Annoying creationists

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Maybe it's because I'll usually side with the underdog, maybe it's because I like his style - answer question obliquely then ignore it - and maybe I quite like people who aren't scared to put the boot in to the majority.

You can't answer questions obliquely then ignore the subject and at the same time put the boot to anybody. I'm wondering about you, now.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by articulett

And what's your take on John's theory? Where is it better than Ev by natural selection? What is his main problem with Ev by natural selection? Or is it more of a fine tuning of Ev. And what do you think of his claim that genes aren't replicators--it's the cells that are the replicators?

I do not have any problem with natural seelction per se, I think it works fine in its proper place. The problem is that there are some things that cannot be interpreted by natural selection. Darwin identified one when he discussed the origin of the brain in the "Descent of Man." There, he replaced natural selection with sexual selection.
From a bioepistemic point of view, sexual selection is different from natural selection in that it involves another form of data besides DNA sequence, it involves sensory data. The act of sexual selection involves a choice of sexual partner from among various candidates. That choice requires sensory organs with which to examine the possible choices along with a memory and a brain with which to make the comparisons. Thus, sexual selection drives the development of sense organs and brains, as well as peacocks' tails.
Other forms of selection can apply in other ranks and orders of evolution and I think a proper appreciation of evolution requires a proper analysis of those evolutionary processes.

As for your question "And what do you think of his claim that genes aren't replicators--it's the cells that are the replicators?" Really! How many times does the same thing need to be said?

A replicator is an entity that can replicate itself. Given the necessary chemical and energy inputs, cells and other organisms can replicate themselves; they are replicators. No matter what chemicals or energy is provided to a gene, it cannot replicate itself. Genes are copied by the cell during the cell's own replication. This is not a claim on my part, it is standard pre-university biology. Even Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene, accepts the description I have given but he then goes on to claim that genes were once some kind of primordial replicators that have subsequently lost their ability to replicate. There is no evidence whatever to support that claim and the actual observation remains what I have described.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by fishbob

You can't answer questions obliquely then ignore the subject and at the same time put the boot to anybody. I'm wondering about you, now.

The question at issue is "Are you an IDer or creationist." My answer is
1. That we are discussing scientific ideas not personal attributes.
2. That scientific debate should not be personalised.
3. That my scientific ideas express my opinions.
4. My scientific work is subject to change in response to evidence.
5. My work does not represent a faith. I do not demand declarations of faith from anybody.
6. You are not entitled to demand that I swear an oath of allegiance to your opinions or faith in some prescribed evolutionary text.
7. My scientific work does not involve ID or creationism or God or fairies or unicorns or little green men or pixies or leprochauns or the world of Narnia or .....

I have no idea how those answers could be considered unclear.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by fishbob

You can't answer questions obliquely then ignore the subject and at the same time put the boot to anybody. I'm wondering about you, now.

Want to offer some odds on that? I see it happening, right now. Maybe you need to re-read John's posts, maybe you need to get a pommy to translate them into American, but he's doing just that.

Wonder about me is right, I sometimes wonder about me as well.

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

The question at issue is "Are you an IDer or creationist." My answer is
1. That we are discussing scientific ideas not personal attributes.
2. That scientific debate should not be personalised.
3. That my scientific ideas express my opinions.
4. My scientific work is subject to change in response to evidence.
5. My work does not represent a faith. I do not demand declarations of faith from anybody.
6. You are not entitled to demand that I swear an oath of allegiance to your opinions or faith in some prescribed evolutionary text.
7. My scientific work does not involve ID or creationism or God or fairies or unicorns or little green men or pixies or leprochauns or the world of Narnia or .....

I have no idea how those answers could be considered unclear.

I didn't realize I would stir up a malestrom. Maybe I should rephrase the question:

Do you accept the results of the scientific method, regardless of how a scientifically derived conclusion might interfere with your personal philosophical/theological beliefs?

