An atheist made for an American audience whose contact with theology has only ever been through the insanity of American evangelism. — StreetlightX
Adaptation is not the dominant force in human (natural :lol: ) evolution — frank
The bad science part is to assume that it's simple. For instance, there is probably some genetic basis for character traits, but there's no one-to-one relationship between genes and character traits. "The genes of love" or "the genes of selfishness" are gross simplifications of far more complex realities.Assuming that it must is the bad science part. — frank
Are you talking about change within our species, rather than its emergence? — Srap Tasmaner
The bad science part is to assume that it's simple. For instance, there is probably some genetic basis for character traits, but there's no one-to-one relationship between genes and character traits. "The genes of love" or "the genes of selfishness" are gross simplifications of far more complex realities. — Olivier5
An evolutionary biologist told me that. I didnt glean it from the internet. — frank
Adaptation is not the dominant force in human (natural :lol: ) evolution according to scientists — frank
For instance, there is probably some genetic basis for character traits, but there's no one-to-one relationship between genes and character traits. — Olivier5
Myers thinks it's genetic drift. That's one guy, not a consensus. — Kenosha Kid
It's more the assumption that elements of human society must necessarily have explanations in the context of adaptation. — frank
It wasnt Myers who did the research on that, but he did present that research in that lecture. — frank
This was fun when I thought you might be inspired to get yourself up to date. — frank
And at least he knows he's going against the consensus. — Kenosha Kid
The bad science part is to assume that it's simple. For instance, there is probably some genetic basis for character traits, but there's no one-to-one relationship between genes and character traits. "The genes of love" or "the genes of selfishness" are gross simplifications of far more complex realities. — Olivier5
The bogey of genetic determinism needs to be laid to rest. The discovery of a so-called ‘gay gene’ is as good an opportunity as we'll get to lay it.
[...]
Genes, in different aspects of their behaviour, are sometimes like blueprints and sometimes like recipes. It is important to keep the two aspects separate. Genes are digital, textual information, and they retain their hard, textual integrity as they change partners down the generations. Chromosomes — long strings of genes — are formally just like long computer tapes. When a portion of genetic tape is read in a cell, the first thing that happens to the information is that it is translated from one code to another: from the DNA code to a related code that dictates the exact shape of a protein molecule. So far, the gene behaves like a blueprint. There really is a one-to-one mapping between bits of gene and bits of protein, and it really is deterministic.
It is in the next step of the process — the development of a whole body and its psychological predispositions — that things start to get more complicated and recipe-like. There is seldom a simple one-to-one mapping between particular genes and ‘bits’ of body. Rather, there is a mapping between genes and rates at which processes happen during embryonic development. The eventual effects on bodies and their behaviour are often multifarious and hard to unravel.
The recipe is a good metaphor but, as an even better one, think of the body as a blanket, suspended from the ceiling by 100,000 rubber bands, all tangled and twisted around one another. The shape of the blanket — the body — is determined by the tensions of all these rubber bands taken together. Some of the rubber bands represent genes, others {105} environmental factors. A change in a particular gene corresponds to a lengthening or shortening of one particular rubber band. But any one rubber band is linked to the blanket only indirectly via countless connections amid the welter of other rubber bands. If you cut one rubber band, or tighten it, there will be a distributed shift in tensions, and the effect on the shape of the blanket will be complex and hard to predict.
[...]
So, if you hate homosexuals or love them, if you want to lock them up or ‘cure’ them, your reasons had better have nothing to do with genes.
— Dawkins: Genes Aren't Us - A Devil's Chaplain, chapter 2.4
What? — frank
Reference for adaptation is the dominant force in human evolution? — frank
the assumption that elements of human society must necessarily have explanations in the context of adaptation. — frank
I always took "selfish" here as a reference to blind, mechanical replication, and that's all. — Srap Tasmaner
It might be possible to tell a "selfish protein" story — Srap Tasmaner
The male peacock tail was selected because it pleased the ladies of the species. It's no adaptation to nothing out there. At best a beautiful tail implies the male can feed itself decently enough to maintain the huge piece, and may perhaps become a better provider for its female... but it'd be an even better provider without this huge tail slowing it down... — Olivier5
Another point is that, when you see a male peacock show off his tail, it's hard to fathom what it is adapted to... — Olivier5
Good science doesnt make unfounded assumptions. If humans are selfish, we cant assume there's a survival advantage to that. Same if humans are altruistic.Then your beef is with really simplistic sociobiology, right? Humans respond to the Beatles as they do because 200,000 years ago... — Srap Tasmaner
It's attributing to life at it's elemental level some "will", and vice versa, denying this will (and it's selfishness) to human beings, where it belongs. — Olivier5
Above my paygrade, but it looks to me like you're opposing a caricature of bad science with a caricature of good science. — Srap Tasmaner
Of course, Darwin was a genius. But it's no adaptation to nothing, it's a flourish, an embellishment of life, an emerging phenomenon that was selected on easthetical grounds among a variety of possibilities.This is pan-adaptationism. Sexual selection, also formulated by Darwin, is also a contributor to evolution. — Kenosha Kid
But it's no adaptation to nothing, it's a flourish, an embellishment of life, an emerging phenomenon that was selected on easthetical grounds among a variety of possibilities. — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.