The Genius of Charles Darwin

Guest

Hermes wrote:: I agree with Ibis. We are a bunch of tailless apes in suits. Though why we have the suits beats me, considering we lost a fine coat of hair/fur just so we could someday have to buy suits.

Evolution explains the diversity of life. Economics and the free market, to me, seems to be about survival of the fittest whereby diversity is slowly removed from the picture. The comparison to evolution is apt. But it's evolution in reverse.

The same can be said for the eugenics argument. To attempt to create a 'master race' is to remove diversity. It's evolution in reverse. Make a bunch of 'perfect' humans and kill the rest. Before long, you'll have something like the British Royal family and evolution can begin anew.

The idea of the impossibility of componants spontaneously assembling themselves into an intricate machine is a very old argument. It used to be a pocket watch that self-assembled and later, it became a 747 that resulted from a tornado blowing through a junkyard. Perspective is a great tool for examining this type of argument. To a bacteria, if it could observe or think, a 747 being assembled by a group of workers in a factory wouldn't be a whole lot different than a 747 being created via the interaction between a tornado and the contents of a junkyard. Imagine looking at either process from a subatomic perspective, it'd all be particles in a maelstrom, more to the point the end result too, would be particles in a maelstrom, there'd be no creation. Creation is a concept and being a concept must follow the advent of consciousness. More to the point, creation coupled with understanding is intimately tied to perspective. In as far as man is concerned, tool making and toy making are merely behaviours that are no more complex or mysterious than a cow chewing the cud.

Intelligent design fails on quite a few levels. The most significant failure, in my view, is that it disproves itself. Let's look at the self-assembling watch.

The creationist/intelligent design proponant argues that the complexity of the mechanism requires an intelligence and an intention to facilitate its existence and subsequent manufacture. One must logically conclude that the creator of this mechanism is more complex than his creation. Such a wonderfully complex creator couldn't have spontaneously arisen and must therefore be a creation too - and so on. As a side note, the intelligent design argument via its internal flaw and contradiction, predicts that creations get simpler as time progresses. From observation alone we know the reverse happens. Other than observation arguing against intelligent design, we have the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, which has never once been shown to be wrong, saying that complexity increases over time, it does not reduce.

One of my best mates is a Jehovah's witness. I'd never attempt to bully him, he's 6 4' and built like a shrick bithouse and would diassemble my arse like a pile of leaves in a windstorm.

There's a great book by Elaine Morgan that explains the hairlessness- its probably to do with having had a semi-aquatic life for a very long time.

I love the bit in bold. There have been times in history when diversity has collapsed but because of sudden changes in environment I think.

Guest

Auditor #9 wrote:: So, there may be no conscious decision-making in the process of evolution? It's always going to be an accident, always going to be random?

"Random" is only a small part of the picture - indeed, the smallest part of the picture. Mutation is random, but whether the effects of a mutation are beneficial depends on the environment.

A good example is the nylon-digesting enzyme evolved quite recently by a bacterium (whose name I forget). Such a mutation may have occurred multiple times in Earth's history, but only for a bacterium that has access to nylon is it useful. The same for any other mutation (or viral DNA injection) - the production of new genes is random, but whether they survive or not is determined entirely by 'rules' of the environment it happens in.

Guest

Hermes wrote:: The creationist/intelligent design proponant argues that the complexity of the mechanism requires an intelligence and an intention to facilitate its existence and subsequent manufacture. One must logically conclude that the creator of this mechanism is more complex than his creation. Such a wonderfully complex creator couldn't have spontaneously arisen and must therefore be a creation too - and so on. As a side note, the intelligent design argument via its internal flaw and contradiction, predicts that creations get simpler as time progresses. From observation alone we know the reverse happens. Other than observation arguing against intelligent design, we have the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, which has never once been shown to be wrong, saying that complexity increases over time, it does not reduce.

