Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2020 10:20:42 GMT
A strong, powerful, individual in the small group of cavemen may be a good hunter and actually support the group. However, in terms of evolution and unless his genes are passed on (to the next generation) his contribution is only peripheral. Others in the group because they find procreation pleasurable tend to have more offspring than those who are disinterested in procreation. Over time the percentage gradually swings to more people who find procreation pleasurable. This is just a hypothetical example to show how a behavior with survival significance (in terms of evolution) can affect the population.
Tall soldiers, just another example of how a hypothetical selective survival factor can change the population make up. In this case Pelosi using the behavior of her discretion selects genes which are associated with tallness. Again, given enough time the population will shift to a taller population the bell curve will move from the old bell curve.
There are other selective survival factors that constitute forces of evolution. If any behavior or physical adaptation results in better gene selection to the next generation, that in effect is evolution.
I’m not sure if early man, cavemen, had as a sophisticated a culture to even call it rape. Not sure if there even was monogamy. There was a movie called quest for fire which was pretty interesting but cavemen behavior is only something we can only remotely guess at. I wonder at what point somebody was able to link the deed to pregnancy. They probably thought that pregnancy was unrelated to the deed because of the long time span and that pregnancy was just a spontaneous happening.
|
|
|
Post by moksha on Apr 26, 2020 12:29:11 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2020 12:47:52 GMT
I used to dive with a marine archaeologist who did this type of research, very interesting thanks.
|
|
|
Post by bonehead on Apr 26, 2020 16:03:51 GMT
Hello MrGort,
nyx said: Humans are a prisoner of their complex body hormones. I have seen people go crazy when their Thyroid levels are not right for an example. We have no free thought. I have got to agree with Nyx on his first point. I have given this much thought over the years. Being of the male persuasion, I have to say that a great deal of my life has been focused on the involuntary drives of testosterone intoxication. What more could I have done with my life had I not been so distracted by involuntary urges for the better part of it? Did I have a choice in this? Not really. Sure, I could have taken the monk route and suppressed my natural urges toward some "higher" purpose. But who really wants to live that life? In my experience, navigating life in a presumably compassionate society involves a lot of regulation of your natural urges. It is a bit like trying to keep a sugar besotted child on an even keel. It takes constant attention and discipline.
But to say we have no free thought is going too far I think. The ascetic and/or celibate monk is an example of a person who has overcome the demands of their hormones. That is a free choice.
mrgort said: I was thinking about starting a discussion entitled Evolution. As an undergraduate having several courses in evolution, I was contemplating graduate studies in this area but the prospects of a career in marine biology were too tempting. However even at the graduate level I still pursued studies in evolution and this has become the cornerstone of my life philosophy. So, I thought I’d like to share this experience with a discussion called evolution. For example, I’d like to propose some ideas for thought. Why is intercourse such a pleasurable experience. Well even if you’re not a student of evolution consider this. At one time it was determined that the human race had been dwindled down to about 5000 humanoids. Now let’s imagine that men and women would get together on occasion, after hunting down a bison, and in the cave with a bright warm fire and good meal, some would commence to procreation. Out of these cave dwellers, some would find this highly pleasurable, some would not or would not often participate. So only those who would participate finding it pleasurable would persist in their offspring. Repeating this process, elimination of those who would not partake would leave those who would. So, the population ultimately would result in the many fond of procreation as an enjoyable encounter. Those who didn’t would be left behind and subsequently would not participate (their genes would fade out) in the promulgation of the population. So, we are left with a population that ultimately finds intercourse pleasurable. This to me is a simple explanation, but I have other questions. And thinking that further discussion might be fun. I think the "pleasure" principal is more fundamental than you suggest here. I believe it is the primary generative factor in sentience. Even the most primitive microbe has this basic sentience in that they are attracted to those things positive to their growth and repel or draw away from those things that are harmful or "unpleasurable". That is the same reason an apple tastes good and poisonous or deleterious, things, not so much. Our most basic urges propel us toward those things we need to grow and flourish and repel those things that are harmful or unpleasant. I don't know that I would attribute that to some "evolutionary process" so much as it is the basic drive of all living things to thrive and perpetuate themselves.
