What is the effect of intelligence on evolution??
Einstein
emerged on our planet?? Or more precisely, how are humans affecting the
evolution of life on the planet?
---
www.paraschopra.com
Perplexed in Peoria
"Einstein" <para...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dp57d1$17r8$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> Can someone comment on how evolution was affected when intelligence
> emerged on our planet?? Or more precisely, how are humans affecting the
> evolution of life on the planet?
Well, we have extinguished a lot of species by modifying habitat for
our own purposes and by creating global climate change. (We are
not the first species to do that, only the most recent.)
On the other hand, if we don't carry our expropriation to extremes,
we have probably increased the rate of allopatric speciation.
We may have increased sympatric speciation as well, by our habits
of domestication and selective breeding, and by our somewhat
sporadic and ill-conceived attempts at "pest control".
Malcolm
"Einstein" <para...@gmail.com> wrote
> Can someone comment on how evolution was affected when intelligence
> emerged on our planet?? Or more precisely, how are humans affecting the
> evolution of life on the planet?
>
A small species of squirrel-like creature lives in trees and scratches out a
living jumping from branch to branch catching insects. Eventually it gets so
good a jumping and gliding that it can fly - a bat.
Then it can catch insects on the wing, and turns into many hundreds of
species of insect-eating, flying mammals.
Human intelligence will be similar.
However evolution has now thrown up a species capable of consciously
modifying its own DNA. Only a few of us know how to do this, and we still
don't know how to get any but the most crude of effects, but we can do it.
So the rules have changed totally - life has transcended its origins.
Einstein
led to possibility of changing the path of evolution intentionally. We
know understand evolution and thus can possible tinker with it. Thus,
evolution itself has evolved. And we can also say that evolution has
led to its own discovery and modification. Isn't it amusing?? A
non-tangible entity discovered itself and now trying hard to change its
own destinty. This means, evolution has a free will. And, thus we can
call evolution an intelligent entity. The evolution trying to modify
itself in the same way humans are modifying themselves and thus
changing the path of evolution. Thus, does the changine evolution
changes the path of metaevolution?? And then, meta-metaevolution and
upto infinity...
I know I am getting little (or perhaps largely) deviated from the main
topic. But, I couldn't simply resist the chain of thoughts.
JoeSP
"Malcolm" <regn...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dp9520$2k4n$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> "Einstein" <para...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Can someone comment on how evolution was affected when intelligence
>> emerged on our planet?? Or more precisely, how are humans affecting the
>> evolution of life on the planet?
>>
> Human intelligence will be similar.
> However evolution has now thrown up a species capable of consciously
> modifying its own DNA. Only a few of us know how to do this, and we still
> don't know how to get any but the most crude of effects, but we can do it.
> So the rules have changed totally - life has transcended its origins.
>
If you include plant and animal breeding, it has been happening for
millennia. I don't believe the modified organisms are a true part of the
evolution equation, because if returned back to the natural environment, I
doubt many of them would have the fitness to survive more than a few
generations.
We are likely putting ourselves into a position of lesser fitness, the
farther we depart from our natural environment. Our ability to resist
diseases are becoming less, our genetic defects are increasing in frequency
in the population, and we are becoming increasingly dependant on our
technology to survive. It seems like a one-way trip.
Were that technology lifeboat to disappear through some disaster, we would
likely find heavy selection pressures upon us once again. One hopes in such
a case, that the science would have been sufficiently evolved before that
time to have repaired many of the inherent genetic defects, so that our
genome would be in good shape facing any new and unexpected evolutionary
challenges.
Einstein
produced via evolution.
So, how do you say that we are lesser fit if we have science to save us
from all the disasters??
Malcolm
"JoeSP" <ol...@telus.net> wrote
> If you include plant and animal breeding, it has been happening for
> millennia. I don't believe the modified organisms are a true part of the
> evolution equation, because if returned back to the natural environment, I
> doubt many of them would have the fitness to survive more than a few
> generations.
>
Wheat's "strategy" is to provide flour for man, in exchange for man putting
weedkiller on its competitors and preventing birds from eating it up.
Symbiotic organisms die out if one member of the partnership becomes
extinct.
John Edser
>snip<
> ..we can also say that evolution has
> led to its own discovery and modification. Isn't it amusing?? A
> non-tangible entity discovered itself and now trying hard to change its
> own destinty.
JE:-
The fact that evolution must itself evolve is _necessarily_ self consistent
to the theory, i.e. if it could not do so then the theory absolutely
contradicts itself reducing evolution to just a childish dictate. Any theory
must apply to itself otherwise it is proven to be a con. The oldest trick in
the book is to allow one set of rules for yourself and the ideas that you
like but quite another set of rules rule for everything else.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
JoeSP
"John Edser" <ed...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:dpd455$vpm$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
>>snip<
>> ..we can also say that evolution has
>> led to its own discovery and modification. Isn't it amusing?? A
>> non-tangible entity discovered itself and now trying hard to change its
>> own destinty.
>>snip<
>
> JE:-
> The fact that evolution must itself evolve is _necessarily_ self
> consistent
> to the theory, i.e. if it could not do so then the theory absolutely
> contradicts itself reducing evolution to just a childish dictate.
I'm not sure I agree. Some organisms have remained in the same niche for
millions (even billions) of years, changing in form very little. If earth
changes had not occurred, opening up new niches, higher organisms may never
have evolved. Even if another type of evolutionary development begins to
occur due to development by sentient life forms like ourselves, I don't
think it changes the basic process of evolution. It's merely an
augmentation brought about by the fact that a lifeform managed to evolve to
a point to where it could manipulate it's own genetics.
