Where is the Evolution of Evolution?
Rui Monteiro
self? In essence, if the theory is too much rigid as we know it is,
and at the same time, stating that everything is dynamic. It sounds to
me a little bit hypocrite?
Thinking in this, maybe the real thing is not evolution, or mutation,
maybe the real thing is sameness and conservatism.
There is a subtle question here, a theory can't be independent from
what it says it is. Evolution like is presented today, states that
everything mutates except the theory itself. Is not this odd?
The only way to solve this, is with a theory that proves not the
source of mutation, but the source of conservatism. For instance,
physics are seeking a philosophy that the rules are static, there hare
things like the Theory of Everything, and a Theory of Everything that
are more about conservatism than evolutionism.
Isn't something escaping from Evolutionism that haven't been
considered. And if so, it's possible that the real thing, it will end
up, supporting more the static reality of nature than his hypothetical
mutation. And all of this in the name of coherence.
In conclusion, Evolution may simple bee the least interesting thing,
the most interesting thing may be instead, the static natural logic
that organisms try to fit.
chris thompson
You seem to be saying that evolutionary theory is static. Not so.
There have been quite a few changes in the ToE in the last 150 years.
To name a few: the "New Synthesis" when evolutionary theory was
combined with the emerging field of genetics, neutral theory,
punctuated equilibrium, and the combination with developmental biology
to form what's now called evo-devo.
Like any living science, evolutionary biology changes all the time.
Chris
Rui Monteiro
wrote:
Punctuated equilibrium, that is a good one. The main theory
evangelized by Richard Dawkins refutes Punctuated equilibrium.
In essence is the same, there is no doubt's about it.
Arkalen
And besides, the contention that a theory's form has to reflect its
content is rather strange. Some things have forms that reflect their
contents. Others don't. The word "abbreviated" isn't, nor is the word
"long". Why should a theory's form reflect its content ?
Rui Monteiro
Is that the best you can say?
Why? Coherence that's why.
Arkalen
anymore than all sets should contain themselves. And with theories
especially there's no reason it should happen. The theory of special
relativity isn't especially relative. The theory of gravity doesn't
attract massive objects. The germ theory of disease isn't any more
infectious than any other theory.
The theory of plate tectonics, now I'll grant you that was
earth-shattering :)
Will in New Haven
> self? In essence, if the theory is too much rigid as we know it is,
> and at the same time, stating that everything is dynamic. It sounds to
> me a little bit hypocrite?
The Theory of Evolution that you _know_ is rigid is in your alleged
mind. Biologists have made many modifications in the Theory,
responding to evidence.
--
Will in New Haven
chris thompson
What is that theory please? And why use the word "evangelized"?
Dawkins is an avowed atheist, and the last thing he would be doing is
evangelizing. He might be forceful in his views, but that's not the
same as evangelizing.
Chris
David Hare-Scott
That is silly for two reasons.
Firstly: it is only by your definition of 'theory' that the form of a
theory must be coherent with its content. Nobody else uses that
definition.
This is rather like you defining species to refer only to eukaryotes,
nobody else does it. {And on that issue you carefully ignore the fact
that not all eukaryotes reproduce sexually as well.}
Secondly: it is wrong in fact that the theory of evolution is
unchanging, it has often been modified and developed in response to
more and better observed data.
Instead of manufacturing controversy by using personal definitions and
ignoring facts why don't you learn some biology (and some history) and
then question the real ToE instead of the strange distorted one you
invented. Science thrives on genuine questioning but you have to
question the real thing.
David
Rui Monteiro
Don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist to.
I'm just trying to make a perceptive here. I'm not saying that
Evolution isn't true, what I'm saying is that it isn't The Real Thing.
When I use the word evangelist I mean that because Evolution was made
The Real Thing, everything are being fitted or tried to be fitted in
the Evolutionary Package. This trying has the following excellent
examples:
* - Religious beliefs have been Evolved in humans because has a sort
of importance;
* - Homosexuality Evolved because has a sort of importance;
* - Obesity Evolved because has a sort of importance;
* - Aggressiveness Evolved because has a sort of importance.
This Natural Selection exclusive model forces anything that are
recurrent to have some kind of advantage to had Evolved. And this
forcing on fitting a reality in the Evolutionary package, is, for
example, the Sound Byte for foreclosures or for bankruptcy, in a form
of, It's the Natural Selection, The Survival of the Fittest.
My point is very simple, I believe that there are things that are out
of the Evolutionary package. For instance, I believe in Entropy as a
reality outside of Evolution. Also I Believe in Induction outside of
Evolution, and so, and so on. This physical realities are outside that
package, and reflect the static side of nature.
So The Real Thing is not just Evolution, is also how Statical Nature
works, how we misconceive the action of this Static Nature, looking
only to the dynamics that came afterwards (Evolution). For instance,
is complexity possible without Sexual Selection? If not, you start to
realize that Natural Selection, the base of Evolution, can't per si
fully explain and support actual life. And the most reasonable
observation, is that Sexual Selection has more to do with this Static
Nature than with its Dynamics.
I also say evangelist because for me is someone that argues something
as true, and tries that other people think the same.
If you realize, Religion is a very static thing, and it's this static,
or conservatism side of Nature, that guide the downstream of
Evolution, in this way Evolution is in great extent, the pipe of a
predefined reality.
Rui Monteiro
Are you speaking of the New Mexico whiptail. Don't forget that they
still mate...!
And more important, only the ones that are ONLY (must be) asexual
technically count.
David Hare-Scott
No I am not. But it doesn't matter if all you are doing is refining
your private definition of 'species' for no good purpose. If you want
to communicate about evolution try using important terms in a way that
others will understand.
If you just want to waste time in pointless debates about your
definition of words you are not contributing any useful questions or
answers about science. Tell me do you know a fellow called Stephanus
who posts here as Backspace? You would have much in common.
I note you are carefully ignoring the rebuttals to your claim that
started this thread about evolution being unchanging. Either post
your evidence or do the right thing and retract.
David
Rolf
> How can evolution bee in all over the place except in the theory it
> self? In essence, if the theory is too much rigid as we know it is,
> and at the same time, stating that everything is dynamic. It sounds to
> me a little bit hypocrite?
