Natural selection

[plumjam]

I know the question wasn't put to me, but I did already address issues like this. I'd say it's the same thing as applies to many other human traits--how do you explain poetry writing and the ability to compose (and even appreciate music)?

Very good question, which should be asked more often. I explain it like this: Darwinism is wrong ... because anything as massively complicated as a Mozart or a Shakespeare goes millions of miles beyond what is needed for mere survival and genetic replication.

Humans evolved as social animals (and we have relatively near relatives in the other 2 species of chimpanzees to compare to). Humans evolved a lot of traits that were beneficial for such an environment (facial recognition, pattern recognition, the ability to deduce intention, language, etc.) A by product of these traits explains a LOT of human endeavors.

Sure, but chimpanzees don't seem to have any problem spending their whole lives just eating and shagging. They survive and reproduce. We could too, from tomorrow, if we were all frontal lobotomised tonight, and became like chimps. So why the need for massively more complex behaviour?

Homosexual behavior is pretty common in mammals and other primates. It might have an advantage for the survival of the village or clan (as with altruism in humans and mimicry in non-poisonous animals it could be explained by helping the reproductive success of closely related members at the "cost" of the individual). I suspect that it's something that is merely not selected against--like most human endeavors.

Well, that's a complex way of saying "I don't know", isn't it Kind of wedded to Darwinism in its conjecture.
(See how easy Chimps have it?)

(I juggle--and I doubt that juggling has ever caused greater or lesser reproductive success. Does that mean that natural selection can't explain juggling?

Yes, it does.

Juggling makes use of structures and functions that were selected for--arm swinging patterns that use the same motions as arm swinging while walking, a brain that can learn, etc.)

Committing suicide prior to reproducing could well make use of similar arm movements. Yet this suicidal arm behaviour could not fit into a Darwinist schema of explanation.

Is that what you're after?

What I'm really after is a beer. Throw me 3 over here, I'll try to catch 'em

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ok, so I'm wrong. What is your explanation of homosexuality vis-a-vis Darwinism, then?

Couple of possibilities to add to what Joe already stated..........

To reiterate his contribution, there may be a selective advantage in having some members of a group not reproduce but provide help -- it helps the genes of a group with which one shares one's own genes to survive.

This is not human selection. First, get rid of the idea that there is such a thing as human vs. natural selection. That distinction was only useful when Darwin was trying to marshal arguments for his position. In reality there is only selection.

Second possibility -- sexual orientation and sexual selection is a complex process for a variety of reasons that have to do with variety, etc. Because we live in a fairly unstable environment (we certainly developed within an unstable environment), variability is paramount, so that someone will survive. A consequence of high degrees of variability is that 'mistakes' occur -- some situations that do not lead to reproductive success. If this occurs fairly uncommonly for the population as a whole then the selective advantage of increased variability simply outweighs any particular individuals that do not reproduce -- the high degree of variability in a process like sexual orientation/sexual selection (by which I mean the variability in the traits that any particular individual will choose sexually) will persist. A natural consequence is something like homosexuality.

Third possibility -- the 'issue' is not in the person with the trait but in his/her mother. One interesting aspect of male homosexuality is that it tends to be more likely in second, third and more sons. One possibility is that the proteins in a developing male fetus may induce some form of immunological response in the mother in a first son. Subsequent sons could be immunologically attacked and the result might possibly be that the hypothalamic neurons responsible for sexual orientation are affected, so that they assume the default position -- attraction to a male. Sort of like the Rh factor story but a much less vigorous attack -- granted, unlikely, but possible.

One other possibility that could account for the greater likelihood of male homosexuality in later sons -- it could be that we are aggressive buggers when there are too many males around and not enough resources, especially when all the women are dying in childbirth; we could have developed two compensatory changes to decrease the number of competing males, thus allowing some males to reproduce -- war and homosexuality.

There are many possibilities within a Darwinian framework to explain it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Very good question, which should be asked more often. I explain it like this: Darwinism is wrong ... because anything as massively complicated as a Mozart or a Shakespeare goes millions of miles beyond what is needed for mere survival and genetic replication.

No, because you are missing the whole point. We are not smart because we need it to escape from lions. We are smart because we need it to interact with other humans and figure out when they are trying to cheat us. And to woo women. Don't forget sexual selection. Shakespeare coulda gotten laid anytime he wanted.

