| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"bob600" |
| Date: |
01 Oct 2006 09:19:54 AM |
| Object: |
Natural selection is now dead |
As Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with
favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those
with unfavourable traits. It now strikes me that this age of the
natural evolution of mankind has come to an end, as evolution based on
the selection of the fittest is now a thing of the past. Medical
science and political correctness has reached the stage whereby natural
selection no longer applies. Almost everyone, regardless of ability,
mental or physical, now, with the help of science, is added to the gene
pool. So the age of natural selection is DEAD as just about everyone
survives regardless of their traits and passes on their genes.
However, science itself while creating the problem also provides the
answer, with nano technology, gene splicing, cloning and the many other
scientific advances that can adjust and enhance the physical and mental
attributes of the human body, we are now entering the new age of the
PLANNED evolution of mankind.
That being the case it is time for the tree hugging liberals to stop
wining about ethics and crying about mankind interfering with God's
plans, and grasp the opportunity to allow science to do, in a few
years, what natural evolution, (which no longer exists anyway) could
take thousands of years to achieve.
As natural selection is now dead there is actually no alternative, as
the gene poll will start to weaken as more and more of the "wrong"
genes are artificially introduced with the help of science, with
mankind starting to regress as the genes for all sorts of
"disabilities" start to gain dominance in the gene pool.
There is now no acceptable way to put the genie back in the bottle, so,
with the help of the scientists, lets push forward with all speed, and
chose the best most intelligent and physically and mentally strongest
children we can get to ensure a better future for mankind.
.
|
|
| User: "gibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural selection is now dead |
01 Oct 2006 02:47:27 PM |
|
|
"bob600" <bobs@nireland.com> wrote in message
news:1159712394.400353.289730@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
As Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with
favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those
with unfavourable traits. It now strikes me that this age of the
natural evolution of mankind has come to an end...
What you are saying may be true to some extent in wealthy nations of human
beings, but natural selection is alive and well and operating just fine
everywhere else. But really nothing you say contradicts natural selection
because a species can modify its environment so that more members survive to
reproduce.
That's somewhat what we're doing, but somehow I doubt we've escape the laws
of nature. One massive, worldwide flu epidemic that strikes across the
board or a massive collision with a huge meteor would humble us in short
order!
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob600" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural selection is now dead |
01 Oct 2006 05:50:26 PM |
|
|
gibbs wrote:
"bob600" <bobs@nireland.com> wrote in message
news:1159712394.400353.289730@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
As Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with
favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those
with unfavourable traits. It now strikes me that this age of the
natural evolution of mankind has come to an end...
What you are saying may be true to some extent in wealthy nations of human
beings, but natural selection is alive and well and operating just fine
everywhere else. But really nothing you say contradicts natural selection
because a species can modify its environment so that more members survive to
reproduce.
That's somewhat what we're doing, but somehow I doubt we've escape the laws
of nature. One massive, worldwide flu epidemic that strikes across the
board or a massive collision with a huge meteor would humble us in short
order!
Bob600 replies:- Agreed about the flu and meteor, but we should be off
the Earth by now and the flu should be a think of the past, given our
capabilities. But natural selection does not work in the none wealthy
countries as you would propose, the drugs, food aid, helicopters, etc
that allow them not to be naturally selected as dead, comes from the
already evolved part of the human race. The others don't have to evolve
as they can get what they need from us, so their "natural" selection
has been diverted in a totally different direction. The average African
did not need to evolve to invent and make AK47's they just buy them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural selection is now dead |
01 Oct 2006 09:24:54 AM |
|
|
bob600 wrote:
As Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with
favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those
with unfavourable traits. It now strikes me that this age of the
natural evolution of mankind has come to an end, as evolution based on
the selection of the fittest is now a thing of the past.
Malthus was saying that 120 years ago.
You are presenting a occidentocentric view point. The vast majority of
humanity is still at the mercy of disease and famine
Medical
science and political correctness has reached the stage whereby natural
selection no longer applies. Almost everyone, regardless of ability,
mental or physical, now, with the help of science, is added to the gene
pool. So the age of natural selection is DEAD as just about everyone
survives regardless of their traits and passes on their genes.
However, science itself while creating the problem also provides the
answer, with nano technology, gene splicing, cloning and the many other
scientific
expensive dreams of the few
As natural selection is now dead there is actually no alternative, as
the gene poll will start to weaken as more and more of the "wrong"
genes are artificially introduced with the help of science, with
mankind starting to regress as the genes for all sorts of
"disabilities" start to gain dominance in the gene pool.
There is now no acceptable way to put the genie back in the bottle, so,
with the help of the scientists, lets push forward with all speed, and
chose the best most intelligent and physically and mentally strongest
children we can get to ensure a better future for mankind.
Fertility treatment produces infertile offspring. Nature will abide and
in time things will return to normal when civilisation can no longer
support these hugely expensive technologies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob600" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural selection is now dead |
01 Oct 2006 01:33:48 PM |
|
|
chazwin wrote:
bob600 wrote:
As Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with
favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those
with unfavourable traits. It now strikes me that this age of the
natural evolution of mankind has come to an end, as evolution based on
the selection of the fittest is now a thing of the past.
Malthus was saying that 120 years ago.
Bob600 replies:- Sorry, I did not hear him, he should have spoken a bit
louder, it would have saved me the trouble of thinking. Did he come up
with an answer?. As far as I know his main work was on the theory of
population and not the evolution of mankind, if you are right then he
pre-dated Darwin by quite a few years.
You are presenting a occidentocentric view point. The vast majority of
humanity is still at the mercy of disease and famine
Medical
Bob600 replies:- I do wish people would stop using big words and speak
English as I suffer from Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia, I assume
by occidentocentric you mean I am presenting a blinkered viewpoint,
that may be so, but its my blinkered viewpoint (and according to you,
Malthus as well).
And we won't get most of their genes as they will be dead, and the ones
that do live will live as a result of being able to fight better for
the aid or steal it before it gets to the starving. If thats your view
of "natural" selection then fair enough, but I don't know what that
group will add to the gene pool thats likly to enhance mankind.
science and political correctness has reached the stage whereby natural
selection no longer applies. Almost everyone, regardless of ability,
mental or physical, now, with the help of science, is added to the gene
pool. So the age of natural selection is DEAD as just about everyone
survives regardless of their traits and passes on their genes.
