Has our achievements stumped our evolution?

[RootsBooster]

Well done Cyclone you post consistently and diligently to underline your ignorance and lack of perception. A*

 

Jukes x

 

You say Cyclone is ignorant and lacks perception, yet you seem oblivious to the fact that animals of the same species kill each other all the time...

So what about our ape cousins, or elephants, or whales, or dogs, or mice, or mosquitoes, or tardigrades, or algae, or single cell bacteria? Why aren't they killing each other to sustain themselves and progenate their selfish genes? The answer is in the question - because there is an evolutionary benefit manifesting itself.

Apes, elephants, dogs, mice all attack and kill other members of their own species. Some groups/packs/colonies etc. even wage all out tribal war on each other.

[truman]

What I am saying is that there is an emerging area of evolutionary neuroscience, biological neuroscience and cultural neuroscience that is science, and evolutionary science at that. It is impossible to confidently say that culture and evolution are separate things and I have provided you with a few classic examples why this is the case and then explained why confidently saying that they are separate things is in fact religion and not science.

 

Jukes x

 

What sort of culture do viruses or bacteria have? How does this affect their evolution?

[RootsBooster]

What sort of culture do viruses or bacteria have? How does this affect their evolution?

 

And what kind of mind revolution happens with them?

 

Just for the record for biological evolution to happen, you also need a mind revolution.

[unbeliever]

What I am saying is that there is an emerging area of biological neuroscience and cultural neuroscience that is science, and evolutionary science at that. It is impossible to confidently say that culture and evolution are separate things and I have provided you with a few classic examples why this is the case and then explained why confidently saying that they are separate things is in fact religion, not science.

 

Okay. I get the general idea. You're clearly over-extrapolating though.

By most standards, we're fairly social animals. Not Bees by any means, but not Tigers either.

As we have developed culturally, we have used reason to seek the optimum balance between the collectivism and individualism for us to thrive as a species. We also seek the optimum collective size: family, region, nation, continent world; to an extent on an issue by issue basis. Politics is essentially the debate about where this balance is to be struck.

Our decisions as a culture clearly impact our success as a species, but the only things likely to be carried genetically from one generation to another are the broadest terms of this matter.

It's possible that the balance between collectivism instincts and individualism instincts typical of the species varies a little from one generation to the next, but I highly doubt that the effect is dramatic given that the bulk of us, whether inclined toward collectivism or individualism, are afforded the opportunity to reproduce. Also given that the vast majority of us carry individualism and collectivism genetics and nurture determines which dominates in each individual.

 

None of this is significant in the main theme of this thread, which was the question of whether our genetic evolution has stagnated due to our success.

[Jukes]

You say Cyclone is ignorant and lacks perception, yet you seem oblivious to the fact that animals of the same species kill each other all the time...

 

Apes, elephants, dogs, mice all attack and kill other members of their own species. Some groups/packs/colonies etc. even wage all out tribal war on each other.

 

Correct, they absolutely do but you have stopped developing your argument at the first hurdle of religion instead of passing the finishing line at memetics. Continue that line of thinking to determine if killing your peers is the default or if there is some evolutionary advantage in NOT killing them. I hope that you will agree that there is an evolutionary advantage in NOT killing your peers and that killing is a decision (such as it can be) not the default. Once you have determined that killing is NOT the default you need to ask why that is the case - is it a learned cultural behavior from the egg or womb or cell division, or is it something else? If you decide that a single cell organism doesn't have a learned culture it must be something else, so what is it?

 

I hope that we both arrive at the same likely conclusion because if you still think that humans don't kill by default for cultural reasons you are into religion not evolution.

 

This is all a well established evolutionary argument that is not widely contested and I would have hoped was more widely known on the 40th anniversary of The Selfish Gene. If somebody thinks that we don't kill each other because it is a learned culture I would like to see your evidence. I have given you a world renowned evolutionary biologist who suggests that it's evolutionary, so I expect no less in return.

 

Jukes x

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2016 at 10:36 ----------

 

Okay. I get the general idea. You're clearly over-extrapolating though.

Tell that to Dawkins and Harris.

 

Jukes x

[unbeliever]

Correct, they absolutely do but you have stopped developing your argument at the first hurdle of religion instead of passing the finishing line at memetics. Continue that line of thinking to determine if killing your peers is the default or if there is some evolutionary advantage in NOT killing them. I hope that you will agree that there is an evolutionary advantage in NOT killing your peers and that killing is a decision (such as it can be) not the default. Once you have determined that killing is NOT the default you need to ask why that is the case - is it a learned cultural behavior from the egg or womb or cell division, or is it something else? If you decide that a single cell organism doesn't have a learned culture it must be something else, so what is it?

 

I hope that we both arrive at the same likely conclusion because if you still think that humans don't kill by default for cultural reasons you are into religion not evolution.

 

This is all a well established evolutionary argument that is not widely contested and I would have hoped was more widely known on the 40th anniversary of The Selfish Gene. If somebody thinks that we don't kill each other because it is a learned culture I would like to see your evidence. I have given you a world renowned evolutionary biologist who suggests that it's evolutionary, so I expect no less in return.

 

Jukes x

 

I suspect you're trying to convince of us things we find blindingly obvious as if they're some sort of revelation. They're not.