And, once any organism begins to choose what they want in their immediate environment, that is the basis of sentience. That is the organism deciding. Deciding in this manner is rational cognition at its most fundamental.
But I have different ideas about evolutionary theory itself. First off, there is the infamous argument so prevalent several years back regarding evolution vs. intelligent design. Presumably, the "rational" position taken by science is that Darwin was right: every living thing is the result fo some freak cosmic accident. The "intelligent design" folks looked at ecosystems and such and offered the theory that all of creation shows a logical and coherent pattern (i.e. intelligent design). My thought on all that is that any scientist that argues that there is no coherent design to creation is only arguing on emotional grounds, because logically, if there was no coherence to creation, then all would be chaos and science would have nothing to study because, duh, nothing would make any sense! But it does make sense! That is what scientists are paid to do: make sense of stuff! You cannot have it be senseless and sensible at the same time. That is illogical and why I feel that this silly argument offered up by science is just an emotional belief and not based on "evidence" or science at all.
But I think that Darwin's theory has deeper problems than that ridiculous display of illogical "scientific" superstition. For one thing, how about this little tidbit of science that pretty much throws a monkey wrench into Drawin's entire oeuvre (click on link):
phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.htmlAccording to Drawinism, all life on earth evolved up from primitive single cell organisms, through a kaleidoscope of different mutations to create the incredible diversity of life we see today. This article not only calls into question the prevalence of mutation in evolution, it also eviscerates the whole edifice by pointing out that:
"The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP." You did mention this "evolutionary bottleneck" previously - without noting the significance of it in relation to evolutionary theory. That finding is bad news for those "scientific" anti-creationists. What this seems to represent is a singular creation event! Those genomes cannot be traced back to any single cell organisms or even "intermediate species". These species cannot be found at all before the presumed event. In other words, they did not evolve at all, but appear to have arrived fully "evolved"!
But I think Darwin's theory not only fails on the basis of this evidence, it fails epistemically too. I wrote about this in a magazine article several years ago. Here is an excerpt of the relevant points:
The pre-established beliefs of scientists invariably apply a subjective taint to the exercise of science. A perfect example of this is Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. The problem here involves Darwin’s atheism. Many will say this is irrelevant. Hardly. Darwin’s object was to replace the blind beliefs of religion with something more rooted in reality. He wanted to discover what made nature tick. Well that and (as an atheist) get that annoying God guy out of the picture too. The thing is Darwin was not an agnostic: a skeptic who was unsure what it all means. Darwin disbelieved in God. That is a rigid belief, even if a negative one. To put it simply, the only explanation that would do for Darwin is one that supported his preconceived assumption: there is no God. I think it was this motivation that set him to posit the cornerstones of his theory: random mutation and natural selection. These are nebulous inchoate theoretical mechanisms specially designed to negate any potential organizing force in the universe. Call that organizing force "God" if you like. Had Darwin been an agnostic - one who holds no belief one way or the other - he might have attributed the obvious coherence of evolution to a coherent process. An open mind would have allowed him to consider theories that explained evolutionary congruity as coherence. But believing there can be no coherent organizing power – i.e., God - he was forced to attribute evolutionary coherence to incoherent processes : random mutation and natural selection. This dichotomous thinking is typical of reactionary-ism. It deliberately subverts logic to suit a desired outcome. Rather than following the dictum of Occam’s Razor - looking for the simplest and most elegant solution that explains the evidence - Darwin chose accident and logical obfuscation instead. Einstein said “God does not play dice”. Darwin implied God is dice: nothing here but chance and accidents. If religion distilled down to one word is: God; then Darwin’s theory for the origins of life distilled down to one word is: whoops. Everything is the result of an inexplicable freak accident. Without an over-arching causative force, the only other possibility left for Darwin was creation via slipping on unseen banana peels. He named those banana peels random mutation and natural selection. It was not Darwin’s scientific observations that shaped these ideas, but his beliefs. Belief systems do not define reality. Belief systems define us.... Anyway, that is my thinking on Darwin's theory. Probably not what you were looking for, but it is food for thought. It is a subject that I have thought a great deal about over time. I hope this helps!
