It is generally assumed by science that the physical world is causally closed, in other words that consciousness has no causal effect on human behaviour, and that 'intentional' human action is an illusion caused by physically deterministic (mindless) processes in the brain. In other words that there is no such thing as free will.

However if mind is caused by brain then all states of consciousness have a neural correlate, a matching brain state. In this case how is it possible to distinguish between conscious intentional action and mindless physical cause and effect? They would both look exactly the same.

If it is not possible to distinguish between them then on what grounds can evolutionists be so sure that conscious choice and purposeful (teleological) action have no role in the evolution of species?

it seems that eventually all of a humans actions will be categorised and made to correspond to their respective neural correlates. what is not explained why these objective processes should give rise to subjective experiences. neuroscience offers the explanation that after a particular kind and level of neural activity occurs and is maintained, consciousness results! i maintain that consciouness is a fundamental force in the universe. like space-time and mass

i also want to point out aspects of consciousness that are explained relatively easily. some of these are

* the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to
environmental stimuli;
* the integration of information by a cognitive system;
* the reportability of mental states;
* the ability of a system to access its own internal states;
* the focus of attention;
* the deliberate control of behavior;
* the difference between wakefulness and sleep. (chalmers)

the ability to do this does not require a consciousness that "subjectively experiences" in the typical sense. they seem to be merely objective processes. it appears that computers now can handle some of these tasks to varying degrees of complexity. if consciousness is purely a mechanistic process, we can look forward to ai freaking out just like we humans do.

current scientific viewpoints on consciousness seems practically schizophrenic. either the whole phenomenon is denied to exist or is magically created by neurons high on speed! these are probably the same fucking scientists that hold that the lesser animals are not capable of thought! fuck them again! allahu akbar i will have my revenge! narrow minded bastards!



:mad: :D :cool: :eek: :bugeye: :(

Um, is it just me or does the causality (that is what you meant by causally right?) of the human mind have nothing to do with evolution..

Spookz - "current scientific viewpoints on consciousness seems practically schizophrenic. either the whole phenomenon is denied to exist or is magically created by neurons high on speed! these are probably the same fucking scientists that hold that the lesser animals are not capable of thought! fuck them again! allahu akbar i will have my revenge! narrow minded bastards!"

Very well said and I couldn't agree more. Physicalism is a matter of faith not evidence and it's pathetic that science is taking so long to own up to this when so many great philosophers and scientists have pointed this out, (although there are signs...).

Frencheneesz- "Um, is it just me or does the causality (that is what you meant by causally right?) of the human mind have nothing to do with evolution."

Well, many people think it does not, on the basis that the human mind is not causal. The jury is out on this for the moment so no, it's not just you. However it's not me (nor spookz by the look of it). If consciousness is causal then it is the most important causal factor in our behaviour, and thus our evolution.

There appears to be a couple of philisophical questions in your post.

One; a very old argument between the monists and the dualists, are we 2 things (mind and body, or body and soul as the theologians would ask) or are mind and body one thing.

Two; a reductionist argument (given the interactions at the molecular level predictions can be made about the individual, i.e. determinism) vs. emergentism, where the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

evolution of species is independent of these arguments. speciation occurs through geographic isolation and evolution of reproductive isolating mechanisms. gradually, isolated populations become more and more different.

It is amazing how little we know of our own brains and its physical relationship to our consciousness. The little progress made in face of the amazing advances in the biological sciences, makes me think that the approaches and the questions asked are not the correct ones. I think science is stuck between looking at molecualr levels of neurotransmitters and the black boxes of behavioral science. There needs to be a different approach either between these two levels or from an entirely different field.

For example, I would like to know what are the structural changes in a brain due to experience and memory? Can these changes be reproduced (can memories be induced by sculpting the brain, that is by arranging the neurons in such a way as to simulate the experience or memory of it)? There was an experiment done on Planaria where the Planaria were trained to respond to a light cue during feeding. The Planaria were then cut up into pieces and allowed to regenerate. The regerated pieces maintained the learned training (a significant response vs. untrained Planaria) and there was no significant difference between trained Planaria regenerated from head pieces vs. those regenerated from non-head pieces. I'm not sure I understand why these experiments were not followed-up.

