Natural selection

[Gate2501]

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

To be frank, you are acting like an idiot at this point. Your arguments have been completely thrashed and you are still kicking and screaming like a 8 year old that cannot be proven wrong.

Explain to me clearly what you do not grasp about the concept of Memes, and I will clarify for you. However, if you have the same sort of absolute thinking in this regard, and will not accept anything short of "MEMES CONTROL THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUSNESS OF MAN AND ANYTHING LESS MEANS THEY DO NOT EXIST", then you need to take your crummy straw man, and go over to the pothead forums.

 

[plumjam]

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 thank you kind sir.
You've said this to me before. The problem with it is that it is neither argument nor evidence, get me?
Instead it is some kind of avuncular advice from one who regards himself as more learned than the other.

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.

Hmm.. you mean the natural selection of random mutations which when experimentally intensely pursued for decades through millions of generations has never ever produced from gnats, say, anything that was not a gnat?

Don't you question that?

(BTW, what precisely are "pseudo-questions"? Are the memes attacking you tonight? )

 

[Earthborn]

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

I assume that with "fitness landscape" you mean the environment and with "the candidates" you mean individual organisms.

There is no "after", the environment is constantly changing, which means that organisms' reproductive chance of success is constantly changing. And it is constantly changing in often chaotic and unpredictable ways.

Another important thing: the environment of an organism largely consists of other organisms that have had random mutations and recombinations. And few of these organisms are sitting still waiting for natural selection to weed them out or reproduce them; they are moving, developing and growing in ways trying to maximise their own chances of survival or reproductive success. That means they are often exhibiting chaotic and unpredictable behaviours, shaping their environments in chaotic and unpredictable ways.

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

Maybe if we know more about the physics involved, we'll be able to predict the weather a year in advance.

Or maybe we will learn that some things are so complex we might as well treat them as random.

 

[Shalamar]

Is it Speciation that is getting to you then? That no Species has arisen from another?

Sorry to say, but Speciation has been observed, and recorded in modern times.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The problem with it is that it is neither argument nor evidence, get me?
Instead it is some kind of avuncular advice from one who regards himself as more learned than the other.

It is simple observation and nothing more. You are repeating the same tired arguments that have been answered repeatedly. They are based on the same tired mistakes -- things like "selfish gene" = "selfish individual" and "no speciation events have ever been observed" and "how can you explain behavior x based on Darwinian selection?" (which assumes the straw argument -- pointed out to you specifically before -- that all behaviors have a direct "Darwinian explanation", which has been debunked repeatedly). You've even been told the explanations for homosexuality before. I know, I saw it happen. I participated in a previous thread in which you asked the same question and got some of the same answers, but you haven't learned a thing.

You are behaving like a gnat.

Hmm.. you mean the natural selection of random mutations which when experimentally intensely pursued for decades through millions of generations has never ever produced from gnats, say, anything that was not a gnat?

No, I think that would be the one that has produced documented speciation events seen in fruit flys. I'm not aware of any such experiment involving gnats. Could you please give me the actual evidence so that I could look at the variability that arises? I would love to see the actual data. And wonder, if such a finding is what occurred, why no one put different groups into new environments. That would simply be quite strange.

If you do not know that groups must be isolated for changes to occur between them, then please ask about this. Sex tends to mix genes and spread them across a large gene pool. If all individuals within a group are subject to the same environment and they all have sex with one another, the only possible changes will occur with some form of drift.

Bigger changes occur when groups are isolated -- either through the inability for them to mate successfully or through some form of physical isolation, so that different groups carry different sets of genes with them; and they accumulate changes over time. By keeping them separate, the accumulated changes have nowhere to go but to diverge.

 

[plumjam]

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.

Faith statements.
Please explain how these things aid in survival and reproduction: poetry, fine art, music, humour, philosophy, haute couture, chess, sculpture, formula 1 racing, the study of Sanskrit, Egyptology, astronomy, sub-atomic particle colliders, Lacrosse, darts, internet forums for 'skeptics' ..... well I could go on all night, but you get the picture. Darwinism would need to be able to explain ALL of these. I doubt whether a convincing case could be made for even a couple of them.

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.

Are there any examples of ant colonies that failed due to inadequate social intelligence? I assume not. So this idea of natural selection will not have been observed in them.

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.

So this should scotch any notion that human morality and altruism has its source in evolution.. if you're going to be consistent.

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

Sometimes cheaters get caught. Sometimes criminals get caught. However, detection and conviction rates are typically somewhat lower than 20%. The 'rational' thing would be to carefully plan then commit a few high-reward crimes, thus likely increasing your standard of living, buying a flash car, and attracting the chicks. Then go straight.
Wouldn't be the moral thing though.

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.

Peculiar lifestyle inexplicable when restricted to a Darwinist outlook.

 

[Wowbagger]

There is no "after", the environment is constantly changing, which means that organisms' reproductive chance of success is constantly changing. And it is constantly changing in often chaotic and unpredictable ways.

That is why I put "after" in quotes. It is not literally after. But, in a human-made diagram, it might be placed "after", for reference purposes.

