Evolutionary Science And Its Implications

[manxman2]

interesting that slim.

 

but i dont get your point .. unless you are saying its some of the particulate that is being viewed doing 180 degree turns, aswell as coming to a full stop and then moving of again in a different direction after several seconds or even a minute or more...

 

i agree in the sense that some appear to be micro meteorites and go str8 in one direction at a steady volocity.but i have no data to support that fact.

 

My point is debris was viewed as a serious problem for on board cameras.

 

The movement is explained, as has been done to death, by the effect of the lense distortion or by the effect of the shuttle on the particles that surround it. The particle you see changing direction could be on an eliptical orbit around something, and when you see it stop, what's actually happening is it's coming towards the camera. There's stuff going on, there's boosters firing, there's venting, there's other particles, there's reflected light, there's movement. It could be anything. The guys there knew what it was, they explaind what it was, the explanation fits observations and that's the end of it.

 

youve already been editing it china to siut your self centred smug bastard attitude and views .. and we wont mention the completely fabricated quotes either will we .. poxy behaviour from someone who considers himself an intellectual having to stoop so low to get the upper hand in a debate with a retard .. thats why i am referencing any on subjuct relevent points on the thread in general discussions .. looking the part or appearing to is far more important to you than substance .. you seem to think your opinion is all thats needed in any discussion .. you want to see evolution in progress survival of the fittest come on down to ballasalla and try your smug bastard attitude with me face to face and you will get to see raw animal instinct first hand..

 

 

shower of pricks.

Edited June 27, 2009 by manxman2

[Slim]

youve already been editing it china to siut your self centred smug bastard attitude and views .. thats why i am referencing any on subjuct relevent points on the thread in general discussions .. looking the part or appearing to is far more important to you than substance .. you seem to think your opinion is all thats needed in any discussion .. you want to see evolution in progress survival of the fittest come on down to ballasalla and try your smug bastard attitude with me face to face and you will get to see raw animal instinct first hand..

 

 

shower of pricks.

 

I'm Slim, not Chinahand. Is that a threat?

[Chinahand]

we wont mention the completely fabricated quotes either will we

What completely fabricated quotes?

[Lao]

youve already been editing it china to siut your self centred smug bastard attitude and views .. and we wont mention the completely fabricated quotes either will we .. poxy behaviour from someone who considers himself an intellectual having to stoop so low to get the upper hand in a debate with a retard .. thats why i am referencing any on subjuct relevent points on the thread in general discussions .. looking the part or appearing to is far more important to you than substance .. you seem to think your opinion is all thats needed in any discussion .. you want to see evolution in progress survival of the fittest come on down to ballasalla and try your smug bastard attitude with me face to face and you will get to see raw animal instinct first hand..

 

 

shower of pricks.

 

did you just threaten someone on the internet with physical violence?

 

quite simply you are pathetic.

 

physical intimidation has no place in the arena of debate, you have stooped so low as to render all possible points of argument on your side completely moot.

 

do you really think that violence changes minds? if so please refrain from joining in on debates with rational people, your type of attitude is most unwelcome.

[Slim]

do you really think that violence changes minds? if so please refrain from joining in on debates with rational people, your type of attitude is most unwelcome.

 

To be fair though, he did bring it back to the topic of evolution. Manxman2, you think your existance as a window cleaner is an example of survival of the fittest in modern society? From your 'I'm rock hard me, I'll take yers all on' chest beating, it looks like you think survival of the fittest means survival of the strongest. Not sure that's the same as darwins conclusion. Are the heritable traits that modern man needs to pass on his genetic code simply strength, or would the intelligence of someone like chinahand make him more likely to suceed genetically?

[Chinahand]

I am more than happy to admit my genes are crap! I and my immediate familly have been struck down with more than a few serious genetically linked conditions.

 

Man through his cooperation and sociability has been able to reduce the impact of genetics. I think I've a good brain, but more important I've been raised in an environment which has encouraged me to use it positively. I try to understand and use to my advantage the various memes prevelent in our society.

 

The Missus and I have managed to replace ourselves genetically, but definitely gave up at going any further.

 

One of the debates we have is whether adopting someone from a more disadvantaged place is feasible - totally against genes - but we would be passing on our memes, our values if we did do it, which in many ways is, I believe, more important - we need society rather than genes to spread.

