Has our achievements stumped our evolution?

[Jukes]

There's no genetic "kill" switch. Usually the training and pressures on a human disincline them toward murder.

 

And what of the amoebae?

 

Jukes x

[Futures Red]

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

 

Could evolutionary biology cause evolutionary culture or could evolutionary culture cause evolutionary biology?

 

To me, it's not black and white as some might suggest. The problem with "science" is that it has to see it to believe it and won't allow themselves to get curious. Its a little like religion in that respect; it's in the book so it has to be true! More of being told what to think rather than how to think.

 

Enjoying your posts btw

[unbeliever]

And what of the amoebae?

 

Jukes x

 

I have no idea what you think this means.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2016 at 12:19 ----------

 

Could evolutionary biology cause evolutionary culture or could evolutionary culture cause evolutionary biology?

 

To me, it's not black and white as some might suggest. The problem with "science" is that it has to see it to believe it and won't allow themselves to get curious. Its a little like religion in that respect; it's in the book so it has to be true! More of being told what to think rather than how to think.

 

Enjoying your posts btw

 

Oh you're back. Great.

Science is the antithesis of religion. You on the other hand are showing a lot of religious traits by taking ideas with no grounding in evidence and promoting them on the basis of spurious pseudo-logic.

 

Scientists operate on the basis of tempered open-mindedness. Otherwise, to give one example out of thousands, Einstein would never have been permitted to contradict Newton. That's quite different from accepting any random idea presented without any basis in fact or suggestion as to how it might be tested.

Edited May 25, 2016 by unbeliever

[truman]

The problem with "science" is that it has to see it to believe it and won't allow themselves to get curious. I

 

Of course science is curious..how else would discoveries ever be made? If scientists weren't curious they'd never start to investigate things..

[Jukes]

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.

 

I believe that I referred to Moses earlier today and you certainly picked up on the connection although he is placed at around 1300BC so that gives us a bit less time to work with. I'm a professional thinker and writer, so call it a flourish if you like as I'd like to think that Hitchens would be delighted to be recalled in such a way. You've got to give it Team Moses though as the tablets of stone have turned out to be a persistent meme although I'm just curious about how authentic they are compared to evolution.

 

Jukes x

[unbeliever]

I believe that I referred to Moses earlier today and you certainly picked up on the connection although he is placed at around 1300BC so that gives us a bit less time to work with. I'm a professional thinker and writer, so call it a flourish if you like as I'd like to think that Hitchens would be delighted to be recalled in such a way. You've got to give it Team Moses though as the tablets of stone have turned out to be a persistent meme although I'm just curious about how authentic they are compared to evolution.

 

Jukes x

 

I was working from memory. I've seen pretty much all of the recorded debates in which Hitchens participated. The point stands though.

[Futures Red]

I have no idea what you think this means.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2016 at 12:19 ----------

 

 

Oh you're back. Great.

Science is the antithesis of religion. You on the other hand are showing a lot of religious traits by taking ideas with no grounding in evidence and promoting them on the basis of spurious pseudo-logic.

 

Scientists operate on the basis of tempered open-mindedness. Otherwise, to give one example out of thousands, Einstein would never have been permitted to contradict Newton. That's quite different from accepting any random idea presented without any basis in fact or suggestion as to how it might be tested.

 

I take a philosophical approach whereby I believe no one is wrong and everything is possible. As for religion... for me personally I don't really have a religion. Spiritual, yes probably but then again science was born out of spirituality.

 

It's important also not to overcompensate too much on intellect.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2016 at 12:34 ----------

 

Of course science is curious..how else would discoveries ever be made? If scientists weren't curious they'd never start to investigate things..

 

The elite scientists yes they are curious, but most can't see past their noses.

[Jukes]

I have no idea what you think this means.

Then you haven't been listening about the question of why an organism, any organism simple or sophisticated, doesn't just gobble up its nearest neighbour. A conclusion is that the kill switch is off by default in certain circumstances which is in itself a quite sophisticated thing when you think about it and it brings us back squarely to the evolutionary benefits of the kill switch being OFF. By any measure, this is not clearly cultural, it is apparently biological. Culture, nurture, call it what you will, is what presses the switch to ON but it is not what sets the switch to OFF.

 

If there is some evidence that says the kill switch is set to OFF by culture I would like to see it.

 

Jukes x

[unbeliever]

I take a philosophical approach whereby I believe no one is wrong and everything is possible. As for religion... for me personally I don't really have a religion. Spiritual, yes probably but then again science was born out of spirituality.

 

It's important also not to overcompensate too much on intellect.

 

Fair enough.

But I shall evaluate your ideas in that context.

Philosophy is a precursor to science from before mankind realised the value of experiment. It survives primarily in the regions which science has yet to successfully conquer.

Your attempts to apply it to areas already within the domain of science is doomed and will justifiably leave you subject to ridicule.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2016 at 12:38 ----------

 

Then you haven't been listening about the question of why an organism, any organism simple or sophisticated, doesn't just gobble up its nearest neighbour. A conclusion is that the kill switch is off by default in certain circumstances which is in itself a quite sophisticated thing when you think about it and it brings us back squarely to the evolutionary benefits of the kill switch being OFF. By any measure, this is not clearly cultural, it is apparently biological. Culture, nurture, call it what you will, is what presses the switch to ON but it is not what sets the switch to OFF.

 

If there is some evidence that says the kill switch is set to OFF by culture I would like to see it.

 

Jukes x

 

Your conclusions are ill-informed and quite, quite wrong.

Cannibalism is quite common where it is practical. Many species struggle to eat things their own size for obvious reasons.

[Cyclone]

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

 

There is no kill switch. Humans are clearly capable of killing, as are many other animals.

We have a complex society which means that we in the west are very unlikely to kill or be killed, this is not a genetic thing though.

 

Re:Cuckoo's. Some simple research

 

The biggest mystery, though, is how the polymorphism for color pattern is maintained. How, for example, does a female “know” where to lay its egg? If it had the genes for producing eggs that mimic reed warblers, and laid its egg in a dunnock nest, that egg would be summarily ejected and its genes would not be passed on.

 

This problem is overcome by imprinting: a female imprints on the song and appearance of its foster mother, so when it comes time for a cuckoo to lay its own egg, it goes right back to a nest harboring a female on which it’s imprinted.

So it is entirely learned behaviour, but one that doesn't require a culture or even a grouping.