> Any theory
> must apply to itself otherwise it is proven to be a con. The oldest trick
> in
> the book is to allow one set of rules for yourself and the ideas that you
> like but quite another set of rules rule for everything else.
>
Inconsistent interpretations make a theory invalid? If that's what you're
saying, I disagree. Bad science doesn't discredit good science. Please fill
me in if I misinterpreted what you wrote.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> JE:-
> The fact that evolution must itself evolve is _necessarily_ self consistent
> to the theory, i.e. if it could not do so then the theory absolutely
> contradicts itself reducing evolution to just a childish dictate. Any theory
> must apply to itself otherwise it is proven to be a con.
Not true. Physical theory does not generally apply to physical theory as
a metatheory. In fact, self reference virtually guarantees either the
theory is incosistent or is incomplete.
> The oldest trick in
> the book is to allow one set of rules for yourself and the ideas that you
> like but quite another set of rules rule for everything else.
You have the wrong concept of level in theories. Theories that apply to
domain D are usually not elements of domain D. The alternative is either
inconsistency or incompleteness.
Physics is about the external world. It is not about physics. The only
theories capable of self reference are purely abstract mathematical or
formal logical theories. Concrete theories generally are not self
referential.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Science is a tool. Tools are one of the means by which humans survive in
the world. In fact, tools are the primary means by which humans survive
in the world. We are neither the strongest nor the biggest. So we
compensate by being smart and making tools to equalized our opportunities.
Bob Kolker
Malcolm
>> The fact that evolution must itself evolve is _necessarily_ self
>> consistent
>> to the theory, i.e. if it could not do so then the theory absolutely
>> contradicts itself reducing evolution to just a childish dictate. Any
>> theory
>> must apply to itself otherwise it is proven to be a con.
>
> Not true. Physical theory does not generally apply to physical theory as
> a metatheory. In fact, self reference virtually guarantees either the
> theory is incosistent or is incomplete.
>
own existence. Eg it is no use theorising that mammals are incapable of
abstract thought, unless I exclude myself from the category of "mammal".
The status of paradoxes is a fascinating issue, but unless someone can think
of an evolutionary example, I don't think we can legitimately pursue it at
any length here.
John Edser
"JoeSP" <ol...@telus.net>
> >>snip<
> >> ..we can also say that evolution has
> >> led to its own discovery and modification. Isn't it amusing?? A
> >> non-tangible entity discovered itself and now trying hard to change its
> >> own destinty.
> >>snip<
> > JE:-
> > The fact that evolution must itself evolve is _necessarily_ self
> > consistent
> > to the theory, i.e. if it could not do so then the theory absolutely
> > contradicts itself reducing evolution to just a childish dictate.
> I'm not sure I agree. Some organisms have remained in the same niche for
> millions (even billions) of years, changing in form very little.
JE:-
Stasis represents a form of evolution whenever it is situated in a world
of change. Quite clearly the fossil record provides ample evidence for
overpowering change in organism form and habitat occurring over time. The
fact that a minority of fossil forms appear not to have changed their
morphology very much where this can be correlated to the habitat they
inhabit not changing very much represents a significant evolutionary event,
i.e. a verification of evolution by natural selection and not a non
verification.
> If earth
> changes had not occurred, opening up new niches, higher organisms may
> never
> have evolved.
JE:-
Which will always remain just, speculation. Science can only deal with the
facts and contesting theories that can explain them in an entirely testable
way.
> Even if another type of evolutionary development begins to
> occur due to development by sentient life forms like ourselves, I don't
> think it changes the basic process of evolution. It's merely an
> augmentation brought about by the fact that a lifeform managed to evolve
> to
> a point to where it could manipulate it's own genetics.
JE:-
This evolved very early. It is called sex and sexual selection.
> > JE:-
> > Any theory
> > must apply to itself otherwise it is proven to be a con. The oldest
> trick
> > in
> > the book is to allow one set of rules for yourself and the ideas that
> you
> > like but quite another set of rules rule for everything else.
> Inconsistent interpretations make a theory invalid? If that's what
> you're
> saying, I disagree.
JE:-
I am NOT arguing that "inconsistent interpretations make a theory invalid".
I am arguing that any unambiguous and therefore valid theory of science
_cannot_ produce "inconsistent interpretations". Ambiguity is just a disease
of the mind produced by the overpowering psychological need to evade any
contesting argument that threatens a favored view no matter if that view is
a testable theory or just a non testable belief.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
John Edser
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com>
> Science is a tool. Tools are one of the means by which humans survive in
> the world. In fact, tools are the primary means by which humans survive
> in the world. We are neither the strongest nor the biggest. So we
> compensate by being smart and making tools to equalized our opportunities.
JE:-
Much more important than just tool making is the unique human ability to
consciously, i.e. not just unconsciously exchange the multitude of artifacts
that tools can produce within expanding fitness mutualised tribal groups,
i.e. "trade". To my knowledge Prof. Jared Diamond hardly ever used the word
within his award winning book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" (I have not completed
reading it). I argue that such an astonishing omission can only be
politically motivated. Prof. Diamond is clearly on the political left which
historically prefers to simply ignore the overpowering effect trade has had
on human evolution.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
John Edser
> > JE:-
> > The fact that evolution must itself evolve is _necessarily_ self
> consistent
> > to the theory, i.e. if it could not do so then the theory absolutely
> > contradicts itself reducing evolution to just a childish dictate. Any
> theory
> > must apply to itself otherwise it is proven to be a con.
