Evolutionary strategies/behaviours and culture
- Thread starter Brainaddict
- Start date
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Can I have my definition of evolution, please?gorski said:First, lbj, one needs a mind, then an open one, some good will thrown in for good measure, than one that doesn't go off wondering to "nothing new under the sun" immediately, after the first hurdle...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The thing is that evolutionary theory isn't based on observations of human society. This is wrong-headed from the start.
It is a demonstrable, inevitable consequence of reproduction in a changing environment. This is the essense of evolutionary theory, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with any human society.
It is a demonstrable, inevitable consequence of reproduction in a changing environment. This is the essense of evolutionary theory, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with any human society.
gorski
customised free radical
Nonsense. I suggest you study the subject first, then make a fool of yourself, if you really have the urge. But if you attempt it in good faith and with an open, critical mind you will find your statement extremely arrogant and baseless. Starting, I must have written this at least half a dozen times, from Darwin/Wallace own statements...
As for poor Newton being deprived of bananas, having to do with apples - what can I do about it...?!?
[Just belive in yourselves, guys, you don't need a dogma, let go of the crutch...
]But seriously: "evolutionary theory" is still but a theory! Not to forget, methinx...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I officially give up on you.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
It's still a theory in the same way that every scientific theory is still a theory - it holds as long as the evidence supports it.
Darwin may have been inspired by the society he lived in, but his theory is supported by plenty of evidence and has predictive power. This is what we ask of scientific theories, and evolutionary theory performs well.
Now, of course, scientists are humans, and put their own beliefs and bias into their research. But over time, with more reserch, and more new knowledge, the common thread of useful truth can be picked out.
And sometimes, all the scientists in the world get so ingrained in the 'truth' of a theory that they start to ignore or wilfully supress the evidence for a new theory. This is only natural - if your funding and your reputation rests on proving the status quo right, then you will fight to protect it.
But science cannot be blinded forever - there are always mavericks, and their evidence grows. It grows slowly, but eventually it becomes impossible to ignore. And then you have a paradigm shift.
But you cannot force this process. By saying that theories spring directly from the societal conditions in which they are born, you dismiss the boring hard work that thousands of scientists toil away at - doing experiments and producing data to support the theory. Darwin may well have been inspired by social conditions, but without his collection of data made on the voyage of the beagle (along with many other observations) he would not have had a leg to stand on.
Darwin may have been inspired by the society he lived in, but his theory is supported by plenty of evidence and has predictive power. This is what we ask of scientific theories, and evolutionary theory performs well.
Now, of course, scientists are humans, and put their own beliefs and bias into their research. But over time, with more reserch, and more new knowledge, the common thread of useful truth can be picked out.
And sometimes, all the scientists in the world get so ingrained in the 'truth' of a theory that they start to ignore or wilfully supress the evidence for a new theory. This is only natural - if your funding and your reputation rests on proving the status quo right, then you will fight to protect it.
But science cannot be blinded forever - there are always mavericks, and their evidence grows. It grows slowly, but eventually it becomes impossible to ignore. And then you have a paradigm shift.
But you cannot force this process. By saying that theories spring directly from the societal conditions in which they are born, you dismiss the boring hard work that thousands of scientists toil away at - doing experiments and producing data to support the theory. Darwin may well have been inspired by social conditions, but without his collection of data made on the voyage of the beagle (along with many other observations) he would not have had a leg to stand on.
Darwin was absolutely right in his intuition based on Malthus, though. If there were no competition for resources at all then there would be no reward for fitness, since mate-selection aside there would be no advantage in it. Predator populations expand to the limits of the number of the predated available to support them, and animals defend a territory which is large enough to fulfil there needs. Attempts to skew these simple facts for propaganda purposes in no way detract from their factual content.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
littlebabyjesus said:
That's a bit simplistic as well; it might have been true in the 19th century, but not so much today. To the extent that pillaging is going on, it's in the form of outsourcing of factory work to third world countries.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Crispy said:
Meaning, it still can continue as a theory.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Crispy said:
But if the field floods, the concept of competition for resources is reintroduced; ie the resource becomes scarce.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Crispy said:
It will change the resource pattern, and organisms will have to compete, and adapt, in order to access them.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
But on second thought, things like temperature change etc can result in organism change, apart from competition for resources. Eg, wooly mammoths etc. But arguably, that is also a competition of sorts for a resource: warmth, in the case of ice age animals, or, temperature control, in the case of torrid zone animals, and to the extent that some organisms can adapt to temperature, they're better able to operate in the environment, thus giving them an advantage over less well adapted organisms.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Rather than 'resources', the better word is 'environment' as it encompasses everything that is external to the organism.
although, I think a more holistic explanation is that the biosphere as a whole, animal vegetable and mineral, can be seen as an overlapping series of systems, from the large scale continental drift all the way down through climate, weather, herds, organisms, organs, cells, to DNA. Each system interacts with and changes those up and down the scale*, making compartmentalisation of "This Thing" and "Its Environment" pointless.