How can gravity be all over the place except in the theory itself? Why is
Newton's theory static, still the same as it was 300 years ago, even older
than the ToE?
Does the subject of a theory also have to be applied to the theory itself?
Should we irradiate the theories pertaining to radioactivity?
Ernest Major
<0cbc6e36-d90f-4838...@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, Rui
Monteiro <seremo...@yahoo.com> writes
Would you care to pay $1 to the NCSE for every asexual species we can
present to you?
>
>And more important, only the ones that are ONLY (must be) asexual
>technically count.
You could then be thankful that dandelions (2000 species), and
blackberries ("hundreds, if not thousands" of species) are not quite
100% asexual.
>
>Regards,
>http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
Kleuskes & Moos
TO me it seems you are once again blathering without even a basic
understanding of the subject. Of course entropy (an important physical
concept) has meaning outside ToE, there's no biologist that would
dispute that. All the stuff about a 'Statical' vs. a 'Dynamical'
nature of evolution makes me think you've read R. Pirsig without
understanding what he said.
In short: educate yourself before making yourself look foolish on the
internet. It may even draw some readers to you blog if you post
something rational and insightful for once.
J. J. Lodder
> How can evolution bee in all over the place except in the theory it
> self? In essence, if the theory is too much rigid as we know it is,
> and at the same time, stating that everything is dynamic. It sounds to
> me a little bit hypocrite?
Evolution is much more than just a scientific theory.
It's a framework which says what kinds of explanations are acceptable.
It s an evolving research program.
> Thinking in this, maybe the real thing is not evolution, or mutation,
> maybe the real thing is sameness and conservatism.
>
> There is a subtle question here, a theory can't be independent from
> what it says it is. Evolution like is presented today, states that
> everything mutates except the theory itself. Is not this odd?
It's your statement which is very odd.
Scientific theories apply to observations.
They don't say anything about scientfic theories.
You need philosophers of science for that,
Jan
Rui Monteiro
Just one question, because you are missing a lot of them. When males
fight for females in the wild nature, we often listen that it's for
passing trough the best genes.
QUESTION: In this case, we are assisting evolution, yes or no?
*Hemidactylus*
converges upon truth. From its infancy with Darwin and his forebears, it
had some growing pains, yet was reinvigorated by the mutationists and
their Mendelism. There was some disruption for a while as Lamarckians
and Mendelians duked it out but eventually the Modern Synthesis dawned a
new age and passed the torch to Lewontin, Dawkins and others. There have
been new ideas and challenges from folks like Stuart Kauffmann and Ted
Steele, but evolution moves on. The closer it converges upon truth, the
less it will change as it nears the asymptote of knowledge growth. And
the nifty thing, as pointed out by Julian Huxley and Teilhard is that
via humans, evolution has become self-aware.
--
DJ *Hemidactylus* (see below)
Hemi's choice of the moment:
A Night At The Edit Block "Blade To The Rhythm"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qEx9Jh-1rI
Arkalen
It sounds like English isn't your first language. In English,
"assisting" means "helping", is that what you meant ? Or did you mean
"witnessing" ? (if you were French I'd assume that's the mistake you
meant because "assister" means "to attend", your name looks Portugese
but maybe it works the same way).
If so it's hard to answer your question. In a real sense, whenever we
observe any behavior at all in the natural world we are "witnessing
evolution". It's like saying we "witness Newton's laws" - we witness
them when apples fall, sure, but we also witness them when apples don't
fall (the force keeping them stuck to the tree is stronger than the
gravitational force attracting them down), or when they are thrown in
the air in a nice parabola, or when they roll down an inclined plane...
Basically, evolution is an inextricable part of life. Life as we know it
is a result of evolution, and evolution is an intrinsic property of life
(imperfect replication + non-random death = evolution, basically). So
there is nothing we observe about life that can't be tied to evolution.
>
> Regards,
> http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/
>
Dana Tweedy
> How can evolution bee in all over the place except in the theory it
> self?
First of all, the theory of evolution only applies to populations of
organisms.. It doesn't apply to theories, which are human
constructs.
> In essence, if the theory is too much rigid as we know it is,
> and at the same time, stating that everything is dynamic. It sounds to
> me a little bit hypocrite?
Why? You are comparing apples to baseballs.
>
> Thinking in this, maybe the real thing is not evolution, or mutation,
> maybe the real thing is sameness and conservatism.
Evolutionary theory takes into account stabilizing selection, which
promotes 'sameness' in a population. It's when the environment
changes that one tends to see morphological changes in populations.
>
> There is a subtle question here, a theory can't be independent from
> what it says it is. Evolution like is presented today, states that
> everything mutates except the theory itself. Is not this odd?
The theory evolution doesn't say that "everything mutates". Again,
evolution only applies to populations of organisms. Mutation is the
ultimate cause of diversity in populations, which provides raw
material for selection to work on. Individual organisms don't
usually mutate during their lives (except in cases of cancer). A
scientific theory cannot "mutate" as there's no DNA to change to
produce a mutation. A theory such as evolution does change over the
years, as new information is discovered. The theory of evolution has
changed quite a bit since Darwin and Wallace first published in
1858.
>
> The only way to solve this, is with a theory that proves not the
> source of mutation, but the source of conservatism.
Theories don't "prove" anything, they explain observations. The
"source" of mutation in a population is random changes in the DNA.
The source of conservatims in populations is natural selection.
> For instance,
> physics are seeking a philosophy that the rules are static, there hare
> things like the Theory of Everything, and a Theory of Everything that
> are more about conservatism than evolutionism.
The theory of evoluiton explains an observation, ie that species
change over time. It also explains why some organisms don't appear
to have changed much in form over millenia. Likewise theories in
Physics offer explanations for observations, like both an apple
falling to the ground, and why planets orbit the sun. Both are
explained by the theory of gravity.
>
> Isn't something escaping from Evolutionism that haven't been
> considered. And if so, it's possible that the real thing, it will end
> up, supporting more the static reality of nature than his hypothetical
> mutation. And all of this in the name of coherence.
Mutations are not hypothetical, they are real, and can be observed.
