Has our achievements stumped our evolution?

[Jukes]

No known specific link or mechanism.

 

Jukes x

[unbeliever]

No known specific link or mechanism.

 

Jukes x

 

You didn't get this idea from Dawkins or Harris.

It's extremely far fetched. And I'm pretty sure Dawkins and Harris would be the first to tell you so.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any?

[Jukes]

It isn't a claim I am just leaving the door open to better knowledge and I am sure that you know me well enough by now to not think that I mean the supernatural. Newton has been chopped up, Einstein is on the chopping block and I'd distrust anyone that said that that Watson and Crick are immune.

 

I am still curious to understand your idea that humans are biologically special in evolutionary (or any other) terms because even putting any meme ideas to one side it still sounds as though you are closer to religion than science. Specifically how are humans biologically special in your view?

 

Jukes x

 

 

Cyclone please just go away if you haven't anything useful to say.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Jukes

[unbeliever]

It isn't a claim, I am just leaving the door open to better knowledge and I am sure that you know me well enough by now to not think that I mean the supernatural. Newton has been chopped up, Einstein is on the chopping block and I'd distrust anyone that said that that Watson and Crick are immune.

 

I am still curious to understand your idea that humans are biologically special because even putting any meme ideas to one side it still sounds as though you are closer to religion than science. Specifically how are humans biologically special in your view?

 

As I said humans are special in this context because we have by far the greatest faculty to host memes. I don't think us special in a wider context.

 

I'm not going tell get sidetracked further by telling you how profoundly wrong you are about Newton and especially Einstein. But you are.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2016 at 11:39 ----------

 

Cyclone please just go away if you haven't anything useful to say.

 

Don't make me choose between talking to Cyclone and talking to you, as you'll lose.

[Cyclone]

 

I am still curious to understand your idea that humans are biologically special in evolutionary (or any other) terms because even putting any meme ideas to one side it still sounds as though you are closer to religion than science. Specifically how are humans biologically special in your view?

 

Nobody has suggested that have they. We're just animals like all the other animals.

 

Futures Red came the closest, and then you jumped in to defend him (although apparently having missed the point).

[Jukes]

As I said humans are special in this context because we have by far the greatest faculty to host memes. I don't think us special in a wider context.

 

I'm not going tell get sidetracked further by telling you how profoundly wrong you are about Newton and especially Einstein. But you are.

 

You couldn't have missed my point on Watson and Crick more if you'd tried and that makes me quite sad because it seems to say something about reinterpreting the here and now instead of remaining open to what might be. What I thought was a nice discussion about an interesting idea where there is no definitive answer seems to be about spiky point scoring. Maybe this isn't a very good way to have this discussion without the nuances but I will persist for a while. I must warn you that I have work to do so I might not be able to respond quickly.

 

If you don't think that humans are biologically special, where do you think that evolution fits into memes over the last quarter of a million years? I will tell you now that I don't claim to know, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is evolutionary biology rather than cultural.

 

And one other thing is that I still don't feel comfortable with the glossing over of the genetic kill switch so I'd appreciate your elaboration on why that is cultural and not evolutionary.

 

Jukes x

[Cyclone]

You might be reaching a bit with quarter of a million. Homo sapiens came into being sometime between 100k and 200k years ago.

Presumably memes require a language though, pinning down the first language would be impossible I suspect. We'd have to look for proxy evidence of complex communication, such as the rapid spread of a new technique or skill (and even that is a bit weak as these can be learned by observation alone).

[unbeliever]

You couldn't have missed my point on Watson and Crick more if you'd tried and that makes me quite sad because it seems to say something about reinterpreting the here and now instead of remaining open to what might be. What I thought was a nice discussion about an interesting idea where there is no definitive answer seems to be about spiky point scoring. Maybe this isn't a very good way to have this discussion without the nuances but I will persist for a while. I must warn you that I have work to do so I might not be able to respond quickly.

 

If you don't think that humans are biologically special, where do you think that evolution fits into memes over the last quarter of a million years? I will tell you now that I don't claim to know, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is evolutionary biology rather than cultural.

 

And one other thing is that I still don't feel comfortable with the glossing over of the genetic kill switch so I'd appreciate your elaboration on why that is cultural and not evolutionary.

 

Jukes x

 

Im a professional scientist, but not a geneticist. Although I do take an interest in genetics. I have the advantage perhaps from my experience of being able to tell if ideas are far fetched.

DNA is a combination or proteins which are copied when a cell divides. The copy isn't always perfect, and that's how you get mutations, cancer and a lot of the effects we associate with ageing.

From what I know of chemistry, neurology, biology and physics; I can tell you that there is very close to zero chance that ideas stored in the arrangements of neurones in our brains get somehow copied into our DNA, then influence the development of our offspring to incline them toward developing similar arrangements of neurones in their brains.

The idea is for many reasons a load of dingos' kidneys.

 

I run into these kinds of arguments all the time on the forum. "I don't know why this can't happen so let's assume maybe it can". Unusually I think you may be a special case as you're clearly not averse to reading and learning. If you find the time, there's a lot out there for the layman on how neurology and DNA work and I think you'll find yourself dismissing your ideas fairly rapidly once you read up on the associated science.

 

There's no genetic "kill" switch. Usually the training and pressures on a human disincline them toward murder. Most people can be placed in a situation where murder seems a reasonable response to the situation. Many are mis-trained so that it comes far too easily. Daesh anybody?

[Jukes]

You might be reaching a bit with quarter of a million. Homo sapiens came into being sometime between 100k and 200k years ago.

Presumably memes require a language though, pinning down the first language would be impossible I suspect. We'd have to look for proxy evidence of complex communication, such as the rapid spread of a new technique or skill (and even that is a bit weak as these can be learned by observation alone).

 

To quote the late great Christopher Hitchens "I only need 100,000" and I'll give you a proxy if it helps. The presumption that might be is language troubles me deeply when we look at the variety of species and how they do and don't communicate and it still doesn't explain the kill switch (I apologise for the shorthand but I assume that we all know what mean by kill switch) or even something as basic as nurturing the young and my troubled mind is further sparked by the cuckoo (my proxy) which has strict biological and cultural behavioural differences within the species without any apparent culture to inform it.

 

 

By the way, this is much better.

 

Jukes x

[unbeliever]

To quote the late great Christopher Hitchens "I only need 100,000" and I'll give you a proxy if it helps. The presumption that might be is language troubles me deeply when we look at the variety of species and how they do and don't communicate and it still doesn't explain the kill switch (I apologise for the shorthand but I assume that we all know what mean by kill switch) or even something as basic as nurturing the young and my troubled mind is further sparked by the cuckoo (my proxy) which has strict biological and cultural behavioural differences within the species without any apparent culture to inform it.

 

 

By the way, this is much better.

 

Jukes x

 

I find it disrespectful to Hitchens to take his quote so out of context.

He used that phrase to point out the fallacy of thinking that after 100,000 years the creator of the universe showed up 5,000 years ago in bronze age Palestine and finally handed out the instructions.