10 Ways Humans Are Still Evolving

[jillery]

In a change from his usual style, Larry Moran embedded a video in this
blog:

<http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016/09/ten-adaptationist-stories-about-recent.html>

It's a short (9 minute) skit of two attractive young people having fun
identifying ten recent human adaptations.

Moran's response was to label each one as to the likelihood of it
being a real adaptation. My frustration is he didn't explain his
opinions. For example, for "Blond hair", he says it's a "probably
false adaptation".

Given his previously expressed opinions, I assume he means that
feature probably doesn't provide a selective advantage, but it's
appearance is the result of drift.

My impression is blond hair is adaptive in two ways: 1) in most
populations, blond hair is distinctive, which encourages sexual
selection, and 2) humans tend to be attracted to infantile features;
large head and eyes, small nose and mouth, flattened faces, blond
hair.

OTOH nowadays most blond hair comes from a bottle, a consequence of
culture, not genes. So it's likely that blonds still have more fun,
but the feature is no longer a matter of evolution.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[RSNorman]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:56:15 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I find it interesting that Larry only says that only three of the ten
are at all adaptive and one of those is "probably" and another
"trivial".

Sexual selection is a strange factor. Darwin seems to have mentioned
it as very distinct from "natural" selection because in so many cases
it seemed very obvious that the feature was maladaptive from a
survival perspective. There are some arguments that try to suggest
that very bright coloration patterns or excessively elaborate
structural features are also signs of high nutritional and health
states and so are signals of adaptive fitness. Still, sexual
selection is another alternative beyond drift for blond hair.

[Earle Jones27]

*
But it is still what (some) gentlemen prefer.

Not me – I rather like short skinny Asians.

earle
*

[jillery]

Sure, those are competing features. Now imagine a short skinny Asian
blond.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I used to think of myself as "post-racial", but had to come back to
reality as the rest of the world beyond my naive bubble still has
hangups on this, even as gay marriage is at least now legal and we have
a blackish POTUS I voted for twice happily (damn term limits!).

The nosedive of the past couple years in the US has me second guessing
my optimism (is that my white privilege talking?), but I have dated
Asian, Hispanic, and African American (and Afro-Latino) women. Obviously
racial hangups have diminished as for relationships, but given the
recent strife amongst communities in the US I cannot say there's been
much improvement in racial/ethnic outlook overall since the violent
strife of the 60s. That makes me very sad, especially after the vomit
inducing rhetoric of this election cycle. I fear the nascent rage of the
closeted brown shirts and the tatted 88s.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Asians and African Americans have gone blonde. Doesn't mean they have
any more fun.

Now it's the purple, red velvet, green and orange emo trends that have
passed us by. Why stick to natural colors when there are so many more
palette options for all skin tones (ethnicities)? Sure purple hair
doesn't pass on genetically but it could become an intergenerational
option.

[Earle Jones27]

*
AAAHHGGG! Cognitive dissonance.

earle
*

[*Hemidactylus*]

Is it sad Asians have plastic surgery to change eye features? The blonde
thing is at least reversible. But conforming to a culturally hegemonic
norm is a bit twisted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blepharoplasty#Society_and_culture

[*Hemidactylus*]

Is focus on blonde hair a matter of white privilege? How prevalent is
this trait beyond North Europeans? In the distant past how many
gentlemen preferred Subsaharan African, Asian or Native American
blondes? Is it in the eye of the beholder writing the culturally biased
article? And beyond that, like eyelids in some Asians, does it become a
matter of cultural taste retrofitted to some fantasized evolutionary
*golden* age? Yes I think I accidented upon a pun there. I call bullshit.

If history turned out different we might be seeing straight haired
Asians and Euros trying to increase tightness of their hair kinks and
wideness of their nose as that would be the dominant norm. Taste is a
fickle thing.

[jonathan]

Here's a nice example of maladaptive structural features
and bright coloration used in human mating displays
and it actually shows the new adaptation as it
evolves from one to the other...who says you
can"t see evolution take place?

Notice the clear Geese-like flocking behavior emerge
where the lead bird is followed with clock like
precision in the second half.

video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbwYARgdD3Y


>
>
>

[jillery]

Some Japanese also get plastic surgery to reshape their navels, to a
preferred almond shape. But these things are no different in any
other culture with discretionary income. It's the stereotype for
indulgent Semitic parents to give their daughters a nose job as a
birthday present.