This may be the position of the creationist but can you imagine that someone arguing against natural selection or moreso for something else may not have their feet in the creationist school? Would you also completely rule out any consciousness or decision-making process?

ibis wrote:: "Random" is only a small part of the picture - indeed, the smallest part of the picture. Mutation is random, but whether the effects of a mutation are beneficial depends on the environment.

A good example is the nylon-digesting enzyme evolved quite recently by a bacterium (whose name I forget). Such a mutation may have occurred multiple times in Earth's history, but only for a bacterium that has access to nylon is it useful. The same for any other mutation (or viral DNA injection) - the production of new genes is random, but whether they survive or not is determined entirely by 'rules' of the environment it happens in.

Couldn't there be layers or shells of 'rules' inside which the diversity of life appears? And these rules could have structure and may be defined and identified...

Guest

I wouldn't agree with the word rules, because isn't that leading us back to a hgiher power who sets the rules? I'd think of it more in terms of the condiitons in which things can happen.

Guest

cactus flower wrote:: I wouldn't agree with the word rules, because isn't that leading us back to a hgiher power who sets the rules? I'd think of it more in terms of the condiitons in which things can happen.

Fair enough - or in which things can't happen ... and I don't think introduction of structure or 'rules' needs to be justified in terms of a 'primer mover' do they? That's a possible conclusion but not a necessary one.

Guest

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:: I wouldn't agree with the word rules, because isn't that leading us back to a hgiher power who sets the rules? I'd think of it more in terms of the condiitons in which things can happen.

Fair enough - or in which things can't happen ... and I don't think introduction of structure or 'rules' needs to be justified in terms of a 'primer mover' do they? That's a possible conclusion but not a necessary one.

Tying in with what ibis was saying about the nylon eating bacteria, and an example I remember from my own biology studies about a moth that adapted to fit the smoggy, smoke-ridden cities of Britain during the industrial revolution. The pale moth was almost wiped out when it was highlighted against the newly dark walls, but adapted to a dark colour that could be easily camouflaged.

I would have thought it fair to say that all systems create their own rules, from ecosystems to societies.

Guest

cactus flower wrote:: I wouldn't agree with the word rules, because isn't that leading us back to a hgiher power who sets the rules? I'd think of it more in terms of the condiitons in which things can happen.

Fair point - part of the problem with explaining evolution is that at every available opportunity people's minds seem to grab for the idea that "someone" is "making it" happen - what I call the 'fallacy of agency'. However, something like gravity is part of it, and I prefer the word rule because you can't break the rules.

Guest

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:: I wouldn't agree with the word rules, because isn't that leading us back to a hgiher power who sets the rules? I'd think of it more in terms of the condiitons in which things can happen.

Fair point - part of the problem with explaining evolution is that at every available opportunity people's minds seem to grab for the idea that "someone" is "making it" happen - what I call the 'fallacy of agency'. However, something like gravity is part of it, and I prefer the word rule because you can't break the rules.

Yes exactly - along with some thermodynamic law maybe. These laws and rules surely play a part in all the movements and assemblings of little pieces and can give the impression that there is intention and consciousness...

.. but as Kate P says, there are often rules inside systems themselves ... and some of these are created - depending on the system.

Guest

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:: I wouldn't agree with the word rules, because isn't that leading us back to a hgiher power who sets the rules? I'd think of it more in terms of the condiitons in which things can happen.

Fair point - part of the problem with explaining evolution is that at every available opportunity people's minds seem to grab for the idea that "someone" is "making it" happen - what I call the 'fallacy of agency'. However, something like gravity is part of it, and I prefer the word rule because you can't break the rules.

Yes exactly - along with some thermodynamic law maybe. These laws and rules surely play a part in all the movements and assemblings of little pieces and can give the impression that there is intention and consciousness...

.. but as Kate P says, there are often rules inside systems themselves ... and some of these are created - depending on the system.

You don't mean this ?

Guest

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:: I wouldn't agree with the word rules, because isn't that leading us back to a hgiher power who sets the rules? I'd think of it more in terms of the condiitons in which things can happen.