Note: I'm agnostic, but I have no argument with theists or atheists, except where they insist that a certain conclusion must follow from a hypothesis, regardless of any intervening verifiable experimental results.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Well, John seems to sum it up pretty thoroughly - and briefly - here. Far better to read's his summation than mine as I'd only be copying.

Wow, that's really awful writing.

As far as I can make out, he's proposing the abandonment of more than a century of painstakingly collected evidence for... Well, exactly what is unclear. Hand-waving, to judge from that page.

Quote:

Can it be proved/disproved? That's a very good point as I think John's come up with something quite scary for scientists - a theory which can probably never be prven, but is certainly open to disproof.

Baloney.

For one thing, I see nothing that even suggests a coherent hypothesis. For the other, more important, thing, falsifiable theories are science's bread-and-butter. If you think such things are "quite scary for scientists", then you clearly know nothing of science.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

Yes, I always find Hammegk's comments wry but more or less accurate.

In this thread? In which he has repeatedly demonstrated his profound lack of relevant knowledge?

Cynical, yes. Wry, not so much. Accurate, not at all.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

From a bioepistemic point of view, sexual selection is different from natural selection in that it involves another form of data besides DNA sequence, it involves sensory data.

Yes, it involves sensory data. In precisely the same way that any other form of natural selection does.

Quote:

That choice requires sensory organs with which to examine the possible choices along with a memory and a brain with which to make the comparisons.

All of which applies equally well to any other form of natural selection.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by kjkent1

I didn't realize I would stir up a malestrom. Maybe I should rephrase the question:

Do you accept the results of the scientific method, regardless of how a scientifically derived conclusion might interfere with your personal philosophical/theological beliefs?

Isn't that already answered here:

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

1. That we are discussing scientific ideas not personal attributes.
2. That scientific debate should not be personalised.
4. My scientific work is subject to change in response to evidence.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

The question at issue is "Are you an IDer or creationist." My answer is
1. That we are discussing scientific ideas not personal attributes.
2. That scientific debate should not be personalised.
3. That my scientific ideas express my opinions.
4. My scientific work is subject to change in response to evidence.
5. My work does not represent a faith. I do not demand declarations of faith from anybody.
6. You are not entitled to demand that I swear an oath of allegiance to your opinions or faith in some prescribed evolutionary text.
7. My scientific work does not involve ID or creationism or God or fairies or unicorns or little green men or pixies or leprochauns or the world of Narnia or .....

I have no idea how those answers could be considered unclear.

I did not ask that question.
And my comment was not directed at you.

And clearer responses might be something like:
'yes' or 'no' or 'irrelevant' or 'none of your damn business'.

5 words at most.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Want to offer some odds on that? I see it happening, right now. Maybe you need to re-read John's posts, maybe you need to get a pommy to translate them into American, but he's doing just that.

Wonder about me is right, I sometimes wonder about me as well.

No pommy handy, does 'putting the boot' to someone mean something like annoying the crap out of them until they get disgusted and leave?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Wow, that's really awful writing.

You're right, it is. The whole post is a mess - haste makes waste.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

As far as I can make out, he's proposing the abandonment of more than a century of painstakingly collected evidence for... Well, exactly what is unclear. Hand-waving, to judge from that page.

Really? Again, I get a completely different picture. I see someone who thinks the gaps can be filled with a process which known evolutionary components. My writing might vary occasionally, but my comprehension skills are 1st class.

Have you read through the whole thing? Might be worth your while.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Baloney.

For one thing, I see nothing that even suggests a coherent hypothesis.

see above.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

For the other, more important, thing, falsifiable theories are science's bread-and-butter. If you think such things are "quite scary for scientists", then you clearly know nothing of science.

You've missed the point here. Of course it's falsifiable.

The scary part comes in it being falsifiable by someone else's positive result. Note the negativity about John's claims! You're dying for him to fall over, even before you understand what he's saying. Falsify his theory then. I guess the simple way to do that is to get a gene to replicate outside the cell. That's all it takes to blow him right out of the water.

Anyone tried to do that yet?

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Isn't that already answered here:

Obliquely at best. Not in any sense clear or definitive.