We survived because we banded together. We aren't that strong or that fast, so we needed the advantage of groups for each of us to be more likely to survive. To be able to work effectively within a social group requires some degree of social intelligence, unless you are a bee or an ant. We didn't arise from the bees or ants but from other primates, who were already pretty smart for other reasons. We simply added to it.

Sure, but chimpanzees don't seem to have any problem spending their whole lives just eating and shagging. They survive and reproduce. We could too, from tomorrow, if we were all frontal lobotomised tonight, and became like chimps. So why the need for massively more complex behaviour?

Because it worked. We rule and chimps don't. They barely exist now.

 

[Wowbagger]

Darwinism is wrong ... because anything as massively complicated as a Mozart or a Shakespeare goes millions of miles beyond what is needed for mere survival and genetic replication.

No. Darwinism is not wrong. It is being applied to something else: Memes.

Mozart and Shakespeare survive and reproduce through their own set of selection pressures, as applied to ideas and cultural units, instead of life forms and genes.

So why the need for massively more complex behaviour?

Complex behavior might not necessarily be for our own benefit. It might ultimately benefit something else: Meme survival.

Committing suicide prior to reproducing could well make use of similar arm movements. Yet this suicidal arm behaviour could not fit into a Darwinist schema of explanation.

Read my post about homosexuality, and substitute suicide. There is no reason to assume it is impossible for evolution to yield suicidal entities, any more than it is impossible for a state-of-the-art car factory to churn out the occasional defective vehicle.

Evolution is NOT a ladder of perfection. It is a bush of reproductive events, joined by imperfect, less-than-optimal survival solutions. What else would you expect from a natural process, that is ultimately indifferent to our own survival?

 

[Earthborn]

Even in developed countries there can be more of an incentive for the lower classes to procreate than the rich. For instance, some may view more children as a tax shelter. Until recently, the welfare system in the US rewarded prodigious reproduction handsomely. The rich have had no such incentive.

You are forgetting about a more important factor. Lower classes may not have equal access to healthcare and therefore no equal access to contraceptives as richer people have. Poor people with strong sex drives are then less capable of controlling how many children they get. AFAIK, in European countries where the Pill is covered by universal health insurance there is no great difference in birthrates between rich and poor (and as a result are aging rapidly).

 

[plumjam]

No one said evolution was perfect.

So when a difficult problem with the theory comes up it's the fault of evolution itself, rather than a problem with the theory

It is not impossible for the emergent phenotype of genes, from relatively-fit parents to result in reproductively unfit offspring. Just like it is not impossible for a "lemon" to come out of a car factory, no matter how careful and precise the assembly-line system was.

This is not simply a question of 'something not being impossible'. If you take the proportion of the human population covered by those 3, and add to it those who commit suicide before reproducing, I would reckon you're covering something like 15% of humanity.
Worldwide.
Throughout all of know human history.
That's a much bigger problem to explain within Darwinism than simply evolution not being perfect.

Investigations into the mechanisms of Evolution show us that different combinations of genes could yield results parents might not expect: Various diseases (where the parents were not diseased (though they could be carriers)), propensity to like computers (where the parents are technophobes), and a propensity to not want to have children.

The parents expectations have nothing to do with it. The problem is how a supposed genetic propensity to not want to have children gets passed on generation after generation ad infinitum.
That should act as a full stop to those selfish genes.

Some of the factors are societal, as well. The evolution of memes help us explain how ideas that lead to celibacy could short-circuit the natural urge to reproduce, in some cases.

This is would-be mechanistic language describing free conscious intentional choice.
The two don't fit together.

More about homosexuals: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB403.html

Safe for work?

Most ants born will never reproduce, yet evolution explains their existence quite well: The non-reproductive workers ensure their genes will at least be passed on in their queen's offspring.

So teh gays are the human equivalent of teh worker ants?
The problem is that humans don't reproduce as do ant societies. We are meant to do it one to one, without interference from queens.
It is possible to see how worker ants aid in the reproductive success of ant colonies. It is not possible to see how human homosexuals aid in the reproductive success of humanity.
To believe they do is a faith position.

So they just popped out of nowhere?!

Darwinianly speaking, yes.

Remember: Evolution is NOT a ladder. It is a bush. Not all branches are going to grow more branches.

Are you copying this from a book?

 

[Earthborn]

There may be some random elements in mutation, but the selection process is entirely non-random.

