Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man

From: Stargazer (fuckoff_at_spammers.com)
Date: 12/01/04 

Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:01:01 -0200

Albert wrote:
> Stargazer wrote:
> > Albert wrote:
> >
> > > Stargazer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Albert wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ...Man is now no longer bound by only Darwinian
> > > > > evolution. His future now depends on his own intelligent
> > > > > imagination and the shared memories of his species. Instinctual,
> > > > > genetically determined, behaviour can now be
> > > > > overridden.
> > > >
> > > > This is quite a claim, for which I believe you would have a hard
> > > > time trying to substantiate.
> > >
> > > Not at all. Where have you been since 1950? How is it that you
> > > have never heard of DNA or genetic engineering?
> >
> > Ask yourself what kind of genetic manipulations will survive in
> > the long term.
>
> Doesn't Darwinian evolution determine that? Isn't the
> predominant factor the environment? Isn't the environment of
> modern Man totally different from his precursors?

And your point is?

> > I propose that most of the "weird stuff" that humans
> > will create in the short term are comparable to the random mutations
> > that happen spontaneously in darwinian evolution.
>
> Most likely. But, they will happen orders of magnitude more often
> than merely waiting for natural mutations.

The time schedule of these changes is not important. Most of the
dinosaurs were extinct in a "very short time" compared to the time
it took for their evolution. It is not the time frame that says if
a process is evolutionary or not, it is the sensitivity to natural
selection.

> > Only a slight
> > fraction of these "experiments" will really have a persisting
> > "life".
>
> You have no basis for such a statement.

Recall how many failed attempts Ian Wilmut had before cloning
Dolly successfully.

>
> > > > You may start by reasoning about
> > > > the kind of behavior that we actually choose to override:
> > >
> > > I have. We may create monsters or physical/intellectual supermen.
>
> > And how will those "supermen" be contained?
>
> Perhaps they won't. Homo Sapiens were not 'contained.'

Homo Sapiens is continually "contained". Environmental restrictions,
competition with other species, competition with other H.Sapiens,
energy limitations, food limitations, intelligence limitations,
emotional limitations, all this conspire to put an "upper limit" to
mankind's expansion. Without these constraints, our society would be
much more widespread than it already is (and it is already too much).

> > How big and fast and powerful they will be?
>
> Who said big, fast, and powerful? You did. Destroy your own
> strawman at your leisure. Then think 'healthy.'

Health is as a strawman as my "big, fast, powerful". Survivability
is the factor. However, H.Sapiens is perhaps the only species capable
of favoring (or influencing) the survivability of somebody like
Stephen Hawking.

> > Theoretically they could grow in strength
> > and intellectual capacity up to "infinity".
>
> Not even 'theoretically' can any living organism approach 'infinity.'

Indeed, but the most important limit is not their apparent indefinite
(or "theoretical") growth, but the growth that is allowed by natural
selection and environmental constraints.

> > But that's unlikely
> > to happen, because there's only one criterion capable of limiting
> > their development: darwinian evolution.
>
> You apparently do not comprehend the long time frames required
> for natural evolution. You certainly do not comprehend the
> comparatively instantaneous time frame required by advanced
> genetic engineering to correct and override any effects of
> natural evolution.

As I said, time frames aren't the important factor. One can
cultivate different breeds of flies in laboratories in a matter
of weeks, given proper selection schedules. Mass extinctions can
happen in a couple thousand years, compared to the millions
required by most evolutionary processes. It is not the time
the important factor in evolutionary processes, it is the
existence of some sort of natural selection.

> > > > in which
> > > > way are these changed behaviors not related to some darwinian
> > > > process applied to a system of social agents which interact?
>
> Darwinian evolution is about genes *only*. Only the ill informed
> or racists with an agenda believe in the claptrap of Social
> Darwinism.

I'm not talking of social darwinism. I'm looking at evolutionary
methods from a theoretical standpoint. From this stance, genes
are just *one* kind of coding strategy. Education in our minds
is another way of "coding" things. Books is another way of
doing that.

> > > Over what duration of time? And in what complex context of
> > > physical/economic power.
> >
> > No doubt this is a very complex system. Ecologies are, in general,
> > very complex systems. I would not be surprised to find that
> > such economic/power environment is comparable, in terms of degrees
> > of freedom, to a complex ecology such as the one found in the amazon
> > rain forest.
>
> What an idiot. Primitive Man in a rain forest was subject only
> to Darwinian evolution in a natural environment over tens of
> thousands of generations. Modern man can selectively speed up
> that process to a single generation under conscious intelligent
> control.

Your lack of theoretical wisdom influences how you see the theory,
but it doesn't affect the theory itself. Evolution by natural
selection is a factor that also influences the "conscious
generation of intelligent control". Try to imagine what kind
of artificial flying devices we would have if the first
experiences with "flapping wing airplanes" weren't unsuccessful
enough so as to discourage (read: extinguish) the bad designs.
Natural selection is the most important factor in most
sophisticated engineering and scientific projects.

> > > > Human imagination created the cell phone. Today there's a huge
> > > > quantity of models, brands, functionalities, sizes, etc. But
> > > > lots of models went to the garbage, didn't survive. Guess what
> > > > kind of process is shaping the evolution of these devices.
> > >
> > > It's called Marketing, also a product of Man's imagination.
> >
> > Marketing is the technique used by humans to generate the products,
> > but it is not the process that decides which of those survive and
> > which don't.
>
> No. Human invention generates the products. Marketing decides
> which of those products survive. Both invention and marketing
> are products of human imagination, not natural forces in the
> environment.

Before Apple's success with the MacIntosh, Apple Computer employed
all its marketing and technical expertise to build LISA. Remember
that? That was a marvelous computer, the first to employ a GUI, a
technical achievement. What happened to it, in spite of the efforts
of the manufacturer? It is not the marketing that decides which
product survives, it is the *environment* (consumers, economic
issues, cultural status, etc.).

> > Marketing (and human inventiveness in general) is
> > somewhat akin to the sexual recombination and random mutation
> > of conventional genetically coded systems. But the outcomes of
> > the marketing effort (the products) are not guaranteed to
> > succeed: market pressures, people's preferences, environmental
> > and economic factors, etc., are the final answer about who
> > survives and who dies. In other words, natural selection.
>
> Bull***. Phones don't have genes. Superficial similarities are
> not identities.

Your lack of abilities to abstract is hindering your vision.
Natural selection is one thing, gene coding is another.
Evolution cannot occur without natural selection, but it can
occur without genes (although it is necessary to have some way
to "pass on" information from one generation to another).

*SG*

Quantcast