Evolution: Is it Real? Answers from Biologists

[nautica]

This maybe a bit off topic. But, could someone give me some specific examples of speciation in nature, which have been observed. (preferrably in the animal kingdom).

thanks
nautica

 

[Gokul43201]

Nenad,
Evolution is a fairy tale and everybody posting on this board knows it.

I'm sorry to shatter your illusions, O Great One, but we all appear to be ignorant of this revelation.

It is the one theory that is accepted by scientists that has no support. Notice how everybody says that evolution is a 'fact' supported by mountains of evidence. This is what you say when you have no support.

And what would we say if there WAS support for a theory ? Perhaps we would call it a fairy-tale.

Well, in that case, the theories of Gravitation (which is used for building spacecraft ), Electromagnetics (used for building light bulbs and computers), Hydrostatics (used for building ships and oil rigs), Structural Mechanics (for building houses), are all fairy-tales...as is Pharmacology, (based on principles shared with Evolution theory) which saves lives daily, and gets rids of an occasional pain in the neck.

Ogreat One...Please tell us how you avoid walking into trees, when you roam this planet with your eyes closed ?

 

[loseyourname]

This maybe a bit off topic. But, could someone give me some specific examples of speciation in nature, which have been observed. (preferrably in the animal kingdom).

thanks
nautica

Is the divergence from Canis lupis to Canis familiaris good enough for you? There are examples that were not the result of artificial selection, but I still think domestic animals are the most obvious answer to this question.

If you want speciation events that were not the results of breeding by humans, look at these: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[russ_watters]

When we observe speciation, it is the result of duplication of genetic information or the shuffling of information that is already there. Therefore, scientific induction dictates that this isn't the method by which all species come into existence.

Wait a second. Explain this a little better. Because we have observed new species come into existence through wholly natural processes, scientific induction dictates that the rest were created? There's a middle step or two in this argument that you aren't revealing. What is it?

The way I read it, there was some starting point - a base set of genetic information - and some evolution has proceeded from there. It is a misunderstanding of what is happening in evolution and ignores (among other things) 4 billion years of fossil records. It sounds like a variation of the "micro-evolution but not macro-evolution" argument.

The evidence is so overwealming though that all anti-evolution arguments eventually reduce to the "deceitful God" hypothesis: God created the universe and the Earth 4,000 years ago and it only looks like its older than that.

 

[wasteofo2]

This maybe a bit off topic. But, could someone give me some specific examples of speciation in nature, which have been observed. (preferrably in the animal kingdom).

thanks
nautica

I believe in a recent article of Scientific American, there was actually an article about how some scientists in some south western state were observing 1 specie of fly begin to speciate. It was something like the 2 populations wouldn't actively seek out mating with one another, when a male from population 1 bred with a female from population 2 the offspring was infertile, and when a male from population 2 bred with a female from population 1 there was no offspring...

I'll try to dig it up and post about it.

 

[nautica]

I believe in a recent article of Scientific American, there was actually an article about how some scientists in some south western state were observing 1 specie of fly begin to speciate. It was something like the 2 populations wouldn't actively seek out mating with one another, when a male from population 1 bred with a female from population 2 the offspring was infertile, and when a male from population 2 bred with a female from population 1 there was no offspring...

I'll try to dig it up and post about it.

Great, let me know when you find it.

Nautica

 

[nautica]

Is the divergence from Canis lupis to Canis familiaris good enough for you? There are examples that were not the result of artificial selection, but I still think domestic animals are the most obvious answer to this question.

If you want speciation events that were not the results of breeding by humans, look at these: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Great info!

Thanks
Nautica

 

[O Great One]

Did you know that there is not a single creationist paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Do you know why? (the answer is not: conspiracy)

People want to keep their nice-paying jobs so they keep their mouths shut.
http://www.cyan.qc.ca/catacombes/Elephant%20LivingR.htm

I'm curious, in all of the speciation events that we have observed, has the daughter species ever been physically different from the parental species that it broke off from? Or are they physically identical?

 

[wasteofo2]

People want to keep their nice-paying jobs so they keep their mouths shut.
http://www.cyan.qc.ca/catacombes/Elephant%20LivingR.htm

I'm curious, in all of the speciation events that we have observed, has the daughter species ever been physically different from the parental species that it broke off from? Or are they physically identical?