> Not true. Physical theory does not generally apply to physical theory as
> a metatheory. In fact, self reference virtually guarantees either the
> theory is incosistent or is incomplete.
JE:-
I disagree. Please provide an example.
> > JE:-
> > The oldest trick in
> > the book is to allow one set of rules for yourself and the ideas that
> you
> > like but quite another set of rules rule for everything else.
> You have the wrong concept of level in theories. Theories that apply to
> domain D are usually not elements of domain D. The alternative is either
> inconsistency or incompleteness.
JE:-
Again I disagree. They are. Please provide an example.
> Physics is about the external world. It is not about physics.
JE:-
If physics itself does not exist in the "external world" where does it
exist?
> The only
> theories capable of self reference are purely abstract mathematical or
> formal logical theories.
JE:-
These are just tautological. A tautology remains logical but it is not
rational when employed as just a stand alone proposition. I do NOT refer to
self reference I refer to self consistency. They are not at all the same
thing.
> Concrete theories generally are not self
> referential.
JE:-
"concrete theories" must NOT only be "self referential" otherwise they have
no empirical basis. However, within gene centric evolutionary theory they
have actually been offered as theories of science in their own right, e.g.
Hamilton's Rule which can be proven to be just a misused tautology.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> JE:-
> Much more important than just tool making is the unique human ability to
> consciously, i.e. not just unconsciously exchange the multitude of artifacts
> that tools can produce within expanding fitness mutualised tribal groups,
> i.e. "trade".
Do not forget specialization in this context. The reason why there is a
surplus to trade is because specialized labor makes the surplus possible.
I would rank specialization and trade as inventions as important
(perhaps more important) than fire or the lever. Mankind sustains itself
by abstract means. I do not know of another animal on the planet that
does that.
Bob Kolker
Perplexed in Peoria
"John Edser" <ed...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:dpfdlh$1pg1$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> > RK:-
> > You have the wrong concept of level in theories. Theories that apply to
> > domain D are usually not elements of domain D. The alternative is either
> > inconsistency or incompleteness.
>
> JE:-
> Again I disagree. They are. Please provide an example.
OH NO!!
Here we go on another Goedelthon.
Einstein
I just wanted a discussion on the issue if humans are special when we
see from evolution's perspective?
I think we certainly are. Since, no other organism(or a large
percentage of organisms) has ever tried to change to paths of natural
evolution by domesticating organisms, genetically modification. So,
today we, humans, are a cause of different type of evolution on earth.
Let us call it Artificial Evolution.
So, the essence of evolution has certainly changed after the emergence
of homo sapeins.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> So, the essence of evolution has certainly changed after the emergence
> of homo sapeins.
Probably to a lesser extent than when prokaryotes transformed earth from
a planet with a reducing atmosphere to one with an oxygen atmosphere.
Bob Kolker
white...@msn.com
Ain't we moving away from the main topic??
I just wanted a discussion on the issue if humans are special when we
see from evolution's perspective?
I think we certainly are. Since, no other organism(or a large
percentage of organisms) has ever tried to change to paths of natural
evolution by domesticating organisms, genetically modification. So,
today we, humans, are a cause of different type of evolution on earth.
Let us call it Artificial Evolution.
So, the essence of evolution has certainly changed after the emergence
of homo sapeins.
Ragland:
You write, "I just wanted a discussion on the issue if humans are
special when we
see from evolution's perspective?" You think we are. From purely the
standpoint of Darwinian
evolution I don't think we are. It's true Homo Sapiens have
domesticated organisms through genetic
engineering but they have not yet done that to themselves. Most of this
"domestication" or
genetic engineering has been done with plants, not animals. There is no
such thing as
"artificial evolution" that I'm aware of biologically speaking with
humans. There are computers,
nanotechnology and other things which could be said to be artificial
evolution.
I don't see the "essence" of evolution (Darwinian evolution) as
changing after the emergence of
Homo Sapiens. There is, however, the possibility. As Tim Tyler once
stated even with genetic
engineering of people natural selection would still operate.
Ultimately, I would envision natural selection
being signifigantly eliminated but that would take a long time and in
between genetic engineering and
natural selection would coexist at various levels.
What I have always found ironic is why we didn't just remain animals
without written symbols,
printing press, scientific knowledge, technological progress, etc.
since this resulted in a
conflict between "Civilization" and man's primal instincts. Through
Darwinian evolution we were
enabled to have the development of language (my understanding is we
still don't fully understand
how language came into existence), written symbolization, printing
press, scientific knowledge and
technological progress yet on a biological level we have remained
largely cavemen.
A disturbing fact is man's primal instinct's have in many cases
developed and incorporated
scientific and technological knowledge and devices towards caveman
behavior. An example of
this is the atomic bomb. It is not my intent to get into a political
discussion over whether the
atomic bomb should have been developed and used. Suffice to say
Einstein (no pun intended)
stated he should have been a plumber. As an aside, during the Cold War
Era the U.S. government
decimated many Marshallese Island natives and polluted their islands.
They didn't ask the Marshallese
for permission let alone evacuate them.