[Slim]

Man through his cooperation and sociability has been able to reduce the impact of genetics. I think I've a good brain, but more important I've been raised in an environment which has encouraged me to use it positively. I try to understand and use to my advantage the various memes prevelent in our society.

 

It's a shame Dr Daves not around, him and I are slightly at odds over this. Dave's got quite a pessimistic view of the future of man via natural selection where he sees the less intelligent and successful as more likely to breed. He would say the achievers are putting their own success over that of their genetics and chosing a career over procreation and the dolescum types are happily spitting sprogs out all over the show and our future is basically to be stupider as a species as a result. I guess this is countered through the health problems and shorter lifespans of your chav underclass.

 

I'm a bit more positive, I think, like you, that the gains we're making make the genetics less important.

 

One of the debates we have is whether adopting someone from a more disadvantaged place is feasible - totally against genes - but we would be passing on our memes, our values if we did do it, which in many ways is, I believe, more important - we need society rather than genes to spread.

 

Nurture over nature basically?

[loaf]

I suspect that evolution, natural selection etc. seems to carry on without being significantly affected by conscious efforts to influence it.

 

On this basis, I am not so willing to accept the belief held by some of the vegetarian fraternity, for example, which is that they think that they are furthering the evolutionary development of the species by not eating meat. I think in reality, their motives are much shorter-term - exercising control on the body, vainly wanting to be thin amongst a generally overweight population, wanting to be treated specially, and of course disliking the idea of killing fluffy things - rather than thinking they are contributing to some higher, nobler cause.

 

However, the adoption of social behaviours to develop species is not uncommon in the animal kingdom, certainly not exclusive to humans, and I would be more likely to accept that the human species is now (consciously or otherwise) valuing the act of protecting the weaker and less physically capable amongst them, because their strengths may well lie in intellect and reasoning, and that as a social creature, these strengths can benefit the whole 'tribe'.

 

I think that the whole genetic lottery is still going on perfectly well despite our conscious actions - we simply do not take in every day just how lucky we as individuals are to be 'the ones', to be alive. We're developing our strength of intellect in a relatively small trade-off in physical strength.

 

Therefore, the community takes care to punish, ridicule and ostracise thuggish behaviour...

[Slim]

On this basis, I am not so willing to accept the belief held by some of the vegetarian fraternity, for example, which is that they think that they are furthering the evolutionary development of the species by not eating meat.

 

I think anyone with that kind of mindset is missing the timescales involved in evolution.

[Dr_Dave]

It's a shame Dr Daves not around, him and I are slightly at odds over this. Dave's got quite a pessimistic view of the future of man via natural selection where he sees the less intelligent and successful as more likely to breed. He would say the achievers are putting their own success over that of their genetics and chosing a career over procreation and the dolescum types are happily spitting sprogs out all over the show and our future is basically to be stupider as a species as a result. I guess this is countered through the health problems and shorter lifespans of your chav underclass.

 

I'm not sure this is what I believe we'll see happening, the conversation was more an exercise in pursuing a simple model to its logical ends. Start with the assumption that cognitive ability is determined genetically (which seems at least partly borne out by the data) and that there is a correlation between career success and intelligence. Then consider the observation that over the last x number of decades, it has become the norm that so called "professionals" tend to breed later (at least into their 30s), while so called "non-professionals" tend to breed early (in their 20s maybe).

 

If all of that were true, then the undeniable conclusion would be that incidence of "intelligent" genes would decrease across society as a whole. Humanity would get "stupider", as Slim says.

 

In reality, I think the initial model is too simplistic and worth nothing as a general prediction. Firstly, I'm not sure the genetic component of intelligence is dominant - studies seem to indicate environment is worth more. Second, it ignores other advancements, such as a general increase in living standards and medical improvements, increases in information dissemination and education. And thirdly, most importantly (I think Slim pointed out at the time), the observation that "professionals" breed in their 30s is a very localised, western view of things, as is the observation that "professional" males tend to breed with "professional" females. I'm sure the situation is considerably different in the third and developing worlds.