The selection process can only be "entirely non-random" if no random events ever occur in the selecting enivironment.

Evolution is neither chance nor design. It is an algorithm. And, a practically inevitable one, at that.

It is a "Monte Carlo" algorithm. Random events play a significant role.

 

[plumjam]

No, because you are missing the whole point. We are not smart because we need it to escape from lions. We are smart because we need it to interact with other humans and figure out when they are trying to cheat us. And to woo women. Don't forget sexual selection. Shakespeare coulda gotten laid anytime he wanted.

How many species that shag are there? They all manage fine without needing genius intelligence to help them out.

We survived because we banded together. We aren't that strong or that fast, so we needed the advantage of groups for each of us to be more likely to survive. To be able to work effectively within a social group requires some degree of social intelligence, unless you are a bee or an ant.

Why don't ants or bees need social intelligence?

We didn't arise from the bees or ants but from other primates, who were already pretty smart for other reasons. We simply added to it.

We 'added to it' to a completely inexplicable degree. 90-odd percent of human society and endeavour has gone far beyond eating and shagging.

Because it worked. We rule and chimps don't. They barely exist now.

hurrah!

 

[Dr Adequate]

If Darwinistic theory is right how come it is the weak and oor that tend to breed and propagate the most whereas the rich and healthy are a minority and have few offspring?

Unhealthy people do not in fact breed less than healthy people; and being rich is not a genetic trait and so cannot be selected for by natural selection so as to propogate through the gene pool.

Let me know if there's anything else bleedin' obvious that you need explaining.

 

[plumjam]

No. Darwinism is not wrong. It is being applied to something else: Memes.

Mozart and Shakespeare survive and reproduce through their own set of selection pressures, as applied to ideas and cultural units, instead of life forms and genes.

Which selection pressures or "memes" (jeez) require that Mozart write 41 symphonies and Shakespeare 37 plays in order for them to pass on their genes to the next generation?
Which selection pressures required Sibelius to be writing his best music when he was already an old codger with a dead whippet for a middle stump?

Complex behavior might not necessarily be for our own benefit. It might ultimately benefit something else: Meme survival.

I'm sorry, but this is just Dawkins dogma. Closer to science fiction than reality. So Bobby Fischer played chess because there were some chess memes floating through his head furiously trying to reproduce themselves.
No, it wasn't Fischer actually consciously playing brilliant chess for the beauty, the enjoyment, and the hell of it.. it was a bunch of err.. non-conscious insubstantial undetectable invisible "memes" (that were invented by some English ex-zoologist turned propagandist in the late 20th Century) using Bobby Fischer for their own perpetuation.
It's fantasy.

Read my post about homosexuality, and substitute suicide. There is no reason to assume it is impossible for evolution to yield suicidal entities, any more than it is impossible for a state-of-the-art car factory to churn out the occasional defective vehicle.

Analogy doesn't apply, because the next generation of cars does not reproduce from the previous generation.
In the analogy the factory would have to be an intelligent designer.

Evolution is NOT a ladder of perfection. It is a bush of reproductive events, joined by imperfect, less-than-optimal survival solutions. What else would you expect from a natural process, that is ultimately indifferent to our own survival?

You said the same ladder/bush thing in the previous post, and I asked if you were copying from a book. Did the page blow back?

(Actually, I can now see how the ladder/bush/reproduction solution might apply; to dwarves)

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

How many species that shag are there? They all manage fine without needing genius intelligence to help them out.

Entirely beside the point. How many species shag out there and manage just fine without running like a cheetah or squirting poison into a waiting beetle? Species and individuals don't develop traits because they 'need' them. If they have them and it helps them to survive, then the traits are passed on.

Intelligence helped us to survive within large groups.

Why don't ants or bees need social intelligence?

Depends on how you define social intelligence, but the simple answer is that most of them are sisters -- genetically identical members. One helping another is essentially helping itself and all helping the queen -- that maximizes the chance of them passing on their genes.

They don't problem solve the same way we do because they do not face the same hurdles. There is no individual advantage in a genetically identical sister squirreling away all the resources and fooling the rest.

But people are people. We do see the advantage. So, we gots lots smarter to figgur out when the cheaters were doing their thing.

We 'added to it' to a completely inexplicable degree. 90-odd percent of human society and endeavour has gone far beyond eating and shagging.