The implications are staggering. If consciosness and memories reside in the physical structure of the brain, then we could recreate an individual's life and experiences and memories from an amorphous, cultured brain.

It is generally assumed by science that the physical world is causally closed, in other words that consciousness has no causal effect on human behaviour, and that 'intentional' human action is an illusion caused by physically deterministic (mindless) processes in the brain. In other words that there is no such thing as free will.While some might believe the above, I do not think there is any view on this subject accepted by a majority of the thinkers who ponder such questions.

Originally posted by paulsamuel
There appears to be a couple of philisophical questions in your post.
That's putting it mildy.

evolution of species is independent of these arguments. speciation occurs through geographic isolation and evolution of reproductive isolating mechanisms. gradually, isolated populations become more and more different. [/B]
Evolution of species happen because creatures do things (or appear to do things) in order to survive. The question remains why they bother.

It is amazing how little we know of our own brains and its physical relationship to our consciousness. The little progress made in face of the amazing advances in the biological sciences, makes me think that the approaches and the questions asked are not the correct ones. I think science is stuck between looking at molecualr levels of neurotransmitters and the black boxes of behavioral science. There needs to be a different approach either between these two levels or from an entirely different field. [/B]
Quite agree.

For example, I would like to know what are the structural changes in a brain due to experience and memory? Can these changes be reproduced (can memories be induced by sculpting the brain, that is by arranging the neurons in such a way as to simulate the experience or memory of it)? [/B]
No account of brain functioning will explain experience. No physical or computational description of brain activity can account for consciousness in general nor its different aspects.

There was an experiment done on Planaria where the Planaria were trained to respond to a light cue during feeding. The Planaria were then cut up into pieces and allowed to regenerate. The regerated pieces maintained the learned training (a significant response vs. untrained Planaria) and there was no significant difference between trained Planaria regenerated from head pieces vs. those regenerated from non-head pieces. I'm not sure I understand why these experiments were not followed-up. [/B]
They were probably treated as anomalous, as of course they are from certain entrenched perspectives.

Originally posted by Dinosaur
While some might believe the above, I do not think there is any view on this subject accepted by a majority of the thinkers who ponder such questions.

The idea that consciousness is causal is considered to breach well accepted scientific laws. Thus science does not accept the notion of free will or intentional action. As you say many people would disagree (me included) however Darwinian evolutionary theorists expressly (and forcefully) reject consciousness as a cause of behaviour.

Canute:The idea that consciousness is causal is considered to breach well accepted scientific laws. Thus science does not accept the notion of free will or intentional action. As you say many people would disagree (me included) however Darwinian evolutionary theorists expressly (and forcefully) reject consciousness as a cause of behaviour.From what I have read, consciousness and free will are outside the scope of what I normally think of as science. These seem to be philosophical issues due to a lack of hard evidence and good experimental methodology.

You are undoubtedly correct about evolutionary theorists rejecting consciousness as effecting evolution, but I did not think they had a lot to say about consciousness as a cause of behavior. They claim than behavior which results in reproductive success tends to cause a larger population of those exhibiting the behavior, but I did not think they paid much attention to the cause of the behavior.

There is still argument about whether consciousness is a necessary part of the evolution of intelligence, a byproduct of intelligence, or a mere accident due to the complexity of a human brain. I do not think there is consensus on what animals (if any) have consciousness. I personally vote definitely for other primates, especially the chimpanzee. I also think a low level of consciousness exists in most mammals.

Originally posted by Dinosaur
Canute:From what I have read, consciousness and free will are outside the scope of what I normally think of as science. These seem to be philosophical issues due to a lack of hard evidence and good experimental methodology.

You are undoubtedly correct about evolutionary theorists rejecting consciousness as effecting evolution, but I did not think they had a lot to say about consciousness as a cause of behavior. ETC

I agree that consciousness and freewill are outside the scope of science as currently defined. However they should not be and I feel that science is beginning to think the same, led by the philosophers. In fact of course it doesn't matter what it's outside the scope of, it needs to be covered by any explanation of the world.

You're right that not much attention is paid to the causes of behaviour which affect evolution (in other words all behaviour). This is odd, since most people are like yourself, and believe that consciousness exists. Or do you think it exists but is non-causal?

Originally posted by Canute

Evolution of species happen because creatures do things (or appear to do things) in order to survive. The question remains why they bother.


Again, a couple things going on here. First, it's not survival but reproduction which determines fitness. I suspect that many individuals in many species can have behaviors giving them extrememly long lives (longer even than reproducing individuals), however, without reproduction, survival is meaningless evolutionarily. Also, evolution is not entirely adaptationist. There is random and neutral evolution as well, which can also result in speciation during geographic isolation. Finally, the process of natural selection does not preclude free will and need not be deterministic. Those individuals with heritible traits that facilitate reproductive sucess will increase in abundance. Those individuals without these traits will decrease.

Originally posted by Canute

No account of brain functioning will explain experience. No physical or computational description of brain activity can account for consciousness in general nor its different aspects.


This is an assumption on your part. It could very well be that consciousness, experience, and memory have physical and structural components in the brain. We just don't know yet, however you COULD be right.

Originally posted by Canute

They were probably treated as anomalous, as of course they are from certain entrenched perspectives.

That's possible, but many biology text books mention the experiment and normally anomolous results are not mentioned so widely.

What we need to do is to define concsiousness. From bacteria to humans, what is "being concsious?"

Once defined, we can assess whether science can even address the issue.
Science can only address issues that are testable, predictable and (most importantly) falsifiable. If we can't falsify whether consciousness even exists, then science is not equipped to examine it. It turns into the realm of metaphysics and ontology.

I apologize for 3 posts in a row.

However, I just came across this article, and although I have not read it, it may be of interest.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/freewill.php

Originally posted by paulsamuel
Again, a couple things going on here. First, it's not survival but reproduction which determines fitness. I suspect that many individuals in many species can have behaviors giving them extrememly long lives (longer even than reproducing individuals), however, without reproduction, survival is meaningless evolutionarily. Also, evolution is not entirely adaptationist. There is random and neutral evolution as well, which can also result in speciation during geographic isolation. Finally, the process of natural selection does not preclude free will and need not be deterministic. Those individuals with heritible traits that facilitate reproductive sucess will increase in abundance. Those individuals without these traits will decrease.
I wonder where that 'survival of the fittest' phrase came form. Reproduction does not determine fitness, fitness (which includes fitness to survive long enough to reproduce lots) affects reproductive success which affects transmission of genes. Current Darwinian evolutionary does not admit the causal effect of consciousness. For a complete and forceful (and patronising) exposition of this view try Dennett 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea', in which the 'dangerous idea' is that human evolution happens without any input from consciousness.

[This is an assumption on your part. It could very well be that consciousness, experience, and memory have physical and structural components in the brain. We just don't know yet, however you COULD be right.[/B]
It may well be that mind is a pointless excrescence of the brain. However this does not alter the fact that 'red' is not an experience that is ever going to be explained by science. Knowing its neural correlate, should it be possible to ever do so, would tell us nothing of what the owner of those neurons is experiencing, and we would only have his or her subjective and conscious explanation of what is being experienced, no scientific evidence at all.

[That's possible, but many biology text books mention the experiment and normally anomolous results are not mentioned so widely. [/B]
OK. I was being gratuitously sceptical.

I think it's hard to say. I used to have trouble with the concept of free will because it is impossible for us to know whether something was predestined or not, however this is free will in another context.

What kind of physical determinism Canute?? You mean as in a person is hungry and looks for food to stay alive, or do you simply mean that the physical world determines what we do??

Originally posted by paulsamuel
What we need to do is to define concsiousness. From bacteria to humans, what is "being concsious?"
I regard consciousness as being experience. This is woolly but a common definition when dressed up a bit. Also common is the idea that whatever consciousness is there is always 'something that it is like' to be conscious.

