< 1 2 3 > 
 
   
 

Reality of Evolution

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
18 April 2018 18:21
 
nonverbal - 18 April 2018 05:29 PM

What’s low-hanging fruit to me is something very different to you, and I have no intention of mocking your stuff—just commenting honestly and frankly. If I insulted you, I didn’t mean to.

Whenever we take it upon ourselves to visit a health facility, especially if it includes surgical services, it’s in a sense (yes, a crazy sense, admittedly, but also entirely real) an affront to natural selection. That is to say, we tend to choose medical interventions rather than just up and failing. We smartly choose not to wait patiently for Darwinian processes to catch up to our hypertensions, hernias, heart murmurs, etc., etc. to finish us off, as we’ve got plenty of nonsense yet to accomplish.

Darwin no longer has much to do with how long individuals live, but of course descent-with-modification remains to this day a subtle but real influence on humanity’s biological progress.

You haven’t said or done anything I would consider insulting. It’s difficult to express context in a conversation without seeing facial expressions or hearing the tone of voice.
I know very little about Darwin, and even less about darwinians, but I would never suggest someone have patience and wait for evolution to catch up, that sounds beyond ridiculous no matter how it’s worded. Primarily because if you’re already alive then you’re missing the rest of evolution and no amount of waiting can change that. I’m still begging an argument, but I don’t want to insist on something you think has the potential to be a problem.

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
18 April 2018 19:57
 
nonverbal - 18 April 2018 05:29 PM

Whenever we take it upon ourselves to visit a health facility, especially if it includes surgical services, it’s in a sense (yes, a crazy sense, admittedly, but also entirely real) an affront to natural selection. That is to say, we tend to choose medical interventions rather than just up and failing. We smartly choose not to wait patiently for Darwinian processes to catch up to our hypertensions, hernias, heart murmurs, etc., etc. to finish us off, as we’ve got plenty of nonsense yet to accomplish.

It took a little while to get this straightened out in my head. It doesn’t usually take so long to realize if I agree or not. I figured out it’s not the point you made, but everything else that people have done, and still do, in opposition to natural selection. Best example being dog breeding. It doesn’t get further away from natural selection than that. At first I thought it was saying people smartly choose medicine but I only had an issue with the description smartly, which is irrational, and I don’t know why I thought it was bothersome.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6760
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
18 April 2018 20:11
 
Chaz - 18 April 2018 04:07 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 18 April 2018 02:49 PM


What exactly does it mean for an immunity to become “a part of their being?”

You are what you eat.. when referring to immunities, exclusively in this thread, I’m not talking about something physical, which should be obvious, as an immunity isn’t something you have, it’s something you are. When I was a kid I got into some poison ivy and ate some of it. The result of ingesting some made me immune to it. I can roll around in it naked, and have zero consequences for it. Being immune to poison ivy is something I am, not something I have.

Maybe this hypothetical will help. If I was to go camping in the woods, I could end up dead, like falling and landing on my head breaking my neck. It would be possible to be surrounded by poison ivy, that would absorb whatever nutrients the rain washed off my corpse into the ground, making me fertilizer for the nurishment of the poison ivy. Becoming food for poison ivy with an immunity to it, could result in the poison ivy developing a stronger or even fatal allergy people would have to worry about.

Please don’t start telling me how unlikely that would be, I’m just trying to help you understand what I meant.

Okay, I understand what you mean now. Earlier I asked if an immunity could be passed on to another human that way—you said that wasn’t what you meant. But this seems like only a slight variation of that same claim. It’s not just unlikely that your immunity to poison ivy would affect a poison ivy plant, it’s just as impossible as passing your immunity on to another person in the same way. At least, that’s how it seems to me.

Interestingly enough, there’s technically no such thing as an immunity to poison ivy. The rash is caused by certain immune cells in the body reacting to the poison. In your case, your immune cells don’t react to the poison anymore. In other words, you’re no longer allergic to poison ivy. I know, it’s a subtle difference saying you’re immune, but it’s similar in a way to peanut allergy. It’s not that most people are immune to peanuts, it’s that some people are allergic to them. With poison ivy, most people are allergic to it.