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Isn't that already answered here:

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

1. That we are discussing scientific ideas not personal attributes.
2. That scientific debate should not be personalised.
4. My scientific work is subject to change in response to evidence.

I suppose so, but I figured since I started the argument, that I would try to clarify it.

Anyway, I don't find John Hewitt disingenuous. He is at least educated in the subject matter, and he posts under his real name. This is worthy of some respect.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

What does that sort of behaviour suggest to you?
Long on empty rhetoric and short on answers.

Exactly. That's exactly what John's behavior suggests to me. I have read his posts. I think you didn't sum up his theory or his arguments, because you can't. I have read his posts. They are hard to read...But let me give you some links to the very post you mentioned, and I know you won't believe it, but to anyone who has spent anytime debating creationists or teaching their children, they can see the signs. But, as always, everyone is free to believe as they choose. From your link

Accordingly, the original problem became an attempt to merge scientific philosophy and scientific results - that is to say, merge general statements about scientific method and ethics, with evolutionary theory. An interesting, if abstract, academic question but one to which a solution appeared problematic, since evolutionary theory and scientific ethics seemed entirely incompatible. How could an idea system like scientific ethics and philosophy, involving strict rules of behavior and thought, arise from evolutionary theory, an apparently anarchic system that demands victory by any means?

He's basically saying evolution can't explain things like morality--it's the basis of Francis Collins' God--and most believers who also accept evolution. God must exist, because where would morality come from is the argument. These type of creationist cannot here or will not here all the explanations of animals exhibiting extradinorily similar behavior in the morality department and we actually understand a lot about how it evolves. Creationism 101--try and show something about Human Life that evolution can't account for--then insert your god. Humans rescue humans that are not related is one argument--but the fact is, all humans are related and so is all life--the closer the life form is to you--the more genes you share...and many animals form social groups and many mammals will care for and rescue those who aren't their own. There's great video where a hippo tries to save a baby antelope from an alligator attack... http://youtube.com/watch?v=yxSvFYph0u8 The idea that morality couldn't evolve is at the basis of his argument...as well as other characteristics. At least that's what I think he's saying--no one else seems to be summing him up.

Even so, it is notable how the smaller problem of scientific cheating offers itself as a microcosm of the larger one. Scientific cheating contains evolutionary theory because that theory is the central pillar of biological thinking. Power enters the problem because evolutionary theory merges with political science through the need for individuals to possess the power to survive and reproduce, hence the ideas of Machiavellian intelligence that have become popular in evolutionary psychology. Knowledge appears in the problem of scientific cheating, because science is all about generating "reliable knowledge" in the phrase scientific philosopher John Ziman (1978) chose as his title. At the same time, the very concept of cheating implies the existence of ethical codes to be broken.

Scientists are cheating...(e.g. they're not letting his theory in), and cheating implies "ethics" (which according to his theory couldn't have evolved). My dog tricks my other dog all the time...and looks guilty when I catch her. She also has some other damn fine ethics and no one put them there. Humans prefer some traits in animals and select for them--they do the same in eachother.

Evolutionary theory, as Darwin well recognized, was not just a new biological theory, it was a new philosophy. This work would argue that it was an epistemology, where an epistemology is a process that generates knowledge when applied to an information set. In this, its most basic form, evolutionary theory should not be seen as a scientific theory as it is doubtful whether it could ever be practically tested. The concept of an evolved creature, possessed of no knowledge except that from evolution, objectively testing a theory of evolution, contains elements of self-reference that might lead to an infinite regress.


He says evolution can't be tested. Flat out lie. We have found hormones responsible for pair bonding and genes associated with various personality traits and they apply to animals other than ourselfs...we even see mirror neurons which are responsible for empathy in other animals and the core of morality. We can say, "if evolution is true, than there should be an overall advantage to reciprocity and social cooperation in groups"--and that is what we see. Bats have a communal blood sharing policy--the winners of the evenings hunts, share with the losers--but someone who takes a lot and doesn't give is punished. Even apes show very similar behavior. We can say "if evoluton is true, then other social groups will show strong parallels to humans"--particularly the more closely related they are. And that is exactly what we see.

