And yet you are unable to cite anything that you have read that supports any of your claims.
I will go back and highlight the parts of the last link I posted that apply directly to my hypothesis, And I know you are dying to hear my pet theory.
I kind of suspect that a very highly charged cocktail of neuro chemicals present in the seminal fluid might stimulate certain sperm more than others. I don’t think that is beyond the realm of the imagination.
Nor is Time Cube beyond the realm of the imagination, because Time Cube guy dreamt it up. And this is Time Cube biology, with no connection to reality.
I will try and find a page on facebook that deals with evolution and get their expertise on the subject. That should be interesting.
Sadly I think Gene Ray the Time Cube guy died, so I don’t think you will be able to track him down on Facebook to discuss your profound ideas with him.
But the domain timecubebiology.com seems to be available, if you want to take up his legacy in the burgeoning field of neurosemenological theory.
[quote=“Riemann, post:145, topic:992736”]
But the domain timecubebiology.com seems to be available, if you want to take up his legacy in the burgeoning field of neurosemenological theory.
[/quote)
When you think about it this would be the perfect place for a feedback loop pushing intelligence in humans could take place. It does appear that humans gained intelligence at a much faster rate than other primates.
Testicles in general, or your testicles in particular?
It’s not possible to establish that it does make a difference without establishing something about what that difference is.
So if you have no idea what the difference is, then you have no idea whether there is a difference.
Try a textbook. Why would you think that a random page on facebook knows anything at all about the subject?
I think that’s a feature, not a bug.
I was being factitious
“artificially created or developed”?
I think he meant fictitious.
I think he probably meant facetious. But it’s pretty difficult in general to tell what his posts mean.
(I know, it was a joke.)
[quote=“Riemann, post:152, topic:992736”]
I think he meant fictitious.
[/quot
Yes, but spell check must have kicked in.
Or a karma-mediated reality check.
There might be a relatively easy test for someone that was so inclined to go through the trouble. Using rats, No selective breeding. Create an environment that encouraged activity and mental stimulation and just see if succeeding populations got smarter.
This sounds like letting all the rats that already exist just continue living their normal lives.
I’ll say this for your scientific method, it requires little effort or expense.
Are wild rats known to be smarter than domestic rats, do we have population in science already bred for intelligence?
A simple test like that would not be conclusive of anything but if well controlled and documented it might be enough to encourage advancement of a theory.
We do need an experimental control. Let’s set up two separate breeding populations, one all-male and one all-female. If your neurosemenological theory is correct, only the all-male population with the testes will breed subsequent generations of smarter offspring.