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
18 April 2018 21:03
 

Having just read a viral news story about rabid dog saliva as a medication, I think possibly what you are referring to is homeopathy and homeopathic philosophy? I think these are essentially made up concepts, but just trying to figure out what you’re even referencing.


Regarding evolution - I do think it is likely an incomplete explanation. I think the idea that evolution is a part of the picture is extremely likely and there is evidence that very much supports this, but the actual logic one has to embrace to assume it is entirely responsible for creating various species from the ground up strikes me as incredibly unlikely. At some point, “Because an incredibly specific advantageous mutation [that would also, by chance, be compatible with being built upon by equally incredibly random advantageous mutations when need be in the future] just randomly appeared and was spread, that’s why!” sounds about as likely as “Because God decreed it, that’s why!”. The idea that advantageous mutations - and again, not only advantageous in isolation, but those that could be built upon to create far more complex systems as more and more advantageous mutations just ‘happened’ - just neatly pop into existence when the ratio of potential non-adventageous mutations to advantageous appears to be about infinity to one - I mean, from what I can tell, that is not a fully explanatory system. That sounds like a description of a mechanism that probably works within or with other systems, albeit one/s that are as of yet unknown. I think there is likely also a ‘top down’ mechanism at play in evolution, some kind of constraints on the system that result in a trend towards various forms. Maybe not an inevitable or singular trend, but again, I think there has to be some sort of valve - be it in the laws of chemistry, physics, mathematics, fractals, whatever - that constrains the process somewhat.


That said, I don’t think that lends any credence to the ideas of homeopathy, if that is indeed what you are talking about.

 
 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
19 April 2018 04:01
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 18 April 2018 08:11 PM

Okay, I understand what you mean now. Earlier I asked if an immunity could be passed on to another human that way—you said that wasn’t what you meant. But this seems like only a slight variation of that same claim. It’s not just unlikely that your immunity to poison ivy would affect a poison ivy plant, it’s just as impossible as passing your immunity on to another person in the same way. At least, that’s how it seems to me.

Interestingly enough, there’s technically no such thing as an immunity to poison ivy. The rash is caused by certain immune cells in the body reacting to the poison. In your case, your immune cells don’t react to the poison anymore. In other words, you’re no longer allergic to poison ivy. I know, it’s a subtle difference saying you’re immune, but it’s similar in a way to peanut allergy. It’s not that most people are immune to peanuts, it’s that some people are allergic to them. With poison ivy, most people are allergic to it.

There’s no way that went over your head. The misunderstanding has to be deliberate. I gave you a hypothetical situation trying to illustrate what I meant even saying that I know how unlikely it is. The odds are astronomical, but that’s not the same as impossible.. I’m not trying to be rude or insulting, but how do you say there’s no such thing as an immunity to poison ivy, while throughout this entire thread I’ve tried several ways to get you to understand that I wasn’t talking about immunities as if it’s something you can give away. Over and over I tried to explain that what you are immune to is in your blood from skin to bone, and when you die the immune system you developed decays with your body and becomes plant food, which is another point I have to make because you said it’s impossible, which is ridiculous, because that’s exactly how fertilizer works. It’s really upsetting that you would specify there’s no such thing as being immune to poison ivy because it’s actually the state of not being allergic, which is correct, however that applies to every immunity and allergy. Being immune is by definition to not be allergic. There’s no difference between being immune and not being allergic, and being allergic and not being immune. It’s two sides of the same coin.

The situation I’ve been in with trying to get people to understand what I meant in the op is beyond pathetic. I discussed this exactly the same with my daughters third grade class and the children had more common sense than what’s in this thread.. that is a sad state…

NL. - 18 April 2018 09:03 PM

Having just read a viral news story about rabid dog saliva as a medication, I think possibly what you are referring to is homeopathy and homeopathic philosophy? I think these are essentially made up concepts, but just trying to figure out what you’re even referencing.


