Somwhere I got the silly idea that a counter example does disprove a proposition.
Yet;
So it is you who decides what a good example for a correlation is?
Which is it?
Actually, it’s 2 studies, and one of them may or may not be real. You see, your cites, (http://www.parmly.luc.edu/brain/intel.pdf, http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/DASL/Stories/BrainSizeandIntelligence.html) don’t have any names attached to that study. But that’s probably because they pulled it off DASL:
“DASL (pronounced “dazzle”) is an online library of datafiles and stories that illustrate the use of basic statistics methods. We hope to provide data from a wide variety of topics so that statistics teachers can find real-world examples that will be interesting to their students.”
Sure, if you can show me the original study which actually has some merit, then I just may eat my words.
But although the “article” does draw correlations to body size -> brain size -> increase in localised growth -> greater intelligence: it’s shitty formatting and lack of proper citing makes me wary.
And I will just remind you again of what the OP IS actually asking.
I think the correlation is not necessarily between lifespan and intelligence, but between the time it takes to reach full maturity and intelligence.
People reach “sexual maturity” (which is to say, they can have kids) in their teens, and don’t reach full physical maturity for a few years after that.
Supposedly, all that time is necessary so we have time to learn all the stuff we need to know to function in a complex, social society. Animals who have more to learn to be able to function as adults will need that extra time to develop, physically and mentally. Other apes have a long gap between birth and full maturity also.
Anyone know how long it takes a newborn Galapagos tortoise to mature? (If it’s 20 years or so, I guess that throws this theory out of the water…)
The web sites on the turtles, and Britannica agree that the maturation time for Galapagos tortoises is about 25 years.
not in statistical sciences where it is averages that count :dubious:
Well, then I think it’s safe to say they may be taking over the world soon. 
The average age of the tortoises was pretty high before people messed things up.
I think you are defending an untenable proposition. I don’t believe that it has ever been shown that a species of ape that lives an average of 20 years is ipso facto smarter than one that lives an average of 10. There is no necessary connection between longer life and the acquisition of what the OP calls “new info.” Quite possible both 10 years life span and 20 years life span are merely one year’s experience repeated 10 or 20 times.
:dubious:
The question at hand is whether there is a causul link or mechanism between long lifespans and intelligence (by whatever means one measures that quantity). A statistical correlation, particularly one weakened by a number of counterexamples, does not satisfy the hypothesis. It may be that some or even many animals who enjoy long lifespans incidentally exhibit high intelligence, but that doesn’t mean that intelligence is in any way linked to longevity. Correlation != causation.
A better hypothesis would take into account additional factors that impact or require intelligence, such as breeding rates, diet and climate variation, predation status, et cetera. This, of course, would require a multi-dimensional matrix of co-related factors, and within this, I expect that other parameters being more or less equal, higher intelligence would correlate with longevity; for instance, with the afformentioned family Octopoda, the larger and arguably more intelligent members are also the longer lived; but at their longest, they live on the order of half a decade, as compared to the smartest land mammals.
Stranger
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Trainother parameters being more or less equal, higher intelligence would correlate with longevity;
Stranger[/QUOTE]
This says that if you’re smart your chances of living longer are better. Not that you are smart just because you happen to live longer.
Cite?
Sorry, but this sounds like pure bogus, and such a statement requires a pretty good citation.
Heh, well there’s some insight into allometry in scm1001’s cites.
“A general model for the Origin of Allometric scaling laws in biology”: West et al, Science, 276, 122-126 (1997)
Don’t think it’s available online, but another of their articles which is newer and related: http://eeb37.biosci.arizona.edu/~brian/West_Brown_Enquist_1999b.pdf
and when looking for that I stumbled across: The origin of allometric scaling laws in biology from genomes to ecosystems: towards a quantitative unifying theory of biological structure and organization | Journal of Experimental Biology | The Company of Biologists
(edited to preserve context without formatting)
The article is quite long, but it should clear things up.
‘Heh,’ but one cite doesn’t clear up anything. Looking up Allometric scaling law on google shows me a whole lot of claims that don’t have any backing other than the statements themselves. From the looks of it, it is a “law” that talks about generalities based off life span data, heart rate and size. Somewhere in the mix the Turn rate of mitochondria is mentioned, but nowhere do I find any explanation of why.
Granted, I have only had a few biology classes, five or so chemistry and biochemistry classes, and a physics class or two, but I know bad science when I see it. General , wide sweeping claims with little supporting data and a whole lot of extrapolation (cough, WAGs, cough).
If you ask my opinion, this concept is mere anti-fitness propganda.