However, science itself while creating the problem also provides the
answer, with nano technology, gene splicing, cloning and the many other
scientific
expensive dreams of the few
Bob600 replies:- So were cars, holidays, TV, telephones, money without
work, and many other benifits enjoyed by the many of today that were
unavailable to the "few" of yesterday. So what is next, or do you think
it just stops here.
As natural selection is now dead there is actually no alternative, as
the gene poll will start to weaken as more and more of the "wrong"
genes are artificially introduced with the help of science, with
mankind starting to regress as the genes for all sorts of
"disabilities" start to gain dominance in the gene pool.
There is now no acceptable way to put the genie back in the bottle, so,
with the help of the scientists, lets push forward with all speed, and
chose the best most intelligent and physically and mentally strongest
children we can get to ensure a better future for mankind.
Fertility treatment produces infertile offspring. Nature will abide and
in time things will return to normal when civilisation can no longer
support these hugely expensive technologies.
Bob600 replies:- Why would nature abide? that implies it will return to
some sort of state that it was in before we messed it up, but that was
never the case, nature itself was always changing, just as it is now,
and there is no law that says it must change back into a state that
supports mankind. Nature has no concept of mankind, it just does its
own thing and if it kills us all then so be it, nature will survive in
whatever form it evolves into. There never was a "normal" nature or
humankind, evolution in itself meant that things where always
changing, so there is no normal to go back to, especially as natural
evolution has stopped for mankind, so thats as near to normal as it
gets. So you suggest we don't move on from here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural selection is now dead |
01 Oct 2006 02:00:02 PM |
|
|
bob600 wrote:
chazwin wrote:
bob600 wrote:
As Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with
favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those
with unfavourable traits. It now strikes me that this age of the
natural evolution of mankind has come to an end, as evolution based on
the selection of the fittest is now a thing of the past.
Malthus was saying that 120 years ago.
Bob600 replies:- Sorry, I did not hear him, he should have spoken a bit
louder, it would have saved me the trouble of thinking. Did he come up
with an answer?. As far as I know his main work was on the theory of
population and not the evolution of mankind, if you are right then he
pre-dated Darwin by quite a few years.
Opps - I was wrong and you were right Malthus was dead before 1859
Origans of Species.
But the idea that the poor breed and the rich are more careful has been
offered as a obstacle to evolution. But it seems not to have given us
any big problems.
You are presenting a occidentocentric view point. The vast majority of
humanity is still at the mercy of disease and famine
Medical
Bob600 replies:- I do wish people would stop using big words and speak
English as I suffer from Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia, I assume
by occidentocentric you mean I am presenting a blinkered viewpoint,
that may be so, but its my blinkered viewpoint (and according to you,
Malthus as well).
Occident is the West, like orient is the East.
Your viewpoint is based on a western perspective. I was inviting you to
consider that most human do not benefit from such a degree of modern
medicine that they would fail to evolve.
Malthus' predictions never came to fruition.
And we won't get most of their genes as they will be dead, and the ones
that do live will live as a result of being able to fight better for
the aid or steal it before it gets to the starving. If thats your view
of "natural" selection then fair enough, but I don't know what that
group will add to the gene pool thats likly to enhance mankind.
Africa has a massive Aids problem. If it is possible to be immune to
HIV, then it is most likely that it will emerge from the African
poulation.
science and political correctness has reached the stage whereby natural
selection no longer applies. Almost everyone, regardless of ability,
mental or physical, now, with the help of science, is added to the gene
pool. So the age of natural selection is DEAD as just about everyone
survives regardless of their traits and passes on their genes.
However, science itself while creating the problem also provides the
answer, with nano technology, gene splicing, cloning and the many other
scientific
expensive dreams of the few
Bob600 replies:- So were cars, holidays, TV, telephones, money without
work, and many other benifits enjoyed by the many of today that were
unavailable to the "few" of yesterday. So what is next, or do you think
it just stops here.
Despite that the vast majority still have no access to these things and
if they did the fuel resources of the planet would have been long gone.
I think access to these things will increase in demand but a crunch
will soon come when the oil runs out.
The last 200 years, in any event, is a mere blip in evolutionary terms.
As natural selection is now dead there is actually no alternative, as
the gene poll will start to weaken as more and more of the "wrong"
genes are artificially introduced with the help of science, with
mankind starting to regress as the genes for all sorts of
"disabilities" start to gain dominance in the gene pool.
There is now no acceptable way to put the genie back in the bottle, so,
with the help of the scientists, lets push forward with all speed, and
chose the best most intelligent and physically and mentally strongest
children we can get to ensure a better future for mankind.
Fertility treatment produces infertile offspring. Nature will abide and
in time things will return to normal when civilisation can no longer
support these hugely expensive technologies.
Bob600 replies:- Why would nature abide? that implies it will return to
some sort of state that it was in before we messed it up, but that was
never the case, nature itself was always changing,
Yeah - that's what i mean by normal
just as it is now,
and there is no law that says it must change back into a state that
supports mankind.
Nature has no concept of mankind, it just does its
own thing and if it kills us all then so be it, nature will survive in
whatever form it evolves into.
Yep that is what evolution is all about.
There never was a "normal" nature or
humankind, evolution in itself meant that things where always
changing, so there is no normal to go back to, especially as natural
evolution has stopped for mankind,
but it has not. maybe for a few westerners for a short time.
so thats as near to normal as it
gets. So you suggest we don't move on from here?
Which way bro??
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob600" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural selection is now dead |
01 Oct 2006 05:43:22 PM |
|
|
chazwin wrote:
bob600 wrote:
chazwin wrote:
bob600 wrote:
As Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with
favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those
with unfavourable traits. It now strikes me that this age of the
natural evolution of mankind has come to an end, as evolution based on
the selection of the fittest is now a thing of the past.
Malthus was saying that 120 years ago.
Bob600 replies:- Sorry, I did not hear him, he should have spoken a bit
louder, it would have saved me the trouble of thinking. Did he come up
with an answer?. As far as I know his main work was on the theory of
population and not the evolution of mankind, if you are right then he
pre-dated Darwin by quite a few years.
Opps - I was wrong and you were right Malthus was dead before 1859
Origans of Species.
But the idea that the poor breed and the rich are more careful has been
offered as a obstacle to evolution. But it seems not to have given us
any big problems.
