Natural selection

[Belz...]

There's a choice. Determinism and Darwinism cannot both be simultaneously true - any look at human society will tell you that.

You say that as though it were obvious, but I suspect nobody would agree with you, here. So what do you mean ?

 

[Belz...]

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.

That might be because you don't understand how evolution works. That wouldn't be surprising considering your posting history.

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

Indeed. The "intelligent evolution" thread illustrated this quite nicely.

 

[delphi_ote]

For several different human populations, historically, owning cattle was a form of wealth.

But this is a different definition of "wealth" than what was used in the original post. You have given interesting examples of the complex interaction between social and evolutionary pressures, but you're confusing the issue for someone who clearly has a poor grasp of evolution.

In an effort to be as clear as possible, there is not a general purpose "wealth" gene that can be inherited. Wealth is an abstract social concept, and there are many complex factors interacting that cause a person to be considered rich or poor. Nature cannot in general select for "fittest" in terms of wealth. Societal pressures cause whatever differences in reproduction we see in rich versus poor.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That might be because you don't understand how evolution works. That wouldn't be surprising considering your posting history.

Belz, please correct your quote tags on this post. You've put Plumjam's words in my mouth--and they taste horrible!

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, Joe. Too late to edit!

 

[jimbob]

I suggest a PM to a mod...

It's probably OK Joe, I looked at "your" words and decided there was a mistake somewhere...

 

[Complexity]

We at JREF are here to educate. Not to mock.

You are wrong.

JREF is here for the purpose of education.

The participants in the JREF forum are here for a multitude of reasons.

Only some of us are here to educate.

The education of others is not my reason for being here. I'm here for some community. This is the only forum that I participate in.

There are occasions when I know something that most others do not, and I enjoy sharing things, so I do a bit of 'education'.

I do not, however, regard myself as being, in any way, obligated to spend time on a lot of the people that visit here - their agendas, deportment, nastiness, or foolishness make them unworthy of any of my time (apart from an occasional jab).

 

[Complexity]

Homosexuals are genetically *defective*(I know that I could find a nicer way to say this...sorry) as far as the system of natural selection and reproduction are concerned, but hey, there are plenty of kids to adopt!

I'm gay and have never fathered a child. Never will.

My genes are being passed down through my siblings' children (etc.). My genetic relationship to each of my nephews and nieces is the same as that of a grandparent to a grandchild.

An argument has been made that gay and lesbian non-parents, by being free from the burdens of childrearing, have an opportunity to be productive in ways that may be beneficial to their family's next generation that is different from and, perhaps, greater than, the siring of children.

I suggest reading S.J. Gould's essays - there are some that bear directly on this question in other species.

At any rate, we're not out of the game by any means.

 

[Gate2501]

I'm gay and have never fathered a child. Never will.

My genes are being passed down through my siblings' children (etc.). My genetic relationship to each of my nephews and nieces is the same as that of a grandparent to a grandchild.

An argument has been made that gay and lesbian non-parents, by being free from the burdens of childrearing, have an opportunity to be productive in ways that may be beneficial to their family's next generation that is different from and, perhaps, greater than, the siring of children.

I suggest reading S.J. Gould's essays - there are some that bear directly on this question in other species.

At any rate, we're not out of the game by any means.

I had honestly never thought of things this way until reading some of the posts in this very thread. Very enlightening. I simply hadn't thought of passing on ones genes, or the perpetuation of the genetic line, via the effects on one's siblings and relatives children. Even as was said before the children in the community or tribe as far as ancient man went.

I know that I am normally being snarky and crass in my replies but I do really pick up a lot of information here that I would not encounter otherwise. That is the real reason that I read these forums.

Good stuff.

 

[Megalodon]

Megalodon was wrong.

I love you too...

(and arrogant in his presuming the OP does not deserve a long answer. We at JREF are here to educate. Not to mock.)

The question was a bait... I chose not to bite.

Lots of books apply Darwin's theories to society:

Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond is one of my favorites. And, it is a book well respected among most scientists. It plays out like "survival of the fittest enviornmental factors".

Even before that, the Darwinian behavior of memetics was popularized in the end of Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene, which helps us build better models of how societial ideas can form and spread.

Recently, Michael Shermer published Mind of the Market, which, in part, applies Darwin's theories to economics. The results are models that could better predict economic markets, as they emerge in various societies. (Though, this angle is still in its early stages of development.)

Those are just a few examples, off the top of my head.

You can apply Darwin's theories to a system without that system being subjected to it... See, for instance, the use of evolutionary theory to design better airplane models. However, no one in hir's right mind would think that Darwinian theories included airplanes in it.

From the moment that we are all reproductively fit, Darwinian theories stop applying. You can of course contend that social rituals and cultural norms are the actual substitute for natural selection pressures, but in my opinion that would be over-stretching it.

However, I'm open to be convinced.

I challenge anyone to come up with some aspect of life, that can't be explained by Evolutionary processes.[/QUOTE]

Celibate monasteries...

 

[cyborg]

From the moment that we are all reproductively fit, Darwinian theories stop applying.

No they don't. You're making a category error.

Being reproductively capable and being reproductively successful are two entirely different things.