 

However, as useless as this model is, I think it is sort of useful in highlighting how unimportant intelligence (or increasing intelligence) is in driving human progress now. We rapidly evolved our cognitive ability on the savanah to give us an evolutionary advantage - it helped us breed more successfully. But now I think we've plateaued, and created a society in which it is no longer important to be smarter than your rivals in order to breed more since the mechanisms within it support those who are traditionally less advantaged. Higher intelligence may no longer be a desirable trait for better reproductive success. Which isn't to say that evolution has stopped, or even slowed necessarily, just that we may see other traits coming to the fore.

 

More likely we'll see nano- or bio-tech take us off in directions we can't even imagine yet.

 

(Saturn's Rings are made of ice particles by the way - they've probably been around since the formation of the solar system)

 

Dave

[VinnieK]

Then consider the observation that over the last x number of decades, it has become the norm that so called "professionals" tend to breed later (at least into their 30s), while so called "non-professionals" tend to breed early (in their 20s maybe).

 

If all of that were true, then the undeniable conclusion would be that incidence of "intelligent" genes would decrease across society as a whole. Humanity would get "stupider", as Slim says.

 

Another problem with the model (and perhaps the most glaring) is that it assumes that professionals are by and large more intelligent than non-professionals, in terms of raw intelligence. I'd argue that this ignores a whole host of factors and secondary discussions about intelligence, such as the role of class and money in influencing a child's later professional status, making the mistake of equating professional status with intelligence. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that an awful lot of professionals are in fact quite unremarkable when it comes to intelligence, and have managed to get where they are primarily due to background and an ability/coaching in playing the system when it comes to exams/university and interviews.

[Lao]

Then consider the observation that over the last x number of decades, it has become the norm that so called "professionals" tend to breed later (at least into their 30s), while so called "non-professionals" tend to breed early (in their 20s maybe).

 

If all of that were true, then the undeniable conclusion would be that incidence of "intelligent" genes would decrease across society as a whole. Humanity would get "stupider", as Slim says.

 

Another problem with the model (and perhaps the most glaring) is that it assumes that professionals are by and large more intelligent than non-professionals, in terms of raw intelligence. I'd argue that this ignores a whole host of factors and secondary discussions about intelligence, such as the role of class and money in influencing a child's later professional status, making the mistake of equating professional status with intelligence. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that an awful lot of professionals are in fact quite unremarkable when it comes to intelligence, and have managed to get where they are primarily due to background and an ability/coaching in playing the system when it comes to exams/university and interviews.

 

this is very true, many of the members of high IQ societies have ordinary mundane jobs, i often theorise that this is due to a profound lack of ambition, i may write a small monograph on the subject.

[Dr_Dave]

Another problem with the model (and perhaps the most glaring) is that it assumes that professionals are by and large more intelligent than non-professionals, in terms of raw intelligence. I'd argue that this ignores a whole host of factors and secondary discussions about intelligence, such as the role of class and money in influencing a child's later professional status, making the mistake of equating professional status with intelligence. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that an awful lot of professionals are in fact quite unremarkable when it comes to intelligence, and have managed to get where they are primarily due to background and an ability/coaching in playing the system when it comes to exams/university and interviews.

 

Yep, all true.

 

A better topic for discussion might be to pose the question: "given that natural selection continues regardless, which traits in humanity are likely to be selected for in modern society?"

 

In other words, what kind of person is likely to produce more offspring? And, following on from that, what traits might be dominant in future human societies?

 

Dave

[Slim]

In other words, what kind of person is likely to produce more offspring? And, following on from that, what traits might be dominant in future human societies?

 

Dave

 

Good looking people, isn't that all it boils down to?

[VinnieK]

In other words, what kind of person is likely to produce more offspring? And, following on from that, what traits might be dominant in future human societies?

 

I'd put my money on those with a taste for drunken abandon - the offspring of countless nihilistic fumblings in pub car parks, nightclub bathrooms and bus stops will one day rise up and bend all of humanity to its will.

 

To be honest, I have no idea. Again, our discussion is going to be limited by not knowing to what extent those traits are nature over nurture, and, if the latter is the predominant determining factor, how and what proportion of those traits will be modified, restained, or encouraged in individual cases by the prevailing social order the various subgroupings people find themselves in. In other words, any such argument is as much sociological as it is biological, which is unfortunate since most of the former discipline is ideologically motivated bunkum churned out by time serving citation whores