HUH! Scary dogg...

[JohnsonLKD]

http://board.hwlab.com/image/hwlabphoto/165.jpg

What is that on the odgg's head?

A camera filter?

[Kruno]

ROTFLMAO! Cute doggie :D

[nin_fragile14]

haha very strange.

[Pakman]

Obviously a Mexican Roach Pincher

[[Corporal Dan]]

Yea, it's a camera filter with a shade.
that dog's head is microscopic

[netviper13]

Yes, because we all know that having a smaller brain means you are retarded :rolleyes:

That is a very odd looking picture, heh.

[Feanor]

Actually it's the brain to body ratio (or the size of the brain in cm ^ 3 / the length of the spinal chord in cm) that is more important. Otherwise elephants or whales would have a real high IQ compared to us humans. But alas, despite the bigger head, look at the size of the body it's on :D

There's also brain organization...believe it or not, on average a Neanderthal had an average brain capacity of 1,600 cu ^ 3 which is larger then modern humans...Leonardo DeVinci as I remember had a brain slightly smaller then average also.

Actually, that dog looks too quite to be scary :p Now for something scarier looking, there is my sister's German German Shepard (a bit larger then many one sees here). But alas his looks are meaner then his personality. Her neighbors are afraid of his looks (I do wonder about the guy who found her dog having opened the screen door to the neighbors house and let himself inside to eat the cat food), but he's more like a big teady bear.

[JohnsonLKD]

Originally posted by nazistguy
This one is scarier !!!
http://tolweb.org/tree/eukaryotes/animals/mollusca/cephalopoda/coleoidea/decapodiformes/loliginidae/sepioteuthis/Sepioteu.jpg

http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

Eh... two squid fishes?

[[Corporal Dan]]

DaveW...

"You see a mutant with an incredibly small cranium"

[DaveW]

huh? did someone mention me?

[Feanor]

Originally posted by nazistguy

But that's not the point I asserted. If a human baby is born with its head without a thin cartilage "opening"(don't know the english name), they become retarded, because the brain will not be able to grow. So something like that would happen to that dog, not about the opening, but genetic structure wouldn't allow its head to grow. That's what I meant.

That is the point your statement leads too. Head size alone is irrelavent for humans as well as dogs. Look not just at the head size compared to the lense cap, but compared to the body (also shown in picture as well). Quite frankly a human sized head on the body that small would not only be disproportionate...but it would be arguable how such tiny muscles (as depicted by the size body) would even hold it up.

And no you should not confuse a birth defect with something that could be completely normal for the different species/breed in question. Quite frankly, having a head that gets smacked around on the ground by gravity all the time, because the bone and muscular structures in the body are wholly incapable in holding it up, wouldn't be good for IQ either, if the skull doesn't well protect it. AKA brain damage and head injuries... It is not without a certain biological advantage to have different parts of the body in proportion with the whole. Something is too far out of whack for that body as a whole..., I head that is like 10-100x the size of the rest of the body would probably be difficult to hold up.

I don't agree with completly with that kind of reasoning of brain/body ration( I know you also don't, but I would like to show what I think, although I am not trying to opose your point) ,

Well brain/body ratio is part of the point. Homo Sapiens do not have the largest brains on the planet although some of the species with larger brains also have much more massive bodies. At the opposite extreme though we could look at an extremly massive (though now extinct) species such at T Rex that had a really large body, but smaller brain in comparison...

However there are other factors such as

- Brain organization...really only way some people can now give explenation to why Neanderthals had bigger brains then us (1,600 cu cm for them, 1,400 cu cm for us, both on average)

- Not all geniuses had larger heads

- Albert Einstein is quotes as once having said that the average human being uses only 5% of their brain. Most modern researchers say that is too much, and on average only about 2-3% of the brains potential is used throughout a human's lifetime.

the point of the high relation in primates are given by their thin bodies, need to deal with very unstable equilibria, and that is a special need in humans in order to keep an erect walk(of course , no prejudice to fat people, because the relation is a cubic one). The relation for the gorilas are smaller than those of chimpanzes, but the do equaly well in intelligence tests.

Actually the standard which I have seen is more brain volume divided by length of spinal column...a linear number. They aren't dividing body volume, but rather the length from the base of the (in us medula oblungata or brain stem) to the far tip of the spine.

Of course when looking at size of head, don't neglect that for land animals, the body does have to be able to hold the thing up...a head too bulky for the body would be impossible to hold up, aka the animal couldn't walk, find food, survive... Certainly with land animals...

Orca whales are very smart, much smarter than mice, but their brain body relation is the same of them.

Brain organization is also another factor There is no one factor in isolation

If you have a huge body, but you have to keep a complex behavior, your brain relation sometimes must shrink, otherwise the sinapse would take a long time to cross distant areas of the brain.

This some might find interesting, in looking at the human brain (and we do have a fairly high ratio of brain measured in cu cm against spinal chord length in cm) with the mention of grey matter (the cerebral cortex) and white matter, the mylean sheath around the neurons in white matter serves a purpose. The glial cells that surround those neurons are actually able to help speed up nerve impulses by quite a bit...

Anyway, this relation is right for 90% tetrapods (animals with four legs or residual ones). You can estimate roughly the behaviour respond of most of them. Although the comparison must be restricted to its respective class(mammal, repitile, bird), due to very different brain structures and metabolism.

Looking at anything here, there are many factors that are involved, and not one alone. One can't look at just one factor and gather everything...in fact researchers still have trouble understanding absolutely how memory for instance works, I won't even get into definitions of consciousness, or what have you. For each thing that has been figured out so far, there is much more when it comes to brains and minds that people have yet to learn.

The fact that a reptile for example have a smooth brain, ( don't know the name in english), restricts very much the area of the cortex , besides their low average metabolism.