Evolution has bestowed on mankind knowledge on which to base decisions, hands with which to implement them and ambition for the power that makes choice possible. With the passage of time, we have come to possess so much more knowledge than animals, so many more choices, that humans, alone among the animals may be said to possess free will.


Free will. Code word for religion. Free Will isn't really even a scientific term. It really isn't well defined as far as I can tell, though it is the basis of religion. Life is a test of this "free will". Let's see--are priests who molest children exercising free will? Certainly no-one chooses to be attracted to children. So whatever will he is or isn't exercising--it's very different from the one I'd be exercising, because I have no attraction to children.

To me, it's obvious. Clearly others have picked it up as well. Scientists aren't cheating--his theory is unnecessary and hard to follow. It boils down to--humans must have something "extra" to account for free will, ethics, cheating, etc.--and that something extra is an intelligent designer. That's why John avoids using genes as the replicator. Genes code for all the traits we see in animals, and they encode for all the traits we see in ourselves as well. We evolved to learn from our environment...we've evolved language...from that, we have taken some great strides in thinking--but we don't have "something extra"--(a soul)-- or if we do--there is no measurable evidence for it and inserting it because there must be something to account for that which we do not understand is a violation of Occams razor. John knows this. His obfuscation is to keep people like you from knowing this.

Or maybe I've interpreted the words incorrectly. But no-one seems to be clarifying--and John is very difficult to read--he muddys the language in certain areas though he shows clarity in others. The muddyness is "god". If you couldn't define his argument or his problem with evolution--it's because he wasn't clear about either. He was throwing out semantic games whether he is aware of it or not...and he's very good--so it takes some time to pin down what he's saying--and, frankly, I really haven't got that kind of time to waste anymore. Creationists never change their views and they are deceptive and talk on and on without saying anything and then blame everyone else for nobody understanding them.

I'm tired of trusting the wrong people. It's why I'm a skeptic. When asked point blank--people who are not creationists say so.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by kjkent1

Maybe I should rephrase the question:

Do you accept the results of the scientific method, regardless of how a scientifically derived conclusion might interfere with your personal philosophical/theological beliefs?

I would reply to that by saying that, in formulating my personal opinions, which I express in my scientific work, I accept the results of properly applied scientific method.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Yes, it involves sensory data. In precisely the same way that any other form of natural selection does.

All of which applies equally well to any other form of natural selection.

I think this claim is incorrect. Natural selection is merely about survival and reproduction. The concept of natural selection can be applied to organisms that are devoid of sense organs and, I would imagine, that was the situation in early evolution.

Sexual selection is different and can only apply to organisms that examine prospective mating partners. In other words, make use of data derived from sense organs.

[The Atheist]

Well, I certainly won't argue your passion!

It seems to me that you've cherry-picked a couple of examples and ignored the majority. Bats behave one way, lions, hyenas and wolves don't. If one proves human evolution, do the others disprove it?

I'll take your points on board, but to me, when a bloke answers a straight question with a straight answer, I'll believe him until he's been shown to be lying. You haven't come close to that, other by your own assertion.

Given that John has books published and has been working on this for may years, don't you think he might have slipped god in if that's where he was headed? Bit of a waste for a creationist to spend all those years, having all those theories published, putting up hundreds of web pages, and all not to advance the creationist agenda?

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

I would reply to that by saying that, in formulating my personal opinions, which I express in my scientific work, I accept the results of properly applied scientific method.

Seems reasonable to me.

Another question: do you believe that certain higher level functions exhibited by humans, such as ethics, morals, altruism, etc., could not possibly have evolved?

