Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 10, 2016 - 05:03pm PT
|
Welcome to the thread, skcreidc.
.....
Note among an informed audience, one could speak just as easily of "gravitational pressure" as "selection pressure" (eg, minimized or maximized, on or off) without controversy. Only those desiring to stand out for some reason or other would... "I object!"
It's a shame, really, for we could have some really interesting conversations otherwise.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 10, 2016 - 05:11pm PT
|
Does this mean evolution isn't always at work in the background? No.
Unreal... the issue isn't to question the validity of evolution but to point out the fact that the game changes when human beings take it over and engineer the code to their own preference.
If humanity is in charge of the code then nature's selection in a "natural" sense becomes irrelevant. You can make the argument that man is just the fittest of species and natural selection continues on through him but that doesn't mitigate the change that has taken place making us both apart and a part. Continuing on the same path we will become the arbiters of existence on this planet given the absence of geologic catastrophe. That makes us special; better get our moral compass working.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 10, 2016 - 05:14pm PT
|
So re: your three or four points in previous post (to be clear: all valid) who are you arguing against?
Who? Who? Who?
Or, what is the purpose of the "unreal" response?
.....
nature's selection in a "natural" sense becomes irrelevant
It's as if you are arguing against the Smartass, dmt, actually.
Is this true?
.....
better get our moral compass working
Better wake up. We're already on it. Look at the differences we've made just under Obama's watch.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 10, 2016 - 05:17pm PT
|
The argument is against those who believe humanity is simply another cog in the evolutionary wheel and doesn't somehow stand apart from the rest of creation.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 10, 2016 - 05:22pm PT
|
Well, who are "those" to whom you refer?
Is it another caricature?
Whether the response is a yes or no (just as in the cases of "defying" gravity or natural selection) depends on context.
But then I've come to see (eg from the MikeL ilk) that contrarian argument (bristling w poser puffery / bouffant) is a game unto itself - so carry on, have at it, if this is your game.
(1) Humanity is a cog in the evolutionary wheel. Check.
(2) Humanity stands apart. Check.
There. Satisfied?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 10, 2016 - 09:06pm PT
|
We get overly concerned about all the supposedly "bad" mutations which are not being eliminated by natural selection. Think of a few points, though.
1 When some great new hardship - natural selection event begins, all that matters is that there are some mutations that can survive the change, and that those mutations had to be already existing. All the "bad" mutations become irrelevant. They are eliminated as if they had never existed.
Thanks for the model. Could you give an example of where or how this has worked in the animal kingdom?
Could you use the case of the Long beaked Fitches in your model? Was the "long beak" first a "bad mutation" that became a good mutation later because of maybe a die-off of short throated flowers, or an over abundance of long throated flowers?
i do consider the "shortbeaked" bird as being the first to rise, before the longbeaked one's. But who knows right, the LB bird's may have come first and the the short beak was the mutation?
Thought experiment; let's scientifically hibreed a long, long throated flower(like 2ft.) and go plant a bunch on the Galapagos. Then check back periodically and see if the tantalization of a forbidden fruit causes a mutation. Do you think it would?
We could prolly hire Dr.Fry to build the flower;)
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 10, 2016 - 09:23pm PT
|
allele (ə-lēl')
Any of the possible forms in which a gene for a specific trait can occur. In almost all animal cells, two alleles for each gene are inherited, one from each parent. Paired alleles (one on each of two paired chromosomes) that are the same are called homozygous, and those that are different are called heterozygous. In heterozygous pairings, one allele is usually dominant, and the other recessive. Complex traits such as height and longevity are usually caused by the interactions of numerous pairs of alleles, while simple traits such as eye color may be caused by just one pair.
This sounds more like a flip of the coin, over randomness dont'cha think?
i don't think it should be called any of those! i believe everything, including such a basic one as, "hair color" to be very much precisely weighed and balanced from the info provided when allele's pair..
Maybe you would call a young Chinese couple having a baby with red hair; Random?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
May 11, 2016 - 07:44am PT
|
Fruity, you can be such a drama queen. I think you relish the role on this thread. It doesn’t matter WHAT you say, as long as you stir it up. (Have fun, my friend.)
