Philosophy Now Forum

Jonathan.s wrote:'Speciation' is still a very vexed question in evolutionary biology. The problem is the absence of fossils that belong to the intermediary forms that the 'gradual change' model seems to require. One example is transitional forms between lizards and snakes, but there are many others.

Excellent...but for some science already knows everything because they are using computers and their doctor can give them a pill to help with their flu.

It seems like even the #1 has been defined by science and this without philosophical references.
Which is surprising since nobody can actually provide us with this definition.
Still others grasp one aspect of a theory, which they do not grasp fully, and cling to it for dear life....like genetic drift.
We are now to believe that sexual attraction is irrelevant since it's all just dumb luck...which is another way of saying: I don't know.
See when you go to the casino you cannot calculate the forces acting upon the die, so you just call the outcome luck. It's a way of dealing with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle while retraining the illusion that you actually provided an explanation.

I remind you that the humanities, in general, suffer from the absence of what you call "hard science" and are fraught with psychological and social and cultural and political considerations.
This is why some opinions can be dismissed as "hateful" or motivated by personal failings whereas the more comforting ones suffer no such critique because they sooth the majority and no weakness is sought in their motive.
Furthermore, there is no strong will behind the explanations - the Darwinian ones in particular - as most researchers are dependent upon grants and may suffer irreparable personal damages to career and family if they dare ask certain questions.

Jonathan.s wrote:This is one of the reasons why Stephen J Gould introduced his 'punctuated equilibrium' model.

And you think Gould, the liberal, is the last word in Evolution Theory?
Try Pinker.
Cladogenesis is a clever way of negating the long periods of genetic isolation which would explain the current diversity of human types. It is a way of saving the liberal ideal of uniform potentials across geographic lines. It's a way of dismissing recent history as being irrelevant or inconsequential...yet performances in all fields, no matter how many politically-correct twists they are given still conform to a more "hard Darwinian model"....some would call it a "cruel" one....others would try to slander it by accusing it of hate mongering and of having ulterior motives...but whatever.
Censorship is alive and well...and more sophisticated these days.

Some, around here, would have us believe that environment plays no part in evolution, really revolutionizing the field altogether - zero, zilch, nada.
Things just happen magically, I suppose...or they follow some divine path.

So, we are to believe that no evolution occurs for centuries, under changing environmental conditions and then suddenly everything changes in a sudden spurt?
Even so...what factors are necessary for a species to splinter-off into two different types?
Use your own words.

Jonathan.s wrote:The ultra-Darwinists (Dawkins et al) are strongly wedded to the notion of incremental random changes, so they reject anything like 'laws of form' or underlying prototypes. Simon Conway Morris, a 'dissident biologist', offers a model of 'convergence' which says that nature generally tends to develop along predictable lines. He points out the fact that both visual organs and photosynthesis evolved a number of times via very different routes.

Thanks for the rundown...now have you herd of Epigenetics: Ghost in your Genes.

Here, not only is environment decisive but its impact is immediate.

Jonathan.s wrote:What is interesting is that it is still controversial, and also that it is controversial for philosophical reasons. The ultra-Darwinists would love it if it were all a matter of hard science, but it appears far from the case.

The question - and this is supposedly a forum dedicated to personal insight - was how YOU understood evolution or how YOU think species splinter-off from a common ancestor.
I'm assuming you actually think that there are different species, (am i going to be accused of being a speciest now?) because a philosophical case can be made against that and science uses sex as its deciding factor.
If I wanted to hear from Gould I would read his book. I do not think much of Gould but neither to I casually dismiss him as some do anyone they consider "immoral".
This is the level thinking has fallen to and you are telling me what? That it's accidental, or too small to matter?

Are you people so afraid of expressing personal opinion that you cannot utter a single word without referring to an "authority" figure?
This is a philosophy forum.
Philosophy is not about discussing what other people thought about reality...that's academics. Philosophy is about discussing, debating, over what YOU think about reality, with all the authorities and influences and mentors and personal insights and experiences included.
Have you people become afraid to think because some douche-bag will intimidate you with threats based on morality?!!!

You, YOU, see diversity in all forms, right?
Is it an illusion? If not then...how does it come about?
Not even two twins are exactly alike and you, yourself, are not the same today as you were yesterday, no?

