On Darwinism

[woolley]

Which I got (technology being an artificial and not natural force). And again, I say: says who?

 

Part of the problem is "technology" is ill-defined in our discussion. What is technology? Beavers build dams. Otters use tools (yes, they do - they're known for using rocks to break open mussels. Not smashing the mussel agains the rock, but smashing the rock against the mussel). Bees build communal structures to the betterment of all the community. Ants communicate and cooperate to gather resources. In one sense, those are not technological, because they are "instinctive" rather than "rationalized" (e.g. beavers are "born knowing how" to build a dam rather than having to think through the engineering - though I could very well imagine it being a learned skill as well. Makes me wonder if anyone's ever studied it...) In another sense, they can be considered technological, as they are all a means of acting on the environment...which, it seems to me, is precisely the sense that applies in a discussion on evolution. To argue that, although beavers and humans build dams, beaver and human "technology" have different evolutionary impacts because beavers build instinctively but humans rationalize is, again, anthropomorphic nonsense. Both are nothing more than ways for a species to affect its environment to gain an evolutionary advantage.

 

Busy today and don't want to post anything curt/petty. Just one point.

 

Like you say, beavers have the innate...it's not even knowledge...it's a drive to build dams. You can imagine it to be a learned skill but it ain't. Birds have the innante skills to build nests. My pet dove (sniff sniff) was bought a week after it was born. It never observed, never learned how to build a nest. Yet in the days before she'd lay an egg she would drag twisties, little sticks, pieces of paper into some sort of nest formation. That's not technology, because all that came from within.

 

Technology isn't the mere manipulation of objects. A beaver or a bird doesn't know why they are doing what they are doing. My pet dove built a really crappy looking nest for unfertilized eggs. It was an exercise in futility.

 

Technology is dependent upon the application of theories that exist outside of the self. The most nascent levels of human technology...or I guess I'd call them pre-technology...set the foundations of technology. Striking stones together to set off a spark...I wouldn't call that technology. Perhaps .0001% of humans could figure that out in a world absolutely devoid of all recorded knowledge. Technology, however, applies the knowledge of others into more complex applications.

 

Human technology, therefore, is not innate. Building a computer will never be an innate, instinctual skill.

 

No, I can't force you to see a real difference, but the difference can be articulated. It's not a difference of degree, but of type. Why you are driven to invoke the phrase "anthropomorphic nonsense" is beyond me. Hell, the concept of *science* is anthropomorphic nonsense, no? If science didn't exist, things would still happen. Why articulate things into theories? To make people happy? But that's an inconsistency you have to handle, I think the phrase is simply unnecessary in this discussion.

 

-Woolley

[Ramius]

No, it depends on both.

 

Saying that genetic fitness is not dependent on the gene (you know, the word that makes up the word genetic) is ridiculous.

 

How many spontaneous abortions occur due to genetic abnormalities? Or how about birth defects that render life difficult, end lives after a few months? Would you posit that in a better environment such persons would be genetically fit?

 

I get your point. Why can't you get HA's point?

 

-Woolley

 

No sh-- sherlock, of course gene fitness is dependent on the gene. But as per usual, holcomb is taking an isolated incident and trying to extrapolate to an entire population. In this case, he was trying to point out that the environment only affects the gene in a single way, which is wrong. He then wrongly tried ot apply this to an entire population.

 

He has no clue about what the f*ck hes talking about. he was arguing with a published textbook fer chrissakes!

 

Before you start defending your little butt-buddy, why dont you go back and read the 50 pages of his where he's attempted to say that the "true value" of a 6-sided die is 3.5.

 

The idiocy must be contagious around these parts. Actually, this thread is an perfect example of gene vs environment. In the real world, genetically stupid people people like holcomb would have been done away with by nature long ago due to sheer stupidity. But here, on the intertubes, holcomb has found an environment where his stupidity can flourish.

[Bungee Jumper]

Busy today and don't want to post anything curt/petty. Just one point.

