luka

Well-known member
Staff member
in that if you have a kid your genes get passed on and if you don't they dont.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
if thats not right then my understanding of this stuff is even more flawed than i thought it was
 

littlebird

Wild Horses
natural selection doesn't explain things terribly well. i mean, if you just take death and success in breeding as the only factors in changing genetic makeup. then add a few mutations. burroughs was always going on about viruses becoming symbiotes. thats fairly accepted now right?
natural selection is too simplistic if it is just a death vs. breeding success, because as you pointed out there are mutations, viruses (mutated, but also man-made/created), the affect on environmental issues, etc.

seems there are the big buckets to fall into - creation vs. evolution. but once there, it is more a question of the science you are aware of/agree with, the known and the unknown factors, and what you choose to accept.

in some ways it is a belief system. whether it is just a question of science and variation, it is something one chooses to believe, is it not?
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
in that if you have a kid your genes get passed on and if you don't they dont.
Sure. If you have a kid. But your kid's genes might mutate. Then the environmental conditions may change so your kid doesn't survive.

This is how I would explain it:

Say you have a very fast metabolism. This only works well, it's only "adaptive", when times are good and food is plenty, usually for people who live in agricultural societies and can rely on a harvest. But say you have two kids, and those kids' genes mutate, and one kid has a fast metabolism like you, and one has an even faster metabolism than you. Then your tribe moves, and there's a famine. You and your kids die very quickly from starvation, due to their fast metabolisms, and your genes aren't passed on to the next generation.

But your neighbor guy with the really slow metabolism who doesn't end up living as long as you, so he only had one kid--his genes win out in the end, because his kids survive the famine and go on to reproduce. Thus the slow metabolism gene is "selected" into the gene pool of a population that just experienced a long famine.

Does this make sense?
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
when i say i don't beleive in evolution, and this is wearisome, having to spell this out, as i would have liked to think, given contxt, that this was fairly clear, that there seems to be more factors at play. now a lot of these things are not heretical, scientifucally, as far as i know. for example, viruses etc. other organisms melding themselves into human dna or whatever (excuse my loose use of terms i don't have any clear knowedge of) or like that docuentary taht claimed things 'learned' in the course of a lifetime could be passed on, eg a taste for lsd. (it didn't give that example, i made it up)
also the idea of a guiding intelligence at some level beyond the indivudual, whether at dna level or whatever is not one iw ould dismiss out of hand.
facts are facts is always a vacous thing to say. regardless of circumstance.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
yeah nomad i understand that much, i have read books and watched tv and stuff.
i just mean my understanding of it is based around as i say, a couple of dawkins popular science stuff, some docos and school lessons 15 years ago
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
when i say i don't beleive in evolution, and this is wearisome, having to spell this out, as i would have liked to think, given contxt, that this was fairly clear, that there seems to be more factors at play. now a lot of these things are not heretical, scientifucally, as far as i know. for example, viruses etc. other organisms melding themselves into human dna or whatever (excuse my loose use of terms i don't have any clear knowedge of) or like that docuentary taht claimed things 'learned' in the course of a lifetime could be passed on, eg a taste for lsd. (it didn't give that example, i made it up)
also the idea of a guiding intelligence at some level beyond the indivudual, whether at dna level or whatever is not one iw ould dismiss out of hand.
facts are facts is always a vacous thing to say. regardless of circumstance.
Sorry I'm not really sure what you mean.

What documentary that claimed things "learned" in the course of a lifetime could be passed on? That seems kinda far-fetched but I'd be interested in any research that supports this. I mean wouldn't that be more likely to be from upbringing than DNA?

We are bacteria, Luka.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
uhm, i didn't watch it. my dad told me about it. he liked it cos it was a way for him to blame himself for my wastrel ways.
maybe someone else watched it. it was on tv in the uk. maybe 4 or 5 years ago?
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Consciousness and other mediating factors (spirituality, blah blah, whatever) can also be part of human evolution, they're not mutually exclusive, or an either/or, where it's either evolution or humans with intelligence.

