Archive for March, 2016

Your brain is more sophisticated than hitherto suspected when it comes to answering questions. The well-established idiom “I know the answers. It’s the questions I don’t understand” has more bite than you know.

It is the main reason that yes and no questions are so hard to answer. If I were to ask you if you were hungry, the answer would be an easy one. Yes, you are hungry, or no, you are not hungry. The answer would likely come quickly and accurately. Your brain knows exactly which state your stomach is in at all times. If I were to ask you the same question differently, than your brain is now stuck.

What if I were to pose the question as: Are you hungry or full? There is one, and only one answer to this question. The answer is yes! You are either hungry or full! To answer no would be to state that you’re… What?  You’re neither hungry nor full, but indifferent, which would require more than a yes or no answer. The brain then, has more work to do to answer that question. It needs to analyze the actual question for information before it can set a proper answer. What is the question asking? The one question must be divided into two separate questions: Am I hungry? Am I full?  Then, there needs to be an assessment made on intension of the two separate questions—what is actually being asked here. Then the proper answer is produced: I am hungry. Take notice that the answer is neither yes nor no.

Try another question. “Ben has not called today?” which, I am guessing is a poorly translated question in this article:–+ScienceDaily%29

As it is, it is more of a statement then a question. More like you are telling another person that Ben did not call today. Correcting for poor grammar translation, I think, we can pose the question as “Did Ben not call today?” which I have heard spoken in everyday language. Because the word “not” is used, it would take longer, slightly, to understand this question over the proper question of “Did Ben call today?” requiring a yes or no answer. I feel that the “not” word, being negative in nature, and the negatively natured “no” for an answer conflict enough to force your brain to think before answering. Think double-negatives! The double-negative here being: not no—therefore yes.

I think, mainly, that slower responses to questions of this nature are in the poor construction of the questions and get picked on by linguistics by being made more complicated then needed. In reality, some simple, properly phrased questions do have yes or no answers. Some questions are actually produced to make you think first and supply a longer answer. Some questions are asked, not because you need to answer at all, but to bring to your mind that the asker caught you red-handed and wants you to know you were caught. The question would be phrased as: Did you just break that?

To end this post on a happy note, some questions are never intended to make any sense because there is either, no real way to ask the question, or there is a lack of knowledge to venture into a proper question.

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved



on March 22, 2016 in Uncategorized Comments Off

In light of new events it seems that the most likely demise of the dinosaurs was the evolution of the birds. There has been some new findings that backs this up, but we will start with the older findings first. Dinosaurs have been unearthed in China which seem to be, at least in part, covered with some feathers. These feathers were believed to have been some form of insulation and they were believed to have been colored. Coloration is only important in that it allows for both, color selection of the visible light spectrum and the eye/brain, and sexual selection for the most brightly colored individuals. Neither are points to dwell on here.

Feathered features acting like insulation could have evolved into feather-covered dinosaurs and the prelude to flight. This much has been speculated for a considerable time now. Old news! If this was not evidence enough for some to speculate that dinosaurs evolved into birds, then check out these extra findings. Recently, a tyrannosaurs was discovered and a bone was analysed. The bone (a femur) has been proven to belong to a female of the species as the bone was Medullary in nature. This means that this dinosaur formed extra bone matter during pregnancy which is common in birds. Mary Schweitzer

Next we have the manipulation of DNA, specifically, in chickens, which have grown different beaks and in one case longer fibulas in their lower legs. Genes determine the rate of growth in bones and these bones evolved to be shortened in birds/chickens. Shutting off the gene called IHH or Indian Hedgehog caused the bone to grow the full length again. The chicken developed long tubular fibulas like a dinosaur.

It has been argued by creationist that evolution is powerless to transform species. Commonly stated, is the argument that a mosquito is still a mosquito even if they are different species of mosquito. They still look like a mosquito; therefore, evolution is not the answer without divine guidance. When you can grow dinosaur features in a chicken by manipulating a gene, trace medullary bones in fossils and associate the same process with the bird family, along with finding feathers on dinosaur fossils, I would ask how much proof is needed to accept species change? Here, apparently, dinosaurs have changed enough in size, shape, and adaption to pass as birds.

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved



Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: