Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 18, 2013 - 11:16am PT
|
So far, my take is that epigenetics is not likely to have played a significant role in the long-term evolution of hominids (or anything else). Lamarck really was wrong and Darwin was right. Epigenetics is a sideshow.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
|
|
Jan 18, 2013 - 12:12pm PT
|
eeyonkee,
I'm finding those epigenetic papers a little technical and hard to wrap my head around. If that was my introduction to this subject, I don't think that I would have the passion for it that I do.
Agree, no doubt today's wealth of animal stories (studies) esp in terms of biology, evolution, ecology, synergy, anatomy and physiology are fascinating. On a personal note, certainly they contributed (over very many years now) to my own private modeling for how life works and for how the world works.
Regarding epigenetics, I get what you're saying. It is technical. Very. I took graduate level courses in biochemistry and molecular biology (core disciplines concerning epigenetics) and got As in them on a stiff curve. That was 25 years ago. But if I took these same courses today in the same institution and on the same curve without prep, I'd get solid F's. That to me illustrates how technical these fields are. And how advanced the play is. (Which ain't very appreciated by many, it seems.) Certainly 'Use it or lose it'applies. It sucks that this is so. So it's clear to me I can't get too involved in "epigenetics" or other leading edge efforts, let alone the controversies, let alone the subtle ones. I’m just not qualified given today's state of the art. Besides, other interests are vying for attention too, and regards posting here, who would be the audience? :)
Gotta say though, it is nice to have that basic edu (and those many years of serious study) behind me that allows me to question, to make some sense of the arguments going on today, and to check the social media bs once in awhile. As of course you know, there's a great shocking amount of it out there - esp in the mixed company known as the American public.
I agree about the passion part. I'm glad I experienced Dawkins (also the Great Sagan) when I did. It was nice to experience SG, TEP, TBW (and the Great's works) in the same years I worked in bioengineering and life sciences. I'll always be grateful for the way these men via their books and their art of explaining helped pulled together my own life experiences in science and engineering and nature into a coherent framework that has served as support for my own "practice" in the art of living. (Sure beats the stuffing out of the old bronze-aged one, don't it?)
By the way, regarding knowledge and expertise, oh what I'd give to have your 12 years or so experience in software engineering. :) I just think it would be one more great knowledge system to have in my brain right now with everything going on in today's world. Though an EE long ago, I'm just blown away - pretty much every day now - by the evolution of today's software systems. Astonishes me every time I think about it - how far it's come.
.....
Another interesting topic of evolution I think concerns our motivation systems (or interest systems) as we age. Many are inclined to think our innate interest or motivation declines with age more or less because of an accumulating buildup of "been there, done that." I mean, how many times do you want to hike the same mountain. 10x. 100x. It's only natural for interest to wane afer so many "rinse and repeat" cycles. "Law of Diminishing Returns." In part, this is probably true.
However I suspect there might be something more to it.
In evolutionary context. Mother Nature is smart, never ceasing to impress. I suspect there's a good chance our waning interest in things (or waning motivation to do) as we age is wired in or programmed (not unlike graying or thinning hair or wrinkling) to evince the balance, the very balance, we see in the population, the social group, the species, across individuals. Part of evolutionary strategy: if you're past reproductive age, you don't warrant upkeep. In the end this leads to the evolutionary robustness evolutionists talk about and also the majesties of Mother Nature that impress us all everywhere.
It's a harsh concept, otherwise, harsh fact of life. Can be. Especially for those of us participating, that is, for those of us getting older every day, lol. But then again it's all utterly fascinating as well. The consolation prize, I guess.
"you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking"
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Jan 18, 2013 - 02:15pm PT
|
Part of evolutionary strategy: if you're past reproductive age, you don't warrant upkeep.
It might be said more like this:
Once you are past an age where you make a difference to the reproductive prospects of your offspring then there is no selection for traits which would extend your life span.
There is good evidence, I believe, that at least in hunter/gatherer settings grandmothers contribute to nutritional support for their grandchildren, and maybe grandfathers do also, but there was speculation that this could be part of why women live longer than men. They contribute more in old age to the likelihood their genes will prosper.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
|
|
Jan 18, 2013 - 02:30pm PT
|
All good points. I see what you're saying.