Here we have an example of Canis Lupus (mother species)
http://clem.mscd.edu/~shultzj/ccsc2002/wolf.jpg

Here we have an example of Canis Familiaris (daughter species)
http://www.filhotesonline.com.br/shi_tzu.jpg

Keep in mind, one reason that this is one of the few examples of an observed speciation where the daughter species looks immensely different from the mother species is that the idea of Evolution was introduced within the last half milenia, and speciation can take millions of years unless there are catastrophic events. I'm sure there are other examples of less extreme nature where we have observed physical differences.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

People want to keep their nice-paying jobs so they keep their mouths shut.

funny...nice-paying jobs in science...

HAHAHAHA.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I'm 34, make 1300 euro a month. Have no insurance, no pension, no car, no home (just a single room).

Yeah. I am in science for money. It is obvious. I only publish on evolution because I am afraid to lose my job.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

3) Facts are always facts, but sometimes we might take things for fact that are not actually fact...that's why it's such a good thing that science doesn't deal much in facts ("fact" having the scientific definition of a readily observable phenomenon that is beyond reasonable doubt), but in theories ("theory" having the scientific definition of an explanation of a "fact").

I think they call these 'things' observations.

 

[Phobos]

There is no proof that Humans and Apes "evolved" from a common ancestor. We weren't there to see it!

Direct observation is nice when you can get it, but it is not a absolute requirement (e.g., physicists can't see subatomic particles directly, forensic scientists don't witness murders directly, paleontologists have never seen a living dinosaur, astronomers have never seen the sun's core).

There is proof of evolution (including direct observation of small-scale speciation events) in all of the fossils, genetics, etc. The amount of individual evidences like that add up to a very robust explanation. If you are asking for absolute, no uncertainty, complete in every way Truth, then you won't find that anywhere except in Blind Faith.

As for as I know you cannot disagree with me when I say that evolution is a theory.

We don't. We're debating what that means.

Also theories can never be proven true or false. Every science professor in my college career has told me that.

Theories can be proven false. That is actually a requirement of science (that theories are falsifiable). If we find a 3 billion year old human skeleton, then the theory would be in real trouble.

But you are correct that theories (explanations) are never 100% proven. But there are degrees of reliability/accuracy/etc. which can be recognized.

Otherwise, it's just a Theory that attempts to “explain how life is today,” but that does not necessarily mean that's how it is.

Well, ok. I invite you to dive into the scientific literature and judge for yourself how much the evidence presented is worth.

 

[Phobos]

Evolution is a fairy tale and everybody posting on this board knows it.

You're crossing a line. Your debate of the ideas is welcome but do not start slandering all the members here.

It is the one theory that is accepted by scientists that has no support.

Simply ridiculous. You may reject the explanation for the data (e.g., common descent) or the interpretation of the data (e.g., age of a fossil), but you can't seriously deny that any data exists (e.g., the fossil itself).

 

[Phobos]

People want to keep their nice-paying jobs so they keep their mouths shut.
http://www.cyan.qc.ca/catacombes/Elephant%20LivingR.htm

An anecdote that quotes a nameless source.

I'm curious, in all of the speciation events that we have observed, has the daughter species ever been physically different from the parental species that it broke off from? Or are they physically identical?

Would it surprise you to know that cabbage, kale, broccoli, cauliflower, and brussels sprouts were all derived from a single wild plant species? (yes, that's artificial selection...the point is that species can change form)

Small changes can be observed in small time frames. Big changes require longer time frames. People don't live long enough to observe the degree of evolution you're concerned about.

 

[Gokul43201]

People want to keep their nice-paying jobs so they keep their mouths shut.
http://www.cyan.qc.ca/catacombes/Elephant%20LivingR.htm

Hah ! George Caylor in a Conservative Christian Nut whose single-minded aim is to preserve and propagate all the "great thruths" as revealed by The Book.

Stunts like this only take away any credibility to your arguments.

 

[Nereid]

Good to see that you're back posting in PF Mentat!

 

[JD]

This might be slightly OTT but it is within the same general area (I trust).