If you feel something is "escaping" perhaps you can tell what that
is.
>
> In conclusion, Evolution may simple bee the least interesting thing,
> the most interesting thing may be instead, the static natural logic
> that organisms try to fit.
This "conclusion" doesn't seem to follow from your statements above.
Can you clarify?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
"best" is a subjective term. In a struggle for existence, the "best"
genes are those that are best suited for the local environment. In a
population of deer, for example, the "best genes" may be those
favoring strength, or speed, in which case a test of strength will
determine which male is stronger, and more resistant to disease, which
is favorable in most environments. In a different population, the
"best genes" may be those that favor better camoflage, or smaller
size.
>
> QUESTION: In this case, we are assisting evolution, yes or no?
Your question can't be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" because
it's based on a false premise. Namely the idea that evolution has a
pre-determined goal.
Evolution doesn't have a goal, or a plan. It doesn't require
"assitance", as there's no pre-conceived notion of what "should be".
In order for someone to "assit" evolution, evolution would have to
have some goal determined ahead of time that it is striving to
acheive.
Again, in a population of prey animals, strength and speed are
benefical traits, and males competing in a test of strength may ensure
that "good genes" get passed on. It's beneficial for that
particular species, at that particular time time, for males to compete
for females. In other situations, it may be more beneficial for
other strategies for winning mates to be used.
DJT
*Hemidactylus*
> On May 28, 2:49 pm, Rui Monteiro<seremosri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> How can evolution bee in all over the place except in the theory it
>> self?
>
> First of all, the theory of evolution only applies to populations of
> organisms.. It doesn't apply to theories, which are human
> constructs.
Theories draw from a population of ideas, which in themselves might be
quasi-organisms, requiring a mindbrain to function. Some ideas might be
found more apt than others and survive in the ideational population and
multiply themselves across the mindbrains of carriers. The Darwinian
idea of gemmules, for instance, has been purged from accepted
evolutionary theory. Natural selection remains.
Rui Monteiro
> "First of all, the theory of evolution only applies to populations of
> organisms.. It doesn't apply to theories, which are human
> constructs."
It starts to seem to me that you aren't really evolutionists. Where
are your MEMES, like Richard Dawkins explained in The Selfish Gene?
It only applies to organisms? Come on, a little more of good faith it
will helps here. Some even call it "The Powerful idea".
> "best" is a subjective term. In a struggle for existence, the "best"
> genes are those that are best suited for the local environment.
Now you are starting to making a real argument, however "best" is a
term often used in the Evolutionary context, by evolutionist and is
not my own. In the pop culture, Natural Selection is about the
survival of the fittest, and "best" genes are a dear idea for many
called evolutionists.
I'm sorry for my English, I will try to improve (not evolve) my
writing. :-)
Why not evolve?
Now let us supposed that English is a Species. English as a language
have evolved, the English of the 19th Century is not the same that the
actual one. The genes of a language may be the words, now we have
Internet, Vector, download, computer, etc..., etc... *THIS IS
EVOLUTION*.
When some one makes an effort to write well, to be viewed by other as
a good writer, he has to adhere to the rules of the respective
language. *THIS IS SEXUAL SELECTION".
For the "yes or no" question, for me it's an evident NO. It's Sexual
Selection and not Natural Selection. Here we have the concept SPECIES
as a threshold between one and the other thing. So, instead "better"
genes, this is more about avoiding the "worst" genes when it comes to
Sexual Selection. Is an asymptote (very good term Hemidactylus).
When you recognize Species as The Real Thing, Natural Selection is the
relationship between Species and Environment, while Sexual Selection
is the relationship between Organisms and Species. The first one is
the Dynamic kind of relationship, where evolution resides. The second
one is the Static kind of relationship, where evolution doesn't apply.
This way, Entropy doesn't undermine Evolution, because the Great
Tsunami of genetic diseases became confine in the organisms layer not
affecting the Species.
Also, did you forget Eugenics, called themselves evolutionists, that
ignoring this concept believed that it was needed an infrastructure to
avoid the degradation of the Species? Or this is also untrue?
However, Sexual Selection is permeable to Induction, and if some
change is adopted in a aggregated way (Internet, Vector, download,
computer, etc..., etc...), Sexual Selection open its doors like a dam
sensible to this overwhelming and inductive force. So, the word
"Internet" have never overcame the conservatism of the English
language of the 19th century.
Regards,
http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/
TomS
<c62fb0ee-2c0b-45e7...@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, Rui
Monteiro stated..."
[...snip...]
>Also, did you forget Eugenics, called themselves evolutionists, that
>ignoring this concept believed that it was needed an infrastructure to
>avoid the degradation of the Species? Or this is also untrue?
Eugenics depends on the belief that purposeful intervention and
intelligent design is necessary to avoid degradation of the species.
This is not part of modern evolutionary biology.
You will not find "degradation of the species" in a modern textbook
of evolutionary biology.
The present state of the species has been achieved without the
application of eugenics. Why should it now be needed?
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
Arkalen
It starts to seem to me that you don't know what an "evolutionist" is.
> Where
> are your MEMES, like Richard Dawkins explained in The Selfish Gene?
> It only applies to organisms? Come on, a little more of good faith it
> will helps here. Some even call it "The Powerful idea".
Memes aren't part of the theory of evolution. They're not even a
universally-accepted concept (unless you're referring to internet memes,
which is a colloquial use of the term).
>
>> "best" is a subjective term. In a struggle for existence, the "best"
>> genes are those that are best suited for the local environment.
>
> Now you are starting to making a real argument, however "best" is a
> term often used in the Evolutionary context, by evolutionist and is
> not my own. In the pop culture, Natural Selection is about the
> survival of the fittest, and "best" genes are a dear idea for many
> called evolutionists.
What, are you talking about "evolutionists" here or "pop culture" ? You
do realize that the way a concept is used in pop culture and the way
it's used by scientists are often significantly different, right ?
>
> I'm sorry for my English, I will try to improve (not evolve) my
> writing. :-)
>
> Why not evolve?
>
> Now let us supposed that English is a Species. English as a language
> have evolved, the English of the 19th Century is not the same that the
> actual one. The genes of a language may be the words, now we have
> Internet, Vector, download, computer, etc..., etc... *THIS IS
> EVOLUTION*.