Fair point - part of the problem with explaining evolution is that at every available opportunity people's minds seem to grab for the idea that "someone" is "making it" happen - what I call the 'fallacy of agency'. However, something like gravity is part of it, and I prefer the word rule because you can't break the rules.

Yes exactly - along with some thermodynamic law maybe. These laws and rules surely play a part in all the movements and assemblings of little pieces and can give the impression that there is intention and consciousness...

Exactly so. I got through second year zoology at least partly on thermodynamics. Unfortunately, once systems are complex enough, we kind of lose the plot, and start mistaking complexity for design, and outcome for intention.

Auditor #9 wrote:: .. but as Kate P says, there are often rules inside systems themselves ... and some of these are created - depending on the system.

Again, true - systems beget systems, so some of the rules in any given system are the rules of sub-systems created by the rules of the system...and so on. Turtles all the way down.

Guest

cactus flower wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:: I wouldn't agree with the word rules, because isn't that leading us back to a hgiher power who sets the rules? I'd think of it more in terms of the condiitons in which things can happen.

Fair point - part of the problem with explaining evolution is that at every available opportunity people's minds seem to grab for the idea that "someone" is "making it" happen - what I call the 'fallacy of agency'. However, something like gravity is part of it, and I prefer the word rule because you can't break the rules.

Yes exactly - along with some thermodynamic law maybe. These laws and rules surely play a part in all the movements and assemblings of little pieces and can give the impression that there is intention and consciousness...

.. but as Kate P says, there are often rules inside systems themselves ... and some of these are created - depending on the system.

You don't mean this ?

Guest

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:: .. but as Kate P says, there are often rules inside systems themselves ... and some of these are created - depending on the system.

Again, true - systems beget systems, so some of the rules in any given system are the rules of sub-systems created by the rules of the system...and so on. Turtles all the way down.

All going to the big bang?

What about the military and such organisations and systems - corporations - they are vastly complex, have rules of some kind and are often designed .. intelligently. Sometimes those designs might be better left to be shaped by nature or by the rules of the environment (or market) but still they tend to be designed with a purpose in mind. Some corporations model themselves on organics and some corporations have such a penetrative aura that it's almost as if we could be symbiotic with some of them - possibly oil companies. For a while now there we even hear the semi-biological terms 'viral marketing' coming into the lingo...

Massive computer programmes are another thing then ....

Isn't there a theory of emergent organisation arising spontaneously like crystallisation?

Guest

Hermes wrote:: I agree with Ibis. We are a bunch of tailless apes in suits. Though why we have the suits beats me, considering we lost a fine coat of hair/fur just so we could someday have to buy suits.

Evolution explains the diversity of life. Economics and the free market, to me, seems to be about survival of the fittest whereby diversity is slowly removed from the picture. The comparison to evolution is apt. But it's evolution in reverse.

The same can be said for the eugenics argument. To attempt to create a 'master race' is to remove diversity. It's evolution in reverse. Make a bunch of 'perfect' humans and kill the rest. Before long, you'll have something like the British Royal family and evolution can begin anew.

Is Hermes saying something? I must disagree.

I think when looked at from a wider point of view evolution, or maybe just life itself, has as much to say about continuity as diversity. Some of the most successful species are ones that haven't evolved much in millions of years. Consider the shark, the crocodile and the tortoise. You could hardly call them life's great failures but they laugh at evolution. I think the main thing mutations and diversions from the norm do is expose the novel design to failure. The chances are much greater for such a mutation to end in failure than victory. For all the diversity we see in the world, there was a vastly greater amount of unsuccessful diversions.

Regarding mankind, there are many things we could do without. Aggression is one of them. I pointed out earlier that aggression is thought to be a natural instinct, seen in most of the great apes. It is highly probable that aggression will wipe out humanity, probably in some sort of nuclear holocaust. Would you see any benefit in some sort of eugenic program that sought to eradicate aggression? Scientists have claimed that there is a group of apes, the bonobos, that have eradicated male aggression through a somewhat conscious effort on the part of the females.