Looking at the proposed process of how eukaryotic cells developed from prokaryotic cells (or at least the one described at: http://dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/students/w96/joshbond/symb.htm )
how supportive have experiments been of this hypothesis (or set of hypotheses), in particular, the inclusion (or at least use) of the prokaryotic DNA by the host cell?

 

[Mentat]

Good to see that you're back posting in PF Mentat!

Thanks, it's good to be back.

 

[loseyourname]

This might be slightly OTT but it is within the same general area (I trust).

Looking at the proposed process of how eukaryotic cells developed from prokaryotic cells (or at least the one described at: http://dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/students/w96/joshbond/symb.htm )
how supportive have experiments been of this hypothesis (or set of hypotheses), in particular, the inclusion (or at least use) of the prokaryotic DNA by the host cell?

Mitochondria, plastids, and centrioles are all known to have their own genomes, which are not related to the genome of the host cell. It is composed of a single, circular DNA molecule, as are prokaryotic genomes. They also possesses their own tRNA and ribosomes with which to transcribe and translate their genes. The sensitivity of these ribosomes is much the same as the sensitivity of ribosomes in prokaryotes, rather than those of its eukaryotic host. The sequencing of the genes for SSU rRNA (small subunit ribosomal RNA) indicates that plastids are descended from cyanobacteria and that mitochondria are descended from alpha proteobacteria. The evidence for this is all but conclusive.

 

[Averagesupernova]

We are actually experiencing a form of rapid natural selection today. Human intelligence natural selection. Think about what it takes to survive in todays high tech world and think about where those who can't fit in are ending up.

 

[aychamo]

The evidence is so overwealming though that all anti-evolution arguments eventually reduce to the "deceitful God" hypothesis: God created the universe and the Earth 4,000 years ago and it only looks like its older than that.

There is no such thing as an anti-evolution argument. For an argument to be sound, it has to have all true premises. Nothing an anti-evolution (or pro-Christian-God) "argument" puts forth as its premises is true, it's all faith based bull****.

 

[aychamo]

If you are asking for absolute, no uncertainty, complete in every way Truth, then you won't find that anywhere except in Blind Faith.

Err?

 

[aychamo]

We are actually experiencing a form of rapid natural selection today. Human intelligence natural selection. Think about what it takes to survive in todays high tech world and think about where those who can't fit in are ending up.

lol. No we aren't.

 

[Nereid]

We are actually experiencing a form of rapid natural selection today. Human intelligence natural selection. Think about what it takes to survive in todays high tech world and think about where those who can't fit in are ending up.

If anything, the data suggests that those with lower 'intelligence' are more successful - they have more offspring than those of 'higher intelligence'. IIRC, the government of Singapore was so concerned about this that they launched a program - costing millions - to get bright young people to marry and have children. It failed.

But, as it was based on a false premise, it doesn't matter anyway.

 

[Phobos]

There is no such thing as an anti-evolution argument. For an argument to be sound, it has to have all true premises. Nothing an anti-evolution (or pro-Christian-God) "argument" puts forth as its premises is true, it's all faith based bull****.

Funny, my dictionary doesn't define "argument" that way. You may disagree with the arguments presented by Creationists, as I do, but those proffering it are usually doing so with honest intent. Regardless, you're argument of the ideas is welcome here, but not statements like that which are simply fuel for a flame war.

Err?

lol. No we aren't.

If you are going to post, please include some content.

 

[aychamo]

Funny, my dictionary doesn't define "argument" that way. You may disagree with the arguments presented by Creationists, as I do, but those proffering it are usually doing so with honest intent. Regardless, you're argument of the ideas is welcome here, but not statements like that which are simply fuel for a flame war.

If you are going to post, please include some content.

Ok. If you re-read my post you will see I did not define argument. I defined a sound argument. Did you take a logic class? I took a basic one in which we covered what were or were not arguments, along with other things.

An argument is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for (or reasons to believe) one of the others (the conclusion.) An argument which is valid (or strong) is one in which is its impossible (or improbable) that the conclusion be false given the premises are true. Arguments are then sound (or cogent) when the premises are true.

Show me a creationist argument against evolution that has all true premises and directly supports the conclusion (without arguing fallaciously) and then I will agree that there exists a creationist argument against evolution.