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by articulett

I have read his posts. They are hard to read...But let me give you some links to the very post you mentioned, and I know you won't believe it, but to anyone who has spent anytime debating creationists or teaching their children, they can see the signs.

woo woo

Quote:

But, as always, everyone is free to believe as they choose. From your link
Accordingly, the original problem became an attempt to merge scientific philosophy and scientific results - that is to say, merge general statements about scientific method and ethics, with evolutionary theory. An interesting, if abstract, academic question but one to which a solution appeared problematic, since evolutionary theory and scientific ethics seemed entirely incompatible. How could an idea system like scientific ethics and philosophy, involving strict rules of behavior and thought, arise from evolutionary theory, an apparently anarchic system that demands victory by any means?

He's basically saying evolution can't explain things like morality--it's the basis of Francis Collins' God--and most believers who also accept evolution. God must exist, because where would morality come from is the argument. <snip> At least that's what I think he's saying--no one else seems to be summing him up.

No, it was a question I was asking, and I was more concerned with scientists than hippos.

Quote:

Even so, it is notable how the smaller problem of scientific cheating offers itself as a microcosm of the larger one. Scientific cheating contains evolutionary theory because that theory is the central pillar of biological thinking. Power enters the problem because evolutionary theory merges with political science through the need for individuals to possess the power to survive and reproduce, hence the ideas of Machiavellian intelligence that have become popular in evolutionary psychology. Knowledge appears in the problem of scientific cheating, because science is all about generating "reliable knowledge" in the phrase scientific philosopher John Ziman (1978) chose as his title. At the same time, the very concept of cheating implies the existence of ethical codes to be broken.

Scientists are cheating...(e.g. they're not letting his theory in), and cheating implies "ethics" (which according to his theory couldn't have evolved).

No, again you miss the context. This evolutionary study derives from "A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat." I was not suggesting that evolutionary theorists were cheating, (though as an irrelevant aside there are some instances) I was noting the fraud in science that I had previously described.

Quote:

Evolutionary theory, as Darwin well recognized, was not just a new biological theory, it was a new philosophy. This work would argue that it was an epistemology, where an epistemology is a process that generates knowledge when applied to an information set. In this, its most basic form, evolutionary theory should not be seen as a scientific theory as it is doubtful whether it could ever be practically tested. The concept of an evolved creature, possessed of no knowledge except that from evolution, objectively testing a theory of evolution, contains elements of self-reference that might lead to an infinite regress.

He says evolution can't be tested. Flat out lie.

No, I am noting that evolution is BOTH a philosophy and a scientific theory. To the extent that it is a philosophy, I do find it to be untestable. Evolution is testable only when articulated into a concrete context.

Quote:

To me, it's obvious. Clearly others have picked it up as well. Scientists aren't cheating--his theory is unnecessary and hard to follow.

There are numerous, documented instances of scientists cheating.

Quote:

It boils down to--humans must have something "extra" to account for free will, ethics, cheating, etc.--and that something extra is an intelligent designer. That's why John avoids using genes as the replicator. Genes code for all the traits we see in animals, and they encode for all the traits we see in ourselves as well. We evolved to learn from our environment...we've evolved language...from that, we have taken some great strides in thinking--but we don't have "something extra"--(a soul)-- or if we do--there is no measurable evidence for it and inserting it because there must be something to account for that which we do not understand is a violation of Occams razor. John knows this. His obfuscation is to keep people like you from knowing this.

How do you get from not using genes as replicators to souls? I am not trying to obfuscate anything, I am just trying to get people to understand that genetics is an incomplete description of evolution.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by kjkent1

Another question: do you believe that certain higher level functions exhibited by humans, such as ethics, morals, altruism, etc., could not possibly have evolved?

The evolutionary question is not whether such things evolved it is how they evolved. Bioepistemic evolution argues that the best way of understanding the origin of such traits is to to see humans as actors (subsystems, if you will) within the evolving system of culture, rather than simply as evolving systems in their own right. Actors within a system cooperate rather than compete.

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

The evolutionary question is not whether such things evolved it is how they evolved. Bioepistemic evolution argues that the best way of understanding the origin of such traits is to to see humans as actors (subsystems, if you will) within the evolving system of culture, rather than simply as evolving systems in their own right. Actors within a system cooperate rather than compete.

Question is: what happens when a culture collapses? What is encoded and what is learned?