Regarding evolution - I do think it is likely an incomplete explanation. I think the idea that evolution is a part of the picture is extremely likely and there is evidence that very much supports this, but the actual logic one has to embrace to assume it is entirely responsible for creating various species from the ground up strikes me as incredibly unlikely. At some point, “Because an incredibly specific advantageous mutation [that would also, by chance, be compatible with being built upon by equally incredibly random advantageous mutations when need be in the future] just randomly appeared and was spread, that’s why!” sounds about as likely as “Because God decreed it, that’s why!”. The idea that advantageous mutations - and again, not only advantageous in isolation, but those that could be built upon to create far more complex systems as more and more advantageous mutations just ‘happened’ - just neatly pop into existence when the ratio of potential non-adventageous mutations to advantageous appears to be about infinity to one - I mean, from what I can tell, that is not a fully explanatory system. That sounds like a description of a mechanism that probably works within or with other systems, albeit one/s that are as of yet unknown. I think there is likely also a ‘top down’ mechanism at play in evolution, some kind of constraints on the system that result in a trend towards various forms. Maybe not an inevitable or singular trend, but again, I think there has to be some sort of valve - be it in the laws of chemistry, physics, mathematics, fractals, whatever - that constrains the process somewhat.


That said, I don’t think that lends any credence to the ideas of homeopathy, if that is indeed what you are talking about.

I’m not talking about homeopathy, that’s basically a synonym for placebo. Everything else in that comment I agree

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6760
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
19 April 2018 07:10
 
Chaz - 19 April 2018 04:01 AM

I discussed this exactly the same with my daughters third grade class and the children had more common sense than what’s in this thread

Now I understand you completely.

 
 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
20 April 2018 12:24
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 19 April 2018 07:10 AM
Chaz - 19 April 2018 04:01 AM

I discussed this exactly the same with my daughters third grade class and the children had more common sense than what’s in this thread

Now I understand you completely.

You mean to tell me that the entire time I was trying to explain what I meant logically, all I had to do was tell you to use common sense? Why wouldn’t you do that to begin with? Why the hell was I being patient with you as if you genuinely didn’t understand, when I should’ve jumped down your throat and called you an idiot for not using common sense? You have been a genuine waste of time, not only for me, but for anyone who read your comments and left completely confused, forced to dismiss the topic entirely, because they couldn’t make sense of your deliberate misunderstanding.

I would’ve had less trouble explaining to a creationist how water doesn’t stop being water when it evaporates. Now that I think about it, I should’ve used that as an analogy to make my point for you.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
20 April 2018 18:47
 

Chaz:
Maybe this hypothetical will help. If I was to go camping in the woods, I could end up dead, like falling and landing on my head breaking my neck. It would be possible to be surrounded by poison ivy, that would absorb whatever nutrients the rain washed off my corpse into the ground, making me fertilizer for the nurishment of the poison ivy. Becoming food for poison ivy with an immunity to it, could result in the poison ivy developing a stronger or even fatal allergy people would have to worry about.

Plants absorb only simple compounds that amount to fertilizer.  Like nitrates and phosphates and potassium.  A body would need to be totally decomposed into the most basic components to be fertilizer for plants, and no constituents of the immune system would leave traces at this level.

Natural selection is alive and well.  Humans (and dogs) are just a couple of species among millions on the Earth.  Human (and dog) evolution has been impacted by our behavior, which grew out of evolved intelligence and evolved social propensities.  I agree that modern medicine is making it possible for people to thwart many ailments.  In fact, this may result in life-limiting conditions becoming more common, as they can now be countered by treatments.  So whereas humans with juvenile diabetes used to die very young, now these people can live to have their own children.  Meanwhile, disease organisms, such as the tuberculosis bacterium, are continually evolving in response to our drug treatments.

However, is this really unnatural?  Would we consider other social species which help each other to survive to be unnatural?  I think it is a matter of degree.  Consider shore birds that have complex flocking behaviors to deter predators.  Or prairie dogs that share duty in standing sentinel.  Or nuthatches which huddle together to survive the chill of winter nights.   

Will future human evolution favor people with the ability to use technology proficiently to maintain their health and vitality and that of their children?

[ Edited: 20 April 2018 18:52 by hannahtoo]
 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
20 April 2018 21:31
 
hannahtoo - 20 April 2018 06:47 PM

Plants absorb only simple compounds that amount to fertilizer.  Like nitrates and phosphates and potassium.  A body would need to be totally decomposed into the most basic components to be fertilizer for plants, and no constituents of the immune system would leave traces at this level.