 

Like you say, beavers have the innate...it's not even knowledge...it's a drive to build dams. You can imagine it to be a learned skill but it ain't. Birds have the innante skills to build nests. My pet dove (sniff sniff) was bought a week after it was born. It never observed, never learned how to build a nest. Yet in the days before she'd lay an egg she would drag twisties, little sticks, pieces of paper into some sort of nest formation. That's not technology, because all that came from within.

 

Technology isn't the mere manipulation of objects. A beaver or a bird doesn't know why they are doing what they are doing. My pet dove built a really crappy looking nest for unfertilized eggs. It was an exercise in futility.

 

Technology is dependent upon the application of theories that exist outside of the self. The most nascent levels of human technology...or I guess I'd call them pre-technology...set the foundations of technology. Striking stones together to set off a spark...I wouldn't call that technology. Perhaps .0001% of humans could figure that out in a world absolutely devoid of all recorded knowledge. Technology, however, applies the knowledge of others into more complex applications.

 

Human technology, therefore, is not innate. Building a computer will never be an innate, instinctual skill.

 

No, I can't force you to see a real difference, but the difference can be articulated. It's not a difference of degree, but of type. Why you are driven to invoke the phrase "anthropomorphic nonsense" is beyond me. Hell, the concept of *science* is anthropomorphic nonsense, no? If science didn't exist, things would still happen. Why articulate things into theories? To make people happy? But that's an inconsistency you have to handle, I think the phrase is simply unnecessary in this discussion.

 

-Woolley

 

First off, I said "anthropocentric". Not "anthropomorphic". Big difference.

 

Second, I never said science was anthropocentric nonsense. I said this was anthropocentric nonsense. And it is. You just demonstrated that again: you just said that our ability to affect our environments was materially different from an animal's (specifically, a beaver) ability to affect its environment because we're somehow special. That's anthropocentricism. And from an evolutionary standpoint, it's nonsense. There is absolutely no objective or empirical basis for it; your entire argument is circular, in that you're ultimately using your postulate that humans are somehow special and above nature to prove that humans are somehow special and above nature. Thus, "anthropocentric nonsense".

 

Third, I specifically stated that, as anthropocentric nonsense, this wasn't science. And it's not. At best, it's metaphysics.

[Bungee Jumper]

The idiocy must be contagious around these parts. Actually, this thread is an perfect example of gene vs environment. In the real world, genetically stupid people people like holcomb would have been done away with by nature long ago due to sheer stupidity. But here, on the intertubes, holcomb has found an environment where his stupidity can flourish.

 

You've got to appreciate the irony, though.

[Ramius]

The objections you've raised didn't stop dog breeders from using selective breeding to create a breed of dog disposed toward high levels of intelligence, hard work, and the tendency to herd other animals. Can you or anyone else quantify the genotype/phenotype relationship for a tendency to herd sheep? People were able to use selective breeding to get more or less whatever kind of dog they wanted. You want a dog that specializes in water rescue? No problem--that's been hardwired into some breeds of dogs. You want a dog that will retrieve prey without harming it? That exists too. Different breeds have different temperaments, different predispositions to obey orders (as opposed to thinking for themselves), etc. Selective breeding worked, despite dog breeders' inability to develop quantitative measurement systems for the traits they were breeding for. Selective breeding worked long before people had heard words like "genotype" and "phenotype."

 

Apparently you cannot distinguish between breeding for a specific behavior, as was, and has been done for centuries to animals, and attempting to bred for some abstract concept as "intelligence".

 

With animals, i can watch a dog and breed 2 dogs that are the "best swimmers" or "best herders". I can test rats, and breed the "fastest" rat. The point is, which you will wont understand, is that you can observe and qualify animals based on their traits, and selectively breed for the desired trait.

 

What you dont understand, however, is how intelligence is a whole different ball game. Yoiu cant just observe people and establish intelligence. And dont give me any IQ test bull sh-- here either. IQ != intelligence. You cant just breed 2 nuclear physicists and get another smarter one. (provided you can actually find a female nuclear physicist).