Perhaps you are upset with my "Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr?" reply to you. Phobos, you stated "If you are asking for absolute, no uncertainty, complete in every way Truth, then you won't find that anywhere except in Blind Faith." That just doesn't make sense. You are saying "Truth = Blind Faith" (Or perhaps "Truth is found in Blind Faith"). Faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Truth is "a statement proven to be or accepted as true." Your statement just doesn't make sense.

And regarding my "lol. No we aren't." statement, I stand by that. Does the post I posted that to even warrant a reply? Averagesupernova said "We are actually experiencing a form of rapid natural selection today. Human intelligence natural selection. Think about what it takes to survive in todays high tech world and think about where those who can't fit in are ending up." That is totally wrong.

People are not dying in the streets because they can't operate a computer. People that can operate computers are not having a differential success in reproduction over those that can't operate computers. (As an aside, it may not be a joke to say that it's nearly the other way around, think of the socially inept people that hide behind computers that may never have sex with a member of the opposite sex.) Additionally, intelligence and operating high-tech machines do not go hand in hand. My father (a surgeon) is extremely intelligent and he doesn't do much at all on computers.

The lack of knowledge about computers is a form of ignorance. It is not due to lack of intelligence. The vast majority of people that can't use a computer are such becacuse they are ignorant to how they operate, not because they lack intelligence. If the people cared to learn how to operate one, the vast majority of them could learn.

Think about it. You could be the most intelligent person in the world, but if you had never read anything about how a unix machine works, and you were placed in front of a unix prompt and told to perform some task you wouldn't have a clue how to. You would be ignorant to how unix works, but you would still be very intelligent.

(Sorry for spelling mistakes, I'm in a huge rush and don't have time to develop the arguments further.)

 

[Averagesupernova]

Sorry aychamo, but I disagree with you on several points. Yes, you are correct that not knowing anything about unix doesn't make you dumb, it just means you don't know anything about unix. But being dumb DOES in fact mean you will have a hard time knowing anything about certain, if not many subjects. The days are gone in this country when if all else fails you can always be a ditch digger. In virtually EVERY field manual labor has been replaced by mechanization. You simply cannot afford to pay someone what it takes for them to make even a marginal living considering the amount of productivity you will get from their manual labor. Believe it or not there ARE people who simply are not capable of doing anything but manual labor. Those are the ones being pushed out. There are many reasons why they are not capable. Some just plain don't want to but still are capable. Where do these people end up? You assumed the streets. You are correct, some of them DO end up on the streets, but a lot of them end up in prison as well. Unless they already have a family, it is unlikely that they will be reproducing in prison. Yes it is also correct to say that those lower income families have more children. But they are not what I consider the lowest on the scale. The lowest would be the ones who are in prison and live on the street. With any natural selection the lowest or weakest are the first to go. Do you get my point yet? There are other example of what I am talking about. One in the past has been those who go to war. The smartest probably find a way to stay out and if you're not smart enough to stay out, you might be smart enough to find a way to stay alive.

 

[Nereid]

Approx 800 million people in China make a good living from their 'mere' manual labour, ditto ~700 million in India, several hundred million in Africa, etc. IOW, the large majority of homo sap. survive and reproduce perfectly well just with 'manual labour'. In terms of evolution, the fact that a tiny, tiny minority of people in some geographical regions fail to have offspring will likely have zero effect, n'est pas?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Approx 800 million people in China make a good living from their 'mere' manual labour, ditto ~700 million in India, several hundred million in Africa, etc. IOW, the large majority of homo sap. survive and reproduce perfectly well just with 'manual labour'. In terms of evolution, the fact that a tiny, tiny minority of people in some geographical regions fail to have offspring will likely have zero effect, n'est pas?

They don't all agree on how good that living is. Look at the migrations to the cities, even in China, and the results of the Indian elections, which turned on rural resentment that development had bypassed them.

We just don't know what the slection pressure of the future are oing to be. Some posters have had fun with the stereotype of the asocial computer geek. But notice the explosive growth of computer dating and mate search. Maybe in the future only people who know the that-era equivalent of unix will be able to find spouses?