Natural selection operates very slowly. We are biologically lagging
behind all of the science and
technology cultural evolution has brought and continues to bring. The
only way to possibly become
adaptive to our current environment (which is unlike that of our
ancestors) is through genetic engineering.
Because this will change the definition of what a human being is it is
understandable there will be
tremendous fierce resistance to it. The definition of a human being has
never been static but has
changed throughout evolution.
Personally, I find it difficult living in a caveman world but things
could be much worse and the cavemen
are rumbling. It produces to a degree a state of apprehension and
anxiety.
John Edser
"Malcolm" regn...@btinternet.com wrote:-
> >"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote
> >> JE:-
> >> The fact that evolution must itself evolve is _necessarily_ self
> >> consistent
> >> to the theory, i.e. if it could not do so then the theory absolutely
> >> contradicts itself reducing evolution to just a childish dictate. Any
> >> theory
> >> must apply to itself otherwise it is proven to be a con.
> > Not true. Physical theory does not generally apply to physical theory as
> > a metatheory. In fact, self reference virtually guarantees either the
> > theory is incosistent or is incomplete.
> I think what John means is that every theory must be consistent with it's
> own existence. Eg it is no use theorising that mammals are incapable of
> abstract thought, unless I exclude myself from the category of "mammal".
JE:-
Yes. Robert is not distinguishing between "self consistent" and "self
referential" which are no the same. Some common non self consistent
propositions are: "nothing is true" and "everything is relative". Both
entirely contradict what they argue when applied to themselves, i.e. they
attempt to exist as entirely dualistic propositions which absolve themselves
from what they attempt dictate about everything else. Again, they are the
oldest trick in the book.
> The status of paradoxes is a fascinating issue, but unless someone can
> think
> of an evolutionary example, I don't think we can legitimately pursue it at
> any length here.
JE:-
Any non refutable proposition is either an empty self referential
tautology which has been incorrectly employed in its own right as a theory
of nature or it remains not self consistent, i.e. just a 100% self
contradiction. A non refutable proposition will produce a paradox whenever
it is used. A 100% self contradiction produces Epimenides paradox which
represents the black hole of epistemology (whatever comes into it can never
come out of it). Gene centric Neo Darwinism has many paradoxes. My worked
example within sbe is Hamilton's Rule. The paradox it presents is: how can a
truly altruistic in organism centric fitness spread if only one level of
fitness has been empirically verified? The answer is it simply cannot do so
if the gene centric level that is supposed to be able carry out this task
remains _dependently_ selected and not _independently_ selected. It is easy
to prove that the gene centric level remains 100% dependent on the organism
level it is supposed to contest and win against within Hamilton's Rule.
Also, it can be proven that Hamilton's conversion of b to gene centric was
not correct because it was never divided by n (the number of recipients)
providing incorrect simplified/oversimplified model results. The multiple rb
remains group centric while r'c (where r'=1 and represents the relatedness
constant of each actor to itself) remains organism centric so they cannot be
validly compared. The rule has an exact logical symmetry because it has no
constant term. For the 1005 relative rule to function rb/n > r'b/n' where n'
is the number of actors where the exact symmetry should be noted.
John Edser
"Perplexed in Peoria" jimme...@sbcglobal.net wrote:-
> > > RK:-
> > > You have the wrong concept of level in theories. Theories that apply
> to
> > > domain D are usually not elements of domain D. The alternative is
> either
> > > inconsistency or incompleteness.
> >
> > JE:-
> > Again I disagree. They are. Please provide an example.
> OH NO!!
> Here we go on another Goedelthon.
JE:-
The reason as to why the evolution of human culture tends to repeat itself
(nature is not so stupid) is that chronically evaded arguments have to be
revisited again and again until they are NOT EVADED so that they CAN be
RESOLVED, if and only if, they are FULLY TESTABLE against NATURE.
John Edser
"Robert J. Kolker" now...@nowhere.com wrote:-
> > JE:-
> > Much more important than just tool making is the unique human ability to
> > consciously, i.e. not just unconsciously exchange the multitude of
> artifacts
> > that tools can produce within expanding fitness mutualised tribal
> groups,
> > i.e. "trade".
> Do not forget specialization in this context. The reason why there is a
> surplus to trade is because specialized labor makes the surplus possible.
JE:-
Cause and effect were reversed in your statement above. The reason why
specialized labor evolved is because of the enormous surpluses provided by
conscious acts of mutual exchange and NOT tool making. Conscious acts of
mutual exchange allowed tribal sizes to quickly expand because Total
Darwinian Fitness per selectee was also increased by it. Individuals using
tools without a conscious system of mutualised exchange cannot provide a
large enough surplus for specialization to evolve.
> I would rank specialization and trade as inventions as important
> (perhaps more important) than fire or the lever. Mankind sustains itself
> by abstract means. I do not know of another animal on the planet that
> does that.
JE:-
I rank trade and then specialization as the most important cultural events
that have occurred within human populations. Both require complex and
diverse mental systems to have to have evolved. These include psychological
adaptations on which to base a unique group identity, a warrior class to
protect each trading group and a group based belief system which attempts to
predict, regulate and mutualise the behavior each group member.
To my knowledge no animal system has been observed to trade either in
captivity or the wild. I know of no animal that can be taught to mutually
exchange (trade). Animals just expropriate using dominance and/or stealth or
they fight. I argue this is so because the minimal threshold of cognition
required to allow a mental mechanism that can judge the relative worth of
artifacts and also recognize them as individually owned and thus be
tradable, has only evolved in humans.