Another important thing: the environment of an organism largely consists of other organisms that have had random mutations and recombinations.

That is a good point. Though, it doesn't refute my own.

Selection is an event that acts on all the random stuff, but it is not considered random, itself.

Or maybe we will learn that some things are so complex we might as well treat them as random.

And, that is part of my point: We can treat them as random, for our purposes, while acknowledging that they are probably not really that random.

Science has no motive to assume something is truly, naturally random. Not until it is demonstrated empirically, like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal has. Assuming something is random, without evidence, is a science-ender.

 

[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.

I'm sorry.
You see, I have been mentally possessed by these pesky anti-evolution memes. They spiral through my brain/mind insidiously urging me to act as their vassal so they can shag furiously, sending out their offspring all over the globe via internet forums. I try my best, but these unconscious invisible yet-to-be-detected entities hold sway over me.
I'm powerless.
Must try harder.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Faith statements.
Please explain how these things aid in survival and reproduction: poetry, fine art, music, humour, philosophy, haute couture, chess, sculpture, formula 1 racing, the study of Sanskrit, Egyptology, astronomy, sub-atomic particle colliders, Lacrosse, darts, internet forums for 'skeptics' ..... well I could go on all night, but you get the picture. Darwinism would need to be able to explain ALL of these. I doubt whether a convincing case could be made for even a couple of them.

Um, what? I showed you the inadequacies of your previous statement.

Darwin need not directly explain any of these. The basis has already been covered. We developed general intelligence to deal with social groups of a particular size. That general intelligence can be used in a bewildering variety of ways. Where's the problem? Pleas explain.

Are there any examples of ant colonies that failed due to inadequate social intelligence? I assume not. So this idea of natural selection will not have been observed in them.

You've completely lost me. What in the Sam Hill are you talking about, Jem?

So this should scotch any notion that human morality and altruism has its source in evolution.. if you're going to be consistent.

In what possible way and in what possible universe? I did not say that there is no relationship whatsoever between the social arrangements and constraints of insects and humans, only that they are not close to one another.

Again, what in the world are you possibly talking about and how did you make such an incredibly unwarranted leap?

Sometimes cheaters get caught. Sometimes criminals get caught. However, detection and conviction rates are typically somewhat lower than 20%. The 'rational' thing would be to carefully plan then commit a few high-reward crimes, thus likely increasing your standard of living, buying a flash car, and attracting the chicks. Then go straight.
Wouldn't be the moral thing though.

Your point being what? Since this has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said, like your two of your previous replies, I can only assume that you attack these problems from wildly different assumptions or there is some incredible linguistic problem here. Or you're just having me on, since these replies make no friggin' sense.

Morality developed for a very clear reason that has been dealt with in these forums repeatedly.

So, please stop with the "selfish gene" = "selfish person" canard.

Peculiar lifestyle inexplicable when restricted to a Darwinist outlook.

No, it's not. How many times must we explain the same thing to you?

 

[jimbob]

Indeed Earthborn; as the weather obviously affects survival, and because it is a chaotic system, it is probably affected by quantum events (whether a single aom decays, and ionises some air for example).

Just because something is random, doesn't mean that the odds are all the same.

A single atom of plutonium-239 and a single atom of U235 both will decay in processes that are (to the best of our knowledge) random. However in any time period, the plutonium is tens of thousands of times more likely to decay, based on a quick look at their respective half-lives.

Organisms with different traits have different chances of producing reproducing offspring, but these traits skew the odds, but don't make the process nonrandom.

Looking at the figures, it would probably make sense to treat the number of reproducing offspring per parent as a poison distribution, where, for a stable population the lambda value is 1 and for an increasing population the lambda is greater than one, and the converse for a declining population.

Youcan then make some assumpptions on the survival probabilities and the chances of beneficial traits spreading beyond an individual:

For example:

Cod stocks are declining, this means that there is less than one breeding offspring per parent.

A single cod produces several million spawn, to make the numbers easy, lets say 2-million spawn. This means that the odds of survival of a single spawn is about 1:1,000,000. (Average 2 survive, and 2-parents)

Supposing one individual had a mutation that raised its chance of survival to breed 100x; it would now have a 1:10,000 chance of breeding.

If this individual did survive to breed, however, half its offspring had this trait, then the most probable number of surviving offspring in this brood would now be 101 (100x1 for for one half, and 1 for the other half). The trait would now spread rapidly.

(Damn, I promised myself that I wouldn't get into this debate again).

Mostly I think it is semantics, as to most physicists (and several of the ecologists that I know, this is an example of a quintessentially random process).

 

[Walter Wayne]

Science has no motive to assume something is truly, naturally random. Not until it is demonstrated empirically, like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal has. Assuming something is random, without evidence, is a science-ender.

Well, one of the causes you gave, cosmic rays, is as about as random as it gets. Bonds, the breaking and reestablishing of, are all probababilistic processes governed by precisely the quantum process you speak of.

So not only are they random for all intents-and-purposes, they are currently believed to be truely, naturely random.

Walt

 

[plumjam]

To be frank, you are acting like an idiot at this point. Your arguments have been completely thrashed and you are still kicking and screaming like a 8 year old that cannot be proven wrong.