On a different tack, I've never seen cooperation, and I'm not a kid. What I see is negotiation, i.e., competition which requires that individuals bargain for their respective and mutual survival, usually leading to one of the sides getting the best deal and obtaining superior circumstances as a consequence. All of which seems to fit quite nicely with the idea of natural selection.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by kjkent1

Question is: what happens when a culture collapses? What is encoded and what is learned?

On a different tack, I've never seen cooperation, and I'm not a kid. What I see is negotiation, i.e., competition which requires that individuals bargain for their respective and mutual survival, usually leading to one of the sides getting the best deal and obtaining superior circumstances as a consequence. All of which seems to fit quite nicely with the idea of natural selection.

You have often seen cooperation - consider which side of the road you drive on. I think that humans have acquired traits that lead them to form groups and will do so even if, intially, they do not know one another or if their culture has previously collapsed. The group they form is a hierarchy and competition is usually for place in that hierarchy.

I am not sure what you mean by "fit(s) quite nicely with the idea of natural selection." Social groups lead, so it seems to me, to social selection and one must consider the types of selection occuring within the information flows of a social hierarchy. The issue here is partly the unit of selection and partly whether it is even appropriate to talk about units of selection.
The fact of human cooperation does not fit very well with natural selection based on genes or even individuals as the units of selection but we have gene-culture coevolution and, if social evolution dominates, which I think it does in humans, then human genetic evolution will adapt to serve the needs of social knowledge. That will lead to humans adapting to function not just as competitors but to becoming actors within social evolution and, as such, they can be expected to exhibit cooperative and altruistic traits toward other members of their social group.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

I think this claim is incorrect. Natural selection is merely about survival and reproduction. The concept of natural selection can be applied to organisms that are devoid of sense organs and, I would imagine, that was the situation in early evolution.

Sexual selection is different and can only apply to organisms that examine prospective mating partners. In other words, make use of data derived from sense organs.

This is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. Which part of sexual selection isn't natural? In what way is selecting for various traits in a partner not selecting for the genes that produce these traits?

[cyborg]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

Sexual selection is different and can only apply to organisms that examine prospective mating partners. In other words, make use of data derived from sense organs.

John, in what way is my genetics not in some way responsible for the sexual selections females may decide to make with regards to me?

The physical manifestation of my genetics - i.e. my body - and all its various facets are a reflection of the quality of my genetics are they not?

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

This is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. Which part of sexual selection isn't natural? In what way is selecting for various traits in a partner not selecting for the genes that produce these traits?

Sexual selection cannot possibly select for genotype, it can only select for observable phenotype. The observation requires data derived from sense organs.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by cyborg

John, in what way is my genetics not in some way responsible for the sexual selections females may decide to make with regards to me?

The physical manifestation of my genetics - i.e. my body - and all its various facets are a reflection of the quality of my genetics are they not?

Only in some respects. Some girls may not like the colour of your tie. (This is a serious comment - many manifestations of observable phenotype are plainly and obviously nothing to do with genotype.)

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

Sexual selection cannot possibly select for genotype, it can only select for observable phenotype. The observation requires data derived from sense organs.

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

Only in some respects. Some girls may not like the colour of your tie. (This is a serious comment - many manifestations of observable phenotype are plainly and obviously nothing to do with genotype.)

And the phenotype is caused by...? Would you like to provide some example of things that are "plainly and obviously nothing to do with genotype"?

[cyborg]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

Only in some respects. Some girls may not like the colour of your tie. (This is a serious comment - many manifestations of observable phenotype are plainly and obviously nothing to do with genotype.)

The ability to select aesthetically correct plumage seems somewhat tied to my genetics rather than simply a learned skill. There are clearly people who seem to have an 'eye' for what is correct and others who appear to have a total inability to understand why their website with huge text and green on magenta text is fugly.

A tie is not merely a tie, it is a test; like the plumage of a peacock. The woman is testing my genetics by observing what I have done with them - at a very superficial level. There are many tests of course - I just have to show her that I have other qualities that she is interested in.