Guest

905 wrote:

Hermes wrote:: I agree with Ibis. We are a bunch of tailless apes in suits. Though why we have the suits beats me, considering we lost a fine coat of hair/fur just so we could someday have to buy suits.

Evolution explains the diversity of life. Economics and the free market, to me, seems to be about survival of the fittest whereby diversity is slowly removed from the picture. The comparison to evolution is apt. But it's evolution in reverse.

The same can be said for the eugenics argument. To attempt to create a 'master race' is to remove diversity. It's evolution in reverse. Make a bunch of 'perfect' humans and kill the rest. Before long, you'll have something like the British Royal family and evolution can begin anew.

Is Hermes saying something? I must disagree.

I think when looked at from a wider point of view evolution, or maybe just life itself, has as much to say about continuity as diversity. Some of the most successful species are ones that haven't evolved much in millions of years. Consider the shark, the crocodile and the tortoise. You could hardly call them life's great failures but they laugh at evolution. I think the main thing mutations and diversions from the norm do is expose the novel design to failure. The chances are much greater for such a mutation to end in failure than victory. For all the diversity we see in the world, there was a vastly greater amount of unsuccessful diversions.

Regarding mankind, there are many things we could do without. Aggression is one of them. I pointed out earlier that aggression is thought to be a natural instinct, seen in most of the great apes. It is highly probable that aggression will wipe out humanity, probably in some sort of nuclear holocaust. Would you see any benefit in some sort of eugenic program that sought to eradicate aggression? Scientists have claimed that there is a group of apes, the bonobos, that have eradicated male aggression through a somewhat conscious effort on the part of the females.

I had missed this great post 905.

How in the name of all that's holy did the female bonobos do it ? Or is that an after 10 p.m. question.

Guest

905 wrote:

Hermes wrote:: I agree with Ibis. We are a bunch of tailless apes in suits. Though why we have the suits beats me, considering we lost a fine coat of hair/fur just so we could someday have to buy suits.

Evolution explains the diversity of life. Economics and the free market, to me, seems to be about survival of the fittest whereby diversity is slowly removed from the picture. The comparison to evolution is apt. But it's evolution in reverse.

The same can be said for the eugenics argument. To attempt to create a 'master race' is to remove diversity. It's evolution in reverse. Make a bunch of 'perfect' humans and kill the rest. Before long, you'll have something like the British Royal family and evolution can begin anew.

Is Hermes saying something? I must disagree.

I think when looked at from a wider point of view evolution, or maybe just life itself, has as much to say about continuity as diversity. Some of the most successful species are ones that haven't evolved much in millions of years. Consider the shark, the crocodile and the tortoise. You could hardly call them life's great failures but they laugh at evolution. I think the main thing mutations and diversions from the norm do is expose the novel design to failure. The chances are much greater for such a mutation to end in failure than victory. For all the diversity we see in the world, there was a vastly greater amount of unsuccessful diversions.

That's very true. The (mostly) unchanging design of some species indicates two things - a persistent niche and good adaptation.

905 wrote:: Regarding mankind, there are many things we could do without. Aggression is one of them. I pointed out earlier that aggression is thought to be a natural instinct, seen in most of the great apes. It is highly probable that aggression will wipe out humanity, probably in some sort of nuclear holocaust. Would you see any benefit in some sort of eugenic program that sought to eradicate aggression? Scientists have claimed that there is a group of apes, the bonobos, that have eradicated male aggression through a somewhat conscious effort on the part of the females.

Actually, as far as I recall, the idea that we're "naturally aggressive" isn't particularly the case. It's based on nineteenth century ideas of what constitutes humanity in its "natural" and "savage" state. Most people are not particularly aggressive, and most of the training of a soldier is aimed at making them aggressive. Despite that, the majority of soldiers do not fire on the enemy even when faced with an assault.

Guest

ibis wrote:

905 wrote:

Hermes wrote:: I agree with Ibis. We are a bunch of tailless apes in suits. Though why we have the suits beats me, considering we lost a fine coat of hair/fur just so we could someday have to buy suits.