Shagging in social species like ours is not a simple proposition. There are mines out there that must be passed because of our peculiar lifestyle -- all of which rotates back to the fact that we only survived by banding together.

 

[Gate2501]

Which selection pressures or "memes" (jeez) require that Mozart write 41 symphonies and Shakespeare 37 plays in order for them to pass on their genes to the next generation?


I'm sorry, but this is just Dawkins dogma. Closer to science fiction than reality. So Bobby Fischer played chess because there were some chess memes floating through his head furiously trying to reproduce themselves.
It's fantasy.

When you first show that you clearly do not understand Memes, then go on to attack Memes as Sci-Fi fantasy, your argument may not be well received.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Which selection pressures or "memes" (jeez) require that Mozart write 41 symphonies and Shakespeare 37 plays in order for them to pass on their genes to the next generation?
Which selection pressures required Sibelius to be writing his best music when he was already an old codger with a dead whippet for a middle stump?

How many times need you be told that not every single human behavior need be selected for so that the behaviors are possible? Selection for the ability to write a particular piece of music is as strawy as a straw man can possibly get.

 

[Gate2501]

How many times need you be told that not every single human behavior need be selected for so that the behaviors are possible? Selection for the ability to write a particular piece of music is as strawy as a straw man can possibly get.

Yeah, this guy is using the straw man that "EVOLUTION AND NATURAL SELECTION ARE WRONG IF THEY ARE NOT ABSOLUTE!". He has been using it over and over and over. In his mind, the fact that we are not all mindless robot slaves being driven by tiny little ribbons of DNA in a microscopic cockpit, to go reproduce then toss ourselves off a cliff, is PROOF that Natural Selection is wrong.

 

[jimbob]

There are very few animals that are exclusively homosexual. Bonobos being a good example of this (c.f. "penis fencing"). In these, sexual behaviour promotes cooporation; the promiscuity of female bonobos also means that there is no evolutionary advantage in male bonobos committing infanticide, and they are the only great apes where infanticide hasn't been observed.

If an animal with hoosexual tendancies still mates with the opposite sex at a similar frequency, there is no disadvantage.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Yeah, this guy is using the straw man that "EVOLUTION AND NATURAL SELECTION ARE WRONG IF THEY ARE NOT ABSOLUTE!". He has been using it over and over and over. In his mind, the fact that we are not all mindless robot slaves being driven by tiny little ribbons of DNA in a microscopic cockpit, to go reproduce then toss ourselves off a cliff, is PROOF that Natural Selection is wrong.

Usually it's devout religious people who think this way.

They think that since their views don't work unless they are absolutely correct that other peoples views must also have these same standards.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

plumjam,

I have read some of your posts, so I know that you are not a fool. But you are making yourself look utterly foolish with this line of pseudo-questions. Why not learn how natural selection and genetics actually work? Then, if you actually see a problem with it, you could provide a useful service.

Unless acting like a gnat is your life goal.

 

[Wowbagger]

So when a difficult problem with the theory comes up it's the fault of evolution itself, rather than a problem with the theory

I meant the process of Evolution.

When I said Evolution is not perfect, what I meant was: The process, being natural and unguided, can not be expected to yield perfect results.

Granted, the Theory is not perfect, either. But, as it stands, it still offers more precise explanations of life, than any alternative so far. And, it has been tested with far better success than any alternative.

This is not simply a question of 'something not being impossible'.

You stated: "I fail to see how such phenomena can possibly arise [from Selfish Gene Theory]." That is an argument from personal incredulity. My response was to inform you of how it could be possible.

If you take the proportion of the human population covered by those 3, and add to it those who commit suicide before reproducing, I would reckon you're covering something like 15% of humanity.
Worldwide.
Throughout all of know human history.
That's a much bigger problem to explain within Darwinism than simply evolution not being perfect.

On the other hand, 85% of humanity are reproducing (assuming your number is correct, for argument sake). That sounds like a successful algorithm to me, especially when you take into account all of the indifferent hardships life had to take on, to get that far!

The problem is how a supposed genetic propensity to not want to have children gets passed on generation after generation ad infinitum.
That should act as a full stop to those selfish genes.

You are assuming Selfish Gene theory could ONLY result in absolutely selfish, reproduction-seeking life forms. There is no basis for this assumption, and none is necessary for the Theory to be valid.