Remember, sexual reproduction is about the recombination of genetics from two parties. The basic goal of the gene has not changed - if you will forgive the anthropomorphism: move towards the best genetic code for a given environment. The sexual issue leads to issues of genetic compatibility. At the most basic level of things like plants this has given rise to sexual selection mechanisms in the most basic sense - to avoid self pollination. Human sexuality is no different in this regard - we have mechanisms to help us avoid being attracted to our own family members.

I don't really get the thrust of your argument. Sexual selection is not somehow entirely divorced from genetics.

[bigred]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Sometimes these annoying creationists just piss me off:

http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum...a63c3a63#11670

~~ Paul

I guess you should only debate people who won't annoy you (or disagree with you) then. sheesh Paul - remember, you sought THEM out.

In fact from what I can gather skimming the link, the whole talk is more "scientific" than I would've expected, esp from a site called "evolution is dead." Looks highly in-depth, in fact. Hope you felt like you got/are getting some interesting discussions there.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by cyborg

I don't really get the thrust of your argument. Sexual selection is not somehow entirely divorced from genetics.

I did not say that sexual selection is entirely divorced from genotype, I said that selection operates on observable phenotype not on genotype. I also said that the act of observation requires sense organs to acquire the observational data and a brain with which to interpret it. Do you have a problem with that?

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

You have often seen cooperation - consider which side of the road you drive on. I think that humans have acquired traits that lead them to form groups and will do so even if, intially, they do not know one another or if their culture has previously collapsed. The group they form is a hierarchy and competition is usually for place in that hierarchy.

I am not sure what you mean by "fit(s) quite nicely with the idea of natural selection." Social groups lead, so it seems to me, to social selection and one must consider the types of selection occuring within the information flows of a social hierarchy. The issue here is partly the unit of selection and partly whether it is even appropriate to talk about units of selection.
The fact of human cooperation does not fit very well with natural selection based on genes or even individuals as the units of selection but we have gene-culture coevolution and, if social evolution dominates, which I think it does in humans, then human genetic evolution will adapt to serve the needs of social knowledge. That will lead to humans adapting to function not just as competitors but to becoming actors within social evolution and, as such, they can be expected to exhibit cooperative and altruistic traits toward other members of their social group.

I disagree that agreement as to which side of the road to drive on is an example of cooperation. It is the result of a negotiation between opposing drivers who, but for their agreement, would run head on into each other. Each side gets something: the ability to proceed in the direction the desire, and each side gives up something: one half of the road surface.

Maybe it's all semantics, but I don't find that cooperation exists. I find it an illusion. Even soldiers in the same troop/unit negotiate for their respective survival by mutually agreeing to protect each other.

However, I agree that if a particular cultural behavior remains the status quo for a long enough period of time, then as with any other relatively stable environmental stress, the cultural behavior may help shape the genetic future of the organisms who exist within the culture.

This is what humans are currently doing. For example, we culturally believe that a certain class of person makes a better lawyer. So, we screen for that class of person by giving a standardized test that effectively permits only the target class to become lawyers. Then we pay those people, in large part, to run our government/society.

Consequently, we create legislation which represents the sort of thinking which is screened for in those tests, and we can observe the result in the way our laws are enforced and how this effects society.

250 years ago in the USA, our legislators and jurists were much more free thinking. The result was more novel legislation and enforcement, and more freedom for the individual. Today, those legislators and jurists are overwhelmingly cut from nearly identical cloth, and the result is that we can't tell one political party from the other, and further, we are increasingly more narrow minded in our legislating solutions to societal problems -- and ultimately, less free, as individuals.

Self-directed evolution in action, in my view.

[cyborg]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

I did not say that sexual selection is entirely divorced from genotype, I said that selection operates on observable phenotype not on genotype. I also said that the act of observation requires sense organs to acquire the observational data and a brain with which to interpret it. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes.

You are taking a top-down approach. You are starting with ostensibly the most complicated manifestations of sexual selection and declaring the mechanisms behind it fundamental.