If folks like concepts / theories, then they might consider stretching “evolution” or adapt it to more contemporary characteristics of environmental conditions and circumstances. Briefly,
(i) There are environments.
(ii) Specie within environments are more successful when they are more suited than competing species to their environments (by virtue of their characteristics and capabilities that allow them to draw critical scarce resources more effectively than competing specie). The proof of their superior defining characteristics is that they reproduce more abundantly than competing specie.
Most people here talk about environments and specie as being physically defined. But one might argue that we now live in a world of immense production capabilities and considerably more efficient allocation systems, and that these have give risen to broader and deeper scarce resource pools for populations.
Hence, the relevant specifications of specie characterization might be shifting from an emphasis of physical characteristics to more social, psychological, and spiritual (sic) specifications which could be learned or actively managed—perhaps even by individuals themselves. The regulating “environments” are less physical and more social / psychological. Here, mutations might well simply be new ideas, new practices, and new metrics or symbols that signal success and capability to others in a (human) species. For example, men who are more wealthy or who make more money appear to be more attractive to women, whereas women who are more physically attractive are more attractive to men. (Artists’ renditions of the attractiveness of men and women have changed over a few hundred years.) These characteristics are not necessarily hereditary but perhaps learned capabilities and characteristics, socially and psychologically.
However, to even consider stretching the concept of evolution, one must be open to facets of reality that are not strictly physical, material, or discretely measurable.
Much of what we do and are, it seems to me, are not physical. Change / impermanence appears to be in everything and everywhere—and of course in our civilization, societies, sub-communities, and individual identities. Evolution, if it is to be a robust model, needs to have something to say about how change occurs among and within specie. I’m arguing here that important characteristics need to be expanded beyond what is strictly physical.
In one of my fields of study (organizations), we talk about the forms of organizations and their success rates, and we measure those by watching their birth and death rates, as well as mimetic pressure to copy what appear to be more successful forms. (If further interested, search “Population Ecology”.)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 11, 2016 - 07:59am PT
|
You can make the argument that man is just the fittest of species and natural selection continues on through him as nature but that doesn't mitigate the change that has taken place making us both apart and a part. Continuing on the same path we will become the arbiters of existence on this planet given the absence of geologic catastrophe. That makes us special; better get our moral compass working. No other sentient creature in the long history of planet earth has taken from nature the authority of evolving species. Humans have by mapping the genetic code and manipulating it directly not just for themselves but for any life form they choose. In that is a clear separation from what nature was.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 11, 2016 - 08:21am PT
|
If by arbiter of existence you mean angels of death, well, I have to agree with you there.
He who can destroy a thing, controls that thing.
Too much pessimism. Angels of life as well, angels of a better life. Humanity has remarkable potential for both good and bad and that's why a philosophical underpinning celebrating the good is so necessary to disciplines like technology and science. You don't achieve such a philosophy by simply disparaging the human race, by declaring our awfulness or by declaring us an unimportant species perhaps unsuitable for this world. The notion of our irrelevance is the Achilles' heel of romanticism as it interferes/inhibits so directly with our potential. Better to celebrate what we really are: a most remarkable species with a mind enabling us to take control
of evolution from nature.
|
|
cintune
climber
Colorado School of Mimes
|
|
|
May 11, 2016 - 10:14am PT
|
The notion of our irrelevance is the Achilles' heal of romanticism
A telling typo, or myth as metaphor?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 11, 2016 - 10:39am PT
|
A telling typo, or myth as metaphor?
I prefer to think of it as a profound and irrefutable statement, typo or not.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 11, 2016 - 03:40pm PT
|
Your statement is not "irrefutable" in light of Romanticism which espoused the individual's promise, celebrating imagination and inspiration. Instead of your Achilles' heel analogy, consider Mary Shelley's Frankenstein where Victor Frankenstein and his creature mirror Daedalus and Icarus.
I don't disagree with the above, but my point has to do with the elevation/worship of nature that filled the religious vacuum of the 19th c. and became a kind of pathology in the 20th some eventually declaring humanity unworthy to even occupy the planet. Partly due to the realization of what humanity had done to the environment and partly due to the worship of nature the scales of reason tipped. There's much in the romantic movement that is positive and to be admired.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
May 11, 2016 - 04:25pm PT
|
Fruity, you can be such a drama queen
Rather than a valley girl or a practicing metaphysicist ?
consider Mary Shelley's Frankenstein . . .