 

[aychamo]

Sorry aychamo, but I disagree with you on several points. Yes, you are correct that not knowing anything about unix doesn't make you dumb, it just means you don't know anything about unix. But being dumb DOES in fact mean you will have a hard time knowing anything about certain, if not many subjects. The days are gone in this country when if all else fails you can always be a ditch digger. In virtually EVERY field manual labor has been replaced by mechanization. You simply cannot afford to pay someone what it takes for them to make even a marginal living considering the amount of productivity you will get from their manual labor. Believe it or not there ARE people who simply are not capable of doing anything but manual labor. Those are the ones being pushed out. There are many reasons why they are not capable. Some just plain don't want to but still are capable. Where do these people end up? You assumed the streets. You are correct, some of them DO end up on the streets, but a lot of them end up in prison as well. Unless they already have a family, it is unlikely that they will be reproducing in prison. Yes it is also correct to say that those lower income families have more children. But they are not what I consider the lowest on the scale. The lowest would be the ones who are in prison and live on the street. With any natural selection the lowest or weakest are the first to go. Do you get my point yet? There are other example of what I am talking about. One in the past has been those who go to war. The smartest probably find a way to stay out and if you're not smart enough to stay out, you might be smart enough to find a way to stay alive.

First, please try to use paragraphs in the future.

Your original post's exact claim is that people are being selected against because they can't survive in today's high tech world. That simply isn't true. There are not dumb people dying by the millions while smart people are having so much more sex with other smart people than dumb people are.

There are plenty of jobs out there that require no understanding of today's "high" technology. Let me name a few: grass mower, road construction, meat packer, unloader at a hardware store, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, TacoBell, house painter's assistant, Good-Will, etc. There are all jobs that do not require an understanding of high technology.

In your second post you make the claim that all dumb people that can't make it in todays world end up on the street or in jail because there are no jobs for them because they are all taken by machines.

This simply isn't true, because of 2 reasons:

1. There are jobs availble for dumb people (above paragraph). All the jobs I listed above require no form of any education and all of the jobs above can be performed by people that are borderline retarded, in fact I have seen retarded people work many of the above jobs.
2. Being in jail or on the street does not inhibit reproduction. Besides the fact that your idea is not based on anything valid, you assume that everyone that would end up in jail would not be able to reproduce before they went to jail. They would not go to jail until they are at least 18, and humans are sexually mature by, what, 13? Do you know the rate of teen pregnancy? Do you think that dumb people are incapable of having sex? Also, people guilty of petty crimes would not be sentenced to life, just short terms. They are still plenty capable of reproduction.

I've read nothing that supports your claim that there is rapid natural selection currently working against people that can't survive in todays high tech world.

I'll end this post with two words: Forrest Gump.

 

[aychamo]

They don't all agree on how good that living is. Look at the migrations to the cities, even in China, and the results of the Indian elections, which turned on rural resentment that development had bypassed them.

We just don't know what the slection pressure of the future are oing to be. Some posters have had fun with the stereotype of the asocial computer geek. But notice the explosive growth of computer dating and mate search. Maybe in the future only people who know the that-era equivalent of unix will be able to find spouses?

Quality of life is irrelevant. The "argument" is about whether or not people that are dumb can live in todayas world. The poster said that dumb people are being "rapidly selected against" but he has not shown that to be true.

 

[Nereid]

They don't all agree on how good that living is. Look at the migrations to the cities, even in China, and the results of the Indian elections, which turned on rural resentment that development had bypassed them.

Thanks for the correction; sorry that I wasn't clear. By 'a good living', I meant 'successful at having offspring', the only sense meaningful for this thread.

We just don't know what the slection pressure of the future are oing to be. Some posters have had fun with the stereotype of the asocial computer geek. But notice the explosive growth of computer dating and mate search. Maybe in the future only people who know the that-era equivalent of unix will be able to find spouses?

Things may well turn out like that; maybe those without such skills will find other ways to reproduce, perhaps even as surrogate mothers and sperm donors?

 

[Averagesupernova]

You guys just don't seem to get it. I am NOT talking about the whole world population of less intelligent people going extinct. The examples I gave were in this country. But since you brought up other countries, I will comment. Why do the the folks from China look the way they do? What about Scandanavia? Or any other country you can think of? Because of the way those folks evolved in their environment. The population in THIS country will adapt to this environment. In another thread there is discussion of blacks evolving into whites. Go read it if you haven't. Humans evolving into 2 different types or races of humans. Supposedly the whites branched off.