Once defined, we can assess whether science can even address the issue. Science can only address issues that are testable, predictable and (most importantly) falsifiable. If we can't falsify whether consciousness even exists, then science is not equipped to examine it. It turns into the realm of metaphysics and ontology. [/B]

Science cannot address it. This is why it hasn't for the last few hundred years, why behaviourism was so popular, why the effect of the observer in QM is considered such a mystery etc. However consciousness research is becoming respectable at last so perhaps science will begin to dismantle its boundaries. In the end it hardly matters. If science cannot explain it does not follow that it does not have an explanation. Science, metaphysics, ontology, whatever, are all the same thing in the final analysis.

Originally posted by paulsamuel
I apologize for 3 posts in a row.

However, I just came across this article, and although I have not read it, it may be of interest.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/freewill.php

Thanks.

Originally posted by Neville
What kind of physical determinism Canute?? You mean as in a person is hungry and looks for food to stay alive, or do you simply mean that the physical world determines what we do??

The latter, of which the former is commonly considered an example.

Re: reply to Canute

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by paulsamuel
What we need to do is to define concsiousness. From bacteria to humans, what is "being concsious?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I regard consciousness as being experience. This is woolly but a common definition when dressed up a bit. Also common is the idea that whatever consciousness is there is always 'something that it is like' to be conscious. Yeah good point. Isn't it just that our consciousness is considered to be the most advanced known?! Surely if worms were the most advanced there is (i.e. if humans, dogs etc didnt exist) then their consciousness must still be considered a consciousness?

The latter, of which the former is commonly considered an example. So you werent looking at it from the view that from the big bang there was just particles, elements if you like, and it is only chain reactions between these elements that form planets, water and then the growth of life, from which we are part of (are made of!), and it is still therefore only chain reactions between these elements, particles, chemicals that is causing existence. It is this that led to life and it was this that began before us yet we still have no control over it.

(Someone else did a thread on this quite a while ago)

To summarize, the universe is a series of chain reactions which we are merely just a part of. Our bodies are a dwelling for some of these chemical reactions.

P.S - Wasn't you was it? :cool:

Originally posted by Neville
Yeah good point. Isn't it just that our consciousness is considered to be the most advanced known?! Surely if worms were the most advanced then their consciousness must still be considered a consciousness? ....
Our minds are the most advanced on this planet (probably) if you define 'advanced' as complex (muddled?). However it is not clear what it might mean to call a consciousness advanced. There is no way of comparing them. And as yet no way of measuring what is conscious and what is not.

To summarize, the universe is a series of chain reactions which we are merely just a part of. Our bodies are a dwelling for some of these chemical reactions. P.S - Wasn't you was it? :cool: [/B]
Definitely not. However you're right that it is the traditional scientific deterministic view.

You said, "I wonder where that 'survival of the fittest' phrase came form. Reproduction does not determine fitness, fitness (which includes fitness to survive long enough to reproduce lots) affects reproductive success which affects transmission of genes."

The term "survival of the fittest" is more a literary term than a scientific one. It is also tautological. Fitness is ENTIRELY defined by reproductive success. Survival is only a part of fitness as it pertains to reproductive success. This is precisely why traits that DECREASE survival are selected for if they INCREASE reproductive success. There are many many examples of this.

Then you said, "Current Darwinian evolutionary does not admit the causal effect of consciousness. For a complete and forceful (and patronising) exposition of this view try Dennett 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea', in which the 'dangerous idea' is that human evolution happens without any input from consciousness."

Evolution is a natural phenomenon and needs no consciousness explanation, much like gravity needs no consciousness explanation.

Then you said, "It may well be that mind is a pointless excrescence of the brain. However this does not alter the fact that 'red' is not an experience that is ever going to be explained by science. Knowing its neural correlate, should it be possible to ever do so, would tell us nothing of what the owner of those neurons is experiencing, and we would only have his or her subjective and conscious explanation of what is being experienced, no scientific evidence at all."

But red can be entirely explained by science as it is measurable in terms of wavelength. All those people who experience red have a shared measurable experience.

In another post you stated, "I regard consciousness as being experience. This is woolly but a common definition when dressed up a bit."

Your 'conscious' definition is vague. I presume you mean life experience. Else inanimate objects would also have consciousness. Since all life has experience, then all life is conscious. If this is satisfactory, then consciousness can be addressed by biology by observing and measuring behavioral response to environmental stimuli.