You do not only see large divergences outside what you would consider your "kind" but you also see it within the group you are supposed to consider your own kind.
The very concept of a human species is a vastly greater generalization than any racial or sexist could come up with.
You see it within your own family.
Some of this divergence results in something as fundamental as a level of consciousness that leads to world dominance, and we call this intelligence...or you can call it imagination if you wish.
How do you think intelligence develops to a higher degree in one branch of a common genetic tree when it does not in another?
Chance? Is that your final answer?

Even these sudden spurts of evolution require a triggering mechanism.

Let's get it started.
We have a population A, right?
Population A is a group of unknown origins and with undefined characteristics.

And we have population B.

-1-
How do we decide that popualtionA is other than popualtionB?
This is the preliminary step...empiricism.
The first step towards the scientific method.
How do we judge divergence?
What criteria, what medium, do we use to categorize and differentiate.
At this point I remind you that consciousness is a tool of discrimination, no matter if the word itself has fallen in made repute in our modern, politically-correct, dumbed-down, world.
To discriminate is to be aware of a divergence...this is its original and only meaning.

If you agree proceed...


-2-
Now, I would say that genetic isolation must occur if any differentiation can come about, no matter if it occurs in short spurts or incremental steps.
If not then all mutations become evenly distributed within the entire population if they offer an advantage. No chance here...all natural selection is guided by conscious judgments in higher life forms. Females, actually, play the role of genetic filters...later becoming mimetic filters. They are how detrimental mutations are weeded out of a population's genetic pool.

This genetic isolation can be geographical, originally, but later on and with the development of mimetic groupings it might take on the form of a social isolation.

If you agree proceed...


-3-
Whatever changes occur in populationA cannot spread to populationB and how fast or how slow these changes come about is a detail that need not enter the evaluation yet.
These changes are nothing more than mutations. Genetic mutations that either benefit the organism, burden it or are neutral in their effect.
Sexuality develops mechanism to select mutations. This is the only reason sex evolves...alter acquiring social and cultural and psychological roles.This, too, need not be addressed yet.

We'll assume that whatever triggers a mutation to become detrimental or beneficial is also factored into our evaluations as being part of the environment.

What is to be considered beneficial, fit, superior, is determined by the particularities of a given environment at a given time.
These mutations accumulate, in time adding a level of complexity to the entire process, as the combination of what attributes benefit the organism must outweigh those that burdens it within this given environment and since the environment is also evolving the standard of fitness is also altering, proportionally to the changes in the environment. A meteorite hit leading to a sudden Ice Age would be an accelerated environmental alteration leading to drastic changes in genetic balances.

These aggregate mutations are what become the behavioral and physical attributes of a population, of a species.
There is no mind/body dichotomy. If the environment affects the form it also affects the brain.

If you agree proceed...


Let us stop here before we go onto...

-4- specialization, particularly sexual specialization as in male/female; how it evolves, why it evolves...

-5- how long is enough for a sufficient divergence to occur so as to be called a different species...

-6- how and why genes are uniformly distributed...

-7-how and why particular population groups develop particular custom, traditions, ways of thinking and behaving which we might call rudimentary forms of culture...

-8-why the senses evolve and why some consider them tools of tricking the organism rather than tools for aiding the organism to survive. How the cultural ideal evolved making sensual perception superficial or erroneous.....

etc.

Satyr wrote:You are being evasive as usual.
You have no clue, do ya?

Once more, and you can include your "genetic drift" in the equation, you give us a step-by-step process, as you imagine it, where species splinter off a common ancestor.
Is it all dumb luck?
Are you saying that Evolution is about blind luck?
Are you serious?

How old are you?

Let's say that there are three variations for a specific gene. Let's say all three are equally beneficial, with no difference between them. Or, let's even go further, let's say two of the variations are equally beneficial and the third variation is slightly negative in its impact. Now, what should we expect to happen? The negative gene will be wiped out, and the two positive genes, since they are equally beneficial, we would expect to find them equally present in the population. However, that is not what often occurs. At least not in smaller populations. What may very well happen is the negative gene may be fixed, and the other two go out of existence. (In point of fact, a lot of beneficial mutations never make it very far, let's say the kid carrying the beneficial gene gets hit by a truck while riding on a skateboard, gone.)