Evolution explains the diversity of life. Economics and the free market, to me, seems to be about survival of the fittest whereby diversity is slowly removed from the picture. The comparison to evolution is apt. But it's evolution in reverse.

The same can be said for the eugenics argument. To attempt to create a 'master race' is to remove diversity. It's evolution in reverse. Make a bunch of 'perfect' humans and kill the rest. Before long, you'll have something like the British Royal family and evolution can begin anew.

Is Hermes saying something? I must disagree.

I think when looked at from a wider point of view evolution, or maybe just life itself, has as much to say about continuity as diversity. Some of the most successful species are ones that haven't evolved much in millions of years. Consider the shark, the crocodile and the tortoise. You could hardly call them life's great failures but they laugh at evolution. I think the main thing mutations and diversions from the norm do is expose the novel design to failure. The chances are much greater for such a mutation to end in failure than victory. For all the diversity we see in the world, there was a vastly greater amount of unsuccessful diversions.

That's very true. The (mostly) unchanging design of some species indicates two things - a persistent niche and good adaptation.

905 wrote:: Regarding mankind, there are many things we could do without. Aggression is one of them. I pointed out earlier that aggression is thought to be a natural instinct, seen in most of the great apes. It is highly probable that aggression will wipe out humanity, probably in some sort of nuclear holocaust. Would you see any benefit in some sort of eugenic program that sought to eradicate aggression? Scientists have claimed that there is a group of apes, the bonobos, that have eradicated male aggression through a somewhat conscious effort on the part of the females.

Actually, as far as I recall, the idea that we're "naturally aggressive" isn't particularly the case. It's based on nineteenth century ideas of what constitutes humanity in its "natural" and "savage" state. Most people are not particularly aggressive, and most of the training of a soldier is aimed at making them aggressive. Despite that, the majority of soldiers do not fire on the enemy even when faced with an assault.

Yes, there was Stanislav Petrov, who took it upon himself not to blow us all to oblivion in 1983
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-505009/September-26th-1983-The-day-world-died.html

I don't think we can rely on too many repeats of that.

Guest

cactus flower wrote:: Yes, there was Stanislav Petrov, who took it upon himself not to blow us all to oblivion in 1983
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-505009/September-26th-1983-The-day-world-died.html

I don't think we can rely on too many repeats of that.

Really? I would say the opposite. I'd say 99% of people in that position would do exactly the same - a reason for not leaving things to us AI's.

Guest

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:: Yes, there was Stanislav Petrov, who took it upon himself not to blow us all to oblivion in 1983
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-505009/September-26th-1983-The-day-world-died.html

I don't think we can rely on too many repeats of that.

Really? I would say the opposite. I'd say 99% of people in that position would do exactly the same - a reason for not leaving things to us AI's.

My guess is the defect has been noted and some kind of AI-human override system installed.

Guest

ibis wrote:

905 wrote:: Regarding mankind, there are many things we could do without. Aggression is one of them. I pointed out earlier that aggression is thought to be a natural instinct, seen in most of the great apes. It is highly probable that aggression will wipe out humanity, probably in some sort of nuclear holocaust. Would you see any benefit in some sort of eugenic program that sought to eradicate aggression? Scientists have claimed that there is a group of apes, the bonobos, that have eradicated male aggression through a somewhat conscious effort on the part of the females.

Actually, as far as I recall, the idea that we're "naturally aggressive" isn't particularly the case. It's based on nineteenth century ideas of what constitutes humanity in its "natural" and "savage" state. Most people are not particularly aggressive, and most of the training of a soldier is aimed at making them aggressive. Despite that, the majority of soldiers do not fire on the enemy even when faced with an assault.

As far as I recall *tuts dismissivly* It's based on twentieth century genetic studies and primate research. Chimps are aggressive, men share 98% of their DNA. Ergo, men are aggressive. I'd like to point out again the difference between aggression, which is natural, and violence, which is where culture and reason come into it. Whatever training a soldier gets (I suspect it focuses more on restraining aggression because untamed aggression is a liability in a military environment), a mob needs no training. Wife beating needs no training.