Languages do evolve, but by different mechanisms than living things.
They don't reproduce in a discrete fashion, for one thing. For another,
they can merge and borrow characteristics from one another almost
unlimitedly, which many organisms can't do.
And words absolutely are not analogous to genes. If anything, humans
might be, because they're the vehicles that contain the language and
transmit it.
>
> When some one makes an effort to write well, to be viewed by other as
> a good writer, he has to adhere to the rules of the respective
> language. *THIS IS SEXUAL SELECTION".
For Heaven's... Languages can't have sex. Therefore there can't be any
sexual selection there.
>
> For the "yes or no" question, for me it's an evident NO. It's Sexual
> Selection and not Natural Selection.
Sexual selection is part of natural selection. "Survival of the fittest"
is a cute phrase but you mustn't take it too literally. It's all about
reproduction.
> Here we have the concept SPECIES
> as a threshold between one and the other thing. So, instead "better"
> genes, this is more about avoiding the "worst" genes when it comes to
> Sexual Selection. Is an asymptote (very good term Hemidactylus).
Do you know what an asymptote is ?
>
> When you recognize Species as The Real Thing, Natural Selection is the
> relationship between Species and Environment, while Sexual Selection
> is the relationship between Organisms and Species. The first one is
> the Dynamic kind of relationship, where evolution resides. The second
> one is the Static kind of relationship, where evolution doesn't apply.
Word salad. Species aren't a Real Thing, they're a useful concept that
happens to apply very often but aren't a universal feature of life, nor
are they a necessary feature of evolution (genetic algorithms don't use
species). You could say natural selection is the relationship between
organisms and the environment, and sexual selection is the relationship
between organisms and other organisms in the specific context of
reproduction. Both relationships are dynamic. What, do you think the
environment is static ? Or that organisms don't affect each other in
other contexts than reproduction ?
>
> This way, Entropy doesn't undermine Evolution, because the Great
> Tsunami of genetic diseases became confine in the organisms layer not
> affecting the Species.
Entropy doesn't undermine evolution anyway. Actually I went to a talk
recently, which talked about the conjecture that entropy is always
increasing as fast as possible and that this explained life and
evolution. Because life makes entropy increase really fast.
>
> Also, did you forget Eugenics, called themselves evolutionists, that
> ignoring this concept believed that it was needed an infrastructure to
> avoid the degradation of the Species? Or this is also untrue?
There are two problems with eugeneticists : for one thing, it's
completely unethical and contrary to human dignity and it begs the
question of the kind of traits we decide are undesirable (and
hereditary). For the other thing... Wait, there are three problems with
eugeneticists : it's unethical, it assumes we know what traits to
select, and *it doesn't work*. Recessive genes make any such breeding
program only work in the very, very, very long term.
>
> However, Sexual Selection is permeable to Induction, and if some
> change is adopted in a aggregated way (Internet, Vector, download,
> computer, etc..., etc...), Sexual Selection open its doors like a dam
> sensible to this overwhelming and inductive force. So, the word
> "Internet" have never overcame the conservatism of the English
> language of the 19th century.
... the word "internet" wouldn't have had a referent in the 19th
century, nothing to do with conservatism, what on Earth are you talking
about ?
And what "Induction" is "Sexual Selection" "permeable" to ?
>
> Regards,
> http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/
>
>
Eric Root
Does a theory about metal need to be malleable and ductile, and have
loose electrons causing it to be reflective of light, or else int's an
incoherent theory?
Eric Root
Kalkidas
> How can evolution bee in all over the place except in the theory it
> self? In essence, if the theory is too much rigid as we know it is,
> and at the same time, stating that everything is dynamic. It sounds to
> me a little bit hypocrite?
>
> Thinking in this, maybe the real thing is not evolution, or mutation,
> maybe the real thing is sameness and conservatism.
>
> There is a subtle question here, a theory can't be independent from
> what it says it is. Evolution like is presented today, states that
> everything mutates except the theory itself. Is not this odd?
>
> The only way to solve this, is with a theory that proves not the
> source of mutation, but the source of conservatism. For instance,
> physics are seeking a philosophy that the rules are static, there hare
> things like the Theory of Everything, and a Theory of Everything that
> are more about conservatism than evolutionism.
>
> Isn't something escaping from Evolutionism that haven't been
> considered. And if so, it's possible that the real thing, it will end
> up, supporting more the static reality of nature than his hypothetical
> mutation. And all of this in the name of coherence.
>
> In conclusion, Evolution may simple bee the least interesting thing,
> the most interesting thing may be instead, the static natural logic
> that organisms try to fit.
The problem with your assessment is that Darwinian evolution proceeds by
undirected impersonal processes, whereas scientific theories proceed by
directed, personal guidance. So the "theory" of evolution cannot itself
be subject to Darwinian evolution, except in the general sense of
evolution as "change over time".
Dana Tweedy
I must have left them in my other suit.
> It only applies to organisms? Come on, a little more of good faith it
> will helps here. Some even call it "The Powerful idea".
Yes, evolution, the scientific theory, only applies to living
things. What some people call it is irrelevant.
>
> > "best" is a subjective term. In a struggle for existence, the "best"
> > genes are those that are best suited for the local environment.
>
> Now you are starting to making a real argument, however "best" is a
> term often used in the Evolutionary context, by evolutionist and is
> not my own. In the pop culture, Natural Selection is about the
> survival of the fittest, and "best" genes are a dear idea for many
> called evolutionists.
Popular culture has some ideas about evolution that are not actually
part of the theory. 'Survival of the fittest' was not Darwin's term.
He preferred "Descent with modification". The "fittest" of a
population depends on the conditions the population is living in.
There isn't any objective "most fit" for all conditions.
>
> I'm sorry for my English, I will try to improve (not evolve) my
> writing. :-)
>
> Why not evolve?
It isn't a choice. Populations evolve over time, they don't choose
to, it just something that happens.
>
> Now let us supposed that English is a Species. English as a language
> have evolved, the English of the 19th Century is not the same that the
> actual one. The genes of a language may be the words, now we have
> Internet, Vector, download, computer, etc..., etc... *THIS IS
> EVOLUTION*.