The reality is that Selfish Gene theory describes a natural process. Natural processes, being unguided and ultimately indifferent to survival, are not going to yield absolutely pristine results.

You do realize sexual reproduction involves gene recombination, between two parents, right? So, what part of the Theory makes it impossible for the "wrong" set of genes to meet each other, and result in a life form that does not wish to reproduce?

Also, others have suggested more Darwinian explanations for the survival of homosexual and celibate humans: A small population could help balance the number of caregivers (adults) vs. care receivers (newborn babies, in this case).

This is would-be mechanistic language describing free conscious intentional choice.
The two don't fit together.

Memes and genes might occasionally fight for resources, in the landscape. But, they do fit together as two aspects of behavioral explanation.

That fact is: Many factors go into people's lifestyle choices: Some are genetic, some are cultural, some come from other influences in the environment, and history, etc.

Safe for work?

It is an educational resource. If you are uncertain of your workplace policies, just read it at home.

So teh gays are the human equivalent of teh worker ants?

My point in bringing that up, is that there are many cases in nature, where life forms do not reproduce, and yet contribute to survival of their genes. To state that there is no possible way for the phenomena to arise, is immediately demonstrated as false, by such examples.

In the case of humans: Non-reproducing ones still contribute to society, which helps the genes of others spread. It is not difficult to realize this.

Are you copying this from a book?

It is a common idea.

Your posts seem to indicate that you think Darwinian Evolution is a ladder of progress, where each generation is somehow better than the other; therefore weakness and non-reproduction would debunk the theory. HOWEVER...

... that would be wrong! Evolution is more like a bush: Events happen where life forms reproduce, and often with modifications, and this continues on and on. There is no sense of better or worse. There is merely a process of reproduction. Though, there is a tendency for better adapted life forms to flourish, over time, it is not a guarantee.

Which selection pressures or "memes" (jeez) require that Mozart write 41 symphonies and Shakespeare 37 plays in order for them to pass on their genes to the next generation?

They are catchy amongst humans, for one thing.

I am sure there are lots of other factors, as well.

I'm sorry, but this is just Dawkins dogma. Closer to science fiction than reality.

Dogma?! Since when are testable scientific ideas, that generate innovative predictions, dogma?

You might not agree with the theory of Memes. But, to call it dogma is to misunderstand the science.

So Bobby Fischer played chess because there were some chess memes floating through his head furiously trying to reproduce themselves.

That would be, what Daniel Dennet might call, greedy reductionism.

There are probably lots of reasons Bobby Fischer ended up playing chess so well, the popularity and pervasiveness of the chess meme, was probably only one factor.

Analogy doesn't apply, because the next generation of cars does not reproduce from the previous generation.
In the analogy the factory would have to be an intelligent designer.

I admit the analogy is not perfect, but it is not completely flawed, either: car assembly lines are the product of evolution, albeit an intelligently designed one (more about why that is not important later).

Car assembly lines have undergone innovations to make their process of churning out quality cars, as effectively as possible. You would think that many decades of innovations would yield an assembly process with a 100% success rate. But, in reality, they still churn out a bad car, on occasion.

You might assume that a process of Evolution, going on for many eons, would churn out life forms with a 100% success rate of reproductive survival. But, reality, it still churns out a reproductively-unfit life form, on occasion.

The analogy might not be perfect, because of the intelligent design of car factories. However, I brought it up to show that no process of evolution is going to be 100% successful, NOT EVEN one that is intelligently designed. You would expect a natural process to have an even worse success rate, and perhaps in some ways it does.

Nature does not care about human opinions of progress, anyway.

 

[plumjam]

When you first show that you clearly do not understand Memes, then go on to attack Memes as Sci-Fi fantasy, your argument may not be well received.

please tell the memes in your head that are there to reproduce explanations of memes to express themselves and ensure their further distribution and ontological success by acting on your motor region to the fingers to the keyboard

 

[Wowbagger]

The selection process can only be "entirely non-random" if no random events ever occur in the selecting enivironment.

It is a "Monte Carlo" algorithm. Random events play a significant role.

The "Monte Carlo" algorithm applies to mutation and recombination, I believe, which is part of building candidates to be selected. Not the selection process, itself.

The selection process is non-random by definition, because it comes into play "after" the fitness landscape and all the candidates are built.

And, for what it is worth, the role random events play in building candidates is shrinking, the more we understand about the physics involved.