(In any case, if a human has 4 million hearbeats per year, and a mammal has 1.5 billion beats per lifetime, a human can live up to 375 years, and doubling the heart rate would still be more than twice the high end of life expectancy)
Explain that.
Bah thats what I get for looking it up on a website instead of doing the math myself, looks like at 70 beats per min a human would have close to 40 million beats a year, which would mean that a human that lives 60 years would have 2.4 billion heart beats. Way beyond the number my links gave. (still off, just in the wrong direction)
Well you can choose to believe that. I’ll believe the cites and my Assoc. Prof. physics lecturer.
Why do they think allometry is true?
There’s evidence to support it.
It is based upon (one of many) the fact that all the circulatory systems have terminal units (ie; capillaries) of the same size and hierarchical branching.
But at 70 beats per minute, and having 1.9 billion beats in total a person would live for 52 years. Now that doesn’t seem too unreasonable.
Mere anti-fitness propaganda? WTF? Surely then it would actually be everywhere, instead of plastering itself all over scientific journals. Damn those obese scientists!
I give you several published journal articles and you give me a powerpoint? Not only that, a powerpoint which gets it’s information from the journal articles but doesn’t explain them.
Evidence to support it? Like what? That there are mammals that live with double the heart rate? Or are humans somehow exempt from all other mammals? How much discrepency would I find if I did the research and looked up lifespan and heart rates of several different sized mammals and did the math myself? As much as I discovered with humans? Bah, what kind of science is that?
Yeah, but the cite says 1.5 billion. And my Grandmother is 86 years old. Somehow I imagine she has had more than 1.5 billion heart beats.
Oh, I hear it a lot, sometimes on this board, Bill Gates said it in Pirates of Silicon Valley, Neil Armstrong said it in some quote.
Except it was a cite that said the same thing as your cite, in your quote above. 1.5 X 10^9 beats. I don’t know why I put it there, other than to show that I found similar claims and identical numbers.
ALL MAMMALS. Humans are mammals, and many live to be 80, 90 and 100 years old. With WAY more than the 1.5 billion heart beats that all the places I have seen show, including your cites.
Even Cecils math goes against your precious Ass. Professors claims:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_088a.html
I am glad you don’t care what I think. Too bad you don’t seem to also care that your precious theory has had holes poked into it by an undergrad.
It is also funny that Women have a higher heart rate than men, but actually live LONGER. Huh, kinda the opposite of which your theory would predict.
A science that is distorted by modern medicine.
Many? So, 8%? Oh wait, I guess you were just basing that figure of Western culture which is full of medical treatment artificially extending the life of some humans.
Damn, I guess this undergrad knows more than people with phd’s, stop the presses, this guy’s going to write every article in Science next month.
What kind of undergrad doesn’t know how to research articles? You turn to google and Cecil? Do you even know what a scientific journal is?
Why don’t women die faster (by a whole 8 years!)? Evolution favours female longevity. Re: Why do women live longer than men? Is this true of most species?
Although, difference within a species doesn’t disprove allometry, since allometry is the differences between species.
And unfortunately, if it was so easy to beat the system, why don’t all creatures live to 72? Or even, why don’t humans live to 200?
Why do we get this correlation? CAN YOU explain, oh wise one, allometric experimental data? Can you explain this graph?
In all natural systems there are deviations. Picking humans (or even just a different sex within a species) as an example in a natural system is not a scientific thing to do.
So it isn’t Invariable then huh (your link claims it is)? Medicine and healthy living changes the INVARIANT 1.5 billion heart beats. You know, not changing.
I don’t see anybody with a PhD, do you have one? So having a PhD makes one inculpable? A PhD is an automatic win in a debate? I see, your kind make me sick.
Of course I do. Even undergraduates have to write papers. I read Nature as well as the International Journal of biochemistry and cell biology, which is supplied by my work study, and which atm, I am a biochemistry major. I am not some guy off the road with no knowledge of science.
You have provided nothing in terms of evidence. Just some wacky claim that after 1.5 billion heartbeats, a human keels over and dies. Which I have pointed out is untrue. You have been unable to address this point.
So other mammals follow a nice logrithmic scale of body size and BMR correlation, expressed in a general sense about populations. That in no way means what you claimed above, which I will quote you again, in case you forgot:
If, by approximate, you mean, a mouse has 600 million heartbeats, and a human has 3 billion. Yeah, real approximate.
As for using Google and Cecil, well, I don’t go do major research in scholarly journals everytime some loon spouts off patently untrue garbage. YMMV, but I imagine you spend a lot of time in the library if that is the case.