registered: 8-2001 |
ARG!! I've actually read this book (loved it) and totally missed this puzzle. Great idea! Also, maybe we need to start the LP Book Club. :D | ||
| Doriana (Doriana)
New member Username: Doriana Post Number: 1916 Registered: 12-2010 |
Same here - I bought the book a couple weeks ago and I loved it (: |
