|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The implications of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
AndrewPD writes: The point is that, the evolutionary paradigm that is popular expects all behaviors to be explicable in terms of their heritability and survival value. Those knowledgable about evolutionary theory do not expect it to explain all or even most behaviors. How much of behavior is influenced by evolutionary versus acquired characteristics is still very much an open issue. As Coyote keeps telling you, most of the things you are speculating about are not accepted theories within evolution. The continuing presence of homosexuality in the animal world might superficially seem a challenge to evolution, but it's not an uncommon variation. Homosexuality might persist because small homosexual percentages in a population do not detract significantly from fitness, and I'm sure speculations exist about how some level of homosexuality in a population would in some way contribute to fitness, but this is not a settled issue within evolution at this time. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2415 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined: |
I am (hopefully) going to spell at what I mean to discuss as clearly as possible. (I thought the first post was fairly clear but I suppose it wasn't)
There is an overriding theory or paradigm called evolution. This is said to have accounted for biodiversity. What implications or ramifications for, our reality as a species and individuals, does the theory have? I am surprised if people on here can say they have never heard any scientist or others thinkers say that evolution implies something beyond explaining biology. Evolution has been evoked many times in theories throughout its theoretical beginnings (Eugenics/Race/IQ/Economics). Now it can be discussed in terms of genetics and labs experiments etc but it has always been linked to broader theories about it's implications. So for comparison. A doctor might tell me that lab results say I have cancer. The diagnosis of cancer is made scientifically but has other ramifications that aren't described in scientific terms. So I want to know what people think are valid (inferences?) of ramifications of evolution and on what ground these are valid. Or what they think are the limitations of the paradigm.I think there is a big difference in whether you explain homosexuality or altruism via evolution or as things that arise without and "evolutionary purpose" I think making evolution entail atheism and nihilism and or reductionism is going to be a cause of rejection of the theory. I don't believe science exists in a vacuum and has no biases or values (or philosophical/metaphysical assumptions.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2415 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined: |
"The other presumption being made is that we should carry on having children (I am a strong antinatalist) and that because humans have reached this era we must keep on propagating ourselves and we must propagate ourselves based on evolutionary principles."
Who is making this presumption? Very few people are writing anything without coming from the position that having children is inevitable. I will have to try and find you papers that openly assert this stance. But you just find it through out discussions in academia and elsewhere. I have seen articles which unfortunately I can't find right now, but have definitely seen them, asking how we can improve our species by understanding our evolutionary past. Trying to improve our species implies that we are either inevitably going to carry on or endorse the continuation of the species. I think there is lots of evidence that should make intelligent people and anyone else draw the conclusion that we shouldn't have children. (Natural famine/cancer/war/ depression/death). I can't think what about reality would make people think having children was a good thing. The problem is with this and other values stances is that science can't referee on value claims. Buy value claims sneak in everywhere. As I say elsewhere in this thread people have negative theories and outlooks that they then contradict with other values. I think if we think scientific paradigms or methodologies are the only source of truth then any value claim is unsupported including whether we should behave a certain way. If you are going to demand people look at the evidence and be rational in terms of science and evolution then it would be hypocritical not to give all your other beliefs the same scrutiny, but people don't. Existentialist philosophers realised that science undermined values which is probably the source of nihilism. Even valuing science itself is a subjective value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Eugenics isn't really a consequence of evolution, and the aspects that relate to it are often accepted by anti-evolutionists, such as the Nazis. Scopes could have quite happily taught eugenics without any prosecution.
Evolutionary theory does not prescribe what we should do - which is why Darwin was not a fan of eugenics. It can only help us work out the consequences of trying it - and in my view it tells us that we don't yet know enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Evolution is selection of modified descendants, and you're right, from that small beginning spring many implications, but you almost seem to be asking, "What speculative implications deserve consideration?" That's too general a question.