Bob600 replies again:- Quality over quantity works every time.
You are presenting a occidentocentric view point. The vast majority of
humanity is still at the mercy of disease and famine
Medical
Bob600 replies:- I do wish people would stop using big words and speak
English as I suffer from Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia, I assume
by occidentocentric you mean I am presenting a blinkered viewpoint,
that may be so, but its my blinkered viewpoint (and according to you,
Malthus as well).
Occident is the West, like orient is the East.
Your viewpoint is based on a western perspective. I was inviting you to
consider that most human do not benefit from such a degree of modern
medicine that they would fail to evolve.
Malthus' predictions never came to fruition.
Bob600 replies again:- But its the best of the best we consider when we
think of the limits reached by evolution, not the worst of the worst.
You may even consider an average of everyone on the planet. If the
average is used then there is a way to go yet as the 3 world catches up
with the west as it declines towards them. But if you study the 3 world
countries you will find that they leapfrog over some evolutionary
stages as they can bypass some of these stages by seeing what the west
has done.
And we won't get most of their genes as they will be dead, and the ones
that do live will live as a result of being able to fight better for
the aid or steal it before it gets to the starving. If thats your view
of "natural" selection then fair enough, but I don't know what that
group will add to the gene pool thats likly to enhance mankind.
Africa has a massive Aids problem. If it is possible to be immune to
HIV, then it is most likely that it will emerge from the African
poulation.
Bob600 replies:- True, but it will be the western scientists that turn
it into a cure.
science and political correctness has reached the stage whereby natural
selection no longer applies. Almost everyone, regardless of ability,
mental or physical, now, with the help of science, is added to the gene
pool. So the age of natural selection is DEAD as just about everyone
survives regardless of their traits and passes on their genes.
However, science itself while creating the problem also provides the
answer, with nano technology, gene splicing, cloning and the many other
scientific
expensive dreams of the few
Bob600 replies:- So were cars, holidays, TV, telephones, money without
work, and many other benifits enjoyed by the many of today that were
unavailable to the "few" of yesterday. So what is next, or do you think
it just stops here.
Despite that the vast majority still have no access to these things and
if they did the fuel resources of the planet would have been long gone.
I think access to these things will increase in demand but a crunch
will soon come when the oil runs out.
The last 200 years, in any event, is a mere blip in evolutionary terms.
Bob600 replies again:- Agreed 200 years is nothing and who knows what
resorces we will need by the year 10,000 certainly not oil or uranium
as they will have run out years ago.
As natural selection is now dead there is actually no alternative, as
the gene poll will start to weaken as more and more of the "wrong"
genes are artificially introduced with the help of science, with
mankind starting to regress as the genes for all sorts of
"disabilities" start to gain dominance in the gene pool.
There is now no acceptable way to put the genie back in the bottle, so,
with the help of the scientists, lets push forward with all speed, and
chose the best most intelligent and physically and mentally strongest
children we can get to ensure a better future for mankind.
Fertility treatment produces infertile offspring. Nature will abide and
in time things will return to normal when civilisation can no longer
support these hugely expensive technologies.
Bob600 replies:- Why would nature abide? that implies it will return to
some sort of state that it was in before we messed it up, but that was
never the case, nature itself was always changing,
Yeah - that's what i mean by normal
just as it is now,
and there is no law that says it must change back into a state that
supports mankind.
Nature has no concept of mankind, it just does its
own thing and if it kills us all then so be it, nature will survive in
whatever form it evolves into.
Yep that is what evolution is all about.
There never was a "normal" nature or
humankind, evolution in itself meant that things where always
changing, so there is no normal to go back to, especially as natural
evolution has stopped for mankind,
but it has not. maybe for a few westerners for a short time.
Bob600 replies again:- Mankind are very near the stage that they don't
need to evolve, which is dangorous. They need to want to evolve, and
while it is there it could be stronger.
so thats as near to normal as it
gets. So you suggest we don't move on from here?
Which way bro??
Bob600 replies again:- Use the technology we have, develop more, and
use it to stop the starving 3 worlders, and get off this planet and
move out into space as the human race, not different races just
humankind. And give the UN teeth to go into any country and kick *****
properly is they misbehave to the detriment of us all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural selection is now dead |
01 Oct 2006 01:33:56 PM |
|
|
bob600 wrote:
As Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with
favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those
with unfavourable traits. It now strikes me that this age of the
natural evolution of mankind has come to an end, as evolution based on
the selection of the fittest is now a thing of the past. Medical
science and political correctness has reached the stage whereby natural
selection no longer applies. Almost everyone, regardless of ability,
mental or physical, now, with the help of science, is added to the gene
pool. So the age of natural selection is DEAD as just about everyone
survives regardless of their traits and passes on their genes.
That everyone survives may also mean that other patterns of activity
have taken over the selection process, like culture, for instance.
There are many kinds of selection and you are right to notice that by
this competition of selective patterns that if some predominate then
the gene pool itself may stay similar or diverge greatly, or some point
between. This doesn't seem sufficient enought to negate that selection
is still going on or not.
Some species also behave like there is no more natural selection going
on, they appear the same as they were millions of years ago, but if
their environment changed listen for the selective engines roaring to
life.
However, science itself while creating the problem also provides the
answer, with nano technology, gene splicing, cloning and the many other
scientific advances that can adjust and enhance the physical and mental
attributes of the human body, we are now entering the new age of the
PLANNED evolution of mankind.
Evolution happens and we can merely "steer" the course of events. The
ways genes mutate havn't changed but yes we are gaining more control,
other changes are taking place and human culture and the gene pool are
not slowing down or speeding up these changes. Selective forces may be
shifting influence from worldly events to human caused worldly events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
That being the case it is time for the tree hugging liberals to stop
wining about ethics and crying about mankind interfering with God's
plans, and grasp the opportunity to allow science to do, in a few
years, what natural evolution, (which no longer exists anyway) could
take thousands of years to achieve.
I though liberals were the atheist tree huggers and the conservatives
the god whinners.
As natural selection is now dead there is actually no alternative, as
the gene poll will start to weaken as more and more of the "wrong"
genes are artificially introduced with the help of science, with
mankind starting to regress as the genes for all sorts of
"disabilities" start to gain dominance in the gene pool.