Ok, in a sense, but it's not what the theory of evolution covers.
It's analogy.
>
> When some one makes an effort to write well, to be viewed by other as
> a good writer, he has to adhere to the rules of the respective
> language. *THIS IS SEXUAL SELECTION".
No, sexual selection is part of the mechanism of evolution. It's
usually when a particular trait is selected because the opposite sex
finds it more attractive. Peacock tails, or large antlers are usually
given as examples of sexual selection.
>
> For the "yes or no" question, for me it's an evident NO. It's Sexual
> Selection and not Natural Selection.
Sexual selection is a form of natural selection.
> Here we have the concept SPECIES
> as a threshold between one and the other thing. So, instead "better"
> genes, this is more about avoiding the "worst" genes when it comes to
> Sexual Selection. Is an asymptote (very good term Hemidactylus).
Sometimes sexual selection will result in non optimal genes being
selected. As the example of the peacock, the tail feathers of the
male use up a lot of energy, and make it less capable of escaping
predators. Yet it's selected because peahens find big showy feathers
more attractive. Again, "better' and "worse" are subjective.
>
> When you recognize Species as The Real Thing, Natural Selection is the
> relationship between Species and Environment, while Sexual Selection
> is the relationship between Organisms and Species. The first one is
> the Dynamic kind of relationship, where evolution resides. The second
> one is the Static kind of relationship, where evolution doesn't apply.
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Species are a
group of organisms, a population of interbreeding individuals.
Sexual selection is one part of the mechanism of evolution. Again,
there isn't any particular goal of evolution, it's not things striving
to be "better".
>
> This way, Entropy doesn't undermine Evolution, because the Great
> Tsunami of genetic diseases became confine in the organisms layer not
> affecting the Species.
Again, your prose is rather hard to penetrate. Genetic diseases are
a simple fact, the result of genes being not fixed, but open to
mutations. Some mutations are harmful, some are beneficial. The
vast majority of mutations are neutral. Harmful mutations are
normally culled out of the population by natural selection.
Sometimes mutations that appear harmful may offer a benefit in
particular situations. One example is sickle cell trait. In areas
where malaria is prevalent, a single copy of the gene provides some
immunity to the malaria parasite. If one gets a double copy of the
gene, it's usually fatal.
>
> Also, did you forget Eugenics, called themselves evolutionists, that
> ignoring this concept believed that it was needed an infrastructure to
> avoid the degradation of the Species? Or this is also untrue?
I didn't forget Eugenics, I just didn't mention it because modern day
evolution rejects Eugenics. Just as "best" is subjective, so is
"degradation" of a species. Species change in regards to the
environment, not to human ideas of what is ideal. Eugenics was an
attempt to apply human ideas of better to situations where it doesn't
belong.
Humans breed animals and plants for specific traits, and only there
does it make any sense to talk about "degradation". Humans want to
maintain particular traits in a population of farm animals, so they
breed for them. In nature, it's the environment that decides what
traits are "good" or "bad".
>
> However, Sexual Selection is permeable to Induction, and if some
> change is adopted in a aggregated way (Internet, Vector, download,
> computer, etc..., etc...), Sexual Selection open its doors like a dam
> sensible to this overwhelming and inductive force. So, the word
> "Internet" have never overcame the conservatism of the English
> language of the 19th century.
I don't see how this applies to the scientific theory of evolution.
English language isn't an organism, so the theory doesn't apply to the
language.
DJT
Nathan Levesque
> How can evolution bee in all over the place except in the theory it
> self? In essence, if the theory is too much rigid as we know it is,
> and at the same time, stating that everything is dynamic. It sounds to
> me a little bit hypocrite?
>
> maybe the real thing is sameness and conservatism.
>
> There is a subtle question here, a theory can't be independent from
> what it says it is. Evolution like is presented today, states that
> everything mutates except the theory itself. Is not this odd?
>
> source of mutation, but the source of conservatism. For instance,
> physics are seeking a philosophy that the rules are static, there hare
> things like the Theory of Everything, and a Theory of Everything that
> are more about conservatism than evolutionism.
>
> Isn't something escaping from Evolutionism that haven't been
> considered. And if so, it's possible that the real thing, it will end
> up, supporting more the static reality of nature than his hypothetical
> mutation. And all of this in the name of coherence.
>
> In conclusion, Evolution may simple bee the least interesting thing,
> the most interesting thing may be instead, the static natural logic
> that organisms try to fit.
>
Reading this is like trying to read an argument where 3 different
people in succession shout the next word. Very confusing.
Paul J Gans
>On 05/29/2011 12:39 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On May 28, 2:49 pm, Rui Monteiro<seremosri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> How can evolution bee in all over the place except in the theory it
>>> self?
>>
>> First of all, the theory of evolution only applies to populations of
>> organisms.. It doesn't apply to theories, which are human
>> constructs.
>Theories draw from a population of ideas, which in themselves might be
>quasi-organisms, requiring a mindbrain to function. Some ideas might be
>found more apt than others and survive in the ideational population and
>multiply themselves across the mindbrains of carriers. The Darwinian
>idea of gemmules, for instance, has been purged from accepted
>evolutionary theory. Natural selection remains.
Well, there you go. The Theory of Evolution has evolved.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
David Hare-Scott
What's wrong with static natural logic? Many say it is the best kind,
I prefer biodynamic logic myself for fitting my organisms but you have
to be careful to only stir the mix clockwise under a full moon.
D
*Hemidactylus*
Non-ideational evolution occurs metaphorically along the boundaries of a
fitness landscape. There are local optima and these relate to ecological
conditions which are subject to change. A population moves along these
hills and gets pushed toward peaks by selection of adaptively
advantageous traits and what not. The raw soucrs for variation in these
traits is mutation and/or recombination. In a natural word environment
populations track a local optimum set by environmental context. They
avoid valleys or cease to exist. The optima are not truth values.
Populations are not judged by what Stephen Colbert calls truthiness.
They exist in a satisfactory simulacrum of what is optimal. There could
be a higher optimum elsewhere, but it is unobtainable without crashing
into a valley and going extinct.