Natural selection is alive and well.  Humans (and dogs) are just a couple of species among millions on the Earth.  Human (and dog) evolution has been impacted by our behavior, which grew out of evolved intelligence and evolved social propensities.  I agree that modern medicine is making it possible for people to thwart many ailments.  In fact, this may result in life-limiting conditions becoming more common, as they can now be countered by treatments.  So whereas humans with juvenile diabetes used to die very young, now these people can live to have their own children.  Meanwhile, disease organisms, such as the tuberculosis bacterium, are continually evolving in response to our drug treatments.

However, is this really unnatural?  Would we consider other social species which help each other to survive to be unnatural?  I think it is a matter of degree.  Consider shore birds that have complex flocking behaviors to deter predators.  Or prairie dogs that share duty in standing sentinel.  Or nuthatches which huddle together to survive the chill of winter nights.   

Will future human evolution favor people with the ability to use technology proficiently to maintain their health and vitality and that of their children?

Finally! I will apologize for the bad hypothetical, but I will stand by it. I would hope the fact I oversimplified to a staggering degree to be obvious, and it’s not possible to make sense at the same time.

I’ll start with dog breeding, because you’re not talking about the same thing. I suppose the point I was making would have done better if I referenced American slave owners before the civil war. I know it’s a leap, but it’s a legitimate one. Slaves were literally treated like dogs, and they were breeding them like dogs. Selective breeding and natural selection are polar opposites, there’s no way around that. We didn’t breed dogs from wolves to chihuahuas for their benefit, and slave owners didn’t try to breed the biggest and dumbest for their benefit. And, yeah, it’s not only unnatural in both cases but it’s wrong in both cases. Also, future human evolution won’t favor the individuals ability to use technology any more than it has in the past. IQ isn’t a factor that can be determined by anything we know of, and if it ever is then we get back to selective breeding.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1807
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
21 April 2018 08:44
 
Chaz - 20 April 2018 09:31 PM
hannahtoo - 20 April 2018 06:47 PM

Plants absorb only simple compounds that amount to fertilizer.  Like nitrates and phosphates and potassium.  A body would need to be totally decomposed into the most basic components to be fertilizer for plants, and no constituents of the immune system would leave traces at this level.

Natural selection is alive and well.  Humans (and dogs) are just a couple of species among millions on the Earth.  Human (and dog) evolution has been impacted by our behavior, which grew out of evolved intelligence and evolved social propensities.  I agree that modern medicine is making it possible for people to thwart many ailments.  In fact, this may result in life-limiting conditions becoming more common, as they can now be countered by treatments.  So whereas humans with juvenile diabetes used to die very young, now these people can live to have their own children.  Meanwhile, disease organisms, such as the tuberculosis bacterium, are continually evolving in response to our drug treatments.

However, is this really unnatural?  Would we consider other social species which help each other to survive to be unnatural?  I think it is a matter of degree.  Consider shore birds that have complex flocking behaviors to deter predators.  Or prairie dogs that share duty in standing sentinel.  Or nuthatches which huddle together to survive the chill of winter nights.   

Will future human evolution favor people with the ability to use technology proficiently to maintain their health and vitality and that of their children?

Finally! I will apologize for the bad hypothetical, but I will stand by it. I would hope the fact I oversimplified to a staggering degree to be obvious, and it’s not possible to make sense at the same time.

I’ll start with dog breeding, because you’re not talking about the same thing. I suppose the point I was making would have done better if I referenced American slave owners before the civil war. I know it’s a leap, but it’s a legitimate one. Slaves were literally treated like dogs, and they were breeding them like dogs. Selective breeding and natural selection are polar opposites, there’s no way around that. We didn’t breed dogs from wolves to chihuahuas for their benefit, and slave owners didn’t try to breed the biggest and dumbest for their benefit. And, yeah, it’s not only unnatural in both cases but it’s wrong in both cases. Also, future human evolution won’t favor the individuals ability to use technology any more than it has in the past. IQ isn’t a factor that can be determined by anything we know of, and if it ever is then we get back to selective breeding.

Are you implying that American slave holders actively selected for the trait of low intelligence for the slaves under their control? Perhaps you were guessing? If not, please provide background sources.

 
 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
21 April 2018 09:15
 
nonverbal - 21 April 2018 08:44 AM

Are you implying that American slave holders actively selected for the trait of low intelligence for the slaves under their control? Perhaps you were guessing? If not, please provide background sources.