Perhaps you should ask why trade has been ignored by mostly left leaning
evolutionary theorists who dominate human evolutionary theory today. One of
the latest is Jared Diamond. I have made my position quite clear. Trade is
not a political act it is _entirely_, a functional act.
Einstein
Probably to a lesser extent than when prokaryotes transformed earth
from
a planet with a reducing atmosphere to one with an oxygen atmosphere.
Bob Kolker"
No, prokaryotes were not doing it consciously. But, we are maipulating
nature consciously. Prokaryotes were limited in changing their
environment by evolution itself, but, theoretically, we don't have any
limits. Because we have learnt to manipulate the most basic unit of
evolution i.e. gene. So, in the future we will be major drivers of
evolution. But would then we call it evolution??
Did evolution called its own death by evolving humans/intelligence??
Robert J. Kolker
>
> JE:-
> The reason as to why the evolution of human culture tends to repeat itself
> (nature is not so stupid) is that chronically evaded arguments have to be
> revisited again and again until they are NOT EVADED so that they CAN be
> RESOLVED, if and only if, they are FULLY TESTABLE against NATURE.
That process sounds positively Darwinian. Bad ideas will persist until
they are culled. Sounds familiar to me. BTW, has anyone come up with a
Mendelian analog to memetics?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> Natural selection operates very slowly. We are biologically lagging
> behind all of the science and
> technology cultural evolution has brought and continues to bring. The
> only way to possibly become
> adaptive to our current environment (which is unlike that of our
> ancestors) is through genetic engineering.
And this will bring about Unintended Consequences as sure as the the
Earth turns from west to east. Consider the African killer bee which was
intended to increase honey production and the Gypsy Moth which was
intended to produce an ueber silk spinner. In both cases something quite
different than intended come about.
The qunitessential story concerns George Bernard Shaw and a rather good
looking women who proposed that they mate. She said that with his brains
and her looks a superior offspring would be produced. He the asked
whichif the offspring had his looks and her brains? Tadah!
I have no doubt that humans can selectively breed humans with by eugenic
mating or by gene manipulation. Humans have been interjecting their aims
into the process of genetic inheritance since God invented dirt and herd
animals. The earliest instance of genetic engineering was the production
of dogs from wolf stock. Nothing new there. There ain't nothing new
under the sun.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> No, prokaryotes were not doing it consciously. But, we are maipulating
> nature consciously. Prokaryotes were limited in changing their
> environment by evolution itself, but, theoretically, we don't have any
> limits. Because we have learnt to manipulate the most basic unit of
> evolution i.e. gene. So, in the future we will be major drivers of
> evolution. But would then we call it evolution??
>
> Did evolution called its own death by evolving humans/intelligence??
I think the obit for evolution may be a bit premature. Let us wait for
the corpse to stop breathing before we declare it dead.
Bob Kolker
Perplexed in Peoria
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:dpjm4i$bfu$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
Hegel. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
John Edser
"Robert J. Kolker" now...@nowhere.com
> > JE:-
> > The reason as to why the evolution of human culture tends to repeat
> itself
> > (nature is not so stupid) is that chronically evaded arguments have to
> be
> > revisited again and again until they are NOT EVADED so that they CAN be
> > RESOLVED, if and only if, they are FULLY TESTABLE against NATURE.
> That process sounds positively Darwinian. Bad ideas will persist until
> they are culled. Sounds familiar to me. BTW, has anyone come up with a
> Mendelian analog to memetics?
JE:-
I have been arguing in sbe for over 5 years now that Popper's epistemology
is entirely a Darwinian process which acts the evolution of ideas as well as
the evolution of bodies. Only refutation and NOT verification remains
definitive simply because we can only resolve what is the best idea on the
table by testing ALL without fear or favor and just seeing (and not
dictating) what remains. This entirely empirically based evolutionary
process is always subverted by irrefutable ideas that are slipped in _under_
the table simply because they must remain, by definition, no matter what.
Unfortunately gene centric Neo Darwinians who dominate evolutionary theory
today are mostly mathematicians who cannot/refuse to distinguish between a
refutation and a non verification allowing irrefutable models to subvert
evolutionary theory into irrefutability. I have posted the traditional
Platonic square of opposition on numerous occasions to help resolve this on
going difficulty but it has remained ignored. Every rational idea has a
verification, non verification and a contradiction which alone provides the
refutation of any idea. These are represented on each of the four corners of
this square indicating the symmetry and overlap between A,E,I,O propositions
(each represents the general form of every possible proposition type).
My worked example of gene centric model misuse is Hamilton's Rule which
represents an irrefutable tautology produced via the simplification/over
simplification of refutable Darwinism. Note that even as just this model the
rule remains incorrect because b (the gain in reproductive fitness to all
the recipients and not each separate recipient) has never been properly
converted to gene centric so even the model results of Hamilton's Rule have
always remained incorrect.
I identify two major uncorrected problems within gene centric Neo Darwinism:
1) The consistent misuse of irrefutable propositions to contest refutable
propositions. This is due to the fact that propositions of mathematics are
NOT NECESSARILY propositions of science. They can only become valid
propositions of science when at east one constant algebraic term is included
within the model. Hamilton's Rule contains no constant fitness (which can
only be a fitness TOTAL per independent selectee) reducing it to just a 100%
relative fitness proposition producing a veritable mountain of problems for
inclusive fitness theory.