And women everywhere and when have abused their bodies in an effort to
be fashionable. Don't forget the "tiny Chinese feet" of the past,
which isn't much different from pointed-toe stiletto heels in the
modern fashionable West. And never forget the FGM still practiced
today among many Muslims.

[jillery]

What you describe above are changes in fashion, and yes, fashion is a
fickle thing. It used to be fashionable for women to be plump, then
to be skinny, now to be muscular.And fashionable breast and hip sizes
have changed much in my lifetime.

My impression is at least part of the reason is a continuing effort to
look different. As one fashion trend becomes more common, it
necessarily becomes less different, and so initiates another change.

[RonO]

QUOTE:
Blond hair: PROBABLY FALSE ADAPTATION
Lactose tolerance: PROBABLY A TRUE ADAPTATION
Eating wheat: PROBABLY FALSE ADAPTATION
Losing wisdom teeth: PROBABLY FALSE ADAPTATION
Smaller brains: LIKELY FALSE ADAPATION
Getting shorter: ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE
Malaria resistance: CERTAINLY TRUE
HIV Resistance: TRUE BUT TRIVIAL
Male extroverts: PROBABLY FALSE ADAPTATION
Having kids earlier: ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE ADAPTATION
END QUOTE:

Blond hair is actually a plieotropic trait and alleles that affect hair
color also affect skin color and there has obviously been adaptation of
skin color. You just have to look at the distribution of skin color by
latitude to understand that.

Eating wheat: We are obviously adapting to a diet with more carbohydrate
since the invention of agriculture. It may not be a specific adaptation
to wheat, but wheat is not the only grain that requires the amylases
that are obviously increasing in non huntergatherer populations.

Wisdom teeth is something that were likely a benefit to Neandertal and
Cro Magnon populations where they had more robust skulls and larger
faces. The recent dimunition of the face is something that we haven't
figure out as to why we went that way, but a smaller jaw means that we
have too many teeth in some modern human populations. We have selected
for smaller teeth in today's modern humans. Some modern humans still
have jaws large enough to accomodate wisdom teeth. Many of us have them
removed. Lack of wisdom teeth is a plus in some populations where
wisdom teeth are associated with impaction and infection of the jaw.
The bottom line is that teeth seem to be getting smaller and some people
have the variant of no or reduced wisdom teeth and it is due to the
reduction in the size of our faces that likely was subject to selection.

Smaller brains: We have smaller brains than Neandertal and Cro Magnon.
Compared to these versions of Homo we are gracile. Our average cranial
capacity has decrease, but compared to muscle and bone mass it may not
be much smaller. If you go to Paabo video thread and watch his slides
he has a picture of Neandertal and Modern human skeletons side by side.
Look at the difference in the hips. Neandertal babies would likely have
been a problem for modern human females to birth. The pelvic opening is
obviously larger in Neandertal than modern humans. Most likely our
babies are born with smaller heads. Smaller brains may be part of this
adaptation where we placed more emphasis on locomotion than cranial size
of our babies. The pelvic opening is almost too small for the babies
that modern humans do produce. There has been obvious selection to find
this balance, part of that balance is cranial size.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/u3O9kDHvWYM/glVwlr15BQAJ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7VdRKQuAa8
6:35 into the video. This video is actually a very good video to watch
to get some understanding of what we are learning about the past from
ancient genomes and modern genomes.

Getting shorter: This likely is an adaptation for some populations such
as arctic Inuits and some island populations may have benefited from
reduced body size (less food needed, larger population possible). You
also have Congo pygmies and San bushmen populations. They obviously
took a different path than Zulus or the Dutch.

Having kids earlier: Beats me what this is about. We likely would
benefit from women being able to have children at a younger age, just
due to the limitation of the sexual reproductive process our mammalian
ancestors stuck us with. It was likely just great for an organism with
a life span of weeks or a few years, but for humans and other long lived
species it isn't so great. For some reason we stop meiosis at stage 1
and the chromosomes just stop there waiting for the final meiotic
division to produce the haploid cells. Most of the eggs reach this
stage when the females are only a couple years old. By the time a woman
is 40 she has around 1 in a hundred chance of chromosomal screw ups
happening, and the rate just keeps increasing as she gets older. The
longer a woman waits to have children the greater the chances of these
defects occurring. That is just fact.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Of course, hair color, eye color, and skin color are highly
correlated. So it's not surprising that fair-skinned people also have
lighter colored hair. If that was all there was to it, it would be as
you suggest above, that blond hair is just an artifact of moving to
higher latitudes.