Grandpa and grandpa... as extended phenotypes.
Another speculation, a harsh one: Elders are not so indispensible - as extended phenotypes - to the community (leading to stability and fitness) as they once were. Relatively speaking. Because now we - oops, I mean the gene pool, has books, let alone computers and internet clouds, to store (the stories of) our past. (re: Memory as an extended phenotype conferring fitness.)
.....
For fun, let me revise (not post in such egregious shorthand):
Part of evolutionary strategy: insofar as you pass reproductive age, your genes and their expression (and by extension, you) in the face of entropy aren't so necessary to "the reproductive prospects of your offspring" and so thus get less upkeep. :)
Actually, all this material leads me to think I should re-read basic evolutionary theory along with Dawkins books now that I'm in my 50s, not 30s. More than a little rusty.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 18, 2013 - 03:06pm PT
|
The prevalence of cancer in people beyond their active reproduction age is a good example of Mother Nature not caring about them (us). It seems like only yesterday that me and Mother Nature were tight. Now, I'm an afterthought.
"Thought I'd something more to say..."
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
|
|
Jan 18, 2013 - 03:31pm PT
|
No worries, it's now in books. ;)
And, of course, in cyberspace... the ultimate extended phenotype. Right?
.....
The sun is the same in a relative way, but we're older.
And shorter of breath...
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 18, 2013 - 03:44pm PT
|
BTW, I meant afterthought. So then I got to thinking, I wonder how many children Ghengis Khan had after the age of, say, 55? I'm guessing, a lot (I'll look up whether he lived that long later). Hopefully I can do something with this factoid if it turns out to be what I think. I know. I'll try an offwidth harder than any I've tried to date (oh wait, been down that route already). Hmmm, that leaves either:
1)impregnating as many women as I can as fast as I can, or
2) something else, something I'm missing...
Cyberspace is a great example of an extended phenotype.
|
|
cowpoke
climber
|
|
Jan 18, 2013 - 07:53pm PT
|
Another study that is indirectly relevant to the OP question on altruism was published recently in Psych Science, the field's top empirical journal. It doesn't speak directly to questions of the evolution of altruism, but I think some will find it interesting nonetheless because it deals with altruism following an extraordinary event: huge earthquake in China.
Here is a link to the American Psych Society (the org for which the journal is their flagship) coverage of the article: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/were-only-human/unshakable-humanity-altruism-and-disaster.html
the paper is still "in press" but I will update once published, if there is interest.
for those who don't like to click, a big part of the story is:
Altruism is considered a hallmark of the human species’ success, and it’s a well-documented developmental milestone. Kids start off highly selfish and remain that way through preschool, but at about age six they start to become a bit more generous. This pattern, however, has only been studied in relatively affluent kids living in relatively peaceful circumstances. It’s entirely unknown if children would continue to act altruistically in the face of adversity. Will the precocious altruism of childhood survive severe tribulation, or will kids revert back to their earlier self-centeredness? The Sichuan earthquake provided a natural “stress test” to examine the strength of youthful generosity.
Before the earthquake hit, the scientists had given 6- and 9-year-old a version of what’s called the Dictator Game—considered the gold standard for measuring altruism in the lab. Working individually with a researcher, each child is allowed to select stickers to keep. But then afterward, they are asked if they would like to give some of their own stickers to an anonymous classmate who is not playing the game—and therefore has no stickers. The children make their donations in a sealed envelope, so they believe that nobody knows how much, if anything, they are giving away.
But the scientists do know, and this group of kids fit the normal pattern. That is, 6- and 9-year-olds were not significantly different in their altruistic giving in the time before the earthquake. Then, one month after the earthquake, the scientists gave the same test to another, similar group of 6- and 9-year-olds. (They couldn’t follow up with the same children, because they could not locate many of them.) They wanted to see if the normal development of altruism was affected by the disaster experience, in either age group.
And it was, in an interesting way. The 9-year-olds actually gave much more—they were more generous—after the earthquake than before. The experience appeared to solidify and indeed enhance their altruism. But the younger kids gave significantly less than before the quake. The immediate effect of the disaster was to make the 6-year-olds more selfish. Put another way, their new-found altruism did not survive the earthquake.
...