There is now no acceptable way to put the genie back in the bottle, so,
with the help of the scientists, lets push forward with all speed, and
chose the best most intelligent and physically and mentally strongest
children we can get to ensure a better future for mankind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob600" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural selection is now dead |
01 Oct 2006 01:58:03 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
bob600 wrote:
As Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with
favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those
with unfavourable traits. It now strikes me that this age of the
natural evolution of mankind has come to an end, as evolution based on
the selection of the fittest is now a thing of the past. Medical
science and political correctness has reached the stage whereby natural
selection no longer applies. Almost everyone, regardless of ability,
mental or physical, now, with the help of science, is added to the gene
pool. So the age of natural selection is DEAD as just about everyone
survives regardless of their traits and passes on their genes.
That everyone survives may also mean that other patterns of activity
have taken over the selection process, like culture, for instance.
There are many kinds of selection and you are right to notice that by
this competition of selective patterns that if some predominate then
the gene pool itself may stay similar or diverge greatly, or some point
between. This doesn't seem sufficient enought to negate that selection
is still going on or not.
Bob600 replies:- I agree that selection is still going on, but its not
"natural" selection For that to occure then the weak, the feeble, the
mentally impared etc would naturally reduce in numbers as the gene pool
strengthened But that cannot happen anymore as it is not PC to even
speak of this. Hitler tried it and look what a bad name he got. Todays
selection depends totally on "unnatural" factors, created by science
over the last few years, while medical science is saving the ones who
would normally die, other sciences are changing the enviroment, while
others give us more enhancements like cars, Tv etc and while we may
continue to evolve it is in a different direction, one that is directed
more by man than by nature. All I am saying is if that is the case then
lets embrace it and not fight it.
Some species also behave like there is no more natural selection going
on, they appear the same as they were millions of years ago, but if
their environment changed listen for the selective engines roaring to
life.
Bob600 replies:- That is also true for the species that do not require
to evolve. When you have everything you need why change. And when the
enviroment changes lets hope its slow and their engines are fast ones
as in most cases they will just die. And most especially those who have
remained the same for to long a period to change very much. Perhaps man
now has everything he needs and change is no longer needed, but I hope
not.
However, science itself while creating the problem also provides the
answer, with nano technology, gene splicing, cloning and the many other
scientific advances that can adjust and enhance the physical and mental
attributes of the human body, we are now entering the new age of the
PLANNED evolution of mankind.
Evolution happens and we can merely "steer" the course of events. The
ways genes mutate havn't changed but yes we are gaining more control,
other changes are taking place and human culture and the gene pool are
not slowing down or speeding up these changes. Selective forces may be
shifting influence from worldly events to human caused worldly events.
Bob600 replies:- I'm not certain if you are agreeing or disagreeing but
I am leaning towards agreeing with me on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
That being the case it is time for the tree hugging liberals to stop
wining about ethics and crying about mankind interfering with God's
plans, and grasp the opportunity to allow science to do, in a few
years, what natural evolution, (which no longer exists anyway) could
take thousands of years to achieve.
I though liberals were the atheist tree huggers and the conservatives
the god whinners.
Bob600 replies:- You may be right, but damm them all nevertheless.
Perhaps I should have used Luddites.
As natural selection is now dead there is actually no alternative, as
the gene poll will start to weaken as more and more of the "wrong"
genes are artificially introduced with the help of science, with
mankind starting to regress as the genes for all sorts of
"disabilities" start to gain dominance in the gene pool.
There is now no acceptable way to put the genie back in the bottle, so,
with the help of the scientists, lets push forward with all speed, and
chose the best most intelligent and physically and mentally strongest
children we can get to ensure a better future for mankind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural selection is now dead |
02 Oct 2006 02:11:21 PM |
|
|
bob600 wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
bob600 wrote:
As Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with
favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those
with unfavourable traits. It now strikes me that this age of the
natural evolution of mankind has come to an end, as evolution based on
the selection of the fittest is now a thing of the past. Medical
science and political correctness has reached the stage whereby natural
selection no longer applies. Almost everyone, regardless of ability,
mental or physical, now, with the help of science, is added to the gene
pool. So the age of natural selection is DEAD as just about everyone
survives regardless of their traits and passes on their genes.
That everyone survives may also mean that other patterns of activity
have taken over the selection process, like culture, for instance.
There are many kinds of selection and you are right to notice that by
this competition of selective patterns that if some predominate then
the gene pool itself may stay similar or diverge greatly, or some point
between. This doesn't seem sufficient enought to negate that selection
is still going on or not.
Bob600 replies:- I agree that selection is still going on, but its not
"natural" selection For that to occure then the weak, the feeble, the
mentally impared etc would naturally reduce in numbers as the gene pool
strengthened But that cannot happen anymore as it is not PC to even
speak of this.
But poverty and the lack of medical necessities have allowed many to
die, just today here on Earth brother. Surely this ould be construed as
some sort of directed outcome, the directive coming from scarcity's
influence upon the events in this case?
Hitler tried it and look what a bad name he got. Todays
selection depends totally on "unnatural" factors, created by science
over the last few years, while medical science is saving the ones who
would normally die, other sciences are changing the enviroment, while
others give us more enhancements like cars, Tv etc and while we may
continue to evolve it is in a different direction, one that is directed
more by man than by nature. All I am saying is if that is the case then
lets embrace it and not fight it.
Even if this were perfected any mistakes could be construed into a
selective force, irrational and unbeknownst to the humans.
Cultural selection is much like animal domestication, and I remember
learning about gene/culture evolution 30 or more years ago, very
awesome theory back then but in no way could you talk about it out loud
in public, people might harrass you till they got that demon outa ya..
....the secret of the mind's sudden emergence lies in the activation of
a mechanism both obedient to physical laws and unique to the human
species. Somehow the evolving species kindled a Promethean fire, a
self-sustaining reaction that carried humanity beyond the previous
limits of biology. This largely unknown evolutionary process we have
called gene-culture coevolution: it is a complicated, fascinating
interaction in which culture is generated and shaped by biological
imperatives while biological traits are simultaneously altered by
genetic evolution in response to cultural innovation. ...gene-culture
coevolution, alone and unaided, has created man and that the manner in
which the mechanism works can be solved by a combination of techniques
from the natural and social sciences.