However, there are other genes which control hair color separately
from skin color. And there are still other genes which control hair
color on different parts of the body. It's quite common among
Caucasians for scalp hair color to be different than body hair. I
personally know of one person who innately has a blond scalp, copper
red beard and chest, and dark brown pubic hair. I personally know of
another person who innately has auburn patches in a field of brown
scalp hair. When she lets her hair grow long, it's as if her hair was
streaked with henna.

Considering that other mammals naturally display a broad range of hair
color regardless of latitude, it's plausible that human genes could
also allow for naturally blond hair independent of skin color.

Even among fair-skinned populations, naturally blond adults are a
minority. My hypothesis is that blond hair is sexually selected for
in part because it's strikingly different. So if some haplotype
created a blond hair within a dark-skinned population, I would expect
that combination to increase by sexual selection.

>Eating wheat: We are obviously adapting to a diet with more carbohydrate
>since the invention of agriculture. It may not be a specific adaptation
>to wheat, but wheat is not the only grain that requires the amylases
>that are obviously increasing in non huntergatherer populations.

Of course, the ability to metabolize carbohydrates is one requirement
for eating wheat and other grains. Other apes, such as gorilla and
orangutan, eat plants, so I suppose they metabolize carbohydrates, so
perhaps that's a common feature among all apes.

However, wheat includes other ingredients, as those who suffer Celiac
Disease know only too well. So it's necessary to metabolize the
protein gluten as well. Since that ability is advantageous
specifically to the presence of food grains, I conclude that feature
in a population is the result of adaptation.

>Wisdom teeth is something that were likely a benefit to Neandertal and
>Cro Magnon populations where they had more robust skulls and larger
>faces. The recent dimunition of the face is something that we haven't
>figure out as to why we went that way, but a smaller jaw means that we
>have too many teeth in some modern human populations. We have selected
>for smaller teeth in today's modern humans. Some modern humans still
>have jaws large enough to accomodate wisdom teeth. Many of us have them
>removed. Lack of wisdom teeth is a plus in some populations where
>wisdom teeth are associated with impaction and infection of the jaw.
>The bottom line is that teeth seem to be getting smaller and some people
>have the variant of no or reduced wisdom teeth and it is due to the
>reduction in the size of our faces that likely was subject to selection.

My impression is our smaller jaw and teeth are the result of sexual
selection of neotonous features. But whatever the cause, the
consequence of impacted wisdom teeth is potentially fatal to those who
face it.

But it's not clear to me that adaptation can help. First, wisdom
teeth appear late in life, well after puberty, and presumably already
reproduced some children. Second, it's possible that other molars
have fallen out by then, either from decay or accident, so there is no
risk of impaction in those cases.

So I agree that the genetic lack of wisdom teeth is not the result of
direct adaptation, but is at best an artifact of some other selective
adaptation, or more likely simply drift.

>Smaller brains: We have smaller brains than Neandertal and Cro Magnon.
>Compared to these versions of Homo we are gracile. Our average cranial
>capacity has decrease, but compared to muscle and bone mass it may not
>be much smaller. If you go to Paabo video thread and watch his slides
>he has a picture of Neandertal and Modern human skeletons side by side.
>Look at the difference in the hips. Neandertal babies would likely have
>been a problem for modern human females to birth. The pelvic opening is
>obviously larger in Neandertal than modern humans. Most likely our
>babies are born with smaller heads. Smaller brains may be part of this
>adaptation where we placed more emphasis on locomotion than cranial size
>of our babies. The pelvic opening is almost too small for the babies
>that modern humans do produce. There has been obvious selection to find
>this balance, part of that balance is cranial size.
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/u3O9kDHvWYM/glVwlr15BQAJ
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7VdRKQuAa8
>6:35 into the video. This video is actually a very good video to watch
>to get some understanding of what we are learning about the past from
>ancient genomes and modern genomes.
>
>Getting shorter: This likely is an adaptation for some populations such
>as arctic Inuits and some island populations may have benefited from
>reduced body size (less food needed, larger population possible). You
>also have Congo pygmies and San bushmen populations. They obviously
>took a different path than Zulus or the Dutch.

