I read much ambiguity and false premises in several of these posts.
This quote isn't really one I'd put in those categories, but it does raise questions in my mind. I suppose it may be causing confusion between biological evolution and behavioral evolution. These two are different from my perspective.
I see in a subsequent post, elaborating somewhat on the theme,
I'm not denying the concept, only putting forth my (hopefully valid) opinion that not all learned behavior has/needs a genetic foundation. Could this be a literal case of "monkey see, monkey do?"
As an aside to an aside, there was an experiment done in Japan with monkeys where some attractive (to them) grain or nuts were mixed with sand and left in a container on a beach where the monkeys lived. This, of course was frustrating to them as they could smell the food, but could not easily separate it from the sand.
One of the young ones discovered after throwing some of the mixture into the sea, probably in disgust, that the food part floated and could be scooped off the surface. The other youngsters saw this and copied the behavior. None of the parents generation would do it, but just stood by and watched.
This was around 30 years ago, and I don't know whether the behavior was passed down to subsequent generations in the group, but I'm guessing yes.
One of the young ones discovered after throwing some of the mixture into the sea, probably in disgust, that the food part floated and could be scooped off the surface. The other youngsters saw this and copied the behavior. None of the parents generation would do it, but just stood by and watched.
This was around 30 years ago, and I don't know whether the behavior was passed down to subsequent generations in the group, but I'm guessing yes.
@spud: you have a point as the evolutionary changes (to cope with diet changes) happened later.
A good example of recent selection for a trait is Kenyan runners. A disproportionate number come from a few tribes who specialise in cattle rustling, where being able to leg it is somewhat of an advantage. So running ability was selected for very rapidly.
The population clusters of specialised traits are fascinating. I really should do some more reading up on that.
A good example of recent selection for a trait is Kenyan runners. A disproportionate number come from a few tribes who specialise in cattle rustling, where being able to leg it is somewhat of an advantage. So running ability was selected for very rapidly.
The population clusters of specialised traits are fascinating. I really should do some more reading up on that.
best runners rustle more cows. cows buy wives, wives have kids. So the best runners have the biggest families. Arrival of guns in africa rather skewed the odds tho, hence kenyan runners deciding to compete and get sponsorship deals as much safer.
A logical statement, but does it really answer the question?
How does that work? They run with cow in tow? Cover more potential pasture? Escape to rustle another day? Seriously.
Not rustling but hunting:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/krigbaum/proseminar/Bramble_Leib_2004_nature.pdf
We often underestimate our ancestors abilities and intelligence, which is foolish, given that we are here....
If you really look into it, there is a kind of universal principle in evolution. It is not limited to biological systems, but has a much broader application.
Richard Dawkins coined the concept of a 'meme' as a kind of gene consisting of something like an idea or behaviour. He makes the case that also for ideas you see evolutionary principles at work. A good idea 'survives' because people take it up and it sort of starts to dominate over similar but less 'successful' ideas.
Even in the cultural world you can see it. Communism as an 'idea' went under because it didn't work, while capitalism survived, so far. Possible at some time another 'idea' will appear that is 'more successful' then capitalism and will then start to dominate. If you look around in the world you can see it happen.
What I want to say is that evolutionary principles based on 'what works will stay, what doesn't will disappear' has some kind of universal application.
Even in audio.
Jan
Last edited:
I'll confess that Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life was influential to me. If familiar to you, what is the principle to that story of evolution?
hehehe No, you won't catch me going there on this forum.
You shouldn't either.
See my opening above. I believe evolution is a bit more chaotic than that. Some may see evolution as having some innate purpose, even an intelligent design if you will, and I'll not go there on this forum.What I want to say is that evolutionary principles based on 'what works will stay, whats doesn't will disappear' has some kind of universal application.
Even in audio.
Besides, it's kind of like saying, "what survives will survive, what doesn't won't."
Anyhow, an obvious flaw then, albeit minor or otherwise, is that the escaping runner brings home no cows.
Now imagine that the tribe had a serendipitous acquiring of a good running gene (the latter choice from my post #17804). It was then found to have useful value. I don't see your resulting scenario changing much, if any. "All that offspring has genes for fast running." It isn't so far-fetched that Occam gets dealt.
Not rustling but hunting??
Yes it is, and it's more complex than that too. You can't cram decades of research in a 2-line post - f you could, we'd all be Ph.D's in 4 weeks
But as a general principle I think it is very powerful and it can explain many things that baffled earlier generations of scientists. Furthermore, in fast breeding populations of some insects and bacteria, we can now see evolution in action on time scales we can handle as humans. One result is that evolution theory now does not any longer rely exclusively on fossils to support it - there's loads of other strong indications that it fits reality pretty well; which is of course the one redeeming property of a good theory.
Jan
That has nothing to do with it. If you take the limited example of communism and capitalism, the latter survived because societies embracing it thrived, while societies embracing capitalism withered. There's no hidden purpose or steering agent behind it - it just happened because of the way those ideas lead to a certain society structure that 'worked' or not.
Edit: 'Works' does not mean it is perfect, far from it. It's all about differential fitness. If one 'system' survives over another it means it's fitness is just a tiny bit better than the other. Time will do the rest.
Now the details of the internal structure and operation of that 'idea' are of interest but not from an evolutionary point of view. And it is very well possible (even probable) that another 'idea' comes along that, when embraced, leads to societies that even thrive more and better than capitalist societies and in that case more and more societies will embrace the new idea until it becomes dominant over capitalism. It's beautiful, no?
Jan
Last edited:
Oh, yes. I agree with this post completely. If you know SJG you know he was a master at tying seemingly disparate aspects of reality together with ideas from evolutionary thought.
But nobody is watching. Nobody is judging. It's a mindless, purpose-less process. Genes that lead to better adaptation to the current situation or environment lead to more offspring that leads to more of those genes in more individuals. In due time, you get a population where almost all individuals have those genes and you will have a 'tribe' of which the individuals run fast.
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.