....certain unique and remarkable properties of the human mind result in
a tight linkage between genetic evolution and cultural history. The
human genes affect the way that the mind is formed-which stimuli are
perceived and which missed, how information is processed, the kinds of
memories most easily recalled, the emotions they are most likely to
evoke, and so forth. The processes that create such effects are called
the epigenetic rules. The rules are rooted in the particularities of
human biology, and they influence the way culture is formed. For
example, outbreeding is much more likely to occur than brother-sister
incest because individuals raised closely together during the first six
years of life are rarely interested in full sexual intercourse. Certain
color vocabularies are more likely to be invented than others because
of other, sensory rules entailing the manner in which color is
perceived. Mathematical models created from the theory allow the
prediction of patterns of cultural variation from a knowledge of such
epigenetic rules. It is possible in principle to go from data in
cognitive psychology to data in cultural anthropology and sociology,
and then to work back in the reverse direction.
This translation from mind to culture is half of gene-culture
coevolution. The other half is the effect that culture has on the
underlying genes. Certain epigenetic rules-that is, certain ways in
which the mind develops or is most likely to develop-cause
individuals to adopt cultural choices that enable them to survive and
reproduce more successfully. Over many generations these rules, and
also the genes prescribing them, tend to increase in the population.
Hence culture affects genetic evolution, just as the genes affect
cultural evolution.
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/krea/2768/1.html
Some species also behave like there is no more natural selection going
on, they appear the same as they were millions of years ago, but if
their environment changed listen for the selective engines roaring to
life.
Bob600 replies:- That is also true for the species that do not require
to evolve. When you have everything you need why change. And when the
enviroment changes lets hope its slow and their engines are fast ones
as in most cases they will just die. And most especially those who have
remained the same for to long a period to change very much. Perhaps man
now has everything he needs and change is no longer needed, but I hope
not.
However, science itself while creating the problem also provides the
answer, with nano technology, gene splicing, cloning and the many other
scientific advances that can adjust and enhance the physical and mental
attributes of the human body, we are now entering the new age of the
PLANNED evolution of mankind.
Evolution happens and we can merely "steer" the course of events. The
ways genes mutate havn't changed but yes we are gaining more control,
other changes are taking place and human culture and the gene pool are
not slowing down or speeding up these changes. Selective forces may be
shifting influence from worldly events to human caused worldly events.
Bob600 replies:- I'm not certain if you are agreeing or disagreeing but
I am leaning towards agreeing with me on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
That being the case it is time for the tree hugging liberals to stop
wining about ethics and crying about mankind interfering with God's
plans, and grasp the opportunity to allow science to do, in a few
years, what natural evolution, (which no longer exists anyway) could
take thousands of years to achieve.
I though liberals were the atheist tree huggers and the conservatives
the god whinners.
Bob600 replies:- You may be right, but damm them all nevertheless.
Perhaps I should have used Luddites.
As natural selection is now dead there is actually no alternative, as
the gene poll will start to weaken as more and more of the "wrong"
genes are artificially introduced with the help of science, with
mankind starting to regress as the genes for all sorts of
"disabilities" start to gain dominance in the gene pool.
There is now no acceptable way to put the genie back in the bottle, so,
with the help of the scientists, lets push forward with all speed, and
chose the best most intelligent and physically and mentally strongest
children we can get to ensure a better future for mankind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob600" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural selection is now dead |
03 Oct 2006 12:21:43 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
bob600 wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
bob600 wrote:
As Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with
favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those
with unfavourable traits. It now strikes me that this age of the
natural evolution of mankind has come to an end, as evolution based on
the selection of the fittest is now a thing of the past. Medical
science and political correctness has reached the stage whereby natural
selection no longer applies. Almost everyone, regardless of ability,
mental or physical, now, with the help of science, is added to the gene
pool. So the age of natural selection is DEAD as just about everyone
survives regardless of their traits and passes on their genes.
That everyone survives may also mean that other patterns of activity
have taken over the selection process, like culture, for instance.
There are many kinds of selection and you are right to notice that by
this competition of selective patterns that if some predominate then
the gene pool itself may stay similar or diverge greatly, or some point
between. This doesn't seem sufficient enought to negate that selection
is still going on or not.
Bob600 replies:- I agree that selection is still going on, but its not
"natural" selection For that to occure then the weak, the feeble, the
mentally impared etc would naturally reduce in numbers as the gene pool
strengthened But that cannot happen anymore as it is not PC to even
speak of this.
But poverty and the lack of medical necessities have allowed many to
die, just today here on Earth brother. Surely this ould be construed as
some sort of directed outcome, the directive coming from scarcity's
influence upon the events in this case?
Bob600 replies yet again:- But well meaning intervention has saved more
than have perished.
Hitler tried it and look what a bad name he got. Todays
selection depends totally on "unnatural" factors, created by science
over the last few years, while medical science is saving the ones who
would normally die, other sciences are changing the enviroment, while
others give us more enhancements like cars, Tv etc and while we may
continue to evolve it is in a different direction, one that is directed
more by man than by nature. All I am saying is if that is the case then
lets embrace it and not fight it.
Even if this were perfected any mistakes could be construed into a
selective force, irrational and unbeknownst to the humans.
Bob600 replies yet again:- I don't see why it would be unbeknownst to
the humans involved, if the science is smart enough it will know when
its right and when its wrong, and mistakes would soon be evolved out of
the system.
Cultural selection is much like animal domestication, and I remember
learning about gene/culture evolution 30 or more years ago, very
awesome theory back then but in no way could you talk about it out loud
in public, people might harrass you till they got that demon outa ya..
...the secret of the mind's sudden emergence lies in the activation of
a mechanism both obedient to physical laws and unique to the human
species. Somehow the evolving species kindled a Promethean fire, a
self-sustaining reaction that carried humanity beyond the previous
limits of biology. This largely unknown evolutionary process we have
called gene-culture coevolution: it is a complicated, fascinating
interaction in which culture is generated and shaped by biological
imperatives while biological traits are simultaneously altered by
genetic evolution in response to cultural innovation. ...gene-culture
coevolution, alone and unaided, has created man and that the manner in
which the mechanism works can be solved by a combination of techniques
from the natural and social sciences.