When you say, "If science cannot explain it does not follow that it does not have an explanation," is different from what I said which was science cannot address it. Scientific hypotheses need to be testable and falsifiable and expalnations need to have predictive power. If these criteria are not satisfied then it can not be addressed by science. However, there are many things science cannot currently explain, but are still science given the above.

And, when you say, "Science, metaphysics, ontology, whatever, are all the same thing in the final analysis," is not true. Science has definite characteristics that metaphysics and ontology do not have (see above). For a good explanation of what science is, one can read Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper or Ernst Mayr.

Originally posted by paulsamuel
You said, "I wonder where that 'survival of the fittest' phrase came form.

herbert spencer suggested to substitute natural selection with 'survival of the fittest.' He was the spokesman for social darwinism, a social theory based on a struggle for existence.

from 'the growth of biological thought' by Ernst mayr.

from me:...he was a pathetic loser and everybody who uses the term survival of the fittest to explain evolution is most likely to be mistaken in his view on evolution.

Evolution is a natural phenomenon and needs no consciousness explanation, much like gravity needs no consciousness explanation. What about the underclass having less chance of survival? Those whom noone will give a job to. Those who have little income to obtain the right nutrients through the right kind of meals/foods. Those who do not have the money to pay for operations (maybe even life saving) and do not get any help from the NHS. Don't these peoples chance of survival have to do with others perceptions of them? Those who agree to give them money for their labour. What about those who simply have the skills that no-body needs? This must effect evolution. With the 'machine age' coming i.e. machines now build what the 'skill-less' ( :( ) man built, increasingly the only jobs available are for those with the right kind of skills. Most of these involve literacy: accountancy, computer programming, typing etc. Nearly all jobs now involve some 'form filling''. Typing itself is becoming common place (i would say) for jobs. What about literacy as a standard of elimination from the human gene pool?

It may well be that mind is a pointless excrescence of the brain. Which has an evolutionary advantage! This is the same as the case that those creatures without ears have less chance of survival than those with (awareness of others and possible predators).

Just a thought: we have eyes and ears etc but is there was no sound would a creature grow ears anyway? (given that evolution is based on random gene mutations). Even if they were pointless would they grow (with the capacity to hear sound it's just that there is none!)

If this is the case what about sixth sense? If we do not have the capacity (senses) to recognize a sixth 'plain' (?) then we wouldnt know its was there. Maybe in the future those with a sixth sense will prosper more fruitfully however given that the most 'modern' societies attempt to irradicate violence etc this i cant see how this would be an advantage except maybe mind reading and powers of persuasion.

"I regard consciousness as being experience. This is woolly but a common definition when dressed up a bit." For me consciousness is an awareness of the existence of own being. The awareness that one exists. A tree is not consciouss because you could poke it, kick it, burn it, anything you liike but it will not react becuase it is not aware that it exists. A conscious creature/being is basically aware that it exists: that it can move, escape pain, is aware that it exists in space i.e. knows that it has its own space: occupies space. Even a worm or lowley bug will move when it feels extreme heat! It is aware that it can move and escape the heat. Is anyone aware if Bacteria moves away from heat or will it just stay and die from it?

from me:...he was a pathetic loser and everybody who uses the term survival of the fittest to explain evolution is most likely to be mistaken in his view on evolution. I think I can see your gripe! It is not the individuals fittness that determines survival but it is the environment.? The individuals state of being: skills, adapted biology determines whether it is right for the environment. It is the environment that selected the Giraffe as fit enough to survive in the envronment that it does but if a giraffe began to evolve underwater it would be this environment that decided that it was suited for survival?

Originally posted by Neville
What about the underclass having less chance of survival? Those whom noone will give a job to. Those who have little income to obtain the right nutrients through the right kind of meals/foods. Those who do not have the money to pay for operations (maybe even life saving) and do not get any help from the NHS. Don't these peoples chance of survival have to do with others perceptions of them? Those who agree to give them money for their labour. What about those who simply have the skills that no-body needs? This must effect evolution. With the 'machine age' coming i.e. machines now build what the 'skill-less' ( :( ) man built, increasingly the only jobs available are for those with the right kind of skills. Most of these involve literacy: accountancy, computer programming, typing etc. Nearly all jobs now involve some 'form filling''. Typing itself is becoming common place (i would say) for jobs. What about literacy as a standard of elimination from the human gene pool?

no, these things do not affect human evolution.