 

Where you go wrong is thinking that intelligence is somehow a concrete measurable trait, which it isnt. Intelligence is a complex, abstract concept, that humans have created and decided to apply to themselves. Intelligence is NOT a behavior. both you and wolley are using the "humans are special and above nature, so from that we can prove that humans are special and above nature" arguement, which is circular and wrong.

[DC Tom]

What you dont understand, however, is how intelligence is a whole different ball game. Yoiu cant just observe people and establish intelligence. And dont give me any IQ test bull sh-- here either. IQ != intelligence. You cant just breed 2 nuclear physicists and get another smarter one. (provided you can actually find a female nuclear physicist).

 

Female nuclear physicists aren't that difficult to find. And, in fact, they tend to be unattractive enough that only someone as desperate as a male nuclear physicist would breed with them. And they tend not to have little baby nuclear physicists, as you pointed out.

 

This is, of course, because nuclear physicists are in error. Like a die roll of six.

[Orton's Arm]

No sh-- sherlock, of course gene fitness is dependent on the gene. But as per usual, holcomb is taking an isolated incident and trying to extrapolate to an entire population. In this case, he was trying to point out that the environment only affects the gene in a single way, which is wrong. He then wrongly tried ot apply this to an entire population.

That actually has nothing to do with the point I was making. I wrote that it's possible for a genetic trait to be helpful at the individual level, but harmful to the group as a whole.

 

As for "arguing with a published textbook"--I'd point out that my only arguments were with statement 4 (which I would have made more nuanced) and statement 5 (which represents savvy politics, but bad science). If you think scientists are above political pressures, I'd urge you to take a closer look at the scientific community in Nazi Germany. According to Ute Deichman, "Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding through their work through modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state." Deichman described "the active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy . . . where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine . . . no external pressure can be documented."

 

At least according to Deichman, funding requests were a sufficient tool to ensure not merely the scientific community's passive silence about Nazi racial doctrine, but its active cooperation in promoting such doctrine. Might political forces also be at work in modern American funding requests? And might those forces apply to the question of whether there is a sound scientific basis for a eugenics program? We condescendingly look down on the genetic statements of the Nazi German scientific community, without realizing that at least in some areas, our own scientific community has become equally politicized.

 

In neither Nazi Germany nor the modern U.S. has it been possible for scientists to dissent from the politically-imposed view of eugenics without incurring strong social and financial penalties. What did people say about eugenics back when you could take either side of the issue without becoming a social outcast? Late 19th/early 20th century supporters of eugenics included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Margaret Sanger, Luther Burbank, Leland Stanford (founder of Stanford University), H.G. Wells, and George Bernard Shaw. Eugenics-related research was done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins. Eugenics was considered mainstream science, until political (not scientific) forces changed things.

 

The forces of political correctness no longer permit an open and honest discussion about the extent to which there is a scientific basis for a eugenics program. But that doesn't change the underlying truth. The Mendelian theory is correct, and Lamarckian ideas are completely wrong. Due to the power of Mendelain genetics and selective breeding, dog breeders have been able to create breeds of dogs which are noted for intelligence, for specific temperaments, and for specific types of hard-wired behavior.

[DC Tom]

That actually has nothing to do with the point I was making. I wrote that it's possible for a genetic trait to be helpful at the individual level, but harmful to the group as a whole.

 

As for "arguing with a published textbook"--I'd point out that my only arguments were with statement 4 (which I would have made more nuanced) and statement 5 (which represents savvy politics, but bad science). If you think scientists are above political pressures, I'd urge you to take a closer look at the scientific community in Nazi Germany. According to Ute Deichman, "Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding through their work through modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state." Deichman described "the active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy . . . where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine . . . no external pressure can be documented."