Guest

905 wrote:

ibis wrote:

905 wrote:: Regarding mankind, there are many things we could do without. Aggression is one of them. I pointed out earlier that aggression is thought to be a natural instinct, seen in most of the great apes. It is highly probable that aggression will wipe out humanity, probably in some sort of nuclear holocaust. Would you see any benefit in some sort of eugenic program that sought to eradicate aggression? Scientists have claimed that there is a group of apes, the bonobos, that have eradicated male aggression through a somewhat conscious effort on the part of the females.

Actually, as far as I recall, the idea that we're "naturally aggressive" isn't particularly the case. It's based on nineteenth century ideas of what constitutes humanity in its "natural" and "savage" state. Most people are not particularly aggressive, and most of the training of a soldier is aimed at making them aggressive. Despite that, the majority of soldiers do not fire on the enemy even when faced with an assault.

As far as I recall *tuts dismissivly* It's based on twentieth century genetic studies and primate research. Chimps are aggressive, men share 98% of their DNA. Ergo, men are aggressive. I'd like to point out again the difference between aggression, which is natural, and violence, which is where culture and reason come into it. Whatever training a soldier gets (I suspect it focuses more on restraining aggression because untamed aggression is a liability in a military environment), a mob needs no training. Wife beating needs no training.

Bonobos aren't aggressive, and are much less different from chimps than we are (about quarter the difference) - we share almost exactly the same amount of DNA with bonobos as chimps.

That's what I mean when I say it's an imposed idea, not a real observation - the facts used have been chosen to fit the preconception, while other facts, equally applicable, are mysteriously ignored. It's not a scientific theory or observation, it's an article of faith.

Guest

Quote :: Scientists have claimed that there is a group of apes, the bonobos, that have eradicated male aggression through a somewhat conscious effort on the part of the females

So what was the trick the ladies used ?

Guest

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :: Scientists have claimed that there is a group of apes, the bonobos, that have eradicated male aggression through a somewhat conscious effort on the part of the females

So what was the trick the ladies used ?

A sudden inexplicable epidemic of headaches coupled with frequent all-night shopping trips with girlfriends to neighbouring tribes Wink

Guest

Bonobos are the exception that tests the rule. They are quite different from chimps in many important respects. They have a much more stable diet, which increases group stability and especially female bonding. Bonobos would find it much harder to rape a female bonobo, were they so inclined, because of female solidarity. Also they don't hunt, which means less leverage when it to demading sex.

It is impossible for a male bonobo to tell when a female is ovulating, unlike chimps. Males don't know when to fight over the females and if they did they would still have to contend with the protective females.

These are the reasons given for unaggressive bonobos. None of it changes the fact that our nearest natural relatives are quite violent, often in ways that closely resemble our own. Far from being an imposed idea this is scientific observation, working against the imposed idea of the gentle ape. The bonobos split from the chimp family around 1.5 million years ago while we split over 5 million years ago. This means we are much closer to the aggressive chimps than the peaceful bonobos.

No society in the world has been shown to be peaceful. For a non-biological trait it is surprisingly universal.

Guest

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :: Scientists have claimed that there is a group of apes, the bonobos, that have eradicated male aggression through a somewhat conscious effort on the part of the females

So what was the trick the ladies used ?

An enormous amount of lesbian sex has eradictaed any sexual need for the males while the fellas have to face a formidable gang of hairy macho women. That's actually the truth, more or less.

Guest

905 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :: Scientists have claimed that there is a group of apes, the bonobos, that have eradicated male aggression through a somewhat conscious effort on the part of the females

So what was the trick the ladies used ?

An enormous amount of lesbian sex has eradictaed any sexual need for the males while the fellas have to face a formidable gang of hairy macho women. That's actually the truth, more or less.

So, what kind of males do the lesbian bonobos go after? Effeminate ones?

This is very interesting stuff if it's what you study 905 ..