Three years after the earthquake, the kids’ altruistic giving returned to pre-quake levels, suggesting that the earlier changes were an acute response to the immediate aftermath of the disaster. In other words, the younger children opted for self-preservation in a crisis, suggesting that their emerging generosity is still fragile—but this reaction was not long-lasting. The altruism of the older children was apparently robust enough to withstand the challenge of adversity. Importantly, empathy for other victims was the pathway to generous action.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Jan 18, 2013 - 08:58pm PT
|
So then I got to thinking, I wonder how many children Ghengis Khan had after the age of, say, 55?
Yeah, there is that idea that he had a lot of descendants. I was pretty sure that a couple of my Polish work colleagues had some of his genes but wondered where the scientists got hold of the Ghengis Khan DNA. Apparently the evidence is less direct but still compelling.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Jan 19, 2013 - 04:21am PT
|
Algae with behavior (cheating, cooperation)...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
|
|
Jan 19, 2013 - 11:10am PT
|
Interesting topic?
In the pleistocene, cheaters were banished from the group. Alone, facing the wild, this often meant a pretty quick death. Sometimes the cheater's offspring were banished too.
Harsh, yes, but it was an effective gene-trait honing mechanism - selecting against lying, for instance, and selecting for truthfulness.
In comparison, in this user-friendly, incl cheater-friendly, liar-friendly, modern environment (and wide-open civilization) that we've created for ourselves, there are no serious checks relatively speaking on what evolutionary game theory calls defectors (aka, cheaters, liars, deceivers).
In short, the cheating genes of cheaters are permitted (by our civilized nature) to multiply unchecked.
Is this a concern?
.....
Is this yet another example where it seems... We are damned if we do and damned if we don't?
And if so, how do we work this idea or principle into a narrative, esp an inspiring, empowering narrative - for our playbook of living in the modern age?
Or, is there just no escape: You can put something of a civilizing cover over it for awhile (cf: lipstick on a pig) but below, underneath, the "born to lose" entropy runs strong as ever.
.....
Life strategy: Don't concern yourself with the next millenium. Don't concern yourself with the next continent over. It's all just way too complicated, unpredictable, and uncontrollable. So just enjoy the power of now. :)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jan 19, 2013 - 01:05pm PT
|
it's weird to read this thread, in particular given the time scale of evolution which is very long, not something done in a generation.
For instance, the thought that the chimpanzees' and humans' common ancestor dates back roughly 10 million years, representing perhaps 100,000 generations of which we commonly experience 3 or maybe 4... and that our current social situation, large populations living in large groups, has happened only very recently, perhaps in the last 10,000 years (of order 1000 generations?) would seem to put in context the action of an individual in a group, that is, evolution takes place over long time periods.
How you reconcile that with individual behavior and come up with some "reasonable story" of the effects of evolution is beyond me. How to discern the fitness landscape, separate from our own cultural dispositions, is truly a difficult task.
As an aside, a funny thing happened on Friday when I was reviewing "negative binomial distributions" see, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_binomial_distribution for entirely different, work related issues.
see the section there on Polygyny in African societies
convergent evolved thoughts?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
|
|
Jan 19, 2013 - 01:14pm PT
|
Ed, have you read The Selfish Gene or The Extended Phenotype? If so, what was your impression of these? Any thoughts? e.g., Thumbs up or thumbs down?
.....
Aside, will Wikivoyage (just launched)...
http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page
...eventually cover rock climbing sites and routes? and eventually compete with supertopo.com? Oh, my. :)
Rick Steves, Europe Through the Back Door, better watch out, lol.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jan 19, 2013 - 01:18pm PT
|
HFCS - no I haven't, probably should... I'm sure Debbie has some good popular books hanging 'round here from/for her classes...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
|
|
Jan 19, 2013 - 03:55pm PT
|
Part of the disconnect - that's always been some of my interest - is that most people, even probably most self-defined evolutionists (believers or supporters of evolution) don't see (1) evolution as mechanistic and causal deterministic through and through and (2) impulses or inclinations (like altruism, or competitivity or tendency to cheat) as evolutionary products evolved over a long evolutionary history.
What does being an evolutionist mean?
Imo, being a full-on evolutionist means (a) understanding that evolution is fully mechanistic, (b) understanding that all mental faculties and tendencies (and not just sexual orientation or sexual drive, ie., lust), and not just spleens and hearts and eye and skin color, are evolutionary output.