But we do know some things about some of the specific topics you mention. There are some solid hypotheses about the evolution of altruism. I don't know the current state of science concerning the evolution of homosexuality, but my guess is that there are some solid hypotheses there, too. The science behind eugenics is solid because it's just selection. The science behind race is solid, too, because that's just variation of subpopulations within a larger population. I would say the science behind intelligence and IQ has a long way to go, and that economics has nothing to do with biology but can apply the principles of evolution to things like companies and ideas. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2415 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined: |
There are some solid hypotheses about the evolution of altruism. I don't see why altruism has to evolve. Just like the case of piano playing I mentioned earlier. Why can't altruism like piano playing be something that is made possible by preexisting traits and biology etc and not something that we are doing for the sake of mindless reproduction? This is the problem with theories that are quite pernicious and or containing hidden premises. Das Erbe was one of a few films the Nazi produced to promote Eugenics. Das Erbe - Wikipedia Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring - Wikipedia
Peter Zimmermann of the House of Documentary Film in Stuttgart evaluates the movie as follows: The short movie Das Erbe (1935), which leads over from the animals' struggle for survival and natural selection to a plea for forced sterilization of the mentally ill, marks exactly the point where Social Darwinist biologism turns into Fascist racial policy providing the reasoning for the necessity of euthanasia.[nb 1] So the idea of hierarchies, a struggle for survival and fitness was very pernicious initially. That is why I think we should be careful about what speculation we make and what hidden assumptions we are using and what impact and idea might have. Trying to "explain" homosexuality has amounted to pathologising it. Explaining something that is clearly produced by something that causally explains it is one thing explaining it as something as in service of something else is another thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Very few people are writing anything without coming from the position that having children is inevitable. Observing facts such as 'humans will continue to have babies' is different than presuming we SHOULD carry on having children. One is a prediction based on the evidence, the other is a value judgement and is not. You should not confuse 'is' with 'ought'.
I have seen articles which unfortunately I can't find right now, but have definitely seen them, asking how we can improve our species by understanding our evolutionary past. There are 7 billion humans, and many of them can write. I wouldn't be surprised if someone wrote that. But on the one hand it makes sense - we can better tackle disease, disability and mental illness with a better understanding of how and why the human body is doing what it is doing. On the other, this is quite different from saying 'we must propagate ourselves based on evolutionary principles'.
Trying to improve our species implies that we are either inevitably going to carry on or endorse the continuation of the species. Humans are allowed to endorse the continuation of their species if they want, but what does this have to do with evolution? Unless you can tie the two ideas together I don't think there's much else to say is there?
I think there is lots of evidence that should make intelligent people and anyone else draw the conclusion that we shouldn't have children. (Natural famine/cancer/war/ depression/death). That's nice, but so what?
The problem is with this and other values stances is that science can't referee on value claims. Obviously. If you have some specific example of someone trying to do it maybe we can talk about it.
Buy value claims sneak in everywhere. Well yes, science is performed by scientists who are humans who are emotional beings with values.
As I say elsewhere in this thread people have negative theories and outlooks that they then contradict with other values. This is, of course, nothing to do with evolution.
I think if we think scientific paradigms or methodologies are the only source of truth Well you won't find many people that think this.
If you are going to demand people look at the evidence and be rational in terms of science and evolution then it would be hypocritical not to give all your other beliefs the same scrutiny, but people don't. Well we are apes, you shouldn't expect too much. You are guilty of this too.
Even valuing science itself is a subjective value. But this has little to do with evolution or the theory thereof, right? I mean other than the sense that we are evolved primates and not gods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Yes, among many other things, evolution explains how eugenics works. Physics explains how atom bombs work. Chemistry explains how pollution works. Biology explains how pathogens work. Meteorology explains how hurricanes work. On and on.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
There is an overriding theory or paradigm called evolution. Which explains much of the facts of evolution, but probably not all of it.
This is said to have accounted for biodiversity. Not entirely, at least not by anybody credible.
What implications or ramifications for, our reality as a species and individuals, does the theory have? None whatsoever. Well, we can use the theory to design unusual solutions, but it's generally an inefficient method.