Explain to me clearly what you do not grasp about the concept of Memes, and I will clarify for you. However, if you have the same sort of absolute thinking in this regard, and will not accept anything short of "MEMES CONTROL THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUSNESS OF MAN AND ANYTHING LESS MEANS THEY DO NOT EXIST", then you need to take your crummy straw man, and go over to the pothead forums.

Ok.
Has a meme ever been observed?

What of demonstrable veridical explanatory value has been added to human understanding by the concept of the meme? In other words, why is it useful for man to use the word 'meme' rather than pre-existing words such as: idea, concept, thought, fashion, fad, philosophy, ideology, argument etc..etc.. ?

Does the term meme apply equally to true ideas as well as to false ideas?

 

[Gate2501]

I'm sorry.
You see, I have been mentally possessed by these pesky anti-evolution memes. They spiral through my brain/mind insidiously urging me to act as their vassal so they can shag furiously, sending out their offspring all over the globe via internet forums. I try my best, but these unconscious invisible yet-to-be-detected entities hold sway over me.
I'm powerless.
Must try harder.

Once again, you misunderstand, and misrepresent the topic which you are arguing about.

Straw man thinks that Memes are little beings that can be physically detected, having the sex in my brain! Straw man is an idiot! I AM VICTORIOUS!

Memes have been detected just as much as any other psychological phenomena that has ever been studied. A meme is not some particle that can be seen or *detected* physically, it is a contagious thought, that if contagious enough, will spread. This is the mechanism for selection in memes, just how contagious is the thought or idea within humans.

 

[plumjam]

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.

A particular piece I agree with you. However, if Darwinism is true the ability to write any music at all needs to be explicable via natural selection processes aiding in survival and reproduction
You can try if you feel up to it.

 

[plumjam]

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.

So I take it you are admitting that darwinian evolution by natural selection of mutations is not absolute - in other words it cannot account for everything. So which are the parts that it cannot account for?
And these parts, how do they originate?

 

[plumjam]

Once again, you misunderstand, and misrepresent the topic which you are arguing about.

Straw man thinks that Memes are little beings that can be physically detected, having the sex in my brain! Straw man is an idiot! I AM VICTORIOUS!

Memes have been detected just as much as any other psychological phenomena that has ever been studied. A meme is not some particle that can be seen or *detected* physically, it is a contagious thought, that if contagious enough, will spread. This is the mechanism for selection in memes, just how contagious is the thought or idea within humans.

Thank you for the explanation. So memes are really just thoughts. We all know thoughts exist, and that they only exist in consciousness. So without consciousness no memes. Memes, then, are parts of consciousness.

What is the necessity of a new word? Why not just use "thoughts"?

 

[Gate2501]

So I take it you are admitting that darwinian evolution by natural selection of mutations is not absolute - in other words it cannot account for everything. So which are the parts that it cannot account for?
And these parts, how do they originate?

Of course it is not absolute. You are a product of your genes AND your environment (which goes back to genes in as far as we are genetically able to adapt to our environment). The environments in which we humans live are massively complex. Societies, cultures, arts. What began as a socially productive behavior in tribes (music, dance, ect.), has become something entirely more complicated in our modern world, that has nothing to do with a magical sky fairy.

In summary, you are totally neglecting the formation of groups and societies being functional to survival.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

A particular piece I agree with you. However, if Darwinism is true the ability to write any music at all needs to be explicable via natural selection processes aiding in survival and reproduction
You can try if you feel up to it.

Sure. I'm substituing story for music here. For music, just go straight to the guitar god gets laid every night and do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

"Hey, Bob, there's a lion over there behind the tree."
"What? You're putting me on!"
"No, really, I saw it sauntering through the grass and then perch itself behind that tree. I saw another one over there still in the grass. Maybe we should run away."
"Um, OK, let's run."

Back at basecamp, Bob tells Hugh, "That was a good story, dude. You saved my life."

Rinse, repeat, alter. Add old black guy married to white woman and an evil imp of a materialist with a coin festish and Othello is born.

And when the returns come back for the first night of this marvellous work the author gets laid and has twins because everyone just seems to love his story for some reason they can't quite articulate, though Shirleen, the cantakerous red-headed hair stylist found her own way to show her appreciation.

 

[Wowbagger]

Has a meme ever been observed?

Not in a physical sense, of course. But, the theory has yielded testable predictions, which I shall write a summary of, soon. And, the fact that it helps us generate such testable predictions, is an indication that it is a viable model, and not-too-shabby science.

why is it useful for man to use the word 'meme' rather than pre-existing words such as: idea, concept, thought, fashion, fad, philosophy, ideology, argument etc..etc.. ?

It is a semantical preference, to emphasize its nature as a replicator somewhat analogous (but not completely) with genes.

Does the term meme apply equally to true ideas as well as to false ideas?

Yes. Why not?


I intend to expand on this response, and respond to other folks, when I have more time, later in the evening.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Jeez! Just how many dogs are in that car?

Just keep watching and counting. We'll check in with you at this time tomorrow,