 

At least according to Deichman, funding requests were a sufficient tool to ensure not merely the scientific community's passive silence about Nazi racial doctrine, but its active cooperation in promoting such doctrine. Might political forces also be at work in modern American funding requests? And might those forces apply to the question of whether there is a sound scientific basis for a eugenics program? We condescendingly look down on the genetic statements of the Nazi German scientific community, without realizing that at least in some areas, our own scientific community has become equally politicized.

 

In neither Nazi Germany nor the modern U.S. is it possible to dissent from the politically-imposed view of eugenics without incurring strong social and financial penalties. What did people say about eugenics back when you could take either side of the issue without becoming a social outcast? Late 19th/early 20th century supporters of eugenics included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Margaret Sanger, Luther Burbank, Leland Stanford (founder of Stanford University), H.G. Wells, and George Bernard Shaw. Eugenics-related research was done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins. Eugenics was considered mainstream science, until political (not scientific) forces changed things.

 

The forces of political correctness no longer permit an open and honest discussion about the extent to which there is a scientific basis for a eugenics program. But that doesn't change the underlying truth. The Mendelian theory is correct, and Lamarckian ideas are completely wrong. Due to the power of Mendelain genetics and selective breeding, dog breeders have been able to create breeds of dogs which are noted for intelligence, for specific temperaments, and for specific types of hard-wired behavior.

 

This is rich. The same bozo that argued that East German scientists pass on a genetic propensity to their offspring to be East German scientists is now arguing against Lamarckian evolution.

[Orton's Arm]

Apparently you cannot distinguish between breeding for a specific behavior, as was, and has been done for centuries to animals, and attempting to bred for some abstract concept as "intelligence".

 

With animals, i can watch a dog and breed 2 dogs that are the "best swimmers" or "best herders". I can test rats, and breed the "fastest" rat. The point is, which you will wont understand, is that you can observe and qualify animals based on their traits, and selectively breed for the desired trait.

 

What you dont understand, however, is how intelligence is a whole different ball game. Yoiu cant just observe people and establish intelligence. And dont give me any IQ test bull sh-- here either. IQ != intelligence. You cant just breed 2 nuclear physicists and get another smarter one. (provided you can actually find a female nuclear physicist).

 

Where you go wrong is thinking that intelligence is somehow a concrete measurable trait, which it isnt. Intelligence is a complex, abstract concept, that humans have created and decided to apply to themselves. Intelligence is NOT a behavior. both you and wolley are using the "humans are special and above nature, so from that we can prove that humans are special and above nature" arguement, which is circular and wrong.

Every language in the world has a word which means "smart." The concept of intelligence may be abstract, but it is universal.

 

Suppose a person were to take two separate intelligence tests. There's a strong correlation between his or her score on the first test and the second test. Intelligence tests measure something innate.

 

You may be tempted to say that the only thing intelligence tests measure is how well someone does on intelligence tests, but the research indicates otherwise. A person's score on an IQ test is a strong predictor of a number of life outcomes, including income level, chance of being in jail, chance of being an unwed mother, etc.

 

Whatever intelligence tests measure 1) is real, 2) is very relevant in determining life outcomes, and 3) is mostly due to genetics.

 

If two nuclear physicists have children, the kids won't necessarily be nuclear physicists themselves, but they will almost certainly be much smarter than average. That's the power of Mendelaian genetics and selective breeding.

[Orton's Arm]

This is rich. The same bozo that argued that East German scientists pass on a genetic propensity to their offspring to be East German scientists is now arguing against Lamarckian evolution.

The relevant article used the assumption that the average East German scientist was generally smarter than, say, the average East German manual laborer. This assumption was so clearly reasonable you couldn't help but dispute it.

 

Then the article used standardized test scores to identify the smartest children. It turned out the smartest children came from the smartest parents. The author felt this was because the smartest children inherited the M1/M1 genetic combination, while the least bright received the M2/M2 combination. That's standard-issue, basic, Mendelian genetics at work, not Lamarckian.

[DC Tom]

The relevant article used the assumptionthat the average East German scientist was generally smarter than, say, the average East German manual laborer. This assumption was so clearly reasonable you couldn't help but dispute it.