...certain unique and remarkable properties of the human mind result in
a tight linkage between genetic evolution and cultural history. The
human genes affect the way that the mind is formed-which stimuli are
perceived and which missed, how information is processed, the kinds of
memories most easily recalled, the emotions they are most likely to
evoke, and so forth. The processes that create such effects are called
the epigenetic rules. The rules are rooted in the particularities of
human biology, and they influence the way culture is formed. For
example, outbreeding is much more likely to occur than brother-sister
incest because individuals raised closely together during the first six
years of life are rarely interested in full sexual intercourse. Certain
color vocabularies are more likely to be invented than others because
of other, sensory rules entailing the manner in which color is
perceived. Mathematical models created from the theory allow the
prediction of patterns of cultural variation from a knowledge of such
epigenetic rules. It is possible in principle to go from data in
cognitive psychology to data in cultural anthropology and sociology,
and then to work back in the reverse direction.
This translation from mind to culture is half of gene-culture
coevolution. The other half is the effect that culture has on the
underlying genes. Certain epigenetic rules-that is, certain ways in
which the mind develops or is most likely to develop-cause
individuals to adopt cultural choices that enable them to survive and
reproduce more successfully. Over many generations these rules, and
also the genes prescribing them, tend to increase in the population.
Hence culture affects genetic evolution, just as the genes affect
cultural evolution.
Bob600 replies yet again:- I accept most of what you say at least the
bits I understand, but the same rules apply to every living thing with
a brain, and even some without. Where humans differ is in the fact that
we can see it and talk about it as we are now doing, and now, because
of the position we have evolved into, take over the process of
evolution ourselves and speed it up instead of waiting for 1000's of
years for simple changes to take place. We know what we should be like
and we have some of the technology to do something about it so why not
do it. Look for the DNA for perfect vision and make sure every child is
born with it in their genes. Why accept imperfections that can so
easily be changed.
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/krea/2768/1.html
Some species also behave like there is no more natural selection going
on, they appear the same as they were millions of years ago, but if
their environment changed listen for the selective engines roaring to
life.
Bob600 replies:- That is also true for the species that do not require
to evolve. When you have everything you need why change. And when the
enviroment changes lets hope its slow and their engines are fast ones
as in most cases they will just die. And most especially those who have
remained the same for to long a period to change very much. Perhaps man
now has everything he needs and change is no longer needed, but I hope
not.
However, science itself while creating the problem also provides the
answer, with nano technology, gene splicing, cloning and the many other
scientific advances that can adjust and enhance the physical and mental
attributes of the human body, we are now entering the new age of the
PLANNED evolution of mankind.
Evolution happens and we can merely "steer" the course of events. The
ways genes mutate havn't changed but yes we are gaining more control,
other changes are taking place and human culture and the gene pool are
not slowing down or speeding up these changes. Selective forces may be
shifting influence from worldly events to human caused worldly events.
Bob600 replies:- I'm not certain if you are agreeing or disagreeing but
I am leaning towards agreeing with me on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
That being the case it is time for the tree hugging liberals to stop
wining about ethics and crying about mankind interfering with God's
plans, and grasp the opportunity to allow science to do, in a few
years, what natural evolution, (which no longer exists anyway) could
take thousands of years to achieve.
I though liberals were the atheist tree huggers and the conservatives
the god whinners.
Bob600 replies:- You may be right, but damm them all nevertheless.
Perhaps I should have used Luddites.
As natural selection is now dead there is actually no alternative, as
the gene poll will start to weaken as more and more of the "wrong"
genes are artificially introduced with the help of science, with
mankind starting to regress as the genes for all sorts of
"disabilities" start to gain dominance in the gene pool.
There is now no acceptable way to put the genie back in the bottle, so,
with the help of the scientists, lets push forward with all speed, and
chose the best most intelligent and physically and mentally strongest
children we can get to ensure a better future for mankind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural selection is now dead |
04 Oct 2006 01:37:20 PM |
|
|
bob600 wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
bob600 wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
bob600 wrote:
As Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with
favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those
with unfavourable traits. It now strikes me that this age of the
natural evolution of mankind has come to an end, as evolution based on
the selection of the fittest is now a thing of the past. Medical
science and political correctness has reached the stage whereby natural
selection no longer applies. Almost everyone, regardless of ability,
mental or physical, now, with the help of science, is added to the gene
pool. So the age of natural selection is DEAD as just about everyone
survives regardless of their traits and passes on their genes.
That everyone survives may also mean that other patterns of activity
have taken over the selection process, like culture, for instance.
There are many kinds of selection and you are right to notice that by
this competition of selective patterns that if some predominate then
the gene pool itself may stay similar or diverge greatly, or some point
between. This doesn't seem sufficient enought to negate that selection
is still going on or not.
Bob600 replies:- I agree that selection is still going on, but its not
"natural" selection For that to occure then the weak, the feeble, the
mentally impared etc would naturally reduce in numbers as the gene pool
strengthened But that cannot happen anymore as it is not PC to even
speak of this.
But poverty and the lack of medical necessities have allowed many to
die, just today here on Earth brother. Surely this ould be construed as
some sort of directed outcome, the directive coming from scarcity's
influence upon the events in this case?
Bob600 replies yet again:- But well meaning intervention has saved more
than have perished.
In nature there are times when more live than die and times when less
live than die. Whats the point, except that we have taken the steering
control of natural selection out of natures' hands.
Sometime the larger and fuller of rejects a species gene pool the
better prepared that species is for hard to survive in environments.
*****-roaches, for instance, the theory goes that DDT would kill most of
the roaches but some of them would survive despite ingesting the
pesticide, they reproduce and part of the gene pool gets restored. Or
they could have gone extinct.
Hitler tried it and look what a bad name he got. Todays
selection depends totally on "unnatural" factors, created by science
over the last few years, while medical science is saving the ones who
would normally die, other sciences are changing the enviroment, while
others give us more enhancements like cars, Tv etc and while we may
continue to evolve it is in a different direction, one that is directed
more by man than by nature. All I am saying is if that is the case then
lets embrace it and not fight it.
Even if this were perfected any mistakes could be construed into a
selective force, irrational and unbeknownst to the humans.
Bob600 replies yet again:- I don't see why it would be unbeknownst to
the humans involved, if the science is smart enough it will know when
its right and when its wrong, and mistakes would soon be evolved out of
the system.
Over long periods of time small errors and mistakes can have large
consequences.
Cultural selection is much like animal domestication, and I remember
learning about gene/culture evolution 30 or more years ago, very
awesome theory back then but in no way could you talk about it out loud
in public, people might harrass you till they got that demon outa ya..