I am surprised if people on here can say they have never heard any scientist or others thinkers say that evolution implies something beyond explaining biology. The fact of evolution certainly does, the theory does not. The fact of the theory does, but the theory itself does not.
Evolution has been evoked many times in theories throughout its theoretical beginnings (Eugenics/Race/IQ/Economics). Yes.
Now it can be discussed in terms of genetics and labs experiments etc but it has always been linked to broader theories about it's implications. Perhaps now would be the time to crack out some specific examples rather than vague generalities?
So I want to know what people think are valid (inferences?) of ramifications of evolution and on what ground these are valid. Replicating entities with heritable traits, with differential reproductive states will undergo some kind of adaptation towards towards improving reproductive success relative to the previous generation and this doesn't just apply to biology. Ideas, culture, computer programs, biological entities can all evolve through natural selection given the appropriate conditions - and perhaps more.
Or what they think are the limitations of the paradigm. Entities that don't replicate, pass on traits or experience differential reproductive success.
I think there is a big difference in whether you explain homosexuality or altruism via evolution or as things that arise without and "evolutionary purpose" There is a big difference between explaining diseases in terms of germs vs malodorous vapours, or gravity in terms of hungry angels vs curvature of spacetime.
I think making evolution entail atheism and nihilism and or reductionism is going to be a cause of rejection of the theory. Nobody can make it do that. If anybody claims it, they'll generally be criticised by evolutionary biologists.
I don't believe science exists in a vacuum and has no biases or values Well of course it doesn't. That's why so much effort is taken to try to avoid them, but they'll never go away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I don't see why altruism has to evolve It doesn't have to (many organisms exhibit no altruistic tendencies, for example) but it can and we can explain how using the theory of evolution and game theory and a perhaps a few other bits and bobs.
Just like the case of piano playing I mentioned earlier. Piano playing didn't evolve through biological evolution anymore than speaking English did.
Why can't altruism like piano playing be something that is made possible by preexisting traits and biology etc It is like that. But those biological traits evolved, that much is certain.
Das Erbe was one of a few films the Nazi produced to promote Eugenics. Yes it was.
So the idea of hierarchies, a struggle for survival and fitness was very pernicious initially. Yes, that happened. But the idea that we SHOULD sterilize the mentally ill is not in evolutionary theory. That's some crazy idea some apes have had about how we ought to organize society. It's a political/sociological concept that doesn't rely on evolutionary theory. You can (and people did) get to it without using evolution. Apes try and prop up their crazy idea with whatever other ideas people around them find credible, science, religion, philosophy.... Eugenics is just applying ancient breeding techniques to humans - it is purely artificial selection - practiced for tens of thousands of years - where Darwin's theory was principally about how natural selection might explain the origin of modern species. The only intersection was the establishment of humans as being animals and not strangely supernatural beings of some kind, but even that idea goes back to at least the ancient Greeks, so....
That is why I think we should be careful about what speculation we make and what hidden assumptions we are using and what impact and idea might have. Well, yes. If you want to make policy, you should be careful you aren't being a bastard. The theory of evolution is kind of irrelevant to our decisions about social policy except in so far as it might explain some parts of why apes are bothering to do it.
Trying to "explain" homosexuality has amounted to pathologising it. Only by people who are bad at it. Besides, there is nothing shameful about doing things which thwart evolution - many biologists spend their lives trying to find ways of thwarting evolution. Contraception can be seen as pathological from an evolutionary perspective.
Explaining something that is clearly produced by something that causally explains it is one thing explaining it as something as in service of something else is another thing. Most modern theories of homosexuality are about how homosexuality might survive selection despite how it may seem like a paradox. Homosexuality is just a sexual attraction. Even in 'ideal' evolutionary conditions, 50% of the population would find men attractive. It's hardly unexpected, given 50% of men's genes are from women and their physical environments are not all that different and their social environments can vary through time and space with some overlaps... that the male brain and mind can develop in such a way as to find other men attractive. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riggamortis Member (Idle past 2390 days) Posts: 167 From: Australia Joined: |
The ToE works with populations, not individuals. Outside the impact an individual will have on the gene frequencies within a population, evolution doesn't 'care' about the individual. The success of the species as a whole is what evolution 'cares' about.