The difference with ideational evolution in the context of epistemology
and science is that the ideational populations flow through a landscape
that has truthiness as the setter of the optimum. How many peaks can
their be on this landscape and do they every shift? It's not ecological
conditions that are providing the environs within with ideas live and
die, but the criterion of verisimilitude. Truth may be singular and
unchanging. If evolutionary science as an ideational construct has hit
close to the mark of verisimilitude, it will cease changing. Unlike the
case where living populations of organisms will find a peak only to
eventually have the rug pulled from under them as ecological conditions
change drastically and optima shift as a result, how can truth change?
Is this a serious disanalogy between the evolution of living populations
and what happens to ideas about truth (=science)? Scientific theories
converge asymptotically toward a singular global optimum of Absolute
Truth as the unknowable Ideal. This is different from biological
evolution. Is "evolution" an apt term for the change in time for a
theory like evolution? Does the body of evolutionary theory arrive at a
point of stabilizing selection where it hovers forever on the one peak
of truth? Is this the dynamic (instead of being truly static)?
James Beck
<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Welcome back from the Middle Ages, Mr. Averroes. I hope you had a nice
flight.
How about this instead? The ultimate Truth value of the universe
remains 42, and it considers the entirety of the fitness landscape
down to the quantum level. One or more stops on the fitness landscape
include curiosity about the ultimate Truth.
We don't know whether they are peaks or valleys.
*Hemidactylus*
Thats Mr. Rushdsen to you.
> How about this instead? The ultimate Truth value of the universe
> remains 42, and it considers the entirety of the fitness landscape
> down to the quantum level. One or more stops on the fitness landscape
> include curiosity about the ultimate Truth.
Nope. One peak and only one peak.
> We don't know whether they are peaks or valleys.
Myths and religions are valleys on *this* landscape, unless you embrace
NOMA.
I was expressing the sentiment that science is guided by a seeking of
truth and that reality sought in relatively unchanging. A barycentric
solar system with eccentric elliptical orbits was true well before the
advent of humans and will be so for quite a while longer. On that time
scale, the short time that ideas tracked reality, the truth has not
changed one bit. There is but one peak, and Tony Pagano ain't on it.
He's in the Big Valley with Lee Majors. What other truth regulatory
peaks exist relative to the reality of our solar system?
Science is not the whole of ideational existence and in some other
realms such as the artistic the regulatory peaks might shift and might
be multiple, like who is the next American Idol.
J. J. Lodder
> On May 29, 12:47 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Rui Monteiro <seremosri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > How can evolution bee in all over the place except in the theory it
> > > self? In essence, if the theory is too much rigid as we know it is,
> > > and at the same time, stating that everything is dynamic. It sounds to
> > > me a little bit hypocrite?
> >
> > Evolution is much more than just a scientific theory.
> > It's a framework which says what kinds of explanations are acceptable.
> > It s an evolving research program.
> >
> > > Thinking in this, maybe the real thing is not evolution, or mutation,
> > > maybe the real thing is sameness and conservatism.
> >
> > > There is a subtle question here, a theory can't be independent from
> > > what it says it is. Evolution like is presented today, states that
> > > everything mutates except the theory itself. Is not this odd?
> >
> > It's your statement which is very odd.
> > Scientific theories apply to observations.
> > They don't say anything about scientfic theories.
> >
> > You need philosophers of science for that,
> >
> > Jan
>
> Just one question, because you are missing a lot of them.
I feel that this may not be entirely my fault, if indeed so.
Does your English come from a translation machine?
> When males
> fight for females in the wild nature, we often listen that it's for
> passing trough the best genes.
That may be the statistical result, in the long run.
Anyway, your 'best' is a very problematic concept.
> QUESTION: In this case, we are assisting evolution, yes or no?
You can't 'assist' evolution.
(anymore than you can help history,
unless you are a vulgar Marxist)
It just happens.
Jan
John S. Wilkins
I have published on this, most recently:
Wilkins, John S. 2008. The adaptive landscape of science. Biology and
Philosophy 23 (5):659-671.
My argument is that what sciences adapt to is a mix of social and
empirical fitness peaks, and that what keeps the social from fixing
suboptimal (less truthy) locations int he adaptive space is twofold: one
is that the space, like a genetic space, is complex and has high fitness
corridors that permit non-adaptive "drift" from one region to another,
due to the fact that spaces are correlated and therefore have such
"giant components"; the other is that venal motivations like the "I'm
gonna get that bastard" motive, along with incoherencies, errors, and
fashions, actually act to *drive* selection, much like random assortment
and mutation do in biology.
The metaphor of science as a process of natural selection goes back to T
H Huxley!
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
James Beck
<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How do you pronounce that?
>> How about this instead? The ultimate Truth value of the universe
>> remains 42, and it considers the entirety of the fitness landscape
>> down to the quantum level. One or more stops on the fitness landscape
>> include curiosity about the ultimate Truth.
>
>Nope. One peak and only one peak.
How does that differ from what I said?
Nevertheless, the idea that science converges on Truth implies a claim
that you know (or will know) the whole landscape. For all we know, and
it may not be much, this is a local optimum, or calm spot in a stream.
There's no necessity that science converge on Truth, and at least
usually, it doesn't claim to.
>> We don't know whether they are peaks or valleys.
I probably confused you by switching back to 'fitness landscape' as it
pertains to biological evolution without announcing it. My point was
only that our curiosity about the truth may be an evolutionary dead
end.
>Myths and religions are valleys on *this* landscape, unless you embrace
>NOMA.
The Chinese would say that unless people believe it, it isn't true.
Understanding the difference may be the result of a recent mutation.
Even so, I don't need to embrace Gould's Magisterium to know that the
many and varied beliefs in god(s) are non-falsifiable. He was a cheeky
newcomer to that debate, and it's not clear that he added anything to
it. Placing religion on your landscape and assigning a value makes
your argument as weak as Pagano's.
>There is but one peak, and Tony Pagano ain't on it. He's in the Big Valley
>with Lee Majors.
This was a very funny line.
[snip]
*Hemidactylus*
But empirical fitness could in reality have only one peak per scientific
discipline, right? Scientific ideals ideally track truth and not ever
shifting ecologically given optima like populations of living organisms.