Shortness is a genetically dominant trait among humans.
Shorter/smaller is advantageous in environments where resources,
especially food, are scarce. OTOH taller/bigger is advantageous in
intraspecies rivalries. So the different haplotypes are advantageous
in different environments and support different survival strategies.
My understanding is we see these effects even today.

>Having kids earlier: Beats me what this is about. We likely would
>benefit from women being able to have children at a younger age, just
>due to the limitation of the sexual reproductive process our mammalian
>ancestors stuck us with. It was likely just great for an organism with
>a life span of weeks or a few years, but for humans and other long lived
>species it isn't so great. For some reason we stop meiosis at stage 1
>and the chromosomes just stop there waiting for the final meiotic
>division to produce the haploid cells. Most of the eggs reach this
>stage when the females are only a couple years old. By the time a woman
>is 40 she has around 1 in a hundred chance of chromosomal screw ups
>happening, and the rate just keeps increasing as she gets older. The
>longer a woman waits to have children the greater the chances of these
>defects occurring. That is just fact.

IIUC men also face increased genetic defects with age, although
perhaps not as severe as women. OTOH human females generally stop
ovulating after menopause, typically in their 40s, while human males
produce ever more defective sperm throughout their lives. So it's not
clear to me which strategy produces more genetic defects overall.

[RSNorman]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:58:34 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

Any possible preference for blondes is probably cultural as you point
out. The prevalence of blondes in certain populations is biological.
Originally it could well have been a cultural prediliction (demand?)
to mate entirely within ones own community and not with those awful
semi-human "others." That, as opposed to an innate behavior. However
that would stell be a form of selection, artificial as opposed to
natural or sexual.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:14:59 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RSNorman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:

I'd think there's a significant overlap between sexual and
artificial selection, since both seem to me to be based on
perceptions. Not so?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[RSNorman]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 11:04:22 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

I distinguish between behavior based on biology, innate and
instinctive, and that based on cultue and learning. The term
"artificial selection" is not ordinarily used in this context. But it
does resemble breeding dogs or goldfish or pigeons to produce a
population whose appearance is deemed attractive by the current
cultural fad.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 11:04:22 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Sexual selection is an instinctive attraction, by the potentially
mating pair themselves. Artificial selection is an choice imposed by
a third party based on expected modification of progeny. IOW a couple
getting busy because they're hot for each other is sexual selection. A
couple doing their duty in a marriage their parents arranged is
artificial selection.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 14:27:06 -0400, the following appeared

OK. I guess my perception of overlap comes from the language
used in popular literature to describe sexual selection in
such species as peafowl, in which the peahen "perceives" an
impressive peacock's tail as "indicating an individual with
sufficient extra resources to support a structure with no
inherent survival value, and thus a better prospective
mate". If peahens have become "hard-wired" over many
generations to select peacocks with the most impressive
tails there's no real "choice through perception" involved.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 15:47:26 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

OK. As I noted in my response to Richard, I was including
(mistakenly, due to language used in popularizations, as I
noted) selection of such things as tails on peacocks in
sexual selection via "conscious" decision by peahens.

[jillery]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 11:21:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

I suppose peahens make a conscious decision about which peacock to
mate with, to the degree peahens are conscious, but the key question
is what are they deciding on? IOW are they actually aware that it's
the peacock's tail that attracts them? My guess is it's the peahen's
equivalent of human females putting out for musicians because of how
the music makes them feel.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 16:53:06 -0400, the following appeared

According to Richard this is not the case; the selection
criteria have become "hard wired" in peahens in lockstep
with the changes in the tails of the peacocks, so the
peahens really have no conscious choice in the matter.

>, but the key question
>is what are they deciding on? IOW are they actually aware that it's
>the peacock's tail that attracts them?

Doubtful; it's probably more that the gestalt of each
prospective suitor operates to produce a
genetically-determined outcome.

> My guess is it's the peahen's
>equivalent of human females putting out for musicians because of how
>the music makes them feel.

....or why Harley riders have more fun ("potato, potato,
potato", all generating...ummm..."interesting" vibrations).
;-)

[RSNorman]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:46:04 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

What constitutes "conscious" decisions even in humans is up to some
question. I won't even dare comment on peahen consciousness. If the
peahen looks at a particularly ornate peacock and thinks "God, he's
hot! I am getting really horny just looking at him." Is that
conscious?