Originally posted by Neville
Which has an evolutionary advantage! This is the same as the case that those creatures without ears have less chance of survival than those with (awareness of others and possible predators).

This is a response to a quote from Canute, not me, so I will allow him to respond.

Originally posted by Neville

Just a thought: we have eyes and ears etc but is there was no sound would a creature grow ears anyway? (given that evolution is based on random gene mutations). Even if they were pointless would they grow (with the capacity to hear sound it's just that there is none!)

If this is the case what about sixth sense? If we do not have the capacity (senses) to recognize a sixth 'plain' (?) then we wouldnt know its was there. Maybe in the future those with a sixth sense will prosper more fruitfully however given that the most 'modern' societies attempt to irradicate violence etc this i cant see how this would be an advantage except maybe mind reading and powers of persuasion.

Natural selection can direct adaptation and evolution given such adaptations increase fitness (i.e. reproductive success) and given the starting material. Just because one can envision some purportedly advantageous trait does not mean a trait will evolve (i.e. humans with wings).

If you are interested in evolution and how it works there are many text books that can illuminate you. I am also willing to discuss any aspects of evolution with you.

Reply to pualsamuel
Originally posted by paulsamuel
The term "survival of the fittest" is more a literary term than a scientific one. It is also tautological. Fitness is ENTIRELY defined by reproductive success. Survival is only a part of fitness as it pertains to reproductive success. This is precisely why traits that DECREASE survival are selected for if they INCREASE reproductive success. There are many many examples of this..
This seems to agree with what I said.

Evolution is a natural phenomenon and needs no consciousness explanation, much like gravity needs no consciousness explanation.[/B]
No, gravity needs a gravity explanation, although quite who is going to explain it to whom is a puzzle.
One might just as easily and logically say that consciousness is a natural phenomenon and needs no evolutionary explanation. The evidence from science does not yet decide the matter if it is looked at impartially. This is not meant as an anti-scientific statement, it is just a description of our current state of scientific knowledge.

[Then you said, "It may well be that mind is a pointless excrescence of the brain. However this does not alter the fact that 'red' is not an experience that is ever going to be explained by science. Knowing its neural correlate, should it be possible to ever do so, would tell us nothing of what the owner of those neurons is experiencing, and we would only have his or her subjective and conscious explanation of what is being experienced, no scientific evidence at all."

[QUOTE]But red can be entirely explained by science as it is measurable in terms of wavelength. All those people who experience red have a shared measurable experience..[/B]
This is not the case and it is most unscientific. Red is a conscious experience caused by a certain wavelength of light. The experience of it can neither be shared or measured scientifically. Science has hardly made a start on explaining it. Hell, there it isn't even certain as to what it is that needs explaining.

Your 'conscious' definition is vague. I presume you mean life experience. Else inanimate objects would also have consciousness. Since all life has experience, then all life is conscious. If this is satisfactory, then consciousness can be addressed by biology by observing and measuring behavioral response to environmental stimuli.[/B]
Many comments here. Living is an ill-defined concept. I do not know what is conscious and what is not. Anything that has the experience of being conscious is conscious, anything that does not is not. Consciousness can be no more than the contents of conscious. By experience I mean 'something that it is like'. My definition accords with most philosophers, although of course they have varying explanations of the cause of those experiences.

It is not known whether all life has experiences. It is currently not known to science whether anything or anybody other than me has experiences, or you in your case. Science generally considers that most life is not conscious (despite not knowing what consciousness is). Biology already studies behavioural response to environmental stimuli, and without any mention of consciousness.


When you say, "If science cannot explain it does not follow that it does not have an explanation," is different from what I said which was science cannot address it. Scientific hypotheses need to be testable and falsifiable and expalnations need to have predictive power. If these criteria are not satisfied then it can not be addressed by science. However, there are many things science cannot currently explain, but are still science given the above.[/B]
I agree. Therefore something other than science has to explain it.