This happens because we know that small sample sizes often contain extreme variations, without any causal reason. If I flip an equally balanced coin a million times, I expect it to come up roughly 500,000 times heads. It would be suspicious if we even had 700,000 heads, much less all heads. However, if I toss the same coin ten times, the odds of it coming up ten heads increases, simply because I have shrunk the sample size. This is analogous to what happens when we have small population groups that become isolated. In those groups, solely through random chance, even a slightly negative gene may become fixed, even moving two beneficial genes out of existence in the process.

This process also shows that there is no supernatural force behind evolution. But, in any event, with genetic drift, there is no selection process going on as you described. What you need to do is study up on mathematical biology. When evolutionary processes get quantified, that's when we develop a deeper understanding of them.

Move on...you bore me.
It's all dumb-luck.

Grab onto the Genetic Drift and let it lead you to the cesspools of equality.
Roll the dice...you might be a winner.

Genetic Drift
And I quote, highlighting what you need to focus on:

Genetic drift—along with natural selection, mutation, and migration—is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution.

In each generation, some individuals may, just by chance, leave behind a few more descendents (and genes, of course!) than other individuals. The genes of the next generation will be the genes of the “lucky” individuals, not necessarily the healthier or “better” individuals. That, in a nutshell, is genetic drift. It happens to ALL populations—there’s no avoiding the vagaries of chance.

Earlier we used this hypothetical cartoon. Genetic drift affects the genetic makeup of the population but, unlike natural selection, through an entirely random process. So although genetic drift is a mechanism of evolution, it doesn’t work to produce adaptations.

Do you even understand what this means? It doesn't mean evolution is based entirely on chance, you sad fuck.
Chance is what we call the random environmental factors we cannot predict.

Thanks for the reading advice.
Now go off and polish your bachelor's degree and tell me how Freud is overcome and science has already defined the #1.
I offer you $1,000 to fuck-off...you tire me.
You are one boring fuck.

You have about as much understanding of science as you do of life and of yourself.
On philosophy and what it is, and why you still behave and talk like a teenage boy is something you should read-up on.

Don't expect a response from me again.
I've already wasted too much time on you.
You have nothing to say...except the usual American crap: all you do is offer one-liner insinuations and drop a few science words you looked up on-line but have no understanding of, then you pat yourself on the back and are content.
How old are you, anyhow?

Beat your chest and call on the apes.
They'll whoop and holler to your heart's content.
What the fuck is someone like you doing in a philosophy forum?
Masturbating?

Do us both a favor and never soil my threads or my comments with your trite self-aggrandizing, stupidity.
Sheesh...enough is enough.

Satyr wrote:Move on...you bore me.
It's all dumb-luck.

Grab onto the Genetic Drift and let it lead you to the cesspools of equality.
Roll the dice...you might be a winner.

Genetic Drift
And I quote, highlighting what you need to focus on:

Genetic drift—along with natural selection, mutation, and migration—is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution.

In each generation, some individuals may, just by chance, leave behind a few more descendents (and genes, of course!) than other individuals. The genes of the next generation will be the genes of the “lucky” individuals, not necessarily the healthier or “better” individuals. That, in a nutshell, is genetic drift. It happens to ALL populations—there’s no avoiding the vagaries of chance.

Earlier we used this hypothetical cartoon. Genetic drift affects the genetic makeup of the population but, unlike natural selection, through an entirely random process. So although genetic drift is a mechanism of evolution, it doesn’t work to produce adaptations.

Do you even understand what this means? It doesn't mean evolution is based entirely on chance, you sad fuck.
Chance is what we call the random environmental factors we cannot predict.

Thanks for the reading advice.
Now go off and polish your bachelor's degree and tell me how Freud is overcome and science has already defined the #1.
I offer you $1,000 to fuck-off...you tire me.
You are one boring fuck.

You have about as much understanding of science as you do of life and of yourself.
On philosophy and what it is, and why you still behave and talk like a teenage boy is something you should read-up on.

Don't expect a response from me again.
I've already wasted too much time on you.
You have nothing to say...except the usual American crap: all you do is offer one-liner insinuations and drop a few science words you looked up on-line but have no understanding of, then you pat yourself on the back and are content.
How old are you, anyhow?