Intelligence or cognitive ability is part of what makes us unique as primates and even among primates.
 

littlebird

Wild Horses
totally, and I've noticed that a lot of people who've come up in religious environments where it was forced strictly on them, like say Catholicism or Mormonism, end up allergic to religion. Understandably.
i think for a good long while i would have defined myself as being "allergic to religion", though that would almost suggest that i am not tolerant of religion, which for the most part i am. and i've been intrigued/interested in the studies of differing religions. i suppose that is why i categorize/tend to socialize with agnostics, and athiests, too.

i grew up around the kind of "Christian Right non-denominational" types you refer to. actually went to grade school, for two years, at the "positive thinking" California-mecca that is that glass monstrosity (Crystal Cathedral) in Anaheim/Garden Grove. :confused:

(your location suggests you'll know where i mean)

and yes, it did have more in common with New Age-y rhetoric, then any religious doctrine that i've come in contact with.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
anyway, i just wanted to laugh at people getting worked up and indignant, as usual.
i need to use my time more profitably.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
anyway, i just wanted to laugh at people getting worked up and indignant, as usual.
i need to use my time more profitably.
You really underestimate people if you think Dissensus gets anyone "indignant"...pfff.

It's the internet. Look at any other message board, this one is like British Tea Time with the Queen or some shit.
 

littlebird

Wild Horses
or like that docuentary taht claimed things 'learned' in the course of a lifetime could be passed on, eg a taste for lsd. (it didn't give that example, i made it up)
also the idea of a guiding intelligence at some level beyond the indivudual, whether at dna level or whatever is not one iw ould dismiss out of hand.
would these 'learned' things include artistic talent? tendency towards chemical dependency? being say "tone deaf" or musically inclined? "psychic ability" if one believes in that existance?

this may be veering too far into an arguement of nature vs. nurture, but was just curious about the docu you mentioned (though i appreciate you also mentioned you hadn't watched it yourself).
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
incidently though, another thing which makes me think is
given theres such a panopoly of factors in play, it seems slightly blithe to suggest such and such a trait survives becasue it is adaptive.
given that it is always co-existing with a whole host of other factors which may or may not be adaptive. am i making myself clear?
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
so for instance, i do have a very fast metabolism, i also have asthma, poor eyesight,
long legs, blue eyes, quick reflexes, etc etc etc
 

littlebird

Wild Horses
It's the internet. Look at any other message board, this one is like British Tea Time with the Queen or some shit.
granted i am quite new here, so i do not have historical experience to base this on, but i've certainly seen forums get very ugly, making "indignant" seem a mild description.

it is the nature of any situation where one isn't face-to-face with the person/people they are conversing with, thus having a "distance" between what they say and the subsequent reaction.

but everyone here does seem "relatively" well-behaved (suppose that is what you meant by Tea Time, eh?)
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
incidently though, another thing which makes me think is
given theres such a panopoly of factors in play, it seems slightly blithe to suggest such and such a trait survives becasue it is adaptive.
given that it is always co-existing with a whole host of other factors which may or may not be adaptive. am i making myself clear?
Of course. No scientist would ever suggest (or none ever should) that we can look back and map out which traits were selected in exactly when, how and why. We can only get a general picture of how these changes happened slowly, slowly, slowly over millions of years.
 

littlebird

Wild Horses
so for instance, i do have a very fast metabolism, i also have asthma, poor eyesight,
long legs, blue eyes, quick reflexes, etc etc etc
doesn't mean you would pass all of those "traits" along to a child, though. they have a chance of carrying on any of those things, or any of it from the other parent, or neither - skipping generations and carrying recessive genes/traits from say grandparents from either side.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
granted i am quite new here, so i do not have historical experience to base this on, but i've certainly seen forums get very ugly, making "indignant" seem a mild description.

it is the nature of any situation where one isn't face-to-face with the person/people they are conversing with, thus having a "distance" between what they say and the subsequent reaction.

but everyone here does seem "relatively" well-behaved (suppose that is what you meant by Tea Time, eh?)
Oh, yeah, there are a couple of people here who have brought their sulking into basically every thread lately, but they're funny to watch. Nothing drastic.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
doesn't mean you would pass all of those "traits" along to a child, though. they have a chance of carrying on any of those things, or any of it from the other parent, or neither - skipping generations and carrying recessive genes/traits from say grandparents from either side.
im fully aware of this. its another thing which makes me think that evolution theory isn't this magic tool which explain everything thereby freeing us from the need to ever think again.
 
Top