 

Then the article used standardized test scores to identify the smartest children. It turned out the smartest children came from the smartest parents. The author felt this was because the smartest children inherited the M1/M1 genetic combination, while the least bright received the M2/M2 combination. That's standard-issue, basic, Mendelian genetics at work, not Lamarckian.

 

Key word, bonehead.

[Orton's Arm]

Key word, bonehead.

Right. Because it wasn't like the study's author described how research shows a strong correlation between intelligence and career choice. You tried to argue that this research doesn't apply to East Germany, because scientists were selected strictly on a political basis without any regard to underlying ability.

[Ramius]

Every language in the world has a word which means "smart." The concept of intelligence may be abstract, but it is universal.

 

Suppose a person were to take two separate intelligence tests. There's a strong correlation between his or her score on the first test and the second test. Intelligence tests measure something innate.

 

You may be tempted to say that the only thing intelligence tests measure is how well someone does on intelligence tests, but the research indicates otherwise. A person's score on an IQ test is a strong predictor of a number of life outcomes, including income level, chance of being in jail, chance of being an unwed mother, etc.

 

Whatever intelligence tests measure 1) is real, 2) is very relevant in determining life outcomes, and 3) is mostly due to genetics.

 

If two nuclear physicists have children, the kids won't necessarily be nuclear physicists themselves, but they will almost certainly be much smarter than average. That's the power of Mendelaian genetics and selective breeding.

 

Once again, you're hung up in IQ as though its a realistic determination of intelligence. Its shaky at best.

 

And referring to your tests, lets have people take a test under ideal circumstances. They then can take a second test after being repeatedly woken up every 15 minutes the night before with loud music and noise. We'll also annoy them repeatedly during the testing. Guess what? you'll find scores on the second test are significantly different than scores on the first test. And the genetics of the people are the same. its the ENVIRONMENT thats different.

 

And once again, since your little brain cant comprehend this concept. You can selectively breed for behaviors. Intelligence is not a behavior. You cannot selectively breed for intelligence based on your asinine criteria. .

 

With nuclear physicists, you can take 2 of them from anywhere, and there's nothing that says they'll have a kid thats smarter than average. because being a nuclear physicist doesnt make someone smart. it could be they are smart. it could also be that they have a lower IQ and work their ass off to get the job done. You have a tough time seeing that as a possibility, when it occurs everyday.

[ieatcrayonz]

I see this is now six pages. The last time I checked it was three and I don't feel like reading through this junk. If someone explained how a person gets antlers, please re-post.

 

Thanks.

[DC Tom]

Once again, you're hung up in IQ as though its a realistic determination of intelligence. Its shaky at best.

 

And referring to your tests, lets have people take a test under ideal circumstances. They then can take a second test after being repeatedly woken up every 15 minutes the night before with loud music and noise. We'll also annoy them repeatedly during the testing. Guess what? you'll find scores on the second test are significantly different than scores on the first test. And the genetics of the people are the same. its the ENVIRONMENT thats different.

 

And once again, since your little brain cant comprehend this concept. You can selectively breed for behaviors. Intelligence is not a behavior. You cannot selectively breed for intelligence based on your asinine criteria. .

 

With nuclear physicists, you can take 2 of them from anywhere, and there's nothing that says they'll have a kid thats smarter than average. because being a nuclear physicist doesnt make someone smart. it could be they are smart. it could also be that they have a lower IQ and work their ass off to get the job done. You have a tough time seeing that as a possibility, when it occurs everyday.

 

BUT WHAT IF THEY'RE EAST GERMAN PHYSICISTS?????

[Wacka]

I feel like saying "Regression towards the mean" like they say " First Base" in the "Who's on First" bit.

[Cheeseburger in Paradise]

Once again, you're hung up in IQ as though its a realistic determination of intelligence. Its shaky at best.