American students are taught that as part of American history class, at least they were when I was in school.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States

The strongest and lowest intelligent were the only ones allowed to breed. The smallest and most intelligent were either killed or kept as house slaves

Like I said it’s a good thing IQ isn’t determinable otherwise it would be a problem today

[ Edited: 21 April 2018 09:19 by Chaz]
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1807
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
21 April 2018 09:37
 
Chaz - 21 April 2018 09:15 AM
nonverbal - 21 April 2018 08:44 AM

Are you implying that American slave holders actively selected for the trait of low intelligence for the slaves under their control? Perhaps you were guessing? If not, please provide background sources.

American students are taught that as part of American history class, at least they were when I was in school.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States

The strongest and lowest intelligent were the only ones allowed to breed. The smallest and most intelligent were either killed or kept as house slaves

Like I said it’s a good thing IQ isn’t determinable otherwise it would be a problem today

The following statement is from the wikipedia page you cite above:

Selective breeding between slaves with the aim of developing particular physical traits was uncommon however,[3] as most slaves were unrestricted in their choice of sexual partners.[4]

 

 
 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
21 April 2018 10:12
 
nonverbal - 21 April 2018 09:37 AM
Chaz - 21 April 2018 09:15 AM
nonverbal - 21 April 2018 08:44 AM

Are you implying that American slave holders actively selected for the trait of low intelligence for the slaves under their control? Perhaps you were guessing? If not, please provide background sources.

American students are taught that as part of American history class, at least they were when I was in school.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States

The strongest and lowest intelligent were the only ones allowed to breed. The smallest and most intelligent were either killed or kept as house slaves

Like I said it’s a good thing IQ isn’t determinable otherwise it would be a problem today

The following statement is from the wikipedia page you cite above:

Selective breeding between slaves with the aim of developing particular physical traits was uncommon however,[3] as most slaves were unrestricted in their choice of sexual partners.[4]

 

It’s wiki.. aside from that I suppose it has me on a technicality with “particular physical traits” and the fact that most slaves weren’t restricted in their choice of sexual partners. I don’t remember everything that was part of this subject, 20 years ago, but I can defend the claim since particular physical traits is 100% accurate, they weren’t breeding models or triathlons, and most slave owners were farm owners and they didn’t need to do selective breeding they just needed as many as possible. I know it’s not covered as much as cotton farms but there were many others such as construction, tree cutting, whatever you would call people who were made to remove snakes and other dangerous wildlife for areas to be settled, the list goes on

When did this stop being part of common knowledge? It’s been a subject used by many people trying to point out all the horrors of slavery for decades

[ Edited: 21 April 2018 10:26 by Chaz]
 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
21 April 2018 11:39
 

I’m getting confused.  In the opening post, Chaz wrote:

This will be arguing against natural selection as a factor of evolution.

Is this a reference just to humans (and their domesticated animals)?  Or is this a general statement about evolution of all species? 

For right now, I’ll assume it is the former.  Natural selection surely continues to play a part in human evolution.  That is, human genetics still play a role in our survival.  But human intelligence (which originally was naturally selected) has complicated the future of the human species.  Behaviors and technologies shield us from purely natural forces.  So now we are evolving as a combo of natural and human-created factors.

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
21 April 2018 12:08
 
hannahtoo - 21 April 2018 11:39 AM

I’m getting confused.  In the opening post, Chaz wrote:

This will be arguing against natural selection as a factor of evolution.

Is this a reference just to humans (and their domesticated animals)?  Or is this a general statement about evolution of all species? 

For right now, I’ll assume it is the former.  Natural selection surely continues to play a part in human evolution.  That is, human genetics still play a role in our survival.  But human intelligence (which originally was naturally selected) has complicated the future of the human species.  Behaviors and technologies shield us from purely natural forces.  So now we are evolving as a combo of natural and human-created factors.

God bless you! This definitely went off the rails while talking to the others, and I’m a bit stubborn on trying to clarify a point.

It’s actually not the former. The argument I had in mind for this topic was that natural selection is a factor of extinction rather than evolution. Evolution can only progress if the species can avoid extinction. Obviously that means they are two sides of the same coin, which is the point I’m trying to make.

I’ll stop there for you to respond.

 
 < 1 2 3 >