Evolution versus Creationism ... goes to trial

[Redleg]

Humans have characteristics that place them outside the natural order of things. Namely our ability to multiply like hell and manipulate the environment to our absolute advantage.

Incorrect - the abilty to multiply is a quality that almost all successful species have demonstrated. Look at the cockroach - it multiplies much faster then the human and doesn't have the long difficult growing process that we have.

Now we are the only species that has the ability to formulate and use tools of our own design. Which makes us unique in nature - however if you believe in the evolution theory then you must understand that man is also part of the natural order of things.

However, Natural Selection pervades every aspect of your life. You might like the theory of Social Darwinism, although IMO that is a very simplified view of it.

Not so much Natural Selection for our lives right now. What is overwhelming evident in our daily lives is the effects of artifical selection.

[Redleg]

Artificial Selection? Not quite sure that works. I'm a big beleiver in the idea that Humans, having thrown themselves outside of the Natural Selection loop, have created their own environment with it's own rules of natural selection. This is especially evident in capitalist societies. Instead of people fighting for survival, it's ideas, companies, nations, ect. fighting for survival.

But that's more of a philosophy than a science.

If you study Darwain's Theory you will find that he studied selective breeding of domestic animals to develop and provide the basic proof of his Theory. Selective Breeding is also know as Artifical Selection because man is on purpose attempting to bring about traits or remove traits from animals.

Hybrid Plants is another form of artifical selection, especially those that can create seeds.

You have created one of the fallacies that many find wrong with Natural Selection because you are determining it to be something outside of evolution of animals, into a philosophy of human development. That is a whole different discussion then the science behind the Theory of Evolution.

[Big_John]

Artificial Selection? Not quite sure that works. I'm a big beleiver in the idea that Humans, having thrown themselves outside of the Natural Selection loop, have created their own environment with it's own rules of natural selection. This is especially evident in capitalist societies. Instead of people fighting for survival, it's ideas, companies, nations, ect. fighting for survival.

But that's more of a philosophy than a science.

you are drawing an unnecessary dichotomy. while it's important to appreciate the complexity of modern human interactions, the difference between the socio-politics/-economics of modern human societies and those of earliest human societies is one of degree, not of kind. would you argue that small hunter-gatherer groups operate outside of natural selection?

maybe you are trying to say that fitness is a relative function, which is certainly true. fitness is a function of environment. that humans can, to a degree, define their environment does not in anyway diminish the connection between the environment and fitness.

i don't understand your attempt to anthropomorphize "ideas". how can an idea 'fight for survival'? companies and nations are analogous to population groupings found in any social species (bee hives, wolf packs, whale pods, etc), so there is nothing about them that should suggest that humans are subject to unique rules of selection and fitness.

[Big_John]

Maybe I am trying to draw comparison where they don't exist, but when you look at it abstractly it does make sense. As far as ideas go, well, let's take a look at different economic models. There are countless ones out there, that people will fight tooth and nail over (Socialism, Communism, Capitalism), and just in the last 50 or so years there has been an incredible amount of "evolution" and "natural selection" in those ideas alone.

in that case, you can treat the idea as a characteristic of a population group (e.g. 'communism' is the shared ideology of a group of people.. communists). in as much as power is a motivation in ideology, the propagation of ideas (by their proponents) is simply a socio-political phenomenon. so if there is an 'ideological' conflict between capitalism and communism, for example, from sociobiological perspective it is a power struggle between two populations. the environment would determine the "ideological fitness" of the each group. that fitness would, in turn, control the "selection" of the ideas via power distribution.

clearly a simplistic model, but imo one doesn't need to invent a new type of environment or selection to account for the propagation and 'evolution' of ideas, nor other social aspects.

[GoreBag]

But such a thing is hardly "natural" selection.

[Big_John]

But such a thing is hardly "natural" selection.

why? it's just a social struggle between two competing populations. how is it qualitatively distinct from one pride of lions competing with another?

one could argue that the complexity of the human mind, and consequently the ideas it can produce, are the factor of distinction between us and other animals. however, i don't see the clash between competing ideologies as a competition exclusively between cognitive structures without regard to the physical world.

in other words, if we were talking about philosophers arguing about the elegance of two proofs or something.. that would seem to be fairly well removed from a discussion of natural selection. however, economic models and the power struggles between their proponents is, as much as wars between nations, an attempt by one group to dominate another group. such competition is the very essence of fitness and selection.

I suppose. It's always just so boggling to me how many dimensions of existence humans have compared to the run-of-the-mill animal.

"dimensions of existence"?

i don't deny that we are very complex animals, and obviously our minds would seem to be something rather special in the history of life on earth. but i don't think anything we have talked about, yet, is that different from natural selection seen elsewhere in nature.

there are some definitional problems and philosophical questions in this, though. should one draw an arbitrary line between a "natural" environment and a "social" environment? how do you distinguish between the two? if one does draw such a line, can "natural" and "social" selection really be treated as independent entities (think about concepts of sexual attractiveness, for example)? does the fact that we humans can be aware of evolutionary 'forces' somehow remove us from them? generally, it's at questions like those that i stop worrying about it.


that's right adrian, i stole your smiley!!

I'll not use positive science to proove ideal models on social science, it has been prooven to be insufficient.

feel free to elaborate.

[Papewaio]

Human brains are to memes what amino acids are to genes?

[GoreBag]

why? it's just a social struggle between two competing populations. how is it qualitatively distinct from one pride of lions competing with another?

one could argue that the complexity of the human mind, and consequently the ideas it can produce, are the factor of distinction between us and other animals. however, i don't see the clash between competing ideologies as a competition exclusively between cognitive structures without regard to the physical world.

in other words, if we were talking about philosophers arguing about the elegance of two proofs or something.. that would seem to be fairly well removed from a discussion of natural selection. however, economic models and the power struggles between their proponents is, as much as wars between nations, an attempt by one group to dominate another group. such competition is the very essence of fitness and selection.

Such a thing would fit more into an "artificial selection" category. It is still selection, after all, but it is simply not one of natural...nature.

Take, for instance, traits like fashion sense. If a man who dresses well is more liked than a man who doesn't, he may breed and the socially awkward one may not. Simplistic, yes, but I think it illustrates a point.

[Big_John]

Such a thing would fit more into an "artificial selection" category. It is still selection, after all, but it is simply not one of natural...nature.

Take, for instance, traits like fashion sense. If a man who dresses well is more liked than a man who doesn't, he may breed and the socially awkward one may not. Simplistic, yes, but I think it illustrates a point.

i'm missing your point, i think. i don't understand the distinction you are drawing between natural and artificial. taking your example, how is "fashion sense" different from other fitness displays in nature (e.g. the colorful plumage of many male birds)?

i don't think being socially awkward is exclusive to humanity; any population of social animals should have individuals that are better at the group politics than others. the character of that behavior range is probably heavily controlled by intelligence, however. so "social awkwardness" is probably more recognizable and tangible in chimpanzees than ants, for example, but i doubt it's uniquely human.


pape, could you explain your question to me, it was too terse (i.e. over my head ).

[Soulforged]

in that case, you can treat the idea as a characteristic of a population group (e.g. 'communism' is the shared ideology of a group of people.. communists). in as much as power is a motivation in ideology, the propagation of ideas (by their proponents) is simply a socio-political phenomenon. so if there is an 'ideological' conflict between capitalism and communism, for example, from sociobiological perspective it is a power struggle between two populations. the environment would determine the "ideological fitness" of the each group. that fitness would, in turn, control the "selection" of the ideas via power distribution.

I'll not use positive science to proove ideal models on social science, it has been prooven to be insufficient.