Beat your chest and call on the apes.
They'll whoop and holler to your heart's content.
What the fuck is someone like you doing in a philosophy forum?
Masturbating?

Do us both a favor and never soil my threads or my comments with your trite self-aggrandizing, stupidity.
Sheesh...enough is enough.

I debunked your ass, yet again.

Look, I could come here every day and write truthful things about Greeks, and do that for more than a year, and demonize you, just like you try to do with Jews and Americans. Your prejudice is just stupidity on your part. It is no coincidence that every anti-semite on this forum doesn't have a clue about anything. The bottom-line is you are ignorant of science, and in the 21st century, with science all around us, it means you are ignorant, period. Now, go limp off and do some reading before trying to argue a scientific issue with me. You just are not up to the task.

....

-4-
Specialization factors in as a way of increasing survivability by benefiting from a niche.
This entails risks, as environmental changes can make specialized methods of survival more vulnerable to environmental alterations. Specialization is, essentially, an increase of dependence on one particular method of surviving.

The mostly glaring form of specialization is the evolution of the male/female types.
Each type becomes more dependent on the others(s) but gains in efficiency and effectiveness by streamlining its physical and mental traits to meet the requirements of its specialized role.
This alteration or selection of attributes to fulfill the specialized roles, no matter how much some would like to think otherwise, is not only superficial or physical or apparent.


-5-
Time or the period required for a common ancestor to splinter off into different species should be considered the relationship of the original organism's complexity, the time period the splintering-off group experienced genetic isolation and the alteration in environmental conditions it experienced or was stressed by in relation to the original population.
We see inter-mediating forms of splintering in asses and horses and zebras....or in lions and tigers ...or in bears....or in dog breeds, to a lesser extent, or elephant types or any sub-group belonging to a larger species group.
The production of infertile, unfit, offspring is the first sign that the split is becoming more pronounced.


-6-
Why the senses evolve and why some consider them tools of tricking the organism rather than tools for aiding the organism to survive. How the cultural ideal evolved making sensual perception superficial or erroneous.....
The factor of chance is indeed part of it, as it is with everything; when absolute knowledge is absent chance participates as the unknown.
This is why consciousness develops.
It is to limit the random by being aware; by acquiring choice...which results in natural selection.
With choice, or the ability to perceive,and then choose, the organism increases its survivability and limits the effects of randomness upon it.
Because no absolute awareness is possible chance is always a factor but survival is not about certainty but only about increasing the odds....just as science only deals with probabilities not certainties.
The evolved ability to discriminate, to choose, to evaluate using sensual data, to adapt in slow increments, naturally, or by the more immediate and flexible mind, is what natural selection is all about.

............

Jaynes, Julian wrote:The next stage is the development of thing nouns, really a carry-over from the preceding. And just as life nouns began animal drawings, so nouns for things beget things. This period corresponds, I suggest, to the invention of pottery, pendants, ornaments, and barbed harpoons and spearheads, the last two tremendously important in spreading the human species into more difficult climates.
From fossil evidence we know factually that the brain, particularly the frontal lobe in front of the central sulcus, was increasing with rapidity that still astonishes the modern evolutionist.
And by this time, perhaps what corresponds to the Magdalenian culture, the language areas of the brain as we know them had developed.

Like most academics of his times – these most modern of all times – he clouds his beliefs in indirect speculation, implying but never stating outright.
Jaynes suggests that the development of the frontal lobe, which gave birth to language, was a consequence of an evolutionary pressure; one which necessitated the adaptation to inhospitable climates or, in other words, to environments not of the kind we would consider related to the ones where man originally evolved in.
Language, and the concepts and brain development it produces and depends upon, was a result of environmental pressures that ignited the growth of the frontal cortex.
Jaynes’ socioeconomic status does not permit him to speak his mind directly, not without considerable risk and cost, so he chooses these methods of insinuating his positions, then burying it in semantics.
He states it quite emphatically, if not clearly, that he considers the development of the frontal lobe and the language that made the conceptualization of abstractions and their expression in code, in language, a product of environmental pressures.
It is that man had to survive within inhospitable climates that stressed him to adapt or to perish.