Therefore, the primary implication of evolution is that we should focus on the advancement of our species more so than ourselves. It is only through a weak understanding of evolution that one is able to hold the simple minded view that evolution promotes selfishness and survival of the fittest (individual). Humans are no longer bound by the ToE as are other species. We now adapt our enviornment to suit us, we evolve culturally and technologically. Who cares if homosexuals exist because they made great babysitters back in our hunter/gatherer days? You live now, the ToE can suggest that maybe that's why we have homosexuals but it cannot force you to play that part. Why define yourself by what a theory says about how we came to be anyway? It may be more to do with the developmental enviornment than genes anyway!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
There is an overriding theory or paradigm called evolution. This is said to have accounted for biodiversity. What implications or ramifications for, our reality as a species and individuals, does the theory have? You're right. Based on your earlier posts, the consequences (or ramifications) of the theory of evolution are too frightening to behold, so let's just pretend that evolution never happened and we'll all be happy, OK? Actually that is nonsense. If these consequences (or ramifications) that you're trying to tie to evolution are accurate, what can be done about them? You can't cancel science and what it produces, although a lot of creationists would like to do so. If these consequences (or ramifications) are real then you have to deal with them, not try to wish them away, as creationists have been trying to do with evolution for decades. So, just what is the main thrust of your argument?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2415 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined: |
Dennet and I are in broad agreement (largely because much of what I am saying is inspired by him): "Today, though, I’m going to talk about Darwin’s other strange inversion, which is equally puzzling at first, but in some ways just as important. It stands to reason that we love chocolate cake because it is sweet. Guys go for girls like this because they are sexy. We adore babies because they’re so cute. And, of course, we are amused by jokes because they are funny. This is all backwards. It is. And Darwin shows us why. Let’s start with sweet. Our sweet tooth is basically an evolved sugar detector, because sugar is high energy" Dennet is famous for denying qualia. However sweetness is qualia and I like chocolate because of the conscious sensation it gives me. It seems problematic to have to create or invoke a subjective/private conscious state to cause a behaviour. (Especially when it is a conscious state Dennet doesn't believe in.) I and other people can judge whether a food is sweet or salty regardless of whether it tastes good. His idea is deflationary for all perceptions. If our perceptions had to be motivated like this then there is a lot of things that would bypass us. Scientists ,like James Chadwick, have discovered phenomena which they have claimed have no discernible value. He apparently told the New York Times that he could see no use for the neutron (he'd discovered). So we can have a lot of thoughts sensations and perceptions that are useful or simply informative not just in service of brute survival and which are not simply representing reality so that we can survive in it. Freud had a more persuasive theory about healthy defense mechanisms allowing us not to be traumatised by reality. This doesn't require that we have faulty perceptions but that we have biases that protect us from reflecting too directly on the threat's we face. However there are a wide range of explanations as to why we perceive things as we do. It is unlikely that I find men attractive because they would make a suitable mating partner. I also can recognise a beautiful woman I have no intention of mating with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Andrew, what point are you're trying to make in this thread?
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
AndrewPD writes: It is unlikely that I find men attractive because they would make a suitable mating partner. From an evolutionary perspective that is true. Poking around a little on the Internet I didn't see many strong hypotheses about the role of evolution in homosexuality, but it still easily fits within an evolutionary perspective. Mating combines the traits of two parents, and we know that those traits are variously expressed in the children. Some parental traits are expressed strongly, some weakly, some not at all. Traits from both parents might combine to be more strongly expressed, some might conflict, some might blend. The result is a great deal of variety. And the result of the genetic combination of traits for you was that homosexual traits were strongly expressed. Assuming you never have children you will not pass on your traits - they will die with you. So why do homosexual traits survive in the population? There are several possibilities, all of which may be true to varying degrees:
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024