I say RAPID natural selection because of the sudden change of technology we have experienced in the last 100 years or so. We all know evolution takes place over MANY MANY years. I am not saying saying over the last 20 years there have been obvious changes. But the big picture tells me that for many many years people lived a simple life doing manual labor farming, hunting and whatnot and suddenly LOTS of people moved to the city. For a while they still did manual labor but now even rural jobs mostly are mechanized.

aychamo you mention jobs that people with no formal education can handle. You are correct, but having no fomal education does not gaurantee lack of intelligence. You then mention borderline retarded people doing some of these jobs. Road construction? Once again, VERY little manual labor required due to mechanization. Oh yeah, parts of it still are like the guy holding the sign and whatnot. But when you consider the amount of manual labor compared to the manual labor that went into construction of this countries railroad system it isn't even in the same ballpark.

aychamo, you then mention the ability to reproduce in jail or on the streets. Obviously it's not impossible. Saying that would be just plain stupid. But the odds are stacked against them.

aychamo. In another post you mention that I haven't proven the less intelligent are being rapidly selected against. You are correct. I haven't. I don't plan on it because none of us will be alive long enough to actually prove it. 'Rapid' when speaking of evolution is still a long time.

Here is what we know about natural selection:

The characteristics of a population will change over many generations indirectly due to environmental changes.

In the last several hundred years we have experienced SERIOUS environmental changes. Figure it out.

I will end this post and hopefully this argument with 5 words: Forrest Gump is a movie.

 

[Nereid]

You guys just don't seem to get it. I am NOT talking about the whole world population of less intelligent people going extinct. The examples I gave were in this country. But since you brought up other countries, I will comment. Why do the the folks from China look the way they do? What about Scandanavia? Or any other country you can think of? Because of the way those folks evolved in their environment. The population in THIS country will adapt to this environment. In another thread there is discussion of blacks evolving into whites. Go read it if you haven't. Humans evolving into 2 different types or races of humans. Supposedly the whites branched off.

There are other threads which discuss whether - in a biological sense - there are any human races; perhaps you could read those too?

I say RAPID natural selection because of the sudden change of technology we have experienced in the last 100 years or so. We all know evolution takes place over MANY MANY years. I am not saying saying over the last 20 years there have been obvious changes. But the big picture tells me that for many many years people lived a simple life doing manual labor farming, hunting and whatnot and suddenly LOTS of people moved to the city. For a while they still did manual labor but now even rural jobs mostly are mechanized.

Assuming by 'this country' you mean the USA, then perhaps there's a far more significant aspect you're overlooking? Immigration. Within a timeframe far too short for any significant evolution to have taken place, the population of the US has changed from a few (tens?) million people whose ancestors had lived in the region for at most a few thousand generations, to one of ~300 million, whose ancestors come from all over the world. There are no significant populations of isolated homo sap, it's one species and evolution is happening to the entire ~6 billion.

Here is what we know about natural selection:

The characteristics of a population will change over many generations indirectly due to environmental changes.

In the last several hundred years we have experienced SERIOUS environmental changes. Figure it out.

Here's what we know about how the environment will change in the future, over time periods long enough to have an effect on the evolution of homo sap:

 

[Averagesupernova]

Is it just me or do some of you seem to be EXTREMELY irritable?

Nereid you mention another thread that discusses whether there actually ARE different races. I have not read it and I doubt if I will take time to. If you are going to start questioning that then I think I will bow out of this discussion as I thought we could all pretty much agree that people from various parts of the globe are in fact different.


I did overlook imigration, but not really. The imigrants are just like you and I. It takes the same money for them to survive legally in this country and they will not likely produce enough work through manual labor to compete with existing machines. Not only that, but using this argument aren't you basically stating that all imigrants are sub-intelligent? Yes some are probably not educated as well as folks from the USA but that does not mean they don't have a basic intelligence.

Your last paragraph implies that we know nothing of how the environment will change in the future. That is true as I already stated none of us will be around long enough to prove what I've said. But looking at the current trend I would say that the odds are stacked against those who are less than intelligent.