There are multiple "strategies" pursued by multiple species in each environment. Each has strengths and weaknesses. Many are successful. Many more are not.

The Bee strategy is successful as is that of the Tiger. Both work in combination with the other genetic traits of each species to produce a valid means of perpetuating the species.

There's no deeper, more profound meaning to all this. And it's something we're all well aware of. If it's something you learned recently and you find it world-shattering, that I'm happy for you. But to the rest of us it's just one piece of knowledge within a field where there is a lot more going on.

Oh and if you got these meme stuff second hand (rather than from Richard Dawkins), I suggest you read his works on the matter as they're grounded in actual science.

[RootsBooster]

Correct, they absolutely do but you have stopped developing your argument at the first hurdle of religion instead of passing the finishing line at memetics. Continue that line of thinking to determine if killing your peers is the default or if there is some evolutionary advantage in NOT killing them. I hope that you will agree that there is an evolutionary advantage in NOT killing your peers and that killing is a decision (such as it can be) not the default. Once you have determined that killing is NOT the default you need to ask why that is the case - is it a learned cultural behavior from the egg or womb or cell division, or is it something else? If you decide that a single cell organism doesn't have a learned culture it must be something else, so what is it?

 

I haven't mentioned anything about either and I haven't put forward any argument

[unbeliever]

Tell that to Dawkins and Harris.

 

Jukes x

 

I'm very familiar with Dawkins and Harris. I'm a big fan. I've read their books. Have you?

 

Unlike you, they express their ideas clearly and place them in a scientific framework. They're also not making your mistake of trying to patronise those who clearly understand the subject at hand better than you do.

Edited May 25, 2016 by unbeliever

[Jukes]

Our decisions as a culture clearly impact our success as a species, but the only things likely to be carried genetically from one generation to another are the broadest terms of this matter.

 

Not necessarily, it is possible that this sort of thinking about the genetic passage of what we think of as culture will look the same as pre-Darwinian thinking quite soon. The area of science is emerging but it is a very real area of very real science. A basic knowledge can be found through memetics which is itself decades old now where Dawkins posited it in The Selfish Gene and has gone on to update the ideas very recently and I have to say that I am most certainly not an expert in this area but I find it a topic of endless fascination for study.

 

Could I just say that it is delightful that we (you and I at least) can have this discussion in a manner that reverts to science and open minds instead of culture and closed ones.

 

Jukes x

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2016 at 10:47 ----------

 

I'm very familiar with Dawkins and Harris. I'm a big fan. I've read their books. Have you?

 

The Moral Landscape is particularly relevant here and I don't think that I'm pushing the boundaries in anything that I've written.

 

Jukes x

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2016 at 10:50 ----------

 

Unlike you, they express their ideas clearly and place them in a scientific framework. They're also not making your mistake of trying to patronise those who clearly understand the subject at hand better than you do.

 

Oh dear and I thought that it was going so well. I'd be very happy for you or anyone else to present your evidence because while mine is referenced and has clear examples of why culture MAY BE evolutionary, I don't seem to be able to find anything from anyone else that demonstrates that culture ISN'T evolutionary.

 

Jukes x

Edited May 25, 2016 by Jukes

[unbeliever]

Not necessarily, it is possible that this sort of thinking about the genetic passage of what we think of as culture will look the same as pre-Darwinian thinking quite soon. The area of science is emerging but it is a very real area of very real science. A basic knowledge can be found through memetics which is itself decades old now where Dawkins posited it in The Selfish Gene and has gone on to update the ideas very recently.

 

Could I just say that it is delightful that we (you and I at least) can have this discussion in a manner that reverts to science and open minds instead of culture and closed ones.

 

Jukes x

 

The human species is a bit special in that we carry more "memes" than most. We're also exceptionally good at spreading them. Our genes and memes both play a part in our success as a species which to an extent differentiates us from other species.

Whilst our genetic development may have stagnated our memetic development is clearly in full swing. The key difference being that memes are spread by means other than reproduction and can change dramatically in a single generation in a way that genes do not.

That's Dawkins felt with I suppose. I don't think he's ever asserted that memes in any way replace genes. Just that ideas in some way function in a similar way to genes and that we can transpose our understanding of genetics onto ideas.

 

To be honest, what I took away more than anything else from Harris's work, which probably had more of an effect on me, that moral relativism is grossly mistaken and harmful. That it is perfectly legitimate to say that one culture is morally inferior to another in an objective sense.

Perhaps if this is what you want to discuss, you could start a thread of your own on the matter. I suggest your opening post should be the opening paragraph from "The End of Faith". Although I expect it would get shut down rather quickly as threads critical of religion and specifically conservative Islam tend to do.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2016 at 10:54 ----------

 

 

Oh dear and I thought that it was going so well. I'd be very happy for you or anyone else to present your evidence because while mine is referenced and has clear examples of why culture MAY BE evolutionary, I don't seem to be able to find anything from anyone else that demonstrates that culture ISN'T evolutionary.

 

Jukes x

 

Sorry, are you saying that memes are being passed down through DNA?

I'm keen to have a debate on these matters, but because of the way you express yourself, it's hard to extract your intended meaning from some of your posts.