 

And referring to your tests, lets have people take a test under ideal circumstances. They then can take a second test after being repeatedly woken up every 15 minutes the night before with loud music and noise. We'll also annoy them repeatedly during the testing. Guess what? you'll find scores on the second test are significantly different than scores on the first test. And the genetics of the people are the same. its the ENVIRONMENT thats different.

 

And once again, since your little brain cant comprehend this concept. You can selectively breed for behaviors. Intelligence is not a behavior. You cannot selectively breed for intelligence based on your asinine criteria. .

 

With nuclear physicists, you can take 2 of them from anywhere, and there's nothing that says they'll have a kid thats smarter than average. because being a nuclear physicist doesnt make someone smart. it could be they are smart. it could also be that they have a lower IQ and work their ass off to get the job done. You have a tough time seeing that as a possibility, when it occurs everyday.

 

Please don't take this post as evidence I support either the Ramius / DCT side or the HA / wooley side. I think in your example where you manuipulate the environment, and consequently get a lower raw IQ score, you would find the same variation in scores across the general population if each subject took the second test in the altered enviroment. I believe that is what IQ tests measures, the variance across the general population. A subject achieving a score two standard deviations above the mean in prime test taking conditions would likely achieve a score two standard deviations above the mean in the altered test taking conditions, as the entire population would have lower scores. If that was to be the case, I think it would strengthen the validity of the IQ (or whatever you want to call it) test.

 

You probably need a better example to discredit IQ tests, I am sure they are out there.

 

Regarding crayonzquestions, I recall reading somewhere that yong men,(ages 20 - 25, or so) are now having imlpants being placed under the skin on their skulls so it looks as if they have small devil horns. Perhaps Ed can tell us something about that. (haven't heard from him in a while)

[Ramius]

Please don't take this post as evidence I support either the Ramius / DCT side or the HA / wooley side. I think in your example where you manuipulate the environment, and consequently get a lower raw IQ score, you would find the same variation in scores across the general population if each subject took the second test in the altered enviroment. I believe that is what IQ tests measures, the variance across the general population. A subject achieving a score two standard deviations above the mean in prime test taking conditions would likely achieve a score two standard deviations above the mean in the altered test taking conditions, as the entire population would have lower scores. If that was to be the case, I think it would strengthen the validity of the IQ (or whatever you want to call it) test.

 

You probably need a better example to discredit IQ tests, I am sure they are out there.

 

Regarding crayonzquestions, I recall reading somewhere that yong men,(ages 20 - 25, or so) are now having imlpants being placed under the skin on their skulls so it looks as if they have small devil horns. Perhaps Ed can tell us something about that. (haven't heard from him in a while)

 

No, i see your point. My point was just to illustrate that IQ is at best, a piss-poor way to measure intelligence in a human population, and on the whole, its not going to tell you jack sh-- about a person's future or intelligence level. And theres no way you could even attempt to selectively breed for intelligence based on IQ.

 

But herr holcomb is fascinated with 1940's east germany, and thinks a eugenics program in the US would somehow "better" society. What i cant figure out is why he's such a strong advocate of a program in which he'd be one of the first people sterilized, based on his display of intelligence.

[DC Tom]

No, i see your point. My point was just to illustrate that IQ is at best, a piss-poor way to measure intelligence in a human population, and on the whole, its not going to tell you jack sh-- about a person's future or intelligence level. And theres no way you could even attempt to selectively breed for intelligence based on IQ.

 

But herr holcomb is fascinated with 1940's east germany, and thinks a eugenics program in the US would somehow "better" society. What i cant figure out is why he's such a strong advocate of a program in which he'd be one of the first people sterilized, based on his display of intelligence.

 

Although in fairness to the Nazis, they weren't as stupid as HA. Ass holes, yes...but not ignorant ass holes.

[Ramius]

Although in fairness to the Nazis, they weren't as stupid as HA. Ass holes, yes...but not ignorant ass holes.

 

Agreed. Even the furher himself would laugh hysterically if you tried to tell him the "true value" of a die is 3.5