>>, but the key question
>>is what are they deciding on? IOW are they actually aware that it's
>>the peacock's tail that attracts them?
>
>Doubtful; it's probably more that the gestalt of each
>prospective suitor operates to produce a
>genetically-determined outcome.

In ethology, the study of animal behavior, there is a particular "sign
stimulus" represented by the pattern of the peacock's tail. That
triggers an "innate releasing mechanism" in the nervous system that
goes on to elicit a "fixed action pattern response."

The peacock tail involves a rather more complex response, not anywhere
as automatic or rigid in execution as fixed action patterns. But
still there is a particular visual display that stimulates an
endocrine response in the female to increase the level of reproductive
behavior. No doubt the pea hen gets a real kick out of mating with a
particularly spectacular cock. But whether there is a "conscious
decision" is another story.

What is important is that peahens innately prefer peacocks with finer
tail displays. They don't have to learn it.

[jillery]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:46:04 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

I don't know if Richard actually said that, but it's not correct, or
is at least very misleading. If that were literally true, peahens
would drop their feathers at the first sight of a tom, and there would
be no selection, and no fancy peacock tails. Instead, peahens, like
many other lady birds, are extremely selective with whom they mate. In
fact, it's the peahen's extreme selectivity which led to the peacock's
fantastic plumage.

According to Wikipedia, Richard Dawkins presented an explanation for
runaway sexual selection in The Blind Watchmaker. Females who prefer
long tailed males tend to have mothers that chose long-tailed fathers.
As a result, they carry both sets of genes in their bodies. That is,
genes for long tails and for preferring long tails become linked. The
taste for long tails and tail length itself may therefore become
correlated, tending to increase together. The more tails lengthen, the
more long tails are desired.

So I agree peahens' selection criteria is hard-wired, but the peahens
actively apply those criteria. My point is they aren't making a
conscious decisions about tail-length per se, but are responding to
how tail-length (and other things) affect them.

>>, but the key question
>>is what are they deciding on? IOW are they actually aware that it's
>>the peacock's tail that attracts them?
>
>Doubtful; it's probably more that the gestalt of each
>prospective suitor operates to produce a
>genetically-determined outcome.
>
>> My guess is it's the peahen's
>>equivalent of human females putting out for musicians because of how
>>the music makes them feel.
>
>....or why Harley riders have more fun ("potato, potato,
>potato", all generating...ummm..."interesting" vibrations).
>;-)
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:12:04 -0400, the following appeared

I'd say so; the question is whether a peahen *could* have
that level of consciousness.

>>>, but the key question
>>>is what are they deciding on? IOW are they actually aware that it's
>>>the peacock's tail that attracts them?
>>
>>Doubtful; it's probably more that the gestalt of each
>>prospective suitor operates to produce a
>>genetically-determined outcome.
>
>In ethology, the study of animal behavior, there is a particular "sign
>stimulus" represented by the pattern of the peacock's tail. That
>triggers an "innate releasing mechanism" in the nervous system that
>goes on to elicit a "fixed action pattern response."
>
>The peacock tail involves a rather more complex response, not anywhere
>as automatic or rigid in execution as fixed action patterns. But
>still there is a particular visual display that stimulates an
>endocrine response in the female to increase the level of reproductive
>behavior. No doubt the pea hen gets a real kick out of mating with a
>particularly spectacular cock. But whether there is a "conscious
>decision" is another story.
>
>What is important is that peahens innately prefer peacocks with finer
>tail displays. They don't have to learn it.

OK. Taking "innate" to mean "biologically determined via
genetics" I believe that's what I said; the response isn't
subject to conscious control by the peahen. And I'd suppose
isn't subject to "current fashion". Or to the peacock's bank
balance.

>>> My guess is it's the peahen's
>>>equivalent of human females putting out for musicians because of how
>>>the music makes them feel.
>>
>>....or why Harley riders have more fun ("potato, potato,
>>potato", all generating...ummm..."interesting" vibrations).
>>;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 22:57:49 -0400, the following appeared

That's what I meant when I used the phrase "in lockstep";
the similarity to the ongoing evolutionary battle between
predators and prey is analogous. Sorry if I was unclear.