2) The failure to correctly identify, preserve and convert independent
levels of selection within mathematically based simplified/oversimplified
models. My worked example is Hamilton's Rule rb>c or -rb<-c in which b
remains incorrectly converted to gene centric hopelessly distorting
Hamilton's Rule in favor of the evolution of organism fitness altruism
within nature.
Please note that sadly, 1 and 2 above remain refutable but evaded within
discussion here and elsewhere. Therefore, applying strict scientific
methodology I am required to keep on repeating them until they are NOT
evaded and these BASIC issues become resolved.
I would argue that any above the gene level heritable unit for memetics must
be at the very least, a constant term which may be mimicked, i.e. is not
consciously understood within a particular culture but passed on by just
mindlessly copying it and/or consciously understanding it (which is much
more efficient).
John Edser
John Edser
Independent Researcher
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net>
> > > JE:-
> > > The reason as to why the evolution of human culture tends to repeat
> itself
> > > (nature is not so stupid) is that chronically evaded arguments have to
> be
> > > revisited again and again until they are NOT EVADED so that they CAN
> be
> > > RESOLVED, if and only if, they are FULLY TESTABLE against NATURE.
> >
> > That process sounds positively Darwinian. Bad ideas will persist until
> > they are culled. Sounds familiar to me. BTW, has anyone come up with a
> > Mendelian analog to memetics?
> Hegel. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
JE:-
Hegel's "Dialectic" ended up an empirically based disaster because it did
not exclude circular arguments, i.e. the "synthesis" could end up
functionally the same as the "thesis". Adopted by the communist system as
their mechanism of revolutionary thought it did just that: endlessly repeat
massive cultural group selective errors. It is estimated the communist
system destroyed between 100 and 200 million lives and countless
livelihoods. The world is still suffering from the shock. However Hegel's
dialectic still finds its way into thinking even within the west, e.g. "pump
priming" economics which destroys trade in order to promote it.
The logic of _evolution_ is not the same as the logic of _revolution_
because evolutionary theory 100% prohibits circular arguments as valid
theories in their own right. It is interesting to note that Hamilton's
rationale repeats Hegel's circular argument error because Hamilton's Rule
can be proven to be a misused 100% circular argument of mathematics allowing
Hamilton's synthesis (inclusive fitness) to remain circular to the thesis
(simplified/oversimplified Darwinian evolution by natural selection). After
correction Hamilton's Rule confirms its tautological structure: the best
option for each actor is to inclusively select itself which represents
normal biological reproduction using sex. Note also that Hamilton's politics
was on the left as were the politics of many other influential Neo
Darwinists e.g. Haldane (a communist), Dawkins (old left) and today, Diamond
(new left). The common feature of all of them is that they singularly ignore
the overriding importance of Darwinian organism fitness mutualisation within
_empirically_ based evolutionary theory and its human cultural equivalent:
mutualised exchange (trade). Yet, people remain naïve enough to continue to
argue that political belief is just neutral to evolutionary theory.
William Morse
Good point. And to respond to Einstein's question, yes we will -or
should- still call it evolution.
Evolution in general is a process that depends on building on prior
accumulated information. Natural selection via genetic inheritance is
one method of doing that, but not the only one. Before humans existed,
organisms utilized the Baldwin effect as a method of utilizing
information acquired through experience to improve future survival.
Cultural transmission, which allows information to be acquired without
recreating the entire trial and error process - evidenced in chimps,
dolphins, and macaques among others - is another method. Humans then
added language, which allows the transmission of information as pure
information without the intervening step of expressing the information
as a physical act. Then we invented writing, and shortly thereafter the
printing press - so now we could transmit information, with a reliable
reference (as opposed to oral histories), without even needing to meet
the original source of the information.
These can all be considered a kind of evolution, and they all added to
the genetic evolution that was still proceeding. Yes, in the future we
can expect drastic changes from the continuing changes in information
processing due to computers and from the incipient changes in genetic
inheritance due to bioengineering. These will still be evolution - but
they may not be Darwinian in the classical sense.
Yours,
Bill Morse
white...@msn.com
Mr. Kolker:
Genetic engineering is not the same as Darwinian artificial selection,
selective breeding, natural cross breeding, etc. For example, selective
breeding is based on the concept of mating two individuals to create
desirable traits in successive generations. Among many things, genetic
engineering is the insertion of a "foreign gene" which can come from
another species. Due to genetic engineering this has occurred on a
level unprecedented and would not have been possible with the
aforementioned methods. Also with genetic engineering it is likely
possible to remove certain diseases and greatly modify/alter our genome
in ways not possible by Darwinian artificial selection and selective
breeding. My understanding is the African Killer Bee is an invasive
species and the result of lax human oversight which allowed many of the
Africanized Queens to be released shortly after the experiment to mate
them with European Honey Bees. In today's globalized mobile world it is
much easier to introduce invasive species but this isn't a result of
selective breeding or genetic engineering. But yes this can result in
unintended consequences. The Gypsy Moth was another example of an
invasive species brought to Boston by an amateur French entymologist.
Yes, humans have been practicing selective breeding on plants and
animals for a long time. In the Twentieth Century it was promoted and
practiced on humans by the Third Reich. In that case their brief
involuntary sterilization program morphed into genocide of Germany's
physically and mentally disabled, not to mention other ethnic groups
they considered "racially" inferior. They alse had a selective breeding
program where "Aryan" looking children were kidnapped and brought back
to Germany to be raised German and "Germanized". In the U.S. it was
confined to involuntary sterilization laws with California and Virginia
leading the way. Such laws were on the books until the 1970's.