The convulusions (number of them) can effect surface area and the amound of cerebral cortex present. In fact in cases of cerebral palsy, the amount of cortex is kind of deficient.

And there's the point of what is intelligence, because some species develops more capacities to solve several kind of different problems. And this is related, in some of the cases, to the rugosity of some parts of the brain.

Hell, even within our own species there is no one all encompasing definition for intelligence. Then again IQ tests can vary (test different things or different assortment of things) and yet as I remember Albert Einstein might not have been at top on everything (tieing his shoes, some school classes, etc) and yet then there is what he is remembered for. Some would argue that IQ tests though they could measure success in school, when one enters the real world, their results can mean less.

Then there are those who consider intelligence to be one ability, others say it's an assortment of different abilities. And yet not all researchers agreed on the list of what those abilities are. Then again some IQ tests are culturally biased (for instance one asked a question about dealing with a a cut or injury, that treated the western way of dealing with it as the intelligent answer, and graded the traditional native American way dumb)

Then with some questions African Americans would look dumber, because again their speech can differ from white Americans...

Does this bring back the whole secution we spent on IQ tests when I was taking psych 101 some 9 or 10 years ago... Anyway, it can be a lot easier identifying a seemingly intelligent person against a dullard, then it can be to sit down and try to create some kind of all inclusive definition to list the qualities of intelligence.

[Redeemed]

That is the point your statement leads too. Head size alone is irrelavent for humans as well as dogs. Look not just at the head size compared to the lense cap, but compared to the body (also shown in picture as well). Quite frankly a human sized head on the body that small would not only be disproportionate...but it would be arguable how such tiny muscles (as depicted by the size body) would even hold it up.

And no you should not confuse a birth defect with something that could be completely normal for the different species/breed in question. Quite frankly, having a head that gets smacked around on the ground by gravity all the time, because the bone and muscular structures in the body are wholly incapable in holding it up, wouldn't be good for IQ either, if the skull doesn't well protect it. AKA brain damage and head injuries... It is not without a certain biological advantage to have different parts of the body in proportion with the whole. Something is too far out of whack for that body as a whole..., I head that is like 10-100x the size of the rest of the body would probably be difficult to hold up.



Well brain/body ratio is part of the point. Homo Sapiens do not have the largest brains on the planet although some of the species with larger brains also have much more massive bodies. At the opposite extreme though we could look at an extremly massive (though now extinct) species such at T Rex that had a really large body, but smaller brain in comparison...

However there are other factors such as

- Brain organization...really only way some people can now give explenation to why Neanderthals had bigger brains then us (1,600 cu cm for them, 1,400 cu cm for us, both on average)

- Not all geniuses had larger heads

- Albert Einstein is quotes as once having said that the average human being uses only 5% of their brain. Most modern researchers say that is too much, and on average only about 2-3% of the brains potential is used throughout a human's lifetime.



Actually the standard which I have seen is more brain volume divided by length of spinal column...a linear number. They aren't dividing body volume, but rather the length from the base of the (in us medula oblungata or brain stem) to the far tip of the spine.

Of course when looking at size of head, don't neglect that for land animals, the body does have to be able to hold the thing up...a head too bulky for the body would be impossible to hold up, aka the animal couldn't walk, find food, survive... Certainly with land animals...



Brain organization is also another factor There is no one factor in isolation



This some might find interesting, in looking at the human brain (and we do have a fairly high ratio of brain measured in cu cm against spinal chord length in cm) with the mention of grey matter (the cerebral cortex) and white matter, the mylean sheath around the neurons in white matter serves a purpose. The glial cells that surround those neurons are actually able to help speed up nerve impulses by quite a bit...



Looking at anything here, there are many factors that are involved, and not one alone. One can't look at just one factor and gather everything...in fact researchers still have trouble understanding absolutely how memory for instance works, I won't even get into definitions of consciousness, or what have you. For each thing that has been figured out so far, there is much more when it comes to brains and minds that people have yet to learn.



The convulusions (number of them) can effect surface area and the amound of cerebral cortex present. In fact in cases of cerebral palsy, the amount of cortex is kind of deficient.



Hell, even within our own species there is no one all encompasing definition for intelligence. Then again IQ tests can vary (test different things or different assortment of things) and yet as I remember Albert Einstein might not have been at top on everything (tieing his shoes, some school classes, etc) and yet then there is what he is remembered for. Some would argue that IQ tests though they could measure success in school, when one enters the real world, their results can mean less.

Then there are those who consider intelligence to be one ability, others say it's an assortment of different abilities. And yet not all researchers agreed on the list of what those abilities are. Then again some IQ tests are culturally biased (for instance one asked a question about dealing with a a cut or injury, that treated the western way of dealing with it as the intelligent answer, and graded the traditional native American way dumb)

Then with some questions African Americans would look dumber, because again their speech can differ from white Americans...

Does this bring back the whole secution we spent on IQ tests when I was taking psych 101 some 9 or 10 years ago... Anyway, it can be a lot easier identifying a seemingly intelligent person against a dullard, then it can be to sit down and try to create some kind of all inclusive definition to list the qualities of intelligence.

I agree completely. :bleh:

[bob saget]

Yea, I was just going to say that.

[DiscipleDOC]

Why??

[Redeemed]

It's a scary dog, DOC! :(

[General Lee]

I think Redeemed mistakenly ate some of Melfranks' brownies.

"Hey! Everything looks like noodles in here!"

:D

[trivium nate]

link broken

[General Lee]

link broken

That's because Redeemed was feeling nostalgic, and revived a thread that not even a necrophiliac would bother with. :lol:

[crainger]

Would would dig such an old thread??

[wysiwyg]

I WANNA SEE THE DOGGY!