>According to Wikipedia, Richard Dawkins presented an explanation for
>runaway sexual selection in The Blind Watchmaker. Females who prefer
>long tailed males tend to have mothers that chose long-tailed fathers.
>As a result, they carry both sets of genes in their bodies. That is,
>genes for long tails and for preferring long tails become linked. The
>taste for long tails and tail length itself may therefore become
>correlated, tending to increase together. The more tails lengthen, the
>more long tails are desired.

Yep.

>So I agree peahens' selection criteria is hard-wired, but the peahens
>actively apply those criteria. My point is they aren't making a
>conscious decisions about tail-length per se, but are responding to
>how tail-length (and other things) affect them.

But my point was that the selection, active or passive, is
not under conscious control (whatever "conscious" might mean
at the moment) by the peahen, just as tail length isn't
under conscious control by the peacock; I don't think a
"LENGTHEN YOUR TAIL FEATHERS!" email would draw a
response...

IOW, neither actually thinks about it if the response is
hard-wired.

>>>, but the key question
>>>is what are they deciding on? IOW are they actually aware that it's
>>>the peacock's tail that attracts them?
>>
>>Doubtful; it's probably more that the gestalt of each
>>prospective suitor operates to produce a
>>genetically-determined outcome.
>>
>>> My guess is it's the peahen's
>>>equivalent of human females putting out for musicians because of how
>>>the music makes them feel.
>>
>>....or why Harley riders have more fun ("potato, potato,
>>potato", all generating...ummm..."interesting" vibrations).
>>;-)
--

[jillery]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:31:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

The peahen explicitly and obviously chooses a mate from among several
candidates. How is that not "conscioius control?

>>>> My guess is it's the peahen's
>>>>equivalent of human females putting out for musicians because of how
>>>>the music makes them feel.
>>>
>>>....or why Harley riders have more fun ("potato, potato,
>>>potato", all generating...ummm..."interesting" vibrations).
>>>;-)
--

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:50:57 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

When we itch we scratch and we scratch specifically where it itches.
Is that conscious control? When we are thirsty we change our behavior
to seek water. Is that conscious control? There are all different
levels of behavior. The real question is whether the peahen's
behavior is determined innately, through the genes controlling the way
the nervous system develops, or whether it represents some sort of
"free choice".

Note that there are those who say that even our human notion of "free
choice" is the "consciousness module" making up a nice story to
explain why we do things long after our subconscious has already made
the decision.

[jillery]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:45:27 -0400, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>

You frame the question under discussion incorrectly. I'm not
discussing free will here. The question I raise is nothing as
metaphysical as that. Nor do I question that peahens' behavior is
ultimately instinctive. Instead, my question is merely what is the
peahens' perception of the stimulus to which they respond.

If you have watched Attenborough's nature videos, you are intimately
aware of how choosy female birds like peahens are. One can't help but
feel a little sympathy for the hapless male who does his best to
impress, only to have the female fly or walk away.

That peahens are so choosy suggests they seek to maximize a stimulus,
and so are aware of their response. Using your analogy, peahens don't
just slake their thirst, but instead look for he finest bottled water,
chilled to perfection. Or, if you prefer, they don't scratch just any
itch, but instead explicitly seek out the most intense itch.

And it's not just the peacock's tail length that creates that itch,
but instead it's a gestalt of length and colors and patterns and
irredescences and movements. If the peahens' response were as simple
and automatic and instinctive as you describe, peahens would show no
preference, and there would be no grand peacock tail in the first
place.

[rsNorman]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

I did frame the question in a way that emphasizes the automatic
aspect of the behavior. Whether that is incorrect or not is a
judgment that we disagree on. But, more important, we completely
agree on what is going on but just disagree on what words to use
to describe it.

I focused on the use of the word "conscious" since you ask "how
is that not conscious?" When Google maps "chooses" the "best"
route by considering alternatives and evaluates all sorts of
factors like speed limits and traffic levels would you ask the
same question? When a self-driving car takes you for a trip,
would you ask the same question? Or would you say that is the way
the programmed algorithm works. You are right that it not one
single factor in the tail that produces the choice and it is not
simply examining one peacock but rather, after being visually
stimulated by a succession of possible mates, possibly also
interacting with them as well. Still I claim that instinctive
behavior is best described as "an algorithm at work" and not as
"conscious choice."