I'm not talking about the ho hum sociology of science or the postmodern
view, but the idealist search for truth. One does exist.
Even philosophy tracks truth ["allegedly"] and its optima are shattered
by the existence of white crows and black swans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0947798/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8e6-IeQ0aw
John S. Wilkins
That is not so simple as it might seem. What counts as the "right"
belief is dependent also upon the context and metrics used. Sure, at
base there is only a single physical value for c or some other constant,
but the rest of the time it is unclear what generalities we should
accept. Any law or lawlike generalisation depends on the conceptual
context in which they are framed. Consider Newton's first law. There are
no frictionless infinite planes without wind resistance, so an object
simply will not continue indefinitely in a straight line. But the law is
useful to us, and we hope it represents some facts about the world. But
it was framed in a context that doesn't itself represent Truth, but the
way we needed to conceive of the world after Aristotle. Had Aristotle
not been the contrast, we may have found a better, more accurate, way to
do so.
This is always going to be true of some science (even if we manage to
uncover the fundamental laws of physics), because we belief under
uncertainty and with limited information.
>
> Even philosophy tracks truth ["allegedly"] and its optima are shattered
> by the existence of white crows and black swans:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0947798/
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8e6-IeQ0aw
--
Rui Monteiro
Here I mean viewing, observing...!
Nathan Levesque
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Rui Monteiro
How convenient! Here is the Natural Selection package metaphor. It has
to fit in, no mater what.
The question about Eugenics is that they also believed that anything
else was wrong, and today, are they the ones who are wrong. This is
like that episode of Futurama, where ships have many hulls, but they
still get pierced. And bender says, when will they ever learn.
When in one way, evolutionists gave a lot of real world examples to
make their point (the unrolling if the genetic tape), and in other way
they claim, no, no, we don't support evolution out of organisms. This
is the easy way to break any logic in a conversation.
and one says:
> In nature, it's the environment that decides what
> traits are "good" or "bad".
and other says:
> There are two problems with eugeneticists : for one thing, it's
> completely unethical and contrary to human dignity and it begs the
> question of the kind of traits we decide are undesirable (and
> hereditary). For the other thing... Wait, there are three problems with
> eugeneticists : it's unethical, it assumes we know what traits to
> select, and *it doesn't work*. Recessive genes make any such breeding
> program only work in the very, very, very long term.
The problem here is that you, for a second, don't ask yourself if
nature is naturally unethical, and if nature, didn't care about your
ethics.
I understand the problems of making Species a real thing, because
organisms, you and me, loose the importance that they think they have,
and that is something unbearable, something unethical. It's is
possible to conceive a nature in which organisms are the needed waste
for the survival of the species? And not in a million years scale, but
in a very short one.
You may counter saying what you have been said before, but it's much
likely that you will have to do the same about what you are saying
now.
Here I let a good book, it not says exactly what I say, but with time
we will get there.
* - Lost Sex: The Evolutionary Biology of Parthenogenesis
Rui Monteiro
wrote:
There is a general consensus among biologists that species are real
and important
units of biological diversity, and understanding the mechanisms of
speciation is a hot
research topic (Coyne and Orr 2004)
Dana Tweedy
snip
> > Again, your prose is rather hard to penetrate. Genetic diseases
> are
>
> > a simple fact, the result of genes being not fixed, but open to
> > mutations. Some mutations are harmful, some are beneficial. The
> > vast majority of mutations are neutral. Harmful mutations are
> > normally culled out of the population by natural selection.
>
> How convenient! Here is the Natural Selection package metaphor. It has
> to fit in, no mater what.
>
> The question about Eugenics is that they also believed that anything
> else was wrong, and today, are they the ones who are wrong.
Yes, attitudes change. The more evolution is studied, the more old
ideas are discarded.
> This is
> like that episode of Futurama, where ships have many hulls, but they
> still get pierced. And bender says, when will they ever learn.
I don't get the analogy. What do you mean?
>
> When in one way, evolutionists gave a lot of real world examples to
> make their point (the unrolling if the genetic tape), and in other way
> they claim, no, no, we don't support evolution out of organisms. This
> is the easy way to break any logic in a conversation.
Again, I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here. What
do you mean by "genetic tape"? What do you mean by "evolution out of
organisms"? Evolution occurs in populations, not in
individuals.
>
> and one says:
>
> > In nature, it's the environment that decides what
> > traits are "good" or "bad".
>
> and other says:
>
> > There are two problems with eugeneticists : for one thing, it's
> > completely unethical and contrary to human dignity and it begs the
> > question of the kind of traits we decide are undesirable (and
> > hereditary). For the other thing... Wait, there are three problems with
> > eugeneticists : it's unethical, it assumes we know what traits to
> > select, and *it doesn't work*. Recessive genes make any such breeding
> > program only work in the very, very, very long term.
>
> The problem here is that you, for a second, don't ask yourself if
> nature is naturally unethical, and if nature, didn't care about your
> ethics.
I should note that the second part is someone else's words, not
mine. I believe the person is saying that Eugenics is both
unethical, on the human level, and doesn't work, on the natural
level. It's true that nature doesn't care about human ideas of
ethics. It's also true that human society does care about ethics.
>
> I understand the problems of making Species a real thing, because
> organisms, you and me, loose the importance that they think they have,
> and that is something unbearable, something unethical.
A species is simply a group of interbreeding organisms. Eugenics is
considered to be unethical today for reasons relating to human
culture, not because it's "against" the theory of evolution (which it
is).
> It's is
> possible to conceive a nature in which organisms are the needed waste
> for the survival of the species? And not in a million years scale, but
> in a very short one.
In bee and ant colonies the workers are disposable, and may be
"wasted". It's the queen that matters to the genetic make up of the
species. It's the queens that breed, and pass on their genes.
Workers are sterile. Of course, humans are not insects, and
individual humans are all part of the breeding population.
>
> You may counter saying what you have been said before, but it's much
> likely that you will have to do the same about what you are saying
> now.
>
> Here I let a good book, it not says exactly what I say, but with time
> we will get there.
