bad science example
June 26, 2007 at 5:12 pm #7889
This article insensed me because it was all hype. It shows either how far Internet science news sites will go to over-promote their stories and/or what lengths researchers will go to make their negative findings seem like something positive.
The hype is that they have found we are still experiencing evolution. This is desired by them and others only because, otherwise, their social theory has no explanation for all the change in human society/culture occuring in the last some 200,000 years! You read it and you get the impression the mystery is solved.
But, alas, down at the bottom of the story you read that the evolution they are referring to is some SHRINKAGE of the brain case, slightly smaller teeth and weaker skeletal structure—and slight metabolic changes!
Not only is significant further evolution NOT occuring, but it is not even desirable. If it can happen, it proves the point of the Social Darwinists and, hence, the issue of super and inferior races! By genetic selection, Hitler COULD have create a super race!
But we are NOT evolving biologically. What has been happening over the tens of thousands of years since we developed language is the non-biological evolution of RELIGIONS. A separate type of natural selection process is occuring with them that slowly eliminates the older and outgrown ones and in that way carries us along with our growing total human cultural heritage.
The process has gradually accelerated, but not enough, I fear, to deal with the present ominous state of things . . .
June 26, 2007 at 8:38 pm #74210DarbyParticipant
You’re an example of a common occurrence in science that has less to do with science and more to do with the humans producing it: you are so invested in your pet hypothesis that you feel compelled to believe that it and only it has any effect or relevance. If evolution is in religion, then it can’t be happening biologically – but how does that make any sense? In fact, this "my idea and none other" is closer to religious thinking than scientific.
Of course there is biological evolution going on in humans. You can debate whether the changes are good or not, but there are allele shifts in populations, some of which skew phenotypic ratios already, and that’s the benchmark of evolution.
June 26, 2007 at 9:26 pm #74212quote Darby:
No one believes we have perfect statis. Yes, there are biological changes going on among various populations, but none of them explain the growth of the human cultural heritage and the expansion of our population. There is always change, but it is some sort of social evolution that can only account for the social change. I am interested in your alternative. Do you believe "we just lifted ourselves up with our bootstraps" or that we can credit it all to "great men?" Or to "God?" Is it "the economic imparitive" or do "memes" somehow explain it?
This is a good subject . . .
The only function religions serve is to bind us into societies. When they are new, they are advanced and form a rigid ideological framwork that enables the society to survive for mutliple centuries. These, then, are the units or organisms of a non-biological, non-genetic based system. Because the belief systems are rigid, a natural selection process is able to operate that has nothing to do with genes and chromosomes. It has much to do with the most advanced new religions creating bigger and better societies and civilizations which last longer. The old and primitive animisms or whatever are pushed aside in the process and replaced
But all are expendible like all life. When the religions and their societies grow old, they weaken. We all do with age. Eventually they are replaced.
June 26, 2007 at 11:45 pm #74216JDavidEParticipant
Sorry, Charles. I agree with Darby’s reply. I have read your various submissions (and responses to other topics) and though I see the point you are making, I just don’t accept it. Though maybe I am being obtuse.
I think it is the fact that we (our species) are capable of cultural imprinting that allows us to maintain/expand our civilisation, not the flavour of that imperative. Without this social contract we should not have overcome the balancing forces of nature. As hunter/gatherers, the individual has to become one or the other in order to make it work (in simplistic terms). If we each went our separate way, I doubt we would, as a species, have survived this long except in some comfortable niche environment.
If your supposition is valid then there must also be a preferred societal more. What then of those civilisations that collapsed due to outside influences such as prolonged drought? And, how do you explain the inability of Neanderthal to survive along with us? The evidence is that they too were capable of cultural cohesion.
And in argument to your theory that the old (hence unworkable) values are discarded as an evolutionary imperative, why then does anarchy still persist in every culture, however discrete it may be?
July 7, 2007 at 6:58 pm #74428Heronumber0Participant
Have you guys hears of Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis?
‘EAM holds that adaptation is reactive – that is, that it does not begin until after the environment induces an adaptive reaction in the organism. Also, it begins precisely at that organic point where the environmental pressure is applied, not necessarily at that part of the organism known as the genome, unless that is where the pressure is being applied. EAM is, therefore, an ‘adaptive’ mechanism, not a ‘selective’ mechanism, (such as is the famous, Random Genetic Mutation plus Natural Selection). More importantly, adaptation and adaptive evolution are seen as intentional dynamic processes, rather than as accidental and coincidental, passively experienced, anomalous events’
July 9, 2007 at 12:15 pm #74453DarbyParticipant
So far as I’ve read, EAM has only been indicated in bacteria, right-? And they’re still trying to figure out just what is going on…
July 21, 2007 at 5:14 pm #74710quote JDavidE:
I just came across your post!
We don’t seem to agree on anything so it is a bit difficult to respond! "Cultural imprinting," "flavour of the imperitive." "balancing forces of nature," "a preferred societal more.". . . What ARE you talking about? I don’t recognize any of what you are against as being my position. We exist in two separate paradigms and don’t seem able to communicate . . .
July 23, 2007 at 12:11 am #74740AstusAleatorParticipantquote Darby:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.