Perhaps a parallel might be the notion of design. We argue here
about whether even there is a notion of "appearance" of design.
Nevertheless, that is the way people look at a situation. Still
we insist that the "appearance" of design is superficial and
there is no real design, no real designer with intent,
underlying. I think this is somewhat similar. The "appearance"
of choice or even conscious choice is superficial and there is no
real choice, no real consciousness with intent, underlying.
Criticize this as a false parallel if you like but I think
something similar is going on.

I also realize that my attitude is exactly that of traditional
old-fashioned biologists and animal behaviorists who reject the
notion of non-human consciousness, at least when the non-humans
are not even mammals. Perhaps there is some change in attitude
about this. I admit it has not yet reach me.



--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:50:57 -0400, the following appeared

The fact that a choice is made says nothing about how that
choice came about; it could have been via conscious
selection, or via innate bias controlled by genetics, just
as selecting the large ball from an array of smaller balls
could be via conscious choice or via a screen filter which
allows only the larger ball to pass over; my impression is
that the sort of "choice" made by peahens is much closer to
the latter than to the former; IOW, it doesn't *require* the
peahen to think for the selection process to work.

If you want to say that *any* selection is indicative of
conscious (i.e., reasoned) evaluation at some level, fine.
But that's not what I meant by "conscious".

>>>>> My guess is it's the peahen's
>>>>>equivalent of human females putting out for musicians because of how
>>>>>the music makes them feel.
>>>>
>>>>....or why Harley riders have more fun ("potato, potato,
>>>>potato", all generating...ummm..."interesting" vibrations).
>>>>;-)
--

[jillery]

You also focused on "free will", for reasons which have nothing to do
with what I wrote.

[jillery]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:25:09 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

That's not what I mean by "conscious", either. You don't say, but my
guess is your meaning is pretty close to mine, which follows
Wiktionary's definition, particularly 1. and 2.:

*********************************************
1. Alert, awake.
The noise woke me, but it was another few minutes before I was fully
conscious.

2. Aware.
I was conscious of a noise behind me.

3. Aware of one's own existence; aware of one's own awareness.
******************************************

If you go back to an earlier post of mine, you might notice that I
questioned the likelihood of peahens being directly aware of the
length of peacocks' tail feathers, but instead might base their choice
on an awareness of their perceived response to peacocks' plumage. It's
interesting to me to speculate on the nature of said response.
Apparently you and rnorman don't share that interest, which is fine by
me. But I don't understand why you two insist on raising unrelated
questions about reasoning and free-will, neither of which I even
mentioned.

[rsNorman]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Somehow my besotted geriatric brain suffers from the delusion
that, in common parlance, "conscious choice" is somehow related
to "free will." Thank you for clarifying your usage.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 03:42:27 -0400, the following appeared

I was thinking more of 3.

>If you go back to an earlier post of mine, you might notice that I
>questioned the likelihood of peahens being directly aware of the
>length of peacocks' tail feathers, but instead might base their choice
>on an awareness of their perceived response to peacocks' plumage. It's
>interesting to me to speculate on the nature of said response.

I agree, with the proviso that such awareness is likely
*un*conscious, which would seem to make it innate rather
than a conscious decision.

>Apparently you and rnorman don't share that interest

Actually I do, which is why I'm in this discussion.

>, which is fine by
>me. But I don't understand why you two insist on raising unrelated
>questions about reasoning and free-will, neither of which I even
>mentioned.

See def 3 again.

[jillery]

>Somehow my besotted geriatric brain suffers from the delusion
> that, in common parlance, "conscious choice" is somehow related
> to "free will." Thank you for clarifying your usage.

Now don't get emotional. I stipulate there may indeed be contexts
where "conscious" and "free will" are related. I stipulate there may
be contexts where "conscious" is related to other concepts nobody has
mentioned in this thread. But I did not refer to any of those
relations here, and it's perverse for you to imply that the veracity
of my argument relies on concepts to which I did not refer.

More to the point, my cite shows that said associations are moot in
ordinary contexts. And given that I had more than once explicitly
stated what I was talking about, it's perverse for you to imply that
my usage was unclear. Not to put too fine a point on it, if my usage
was unclear to you earlier, then you were remiss to not point it out
earlier.

Finally, whether your comment above is sincere or snark, those are
your words, and come from nothing I stated or implied. But I accept
it as your distinctive way of retracting your point without actually
admitting that your mention of free-will here has nothing to do with
my point.

[jillery]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:26:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

What does 3. have anything to do with reasoning?