Jaynes implies more here:

Jaynes, Julian wrote:The first stage and signa qua non of language is the development out of incidental calls the intentional calls, or those which tend to be repeated unless turned off by a change in behavior of the recipient. Previously in the evolution of primates, it was only postural or visual signals such as threat postures which were intentional. Their evolution into auditory signals was made necessary by the migration of man into northern climates, where there was less light both in the environment and in the dark caves where man made his abode, and where visual signals could not be seen readily as on the bright African savannahs.

Being a smart man Jaynes knows what he is implying and so covers his tracks with heavy doses of scientific skepticism and Judeo-Christian self-abasement:

Jaynes, Julian wrote:It is not intended as a definite statement of what occurred in evolution so much as a rough working hypothesis to approach it. Moreover, the stages of language development that I shall describe are not meant to be necessarily discreet. Nor are they always in the same order in different localities. The central assertion of this view, I repeat, is that each new stage of words literally created new perceptions and attentions, and such new perceptions and attentions resulted in important cultural changes which are reflected in the archeological record.

Now, at the risk or unnerving the local thought police, now called morality squad, and having them use their daddy's phone to threaten all into silence, then declare them debunked, and claim that science "says so", let us consider what is being said here.

Atthet wrote:Speciation is already happening. The problem is, that the PC liberal moral establishment prevents people from seeing it. Species are fracturing right now, but this is censored by schools, television, and historical books.

Bollocks! All humans can have sex and produce viable offspring.

Take the Negro race. Negro men want to have sex and breed with the Aryan, pale white skin, blonde haired, blue eyed European woman. But the Aryan male, pale white skin, blonde haired, blue eyed European, does not have sex with dark skin, dark eyed, dark haired Negresses. Why not? Why is this a one way sexual demand for beauty? Why is white beauty a one way road? Why aren't coal skinned Negresses in demand, despite billions and trillions of dollars being poured into Mass Media, that proclaim that beauty is skin deep, and black people are the new archetype of beauty?

This is your cultural bubble. As over here the white-man is dating and having sex with the black female. Much to the unhappiness of the black and white male and female racists. You also ignore the history of the male plantation slave-owners who regularly had sex with the 'stock'.

A relationship and child between white male and black female is very rare. And when it occurs, a mulatto, half-breed, mixed-race is born. These our the postmodern 'mules', like breeding a thorough bred horse with an ass.

Its rare because it was frowned upon by racist bigots upon both sides. Over here thats beginning to fade. Your analogy fails as these children are not 'mules'.

The problem is, censorship will not allow people to see what is truly going on. There is political risk to pointing out Truth. This is why philosophy is utterly opposed to politics, in the end. Truth is opposed by pieces of shit, genetic feces, who owe their entire intellectual history and sense of self worth, value, to the system that created them.

Well you definitely talk a lot of shite so I presume you are one of these 'genetic feces' that you keep yakking on about.

That is slave morality, not master morality.

This from one of the flock!

Any one understanding Evolution Theory as being one which claims that environment does not affect genes deserves a stupid Yank, jerking off all over this forum with posturing and no substance, and offering such brilliant repartee as: "Prove I did not read Kant" when it is obvious that he has no clue about anything he posts on any subject at any time.

Enjoy your flock, British Queen...he too deserves to reproduce; settling, once and for all, the future and that empire's slow decline into decay.

And...ACTION!!!

I once passed outside a University....so?
Prove that I didn't.
Prove that I didn't attend it.

I once read a book on the Theory of Relativity...and?
It was years ago.

Prove that I did not understand a thing.
I read it...prove that I didn't.

I once saw a pussy...prove that I didn't have sex with it.

And ...end of scene!!

My Queen, your herd is precious.

Satyr wrote:Any one understanding Evolution Theory as being one which claims that environment does not affect genes deserves a stupid Yank, jerking off all over this forum with posturing and no substance, and offering such brilliant repartee as: "Prove I did not read Kant" when it is obvious that he has no clue about anything he posts on any subject at any time.

Since I don't claim this I don't think I deserve it.

My Queen, your herd is precious.

Its not me who wants to be a goaturder to a flock. And its not my 'herd' or 'pack' for that matter. On this matter, since when has this primate been only a carnivore or a herbivore? As such I think 'troop' may be more apt and given you're in it I think it a mixed shrewdness at that.