In the TV series Penny Dreadful, the "monster" is portrayed as a poet and in most instances intelligent and kindly. There are exceptions.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 11, 2016 - 08:20pm PT
|
Penny Dreadful is such a delicious mashup of gothic themes and characters. Dr. Frankenstein and his monsters, egyptian mythology and gods, vampires of various iterations including Dracula, Dorian Gray, a werewolf, Dr. Jekyll, witches, a heroic British adventurer, an African warrior, an American Indian warrior-medicine man. What more could you want!?
Note: Mary Shelley depicted Frankenstein's creature as sensitive and romantic - of intelligence, a lover of reading and poetry, and great longing for the connection and love he was denied due to his appearance.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
May 11, 2016 - 09:12pm PT
|
jgill: Rather than a valley girl or a practicing metaphysicist ?
You don’t need to denigrate those who want to know what things really are. Valley girls see things as less serious or concrete. What is, is what is happening in the moment. Are you saying that there is something that IS concrete and serious?
The fool in Shakespeare’s plays are often seen naively as a character who adds to the randomness of Life’s expressiveness--but not by critics or analysts. The fool is often seen as a character who says truth to power.
Is it foolish to say that most everything that we consensually think is important and concrete is thusly so?
Tempests in teapots? Truly . . . what really matters?
;->
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 11, 2016 - 09:43pm PT
|
The meaning (archetype) of The Fool Tarot card in upright position, or natural aspect, is -
"The Fool Tarot card is a card of potential, new beginnings and innocence. This Tarot card shows the highest potential for your life, reaching a state of renewal and new beginnings, where each day is an adventure and each moment is lived to the fullest. The Fool card represents the beginning of all creativity and a desire to accomplish new goals (or to, at least, start the process of working towards those goals). The Fool indicates that anything can happen and the opportunities are just waiting to be taken advantage of.
In a Tarot reading, the Fool represents the need to set forth on a new journey, one that is completely unknown and will take you to uncharted territories. The Fool is all about new experiences, personal growth, development and adventure. The Fool Tarot card asks you to take a ‘leap of faith’ and to trust in the Universe in that if you begin a new journey, you will find success. This Fool lives a carefree life, free from worry and anxiety. He does not seem to mind if he does not really know what lies ahead.
The Fool Tarot card may represent a choice to be made—one of vital importance. However, there are always many different options available and the choice must be made wisely. If you are facing a decision or moment of doubt, the Fool encourages you to believe in yourself and follow your heart no matter how crazy or foolish your impulses may seem. This is a time when you need to truly ‘believe’ and have faith in where the Universe is taking you.
The Fool is an excellent Tarot card to meditate on if you are experiencing a lot of fear in your life. The Fool enhances courage, risk-taking and the creative expression needed to open up new areas in your life.
The Fool is always whole, healthy and without fear. He is the spirit of who we are, the spirit expressed and experienced as wonder, awe, curiosity and anticipation. We never know what is in the future but like the Fool we must blindly go forward. You need to trust that you are a spirit born into flesh to enjoy life and grow in experience. Take a chance and see what happens."
 from BiddyTarot.com
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
May 12, 2016 - 07:54am PT
|
I just can’t get the images of “Young Frankenstein” out of my mind. Way too funny, especially at the end. :-D
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
May 12, 2016 - 09:37am PT
|
“Oh, sweet mystery of life, at last I’ve found you!”
“Where you going? Oh, you men are all alike. Seven or eight quick ones and then you’re out with the boys to boast and brag.”
“You haven’t even touched your food.” — Inga
“There. Now I’ve touched it. Happy? — Dr. Frankenstein, after slapping the food
Too, too funny.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 12, 2016 - 10:00am PT
|
DMT, Penny Dreadful is a delightful mashup that is over the top, but delicious nonetheless. The depiction of Frankenstein's creature is true to Shelley.
Note : There are actually three in the show, but the primary characterization - his second creature - is the one I'm referring to here. His third creature is a characterization of a powerful mind and body lacking a soul - embodiment of psycopathic self-interest.
Edit: Enjoy!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!