Bonehead
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2020 22:50:06 GMT
Thanks for the response. I’ll try to address some of your points as I perceive them. Can’t say too much about testosterone. As a synthetic I know it has an anabolic and androgenic effect. I know people whose behavior was modified taking this stuff. I’ve seen steroid rage. And it’s still prevalent in a number of sports despite so-called drug testing. As in the typical bell curve some individuals have naturally high levels while others low. Bodybuilding women take it, making them horny. Originally developed to improve the response after surgery. The anabolic effect is to retain nitrogen for the buildup of amino acids and tissue regeneration. This is the basic significance in the various sports especially bodybuilding or sports where weight training, is typical such as football etc. The downside is that the androgenic properties cannot be separated and thus there are greater levels of aggression (steroid rage). As is typical of the life process there is a catabolic component to the anabolic and artificially increased levels ultimately are countered with a catabolic component and this is another aspect athletes using this stuff must contend with. It’s not a good side effect resulting in depression and other bad attitudes. So, no doubt it’s a potent hormone (natural or synthetic) affecting behavior.
God and evolution. I had a friend who went to the seminary to become a theologian and one time I had an opportunity to discuss evolution with him. I asked him if he saw the concept of evolution as contrary to religious thought. His answer was quite simple and that evolution was viewed as a process and in regard to mankind at some point in the evolutionary process, God had injected a soul.
Now some believe that God has an intervening presence in all personal matters. One side of this is fate, the butterfly effect, and the other side is chance and circumstance. Some believe that God snapped his fingers one day and said make stuff and stuff was made eventually including all the elements and everything that composes matter. He also said let it happen and it happened we had gravity, light, physics and all the processes including evolution. God then went back to watching TV.
So, without delving into these religious ideas I just want to stick with the process as I know it and understand it and can recall.
Darwin learned a lot on the Galapagos. Probably because there was so much isolation and opportunity for radial speciation. He was able to note variability and ecological niches. Today the modern theory of evolution is quite a bit more complex than Darwin’s initial observations.
I should point out also that evolution is still a theory but the reason for that is that we don’t have a time machine. The fossil record is poor. Even Darwin on the Galapagos could only deal with a snapshot of time and thus compiled his notes and observations and formulated the initial theory in a limited spectrum. So without a method to prove conclusively it must be regarded as theory.
|
|
|
Post by bonehead on Apr 27, 2020 16:28:07 GMT
Hello Mrgort,
you said:
God and evolution. I had a friend who went to the seminary to become a theologian and one time I had an opportunity to discuss evolution with him. I asked him if he saw the concept of evolution as contrary to religious thought. His answer was quite simple and that evolution was viewed as a process and in regard to mankind at some point in the evolutionary process, God had injected a soul.
Now some believe that God has an intervening presence in all personal matters. One side of this is fate, the butterfly effect, and the other side is chance and circumstance. Some believe that God snapped his fingers one day and said make stuff and stuff was made eventually including all the elements and everything that composes matter. He also said let it happen and it happened we had gravity, light, physics and all the processes including evolution. God then went back to watching TV.
So, without delving into these religious ideas I just want to stick with the process as I know it and understand it and can recall.
In my above response I was not talking about or promoting religion. I am not religious. I was merely pointing out the lack of logic and intellectual honesty that science brought to their argument. I am an agnostic so I am not in the atheist camp either. It is a mystery how science can argue against the obvious order of the universe when science, presumably occupies itself with illuminating the order therein. The universe is either orderly, or it is not! Religion is beside the point and not what I am arguing.
Clearly, the universe is coherent and orderly. By definition that would make it an intelligent design. There is no escaping that fact. That would make the scientific arguments regarding intelligent design not only illogical, but intellectually dishonest. Religion has nothing to do with it. The only religion I see here is blind scientism. Science has not supplanted religion at all, bout merely replaced established religion with their own made-up brand of superstition. They have no leg to stand on here....
You said:
I should point out also that evolution is still a theory but the reason for that is that we don’t have a time machine. The fossil record is poor. Even Darwin on the Galapagos could only deal with a snapshot of time and thus compiled his notes and observations and formulated the initial theory in a limited spectrum. So without a method to prove conclusively it must be regarded as theory.