See how you project, my Queen?
Such envy.
I bet if the other girls get more attention from the boys you accuse them of being whores.

It is also clear that metaphors are not your forte. Your thickness requires more vulgar punches to have an effect.

Perhaps the herbivore/carnivore metaphor, my Queen, was meant to display an inability to digest blood and guts....being so delicate in disposition, your tummies need softer nutrition: flowers, and bugs, and grass to regurgitate, over and over and over again.

Weren't you the one who said that "anyone who knows anything about evolution does not believe that genes are affected by environment"....or did you go back and erase it, my precious Queen?

You have got to be one of the dumbest individuals I've come across on the Internets...you and that ForgedinWalmart moron.

Anyone who believes in eugenics and the Nazi bullshit about 'blonde, blue-eyed 'Aryans'' knows nothing about evolution. The Nazis were incredibly stupid. As a matter of fact Iranians are the original 'Aryans' and they aren't very blonde or blue-eyed.

I debunked your ass, yet again.

Look, I could come here every day and write truthful things about Greeks, and do that for more than a year, and demonize you, just like you try to do with Jews and Americans. Your prejudice is just stupidity on your part. It is no coincidence that every anti-semite on this forum doesn't have a clue about anything. The bottom-line is you are ignorant of science, and in the 21st century, with science all around us, it means you are ignorant, period. Now, go limp off and do some reading before trying to argue a scientific issue with me. You just are not up to the task.

Forged.

Well said. Often i do not even agree with some posts. But ones said well are great reading.
Jews and Americans. Now that is great stuff.
I posted an essay once of total superiority of Israeli IDF in 70's ad 80's.
That ONE Israeli Armd Corps [near all their steel]
Could defeat entire US army in field.

A new perspective on Jews and Americans. This would be just before 4 Carriers flattened Israel.

Anti semites are pretty stupid.
Not a s stupid as fundies but close.

sniker

Prill
-----------------
"This process also shows that there is no supernatural force behind evolution. But, in any event, with genetic drift, there is no selection process going on as you described. What you need to do is study up on mathematical biology. When evolutionary processes get quantified, that's when we develop a deeper understanding of them."

Im a stochastician.. Statistics and drift.
probabillities..

mmmmmmmmm

Be careful, big daddy, he might "debunk your ass" just by mentioning genetic drift or alluding to his diploma or googling some other scientific term to just drop onto the table with no argument and no connection, or he might proceed to offering you $1,000 to fly there so he can "beat you up" feeling proud that if you don't bother with a moron like him he wins a "moral" victory.

You're still in another topic grandpa...this was about evolution theory and here I was "schooled" in the reality that evolution is based nothing more than dumb-luck.
Nothing is ever actually selected...organisms sort of role the dice and pray for the best.
Some are just unlucky...nothing to do with their heritage.

We all know the Jews are innocent victims of a smear campaign started for no reason except blind hate and that the fact that they are overrepresented in show business, politics, and in victimology is purely accidental.
Israel contra the U.S. huh?
Now that's funny.
Who would the American Jewish Lobby support?

Here are some others who are funny: racists and sexists.
In fact, anyone alluding to a divergence or a genetic or mimetic difference is totally crazy: hate mongering is wrong.
Yesterday I became aware of the difference between a beautiful woman and an ugly skank....and I had to pause for a minute. I realized that what I was doing was hateful and wrong and immoral....just by differentiating beauty from ugly I was proposing the Holocaust of all ugly people.
I quickly reminded myself of my upbringing and how despicable it is to notice such things and to be so discriminating and superficial.

We are, after all, a brotherhood of man...and evolution works on cooperation and love and compassion and, most of all, chance.

Evolution is driven by selection of whatever genetic code works best, (existing or new mutations, it doesn't matter) and selection is driven by the environment, whatever that may be in it's entirety.

Satyr wrote: Yesterday I became aware of the difference between a beautiful woman and an ugly skank....and I had to pause for a minute. I realized that what I was doing was hateful and wrong and immoral....just by differentiating beauty from ugly I was proposing the Holocaust of all ugly people.
I quickly reminded myself of my upbringing and how despicable it is to notice such things and to be so discriminating and superficial.
.

You should talk to Peacegirl. She could explain how that works.