Phenotype is an expression of genotype. No, it is not a 100% reliable mapping - it is however the best thing going without actually going to the trouble of producing an offspring. Clearly the expense of that operation makes that method of determining genetic compatibility prohibitive - would you not agree?

Starting with the brain as the requirement of sexual selection is far too high level - as I proposed with the basic selection that plants engage in.

[desertyeti]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

Sexual selection cannot possibly select for genotype, it can only select for observable phenotype. The observation requires data derived from sense organs.

Not true.
Sponges which mate by releasing eggs and sperm at the same time have no brain or sensory organs at all. Yet sexual selection woks based on the volume of reproductive cells being released by the individual. It's unconcious sexual selection, but it's still sexual selection.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by kjkent1

Maybe it's all semantics, but I don't find that cooperation exists. I find it an illusion. Even soldiers in the same troop/unit negotiate for their respective survival by mutually agreeing to protect each other.

Maybe it is all semantics but studies on evolution invest a great deal of time explaining the origins of cooperation and altruism.
People end up cooperating with other members of their group. It is true that we interpret the origin of this cooperation as being founded in competition but still the cooperation does come about. Humans and their direct forebears have been cooperating long enough to have a good proportion of natural cooperaters among their number.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by cyborg

Yes.

You are taking a top-down approach. You are starting with ostensibly the most complicated manifestations of sexual selection and declaring the mechanisms behind it fundamental.

Phenotype is an expression of genotype. No, it is not a 100% reliable mapping - it is however the best thing going without actually going to the trouble of producing an offspring. Clearly the expense of that operation makes that method of determining genetic compatibility prohibitive - would you not agree?

Starting with the brain as the requirement of sexual selection is far too high level - as I proposed with the basic selection that plants engage in.

The term "top-down" is a programming term that might be contrasted with bottom-up but I think I see what you mean. It is true that the data based approach is not reductionist in the same way that genetic analysis is.
The mechanism of sexual selection I describe is pretty much the standard one and clearly does involve brains and sense organs. Since my approach to evolution centres around data, and these are data processing organs, I am interested in sexual selection and sexuality. The other important mechanism of sexual selection is that which arises from male-male competition, winner takes the female. This also has implications for sense organs and brain and, in social animals, I should think it centres around hierarchy and links to female choice.
As an interesting point, in nature humans seem to form long term sexual pairs or mildly polygamous groups and are not *very* promiscuous. This implies that, in humans, sexual seelction will be two way and that male choice of females would have an impact on female biological traits.

I do not know about sexual selection in plants or sponges so I shall refrain from comment on those topics.

[cyborg]

Quote:

I do not know about sexual selection in plants or sponges so I shall refrain from comment on those topics.

Right, that's not the problem. The problem is the implicit generalisations about sex BEYOND humans. We're not the only sexual organism you know.

If you only meant to talk about human sexuality then you should have clarified that.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by cyborg

Right, that's not the problem. The problem is the implicit generalisations about sex BEYOND humans. We're not the only sexual organism you know.

If you only meant to talk about human sexuality then you should have clarified that.

Well, I do think the evolution of species related to humans is more interesting than that of more distant types. Nonetheless, I would be interested to know about the implications of work from other organisms.

[hammegk]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

In this thread? In which he has repeatedly demonstrated his profound lack of relevant knowledge?

Cynical, yes. Wry, not so much. Accurate, not at all.

Damn, your comments sound like .... "Extremely cruel or hateful content directed toward another user".

Talk is cheap, and if my relevant knowledge can be shown to be contrary to facts, I will adjust my position to include those facts -- unlike most here.

Please cite one or more examples to demonstrate your unsustainable slur.

[Yahzi]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

Well

You didn't answer my question.

Do you find materialism (metaphysical naturalism) adequate to explain the totality of human existance and experience?

It's a yes or no answer. If you say yes, you're a scientist. If you say no, you're a woo. And since you're wooing on about evolution, that makes you a creationist woo.

Just come out and say it - "It's all materialism, all the way down!"