If it is only a theory (and one not apparently borne out by the facts), then why is it taught in schools as if it were the new state religion? I can say the same about the big bang theory, rational materialism (the basic philosophy of science) and many other scientistic tenets. We have the knowledge to move beyond these old stale (and in may cases disproven) beliefs. But science is loathe to accept many of those ideas because to do so would require questioning many of their long established beliefs.
Bonehead
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2020 18:41:36 GMT
I wouldn’t attribute evolution to either intelligent design or even science for that matter since there is no ability to produce a result. It’s a process. Once there is the ability to replicate, the process of evolution begins. The more we know about the process the more we know about our environment and the organisms sharing this environment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2020 13:50:30 GMT
"According to a spate of recent media reports, intelligent design is a new “faith-based” alternative to evolution-an alternative based entirely on religion rather than scientific evidence. As the story goes, intelligent design is just creationism repackaged by religious fundamentalists in order to circumvent a 1987 Supreme Court prohibition against teaching creationism in the public schools." And some guy smart enough to create a rocket, before killing himself, actually believed that the earth was flat. So in terms of evolution, a very complex subject, some people who read a little bit and think their knowledgeable latch onto this concept of intelligent design. So if it it implies a designer who is the designer and yet they say it’s not God. Which leads me to believe they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Anyhow I want to talk about Hardy Weinberg equilibrium. To make it very simple this is just a mathematical view of a population in stasis. In other words there are no forces of evolution acting on this population's bell curve. It will tend to equalize, come to a normal bell curve. So you can imagine that after there was a population shift for some reason, given time, that population would itself normalize. Now just to show you some of the complexities of this relationship, some of my early notes. www.mrgodzilla.com/misc/Hardy.pdfBut very basically, this says that a population, without being subjected to outside influences will tend to normalize, in other words seek a bell curve. Now given that you have a population without undue influence it will remain in a bell curve. So if you have a stable environment, such as the dinosaurs had for many millions of years, there is a tendency towards gigantism. Still a bell curve. This simply means that the bigger you are the less you are susceptible to predation. So plant eaters became large, and in order to eat a large plant eater you had to be large yourself so protein eaters (meat) became large. So even in a stable environment, evolution is always ongoing. Not intelligent design. Tropho Dynamics or energy transfer within a population for discussion later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2020 14:30:41 GMT
The modern theory of evolution is very much removed from Darwin’s initial observations. There are known to be forces of evolution. Each one of these could entail a book in itself. However to be brief I’ll list just a few.
Mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection.
While some of these may seem familiar to the Darwinian student they each involve a complex discussion. Other forces are also involved and the combination of all of these result in the movement of the population, moving the bell curve. So for later discussion I’ll try to simplify this but keep in mind that much of this is based on mathematical and genetics research.
|
|
|
Post by Richardjit on Nov 22, 2021 17:59:40 GMT
In Europe and America, they are called stiletto vernacular drums or tank drums. The glucophone has a pentatonic sound system in three octaves, so any notes, which were played, harmoniously look with each other. This means that to depict this instrument there is no demand to entertain a lilting tutoring, it is enough to have a detect of rhythm. They act a stress it with both hands and sticks (they are a tip for the instrument). The instrument is a vast and economical surrogate to the dally drum and is able to appeal anyone who even sometimes touches its sounding. The glucophone is ideal because of the occurrence of hearing and rhythm, helps to relax, set attend to into meditation and immersion into the waves of musical vibrations. Glucophone is a simple under age musical gadget that appeared in the 2000s. Regard for this, it has befit deeply in fashion amid people of any majority, because neck a limited baby can play it. I invite you to visit my area: steel-tongue-drum.info
|
|
|
Evolution
Nov 24, 2021 19:14:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by buzzbomb on Nov 24, 2021 19:14:11 GMT
While most of the forces of evolution have been defined around natural scenarios, some are actually behavior activated. Now let’s take a hypothetical situation were Nancy Pelosi is the chairman of the China regime. She makes a determination that tall soldiers are better than short soldiers. She makes a decree in China that only tall people can propagate. Eventually the population in China becomes taller. So here we have a force of evolution that is behavioral, political if you will, and now China has the tallest population in the world. And the best basketball players as a sideline consequence. This is an example of a societal behavioral modification to 8evolution. No. It would take a much longer period of time.
|
|