>
> * - Lost Sex: The Evolutionary Biology of Parthenogenesis
What is the point you are trying to make here?
DJT
Arkalen
snip response to Dana
> and other says:
>
>> There are two problems with eugeneticists : for one thing, it's
>> completely unethical and contrary to human dignity and it begs the
>> question of the kind of traits we decide are undesirable (and
>> hereditary). For the other thing... Wait, there are three problems with
>> eugeneticists : it's unethical, it assumes we know what traits to
>> select, and *it doesn't work*. Recessive genes make any such breeding
>> program only work in the very, very, very long term.
>
> The problem here is that you, for a second, don't ask yourself if
> nature is naturally unethical, and if nature, didn't care about your
> ethics.
Of course nature is naturally unethical and doesn't care one whit about
our ethics. But you weren't talking about nature, you were talking about
Eugenics. Eugenics isn't a word used to refer to what happens in nature,
it's a human course of action. Hence subject to ethics.
Basically, eugenics relates to evolution the same way that pushing
people off cliffs relates to gravity.
>
> I understand the problems of making Species a real thing, because
> organisms, you and me, loose the importance that they think they have,
> and that is something unbearable, something unethical.
Um, no. I have no idea what you mean by "a real thing". I'm assuming you
mean to exclude more than pink unicorns there. Either way Species is a
fuzzy concept, that only applies to a specific subset of living things
in the first place. It refers to a real thing, permanent reproductive
isolation exists, but it's not an absolute concept or a universal
feature of life. Cf bacteria, ring species, hybridisation (especially
among plants), etc.
> It's is
> possible to conceive a nature in which organisms are the needed waste
> for the survival of the species? And not in a million years scale, but
> in a very short one.
What are you talking about ? Group selection ?
>
> You may counter saying what you have been said before, but it's much
> likely that you will have to do the same about what you are saying
> now.
>
> Here I let a good book, it not says exactly what I say, but with time
> we will get there.
>
> * - Lost Sex: The Evolutionary Biology of Parthenogenesis
And what does parthenogenesis have to do with everything ? I gather you
think the fact that asexually reproducing animals evolved from sexually
reproducing ancestors is relevant but I'm not sure how.
>
> Regards,
> http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/
>
David Hare-Scott
That may be so but it isn't what I said nor what I intended. To the
best of my knowledge what I said was meaningless.
Like "gyre and gimbal in the wabe" or "static natural logic".
David
David Hare-Scott
>> >Reading this is like trying to read an argument where 3 different
>> >people in succession shout the next word. Very confusing.
>>
>> What's wrong with static natural logic? Many say it is the best kind,
>> I prefer biodynamic logic myself for fitting my organisms but you have
>> to be careful to only stir the mix clockwise under a full moon.
>>
>> D
>
>I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
I would be concerned if you did.
D
Kleuskes & Moos
<snip>
> > Again, your prose is rather hard to penetrate. Genetic diseases
> are
>
> > a simple fact, the result of genes being not fixed, but open to
> > mutations. Some mutations are harmful, some are beneficial. The
> > vast majority of mutations are neutral. Harmful mutations are
> > normally culled out of the population by natural selection.
>
> How convenient! Here is the Natural Selection package metaphor. It has
> to fit in, no mater what.
The basic tenet of natural selection is that any organism is 'fit
enough' if (and only if) it's able to reproduce. If it does not, for
whatever reason, it's ipso facto cut out.
> The question about Eugenics is that they also believed that anything
> else was wrong, and today, are they the ones who are wrong.
Yes. But eugenics is quite different from natural selection, since it
involves other consideration than the simple "is the organism in
question able to reproduce". It's those other considerations that
render eugenics, as proposed in the early 20th century, is morally
reprehensible.
> This is like that episode of Futurama, where ships have many hulls, but they
> still get pierced. And bender says, when will they ever learn.
If you get your education by watching cartoons, i fear for your mental
stability.
> When in one way, evolutionists gave a lot of real world examples to
> make their point (the unrolling if the genetic tape), and in other way
> they claim, no, no, we don't support evolution out of organisms. This
> is the easy way to break any logic in a conversation.
Say what?
> and one says:
>
> > In nature, it's the environment that decides what
> > traits are "good" or "bad".
>
> and other says:
>
> > There are two problems with eugeneticists : for one thing, it's
> > completely unethical and contrary to human dignity and it begs the
> > question of the kind of traits we decide are undesirable (and
> > hereditary). For the other thing... Wait, there are three problems with
> > eugeneticists : it's unethical, it assumes we know what traits to
> > select, and *it doesn't work*. Recessive genes make any such breeding
> > program only work in the very, very, very long term.
>
> The problem here is that you, for a second, don't ask yourself if
> nature is naturally unethical, and if nature, didn't care about your
> ethics.
Nature is not unethical, is amoral. You would not blame a mountain for
killing hundreds of people by avalanche, the sun and sea for causing
hurricanes or dear old Mother Earth for causing eathquakes and
tsunami's, would you? Ethics are reserved for those organisms who are
able to worry about ethics. Currently and on this planets that's just
us (homo sapiens).
> I understand the problems of making Species a real thing, because
> organisms, you and me, loose the importance that they think they have,
> and that is something unbearable, something unethical.
You don't loose any of your imortance, since any importance humans
think they have is strictly imaginary. If all humans were to get
killed tomorrow, Mother Earth would, probably, heave a sigh of relief
and get on with the business of evolving new species.
> It's is possible to conceive a nature in which organisms are the needed waste
> for the survival of the species? And not in a million years scale, but
> in a very short one.
If you conceive of "a nature", it's not nature but culture. The urge
to impose human ethics on nature is not only futile, it's stoopid to
boot.
> You may counter saying what you have been said before, but it's much
> likely that you will have to do the same about what you are saying
> now.
Again: say what? I, for one, have no idea how to parse the above
sentence.
> Here I let a good book, it not says exactly what I say, but with time
> we will get there.
>
> * - Lost Sex: The Evolutionary Biology of Parthenogenesis
Ah... Have you actually _read_ that book?
Ernest Major
<1c2a4fb5-454d-41b4...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Nathan Levesque <nathanm...@gmail.com> writes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamics
--
alias Ernest Major