*Life even manages to affect geology. All the limestone on earth is composed from the dead sealife of billions of years, and much of it has been subducted at plate edges, and returned to the surface as different rock and gases through volcanoes.
although, I think a more holistic explanation is that the biosphere as a whole, animal vegetable and mineral, can be seen as an overlapping series of systems, from the large scale continental drift all the way down through climate, weather, herds, organisms, organs, cells, to DNA. Each system interacts with and changes those up and down the scale*, making compartmentalisation of "This Thing" and "Its Environment" pointless.
*Life even manages to affect geology. All the limestone on earth is composed from the dead sealife of billions of years, and much of it has been subducted at plate edges, and returned to the surface as different rock and gases through volcanoes.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Crispy said:
That's true, but I think that the 'systems' exist only in our heads, which are prone to division and classification anyway. I think the reality is that there is just one System.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Crispy said:
The way I see it, the splitting up thing is our adaptive tool.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
So what you're saying is that humans are sufficiently different to justify being called a system of their own? There are definately scenarios that are better analysed this way, but there are also many scenarios where considering humanity as part of a greater system; animals, life, whatever, makes much more sense.
gorski
customised free radical
We are so powerful that we must think about the potential consequences of our actions well in advance. Ergo, we must exercise our temporal, not just spatial intelligence [the real difference between us and animals, not just how to get to the cheese here and now but...].
We can turn on the Mother Nature. We can turn against the nature in us, too - to the point of self-destruction. Spirit is so powerful it can over-ride the body to the point of self-anihilation.
We can do that on the level of the whole eco-system, most probably, if not absolutely then pretty much close to it...
Indeed, we are unique and much more than just "nature/animals" - in many respects.
We are still trying to act rationally towards Nature. Nowhere near yet!
Because, potentially, we are extremely irrational.
Humans are multi-dimensional...
We can turn on the Mother Nature. We can turn against the nature in us, too - to the point of self-destruction. Spirit is so powerful it can over-ride the body to the point of self-anihilation.
We can do that on the level of the whole eco-system, most probably, if not absolutely then pretty much close to it...
Indeed, we are unique and much more than just "nature/animals" - in many respects.
We are still trying to act rationally towards Nature. Nowhere near yet!
Because, potentially, we are extremely irrational.
Humans are multi-dimensional...
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
gorski said:
We're lichen on a planetary rock.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Jonti said:
I'm afraid you're confidently wrong here. The thing to understand is that the *method* of selection is irrelevant, could be a new predator; a new disease; change in the environment; planetary catastrophe, whatever, doesn't matter. Evolution doesn't have a direction or a goal; there's no higher or lower. It's just a random walk through possibility space (with the false turnings dying out).gorski said:
Variation (of heritable genetic information) with selection (reproductive success) gives evolution. You may not like it, it may offend your values. But that's the trouble with science ... you get the same answers to how stuff works whatever your political or religious take on things.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Mmm. I'm not in the slightest bit surprised.gorski said:I don't understand your "objections" at all, I'm afraid, m8...
You said ...
It is absurd to state as a "value free neutral judgement" that there is no such thing as a "value free judgement".gorski said:
If the claim is true; then it is an example of the thing it denies. And if it is false, then it asserts what it ostensibly denies. The proposition is incoherent and absurd; it says nothing.
You then posted a link http://www1.umn.edu/ships/ethics/values.htm apparently in support of your claim. But if you read that link, you will see it unequivocally supports my position, which is that there is no obligation to abandon science or objectivity, or to embrace an uneasy relativism.
And that's a fact
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Daniel Quinn points out that humans are the only animals to systematically eradicate their rivals and deny their rivals their food supply, doing so as a pre-emptive strategy that forms part of an attempt to take over the whole of the planet - the idea that we own the world is very deeply ingrained in modern humans.
But to understand the potential folly of this attempt by humans to place themselves above their environment, you must consider them as part of their environment.
But to understand the potential folly of this attempt by humans to place themselves above their environment, you must consider them as part of their environment.
Similar threads