You can of course contend that social rituals and cultural norms are the actual substitute for natural selection pressures, but in my opinion that would be over-stretching it.

You can't just ignore the behaviour of the entities that are borne out by the chemical processes that chain their way from genome to phenome. It is ultimately the phenome that is selected - not the genome. And whilst the phenome strongly reflects the nature of the genome it is also strongly reflective of the environment in which it finds itself.

In other words people's behaviour determines what genes are carried into the next generation but genes and the environment and the expression of the genes determine people's behaviour.

As such:

Celibate monasteries...

Are explained by the evolution of an abstract reasoning system with the capability of affecting behaviour by means of interpreting symbolic information.

That is when the human brain evolved culture began. As culture evolves so does the complexity of human behaviour - which is and will continue to have many subtle effects on the genes we ultimately propagate.

 

[Earthborn]

From the moment that we are all reproductively fit, Darwinian theories stop applying.

True, but that hasn't happened yet.

 

[Megalodon]

No they don't. You're making a category error.

Being reproductively capable and being reproductively successful are two entirely different things.

Not nowadays.

In other words people's behaviour determines what genes are carried into the next generation but genes and the environment and the expression of the genes determine people's behaviour.

So you are contending that culture is genetic?

Are explained by the evolution of an abstract reasoning system with the capability of affecting behaviour by means of interpreting symbolic information.

That is when the human brain evolved culture began. As culture evolves so does the complexity of human behaviour - which is and will continue to have many subtle effects on the genes we ultimately propagate.

Beware of that route lad... there be monsters...

 

[Megalodon]

True, but that hasn't happened yet.

We will have to disagree, then... For all practical purposes, we are all reproductively fit.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I challenge anyone to come up with some aspect of life, that can't be explained by Evolutionary processes.

Celibate monasteries...

You mean aside from the human proclivity for ritual, given our social brain's ability to misfire and treat inanimate objects, and the universe at large, as something that is amenable to social actions - such as pleas and propitiation? Aside from biological altruism, in which social animals contribute to the survival of the species at large by making non-reproductive contributions to their societies? For centuries, monasteries were centers of learning and trade, and were often the focal points for village or city life. Churches and monasteries acquired fabulous treasuries, and wielded great influence, and more than one monk or priest was attracted to the institution by the influence they would thus gain for themselves and their families. Does the name Borgia ring a bell?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry, Joe. Too late to edit!

I suggest a PM to a mod...

It's probably OK Joe, I looked at "your" words and decided there was a mistake somewhere...

I'm not overly worried about being taken for an IDer or evolution-denier. (Also glad you don't get quotes of quotes, so I'm not likely to see those words attributed to me later on.)

Meanwhile. . .I just keep brushing my teeth over and over. Still can't get the taste out. . .

 

[martu]

You mean aside from the human proclivity for ritual, given our social brain's ability to misfire and treat inanimate objects, and the universe at large, as something that is amenable to social actions - such as pleas and propitiation? Aside from biological altruism, in which social animals contribute to the survival of the species at large by making non-reproductive contributions to their societies? For centuries, monasteries were centers of learning and trade, and were often the focal points for village or city life. Churches and monasteries acquired fabulous treasuries, and wielded great influence, and more than one monk or priest was attracted to the institution by the influence they would thus gain for themselves and their families. Does the name Borgia ring a bell?

Indeed. They were a source of food and welfare for communities, they contributed to the survival of the tribe driectly. Evolution works on populations not individuals.

 

[cyborg]

Not nowadays.

What do you mean "not nowadays"?

There is, has, and always will be a difference.

So you are contending that culture is genetic?

Er no - that would be a category mistake akin to contending that this forum is an electron.

Beware of that route lad... there be monsters...

Eh?

 

[martu]

You mean aside from the human proclivity for ritual, given our social brain's ability to misfire and treat inanimate objects, and the universe at large, as something that is amenable to social actions - such as pleas and propitiation? Aside from biological altruism, in which social animals contribute to the survival of the species at large by making non-reproductive contributions to their societies? For centuries, monasteries were centers of learning and trade, and were often the focal points for village or city life. Churches and monasteries acquired fabulous treasuries, and wielded great influence, and more than one monk or priest was attracted to the institution by the influence they would thus gain for themselves and their families. Does the name Borgia ring a bell?

Indeed. They were a source of food and welfare for communities, they contributed to the survival of the tribe directly. Evolution works on populations not individuals.

 

[Wowbagger]

Jeez, I gotta lot of work to do on this Thread. I got dinner plans to get to, for most of the rest of the evening, so I might not be able to respond to y'all until tomorrow.

Until then, I would like to offer a few bits of general advice:

* Learn what the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is, before you comment on it. Here is a convenient link to get you started: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

* Quit making Arguments from Personal Incredulity! Just because YOU can not think of how Evolution can apply to something, does NOT mean someone more clever than you never will.

* Consider the idea that some of the disagreements here might stem from semantical issues, not differences in fundamental concepts.

* Remember what the OP is about! I'm guilty of side-tracking, myself. But, the more we focus on the original question, the more we can all learn from each other, about the roles Natural Selection has played in population dynamics, even if some of the roles are only an indirect effect on non-inheritable (in the Darwinian sense) traits, such as wealth.

Thank You!