...the secret of the mind's sudden emergence lies in the activation of
a mechanism both obedient to physical laws and unique to the human
species. Somehow the evolving species kindled a Promethean fire, a
self-sustaining reaction that carried humanity beyond the previous
limits of biology. This largely unknown evolutionary process we have
called gene-culture coevolution: it is a complicated, fascinating
interaction in which culture is generated and shaped by biological
imperatives while biological traits are simultaneously altered by
genetic evolution in response to cultural innovation. ...gene-culture
coevolution, alone and unaided, has created man and that the manner in
which the mechanism works can be solved by a combination of techniques
from the natural and social sciences.
...certain unique and remarkable properties of the human mind result in
a tight linkage between genetic evolution and cultural history. The
human genes affect the way that the mind is formed-which stimuli are
perceived and which missed, how information is processed, the kinds of
memories most easily recalled, the emotions they are most likely to
evoke, and so forth. The processes that create such effects are called
the epigenetic rules. The rules are rooted in the particularities of
human biology, and they influence the way culture is formed. For
example, outbreeding is much more likely to occur than brother-sister
incest because individuals raised closely together during the first six
years of life are rarely interested in full sexual intercourse. Certain
color vocabularies are more likely to be invented than others because
of other, sensory rules entailing the manner in which color is
perceived. Mathematical models created from the theory allow the
prediction of patterns of cultural variation from a knowledge of such
epigenetic rules. It is possible in principle to go from data in
cognitive psychology to data in cultural anthropology and sociology,
and then to work back in the reverse direction.
This translation from mind to culture is half of gene-culture
coevolution. The other half is the effect that culture has on the
underlying genes. Certain epigenetic rules-that is, certain ways in
which the mind develops or is most likely to develop-cause
individuals to adopt cultural choices that enable them to survive and
reproduce more successfully. Over many generations these rules, and
also the genes prescribing them, tend to increase in the population.
Hence culture affects genetic evolution, just as the genes affect
cultural evolution.
Bob600 replies yet again:- I accept most of what you say at least the
bits I understand, but the same rules apply to every living thing with
a brain, and even some without. Where humans differ is in the fact that
we can see it and talk about it as we are now doing, and now, because
of the position we have evolved into, take over the process of
evolution ourselves and speed it up instead of waiting for 1000's of
years for simple changes to take place. We know what we should be like
and we have some of the technology to do something about it so why not
do it. Look for the DNA for perfect vision and make sure every child is
born with it in their genes. Why accept imperfections that can so
easily be changed.
Doea the author claim that we should not alter the rate at which these
events naturally occur? Please point that out in the text.
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/krea/2768/1.html
Some species also behave like there is no more natural selection going
on, they appear the same as they were millions of years ago, but if
their environment changed listen for the selective engines roaring to
life.
Bob600 replies:- That is also true for the species that do not require
to evolve. When you have everything you need why change. And when the
enviroment changes lets hope its slow and their engines are fast ones
as in most cases they will just die. And most especially those who have
remained the same for to long a period to change very much. Perhaps man
now has everything he needs and change is no longer needed, but I hope
not.
However, science itself while creating the problem also provides the
answer, with nano technology, gene splicing, cloning and the many other
scientific advances that can adjust and enhance the physical and mental
attributes of the human body, we are now entering the new age of the
PLANNED evolution of mankind.
Evolution happens and we can merely "steer" the course of events. The
ways genes mutate havn't changed but yes we are gaining more control,
other changes are taking place and human culture and the gene pool are
not slowing down or speeding up these changes. Selective forces may be
shifting influence from worldly events to human caused worldly events.
Bob600 replies:- I'm not certain if you are agreeing or disagreeing but
I am leaning towards agreeing with me on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
That being the case it is time for the tree hugging liberals to stop
wining about ethics and crying about mankind interfering with God's
plans, and grasp the opportunity to allow science to do, in a few
years, what natural evolution, (which no longer exists anyway) could
take thousands of years to achieve.
I though liberals were the atheist tree huggers and the conservatives
the god whinners.
Bob600 replies:- You may be right, but damm them all nevertheless.
Perhaps I should have used Luddites.
As natural selection is now dead there is actually no alternative, as
the gene poll will start to weaken as more and more of the "wrong"
genes are artificially introduced with the help of science, with
mankind starting to regress as the genes for all sorts of
"disabilities" start to gain dominance in the gene pool.
There is now no acceptable way to put the genie back in the bottle, so,
with the help of the scientists, lets push forward with all speed, and
chose the best most intelligent and physically and mentally strongest
children we can get to ensure a better future for mankind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob600" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural selection is now dead |
04 Oct 2006 03:20:18 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
bob600 wrote:
Bob600 replies yet again:- But well meaning intervention has saved more
than have perished.
In nature there are times when more live than die and times when less
live than die. Whats the point, except that we have taken the steering
control of natural selection out of natures' hands.
Bob600 replies:- And whats wrong with that, if we can do it why depend on blind chance
Bob600 replies yet again:- I don't see why it would be unbeknownst to
the humans involved, if the science is smart enough it will know when
its right and when its wrong, and mistakes would soon be evolved out of
the system.
Over long periods of time small errors and mistakes can have large
consequences.
Bob600 replies:- I would rather they were our thought out errors, bad as they may be, than the blind chance of natural selection. At least we would be responsiable for our own mistakes.
Doea the author claim that we should not alter the rate at which these
events naturally occur? Please point that out in the text.
Bob600 replies:- No I would have thought that I am suggesting that we accelerate the rate these events accur and not depend on nature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural selection is now dead |
04 Oct 2006 09:12:55 PM |
|
|
Gene-culture Coevolution
Charles Lumsden 03.05.1999
Evolving Creative Minds IV
Whereas most animal evolution arises from the differential replication
of genetic information, human evolution obligatorily involves the
differential transmission of both genetic and cultural information.
"Cultural information" is a term of convenience, rather than literal
descriptive fidelity here; it refers loosely to such things as the
stories, beliefs, and ceremonies shared symbolically among individuals
in every human society. Changes in the abundance of a variant of a
story or ceremonial behavior over time comprise cultural evolution in
its simplest conceivable form. Sociobiology proposes that genes and
culture do not evolve independently, on separated, isolated tracks. The
neurobiology of human mental development makes them co-dependent,
resulting in the process of gene-culture coevolution (Lumsden and
Wilson 1981). Gene-culture coevolution in human beings appears to be
based on gene-culture transmission, a process of organismic growth and
development in which innate learning capacities respond to certain
forms or types of cultural information in preference to others,
demarcating the central tendencies around which cultural diversity
plays. Thus, while human cultures differ hugely in the details of their
kinship terminologies, no human culture lacks terms for making sense of
one's place in the succession of young and old.