>>If you go back to an earlier post of mine, you might notice that I
>>questioned the likelihood of peahens being directly aware of the
>>length of peacocks' tail feathers, but instead might base their choice
>>on an awareness of their perceived response to peacocks' plumage. It's
>>interesting to me to speculate on the nature of said response.
>
>I agree, with the proviso that such awareness is likely
>*un*conscious, which would seem to make it innate rather
>than a conscious decision.

How can an organism be aware of something *un*conscious?

>>Apparently you and rnorman don't share that interest
>
>Actually I do, which is why I'm in this discussion.

You have not been discussing my interest, but your own separate
interest. IOW we have been talking past each other.

>>, which is fine by
>>me. But I don't understand why you two insist on raising unrelated
>>questions about reasoning and free-will, neither of which I even
>>mentioned.
>
>See def 3 again.

Which is not my definition, as I explicitly stated many times. It's
unclear to me how you now claim it to be your definition.

[rsNorman]

Perhaps you missed my post where I said that we agree about what
is really going on and merely disagree about the words used to
describe it. It then went on to explain just why the "free will"
interpretation which people ordinarily use when somebody mentions
"conscious decision" is inappropriate. I am not the only one
here who mistook your interpretation of "conscious" in this
context.

[jillery]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:05:38 -0400 (EDT), rsNorman

I dsagree that most people would have equated the two in this context.
Perhaps if you had cited something to support your claim, but I don't
want to be accused of telling you how to post.

> I am not the only one
> here who mistook your interpretation of "conscious" in this
> context.

In fact, you are the only one to mistake my comments to be a reference
to "free-will". The whole other person here spun off from your
comments, but referred instead to "reasoning".

[rsNorman]

I understand this to mean that we are still in agreement but just
have too much fun arguing to stop it.

[jillery]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:17:37 -0400 (EDT), rsNorman

Well it's good to know one of us is having fun here.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:54:14 -0400, the following appeared

It has to do with consciousness, which I noted above I
equated with the ability to reason.

>>>If you go back to an earlier post of mine, you might notice that I
>>>questioned the likelihood of peahens being directly aware of the
>>>length of peacocks' tail feathers, but instead might base their choice
>>>on an awareness of their perceived response to peacocks' plumage. It's
>>>interesting to me to speculate on the nature of said response.
>>
>>I agree, with the proviso that such awareness is likely
>>*un*conscious, which would seem to make it innate rather
>>than a conscious decision.
>
>
>How can an organism be aware of something *un*conscious?

Exactly as you described, by making "decisions" based on
appearances not consciously evaluated.

>>>Apparently you and rnorman don't share that interest
>>
>>Actually I do, which is why I'm in this discussion.
>
>
>You have not been discussing my interest, but your own separate
>interest. IOW we have been talking past each other.

Could be, but the interests are related in that both deal
with selection criteria and how they're used.

>>>, which is fine by
>>>me. But I don't understand why you two insist on raising unrelated
>>>questions about reasoning and free-will, neither of which I even
>>>mentioned.
>>
>>See def 3 again.
>
>
>Which is not my definition, as I explicitly stated many times.

No argument here; we are using different definitions.

> It's
>unclear to me how you now claim it to be your definition.

Perhaps because we're attaching relative importance to
different definitions?

[jillery]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:50:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

<mercy snip>

>>>>>If you want to say that *any* selection is indicative of
>>>>>conscious (i.e., reasoned) evaluation at some level, fine.
>>>>>But that's not what I meant by "conscious".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's not what I mean by "conscious", either. You don't say, but my
>>>>guess is your meaning is pretty close to mine, which follows
>>>>Wiktionary's definition, particularly 1. and 2.:
>>>>
>>>>*********************************************
>>>>1. Alert, awake.
>>>>The noise woke me, but it was another few minutes before I was fully
>>>>conscious.
>>>>
>>>>2. Aware.
>>>>I was conscious of a noise behind me.
>>>>
>>>>3. Aware of one's own existence; aware of one's own awareness.
>>>>******************************************
>>>
>>>I was thinking more of 3.
>>
>>
>>What does 3. have anything to do with reasoning?
>
>It has to do with consciousness, which I noted above I
>equated with the ability to reason.

Right here would have been a good place for you to say how you equate
3. with the ability to reason. It's arguably a necessary condition,
but it's not a sufficient condition.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:00:31 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Point taken; I should have said "associate" rather than
"equate".