It's interesting you mention the widely known Shaw quote. That brings
into sharp relief the complexities of selective breeding when applied
to humans. I like to think a human isn't a dog, cow or pig and that we
use a higher standard when procreating. I know you weren't suggesting
eugenics but merely indicated you thought it was possible through
eugenic mating or gene manipulation. I think most humans tend to
naturally find their mate. However, selective breeding of livestock is
a human activity forced upon other animals to yeild desirable results.
Humans are deciding what is a leaner meat, a more intelligent dog, etc.
In a possible human eugenics scenario "those in power" would decide if
you were fit to reproduce, who you should possibly reproduce with, if
you should be sterilized and finally whether you should be deemed
inferior and killed. At times so-called "science" is nothing but the
reversion to the most primitive evolutionary instincts.
Perhaps through genetic engineering "truly" superior counter parts to
us will be created and will become an invasive species and wipe us out.
Michael Ragland
white...@msn.com
I think Hamilton (past tense), Dawkins and Diamond would all concede
nature is red in tooth and claw. To understand evolution in part all
you need to do is watch the movie "Deliverance".
Michael Ragland
Robert J. Kolker
>
> These can all be considered a kind of evolution, and they all added to
> the genetic evolution that was still proceeding. Yes, in the future we
> can expect drastic changes from the continuing changes in information
> processing due to computers and from the incipient changes in genetic
> inheritance due to bioengineering. These will still be evolution - but
> they may not be Darwinian in the classical sense.
The Hauptsatz of all this is that History Matters. The problem of
fundemental physics is that it is essentially timeless. The underlying
laws are supposed to be the same everywhere and everywhen. No so for
living systems. Our present is a function not only of past states, but
the path that was taken to get from Then to Now.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
There is more to the story than that. Co-operation has as much to do
with our success as a species as does strife and conflict.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Perhaps through genetic engineering "truly" superior counter parts to
> us will be created and will become an invasive species and wipe us out.
An unintended side effect, which is really the point I was trying to
make. Genetic redesign has some complexities that may become apparent
only -after the fact-. I propose that we should be humble and lovable on
the matter of genetic modification. Genetic mods are the gift that keeps
on giving, in a manner of speaking. I do not think I am a Luddite just
because I urge caution. I have seen too many can't-fail schemes go awry
to be naively optimistic.
Please keep in mind that Nature does not love us. We just happen to be
doing o.k. at this juncture. We are just one asteroid strike away from
trodding the path of the dinosaurs.
Bob Kolker
John Edser
"white...@msn.com" white...@msn.com wrote:
> I think Hamilton (past tense), Dawkins and Diamond would all concede
> nature is red in tooth and claw. To understand evolution in part all
> you need to do is watch the movie "Deliverance".
JE:-
While nature may only sometimes be "red in tooth and claw", "Hamilton (past
tense), Dawkins and Diamond" remain shades of red :-) Selection for
Darwinian fitness increases (TDF per selectee per population) and requires a
mix of competition AND cooperation, i.e. NOT just competition where
competition and cooperation must compliment and not contradict.
Peter F
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dpudl7$2dr5$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> William Morse wrote:
>
> >
> > These can all be considered a kind of evolution, and they all added
to
> > the genetic evolution that was still proceeding. Yes, in the future
we
> > can expect drastic changes from the continuing changes in
information
> > processing due to computers and from the incipient changes in
genetic
> > inheritance due to bioengineering. These will still be evolution -
but
> > they may not be Darwinian in the classical sense.
>
> The Hauptsatz of all this is that History Matters. The problem of
> fundemental physics is that it is essentially timeless. The underlying
> laws are supposed to be the same everywhere and everywhen.
Not so if "time" is (not incorrectly) taken to be anything from relative
to absolute *change*
(nothing more nothing less).
And, an other cloud of uncertainty (hovering over your statement) can be
seen to
exist in the form of the controversy about the anthropic principle -
i.e. the
string-theoretical mathematical indication of
a near enough infinite variety of possible vacua/universes
out of which our existence require our kind of universe to
actually have come to exist as opposed to be a mere
potential of a serially and/or parallelistically
self-expressing multiverse.
> No so for
> living systems. Our present is a function not only of past states, but
> the path that was taken to get from Then to Now.
With this I concur completely
P
Peter F
Agree.
Apropos which:
I am (more than just) inclined to think that evolutionary pressures
consist *more importantly* of "opportunity type pressures" (OTP)
than of "adversity type pressures".
One may think of "OTP" as: sometimes realized and pattern-complexity
increasing intrinsic (~individual) and extrinsic (~environmental)
patterning
potentials.
For example:
Of any (by permutations of spacetime-energy-matter produced) potentially
occupied ecological (or e.g. socioeconomical) niches that as if await
the
arrival of mutant individuals (primarily produced by intrinsic
permutations
of spacetime-energy-matter) capable of taking possession of (or of
"opportunizing" on) these 'niches-for-the-taking'.