Ed Wilson and I have introduced the specific term "epigenetic rule" to
refer to the patterns of genomic expression that chaperone the
individual mind's development (Lumsden and Wilson 1981, 1983).
Epigenesis is the total process of interaction between genes and
environment during the course of organismic development. Each
epigenetic rule affecting mind and behavior is approached as comprising
one or more elements of a complex sequence of events occurring at
various sites throughout the nervous system and mind. We have found it
useful to organize these elements into two principal classes: primary
epigenetic rules, which range from initial sensory filtering to
perception, and secondary epigenetic rules, which mediate the
development of central traits and capacities such as temperament,
personality, and beliefs, through which people are predisposed to
foster the transmission of certain variants of cultural information
over others. The primary rules are the more genetically restricted and
inflexible of the two classes; cases involving vision, hearing, taste,
and smell have been identified. Each class exerts important effects on
the mind's capacity for self-organization, and has resulted in parallel
or convergent evolution in independently derived cultures.
In gene-culture coevolution a circuit of reciprocity operates: culture
is generated and shaped by the biological imperatives embodied in the
epigenetic rules while genes shaping the epigenetic rules shift in
response to changing cultural opportunities. But while natural
selection figures prominently in gene-culture coevolution, as it does
in the more familiar kin selection and reciprocal altruism of animal
sociobiology, the outcomes of its effect on social populations can be
very different from those expected on the basis of genetic evolution
alone. Epigenetic rules for culture learning can create a strongly
nonlinear couplings between genetic and cultural evolution, with
surprising results. The diversity of possible evolutionary outcomes may
be comparatively greater, and the speeds with which they are approached
by the population higher. Altruistic behavior may spread through a
gene-culture population without the aid of kin selection, reciprocal
altruism, or any of the mechanisms traditionally envisaged to account
for animal social behavior.
The study of gene-culture coevolution is a development in sociobiology
and evolutionary science that is intended to help create a network of
explanation between biology and the social sciences. It is designed to
include all cultural systems, from the protocultures of chimpanzees and
dolphins to the heterarchical, protean cultures of human beings, as
well as forms of culture previously conceivable only in the
imagination. In pursuing this course, however, sociobiology runs
headlong into human creativity as a force in history (Lumsden and
Wilson 1981, Findlay and Lumsden 1988, Lumsden 1997, 1998). Our
attempts to map the circuit of gene-culture coevolution, as it passes
through the imagination on the way from biology to society and back
again, has raised puzzling questions about the limits to
sociobiological knowledge and a scientific understanding of mind in
general.
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/2/2768/1.html
bob600 wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
bob600 wrote:
Bob600 replies yet again:- But well meaning intervention has saved more
than have perished.
In nature there are times when more live than die and times when less
live than die. Whats the point, except that we have taken the steering
control of natural selection out of natures' hands.
Bob600 replies:- And whats wrong with that, if we can do it why depend on blind chance
Bob600 replies yet again:- I don't see why it would be unbeknownst to
the humans involved, if the science is smart enough it will know when
its right and when its wrong, and mistakes would soon be evolved out of
the system.
Over long periods of time small errors and mistakes can have large
consequences.
Bob600 replies:- I would rather they were our thought out errors, bad as they may be, than the blind chance of natural selection. At least we would be responsiable for our own mistakes.
Doea the author claim that we should not alter the rate at which these
events naturally occur? Please point that out in the text.
Bob600 replies:- No I would have thought that I am suggesting that we accelerate the rate these events accur and not depend on nature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob600" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural selection is now dead |
05 Oct 2006 02:18:00 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
Gene-culture Coevolution
Charles Lumsden 03.05.1999
Evolving Creative Minds IV
Population biology has of course dealt with a similar-sounding problem
before, namely the process of genetic mutation and the changes it
introduces in units of genetic information as they pass between
generations. Genetic mutation events, however, are not goal-directed or
intentional activities, and their effects on the individual phenotype
and behavior generally are random with respect to the force natural
selection exerts on the population (but see Lumsden 1998 for a summary
of the recently elaborated concept of directed mutation). One therefore
suspects that creativity and the imagination are likely to demand
treatments quite different from the random-walk dynamical equations
used quantitate evolution in the presence of mutating genes.
One trick, attractive at first sight, is to anticipate what innovations
might occur (warp drive or a total cure for cancer by the 23rd
century?) and incorporate them into the culture set to begin with. The
culture might at first be constrained to move only through
pre-innovation parts of its state space, but as the innovations occur
its options increase, and more and more of the culture space becomes
accessible to the evolutionary process.
If we are to keep the creative mind and gene-culture coevolution from
slipping entirely beyond the limits of scientific knowledge, a type of
theory is needed that keeps the future and past "wide open" - in other
words, with room for the initially unimaginable to happen - while
remaining, in some appropriate sense, hypotheticodeductive. Is this
possible?
It is, so long as we are prepared to take part in a new kind of
scientific language game, which cannot be played with fixed texts.
Suppose we have a theory of gene-culture coevolution that includes a
principled treatment of creative behavior and the innovations
consequently introduced into the society. Using the theory, we set up a
population model to start at time t0 and predict the pattern of
gene-culture coevolution for times t >t0 . Since the creative mind
innovates, and innovations can change the cultural and biological
milieu of individual development, choice, and group decision making -
including those which influence human creativity and the directions it
takes - it seems very unlikely that any one set of principles, based on
our initial specification of the model at some time t0, will remain
valid for very long. Even if these principles do the trick at t0, a key
innovation at time t1 (genetic engineering of the neocortex and
amygdala, for example) could radically alter creative behavior in the
population after time t1. The theory, and all models based on it, would
therefore be invalid for times beyond the t1 event horizon unless the
model could somehow absorb the consequences of the innovation and
adjust itself accordingly. "Adjustment" would entail, minimally, a
self-directed production of suitable changes in the model's state space
and the gene-culture coevolutionary dynamic that is driven by the
creative behavior and its outcomes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