Unfortunately, I don't see a voting majority in America coming around to this full-on standing, or stance in belief, for a long long time if ever.
But on a positive note I do see a lot more young people coming around to basic evolutionary theory - even if they haven't worked out most of its implications for a brand new view of life and the world.
.....
re: Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors
I could've mentioned this book, too, as helping to pull together my basic thinking in an evolutionary naturalistic framework.
From wiki...
"Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors is a thrilling saga that starts with the origin of the Earth. It shows with humor and drama that many of our key traits — self-awareness, technology, family ties, submission to authority, hatred for those a little different from ourselves, reason, and ethics — are rooted in the deep past, and illuminated by our kinship with other animals.
"Sagan and Druyan conduct a breathtaking journey through space and time, zeroing in on critical turning points in evolutionary history, and tracing the origins of sex, altruism, violence, rape, and dominance. Their book culminates in a stunningly original examination of the connection between primate and human traits. Astonishing in scope, brilliant in its insights, and an absolutely compelling read, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors is a triumph of popular science."
SoFA certainly contributed to my own tectonic shift in thinking in my 20s and 30s, my later formative years.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jan 19, 2013 - 04:24pm PT
|
...at least we can conclude that slime molds are probably not Republican.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Jan 19, 2013 - 06:55pm PT
|
Ed's reference from Wiki on binomials and African polygyny is interesting to me because of the different vocabulary used to describe a familiar subject. What strikes me most about it however, is that it is descriptive but not explanatory.
Here's from a popular anthropology tutorial on kinship and marriage.
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/marriage/polygyny.html
Demographic theory suggests that polygyny may occur because of a surplus of women that results from a high incidence of male warfare. However, polygyny occurs in many situations of relatively balanced gender ratios or even, as in the case of the Yanomamo, where males outnumber females. Accordingly, some men accumulate two or more wives only at the expense of others who never marry, or, much more usually, marry at a later age than women do. As such, the society becomes divided between young bachelors, who may remain single into their thirties and older polygynists. This arrangement may occur informally or may become a marked feature of the social structure. For example, in some South African societies, such as the Zulu, all young men in their twenties were organized into military “age regiments” and were not allowed to marry until their term of service ended. As we have already suggested, differences in marital age are also created by bride wealth requirements.
The social division between polygynists and bachelors points to another prevalent theory of polygyny, which is based on social stratification. In societies where men are not distinguished by differences in access to productive resources, such as land and capital, status distinctions are mainly attained and expressed through direct control over people. This goal is most obviously acheived through incorporating many women into one’s domestic group and expanding it by fathering a large number of children. A stratificational theory of polygyny also accounts for its greater incidence in comparison to polyandry, since men tend to occupy higher statuses than women in the majority of societies.
From a strictly biological interpretation, I believe one would argue that dominant men who also happen to be lucky and survive warfare early in life, seek to maximize their genes through polygyny, status being only secondary?
Then again, it seems from the woman's point of view that while the smart old boy's club invented these institutions, subsequent generations of men got so entangled in maintaining status, the original point was lost on all of the participants.
And couldn't this be said for any human institution including religion?
|
|
cowpoke
climber
|
|
Jan 20, 2013 - 04:00pm PT
|
OK, here is a silly thing bugging me about the algae news release. I find it strange that in the science daily press release for the "cheating" algae the authors use a comparison to group behaviors like schools of fish. This is a poor analogy, IMO, because unlike the authors suggest in the release, it is not necessary that all algae in the group release the toxin (such as they say is required of schools of fish...side question: is it true that there are no individual fish who benefit from the school by swimming close enough, without fully participating in the school?). For these algae to be successful, as a group, it is only necessary that there is a critical mass of participants. Indeed, isn't the critical mass notion precisely why they observe "free riders?" My opinion on this sales strategy is not critiquing the study, per se; I'm just thrown (and being nitpicky) by the authors' interpretations of why they think the study is important. (Another side note: I am totally in favor of scientists publicizing their work. And, to do so well, you have to have a good story to sell the consumer. In this case, I would think a better story would have been to focus on the fact that in many group behaviors it is critical mass that is important, not 100% buy in.)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|