-----------------------
This dichotomization (most general possible subdivision) of
the "Evolutionary Pressure Totality" _
[or by whatever other expression you may prefer to refer to
everything that has a bearing on (or all "patterns of patterning"
involved in and constituting) from cosmological to biological (to
cyborgenic?) evolution]
_ becomes really interesting and uniquely explanatory (even if just
marginally so) if one recognizes _
[i.e. recognizes *as if* as a result of having performed a
science-aligned and most of all humanly relevant
philosophical sum over lifetime histories of all
individuals/populations in the phylogeny of neuronal fauna]
_ the following:
That intrinsic and extrinsic (environmental) examples of "opportunity
type (~constructively naturally selective) pressures" have frequently
coincided (occurred *simultaneously enough*) with examples of
a subtype of adversity type pressures that can be defined as a
thematic subvariety of predicaments that as if "implore"
(i.e. that require) - if to be NOT JUST individually survived but
sooner or later also survived in a reproductive sense -
what may be referred to as "specific hibernation".
What I mean by "specific hibernation" can be more clearly understood
if it is compared/contrasted with "general hibernation".
The latter (likewise by me pragmatically contrived) expression is what
is traditionally meant by hibernation.
The common denominator between specific hibernation and general
hibernation is a "metabolism muting" function (so to speak).
That is, in cases of lifetime predicaments that demand "specific
hibernation" (but not general hibernation),
a metabolism muting function precisely affects specific synapses
(synapses that would have transmitted
neuronal signals toward energizing and forming a self-defeating
'actention' ("focus of actention", alt. "paying of actention").
["Actention" is a mere amalgam of the words "activity" and "attention".
It is merely meant to represent both muscle/muscle-cell metabolism
dependent and 'neuron-metabolism-dependent' utilization of an
individual's limited supply of intrinsically stored - and a limited
capacity to obtain and make use of - vital resources.]
Situations that induce specific hibernation thereby also block and cause
a "long-term depression" of synapses that would otherwise crucially
subserve self-defeating flight or defensive fight, or
ditto distress, coupled with relevant learning (long-term potentiation
of relevant other synapses).
My notion of "specific hibernation" mainly (but not only) implies
relatively slow neuronal mechanisms, the effects of which can be
enduring. Typically this involve the activity (and genomically permitted
synthesis) of endorphins, enkephalins, dynorphin, and other opioids and
their receptors.
In contrast, "general hibernation" typically involves additional neural
_and_ hormonal mechanisms (likewise genetically endowed and
'phylogenetically forged') such that when individuals of instinctively
hibernating or aestivating species are affected by regularly reoccurring
seasonal situations that consist of adversely cold or dry climatic
conditions calls for self-regulatory *metabolism muting* adjustments
that affect the entire multicellular organism to the effect that it
thereby renders itself immobilized.
-------------------------------
It seems to be too much for most people to cope with that I have
truncated this 'loosely particular' component of my
'Evolutionary Psychophysiology Type' insight into
chiefly how we humans are, to be an acronymic 'concEPT'
that lends itself to be spellt and pronounced exactly like
"SHITS". %-|
[It stands flexibly, yet by accEPTably (or tolerably) fixed (or by
science-aligned sem_antics cemented) formulation, for Specific/Synaptic
Hibernation Imploring/Inducing (inducing in order to be survived both
individually and genetically/procreatively) Traumatic/Type
Situations/Stressors/Stimulation.]
There is no corroborating electrophysiological measurments of the SHITS
caused memories that I call CURSES.
[Nor still, or perhaps forever to remain non-existent, any super-fine
f-NMR scanning technology to bear witness to them.]
Nevertheless, we know enought to conclude that CURSES type memories
(that are as if put into an neural individual's Actention Selection
System
by it being in a SHITS) must reasonably, and for all relevant else that
we
know, exist.
CURSES (primal pain or engrams) are brain-imprints consisting of LTP'd
neurons whose primary or original role was to have "energized" a 'paying
of a self-defeating actention' (corresponding to the
affective-motivational
'neuronal dimension' of CURSES/imprint of a traumatic experience), and
of other neurons whose role in the same predicament represented the
(likewise fairly neuroanatomically well-defined)
"sensory-discriminative"
neuronal dimension of a traumatic experience.
Because the same SHITS-storing (or, rather, CURSES containing) neural
circuits are part of the system resources that are required for us to be
conscious and have access to and capacity to realize our self-regulatory
potentials, to not even have theoretical awareness of the role of SHITS,
come CURSES (and their naturally selective overlap with opportunity type
evolutionary pressures) in the phylogeny of fauna (and folk, not the
least),
is from my point of view a flaw to be philosophically frowned at.
P
ker...@gmail.com
humans live; those that don't are extinguished. as an example, while
one may argue that they have undesirable lives as individuals, the
genes of feed animals have no (metaphorical) worry about going extinct.
same goes for the genes of food staples such as wheat and corn. also,
animals (think: rats and roaches) that live nicely off our refuse also
do nicely. also, parasites that do nicely in the environments we've
created do nicely. our intelligence made a world that is probably much
more congenial to microbial parasites than was the world before our
intelligence built crowded cities. you could say that the great
epidemics of the last 700 or so years have evolved the human race, and
those that follow will, too. most of the great epidemics were not
stopped by a cure. they were stopped when the pathogen ran out of
susceptible populations. those that survived were not susceptible. that
is a population tha tis evolved to be immune or resistant, but that's
not how we like to think of that happen.
more pleasantly, think: it's hard to imagine that there would be as
many dogs and cats in the world were it not for our technology. and
it's open to question whether wheat domesticated man or the other way
around. so, it's worth saying also that evolution itself, the process,
is immutable. the direction it takes at any one moment is subject to
course change by things such as what evolves and natural disaster.