And, when you say, "Science, metaphysics, ontology, whatever, are all the same thing in the final analysis," is not true. Science has definite characteristics that metaphysics and ontology do not have (see above). For a good explanation of what science is, one can read Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper or Ernst Mayr.[/B]
Hmmm. Science is one of the ways in which we seek knowledge of the world. As Popper say "There are no ultimate sources of knowledge. Every source, every suggestion, is welcome...We usually examine the facts rather than our sources of information." This is what I meant. In the end science is just one aspect, along with metaphysics and ontology, of one single thing, our search for knowledge.

paulsamuel - I disgaree with most of what Neville said but it cannot be said that performance in the workplace or the social ladder does not affect human evolution. This would directly contradict Darwin.

It must do Canute! Those who have less chance of survival generally have less chance of reproduction (given that they do not have a long life span). This is especially true for the 'social monkeys' that we are i.e. is a person who does not work likely to be able to afford the money to go to bars, clubs etc or even gain entry to other social spheres where people are likely to find partners. Will a person who doesnt work have access to the internet?! Human beings now decide who will survive and who will not (Doctors turn away lung cancer victims who have refused to stop smoking). People make decisions about others and it is these decisions that influence that persons chances for survival. While the Law may punish offenders and lock them up (giving them no chance for reproduction!) those who live outside the Law but do not get caught have an increased chance for survival given the money and lifestyle that they will (may!) have.

There are many other ways that humanity effects evolution/natural selection etc.

Originally posted by Neville
It must do Canute! Those who have less chance of survival generally have less chance of reproduction (given that they do not have a long life span). This is especially true for the 'social monkeys' that we are i.e. is a person who does not work likely to be able to afford the money to go to bars, clubs etc or even gain entry to other social spheres where people are likely to find partners. Will a person who doesnt work have access to the internet?! Human beings now decide who will survive and who will not (Doctors turn away lung cancer victims who have refused to stop smoking). People make decisions about others and it is these decisions that influence that persons chances for survival. While the Law may punish offenders and lock them up (giving them no chance for reproduction!) those who live outside the Law but do not get caught have an increased chance for survival given the money and lifestyle that they will (may!) have.

There are many other ways that humanity effects evolution/natural selection etc.

educated rich people have on average less people than poor uneducated people in western countries. Hence having money to go to social events probably isn't a factor. Poverty might actually be a positive selective factor.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
educated rich people have on average less people than poor uneducated people in western countries. Hence having money to go to social events probably isn't a factor. Poverty might actually be a positive selective factor.
Quite possibly. Poverty is a good example of how income and status impact on human evolution, and thus also on the natural world at large.

Originally posted by Canute
Quite possibly. Poverty is a good example of how income and status impact on human evolution, and thus also on the natural world at large.

only if poverty is somehow connected to genetic information

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
only if poverty is somehow connected to genetic information
Which it seems to be, as you suggested.

Originally posted by Canute
Which it seems to be, as you suggested.

it could have a social cause

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
it could have a social cause
I would have thought poverty had to have a social cause, especially since it's measured by social comparisons.

Originally posted by Canute
Reply to pualsamuel

This seems to agree with what I said.


Not at all. You said originally,

Originally posted by Canute
Reproduction does not determine fitness


which is, as I stated, not true.

Next you say,
Originally posted by Canute

No, gravity needs a gravity explanation, although quite who is going to explain it to whom is a puzzle.
One might just as easily and logically say that consciousness is a natural phenomenon and needs no evolutionary explanation. The evidence from science does not yet decide the matter if it is looked at impartially. This is not meant as an anti-scientific statement, it is just a description of our current state of scientific knowledge.

which is crap. You seem to think that natural phenomena are dependent somehow on human explanations, which is, of course, not true. What, do you think that before Newton explained gravity that things didn’t fall to the ground, planets didn’t orbit the sun? Natural phenomena exist independently of human thought, consciousness or existence, which makes gravity, evolution and all other natural phenomena independent of of human thought, consciousness or existence.

Then you say,
Originally posted by Canute

This is not the case and it is most unscientific. Red is a conscious experience caused by a certain wavelength of light. The experience of it can neither be shared or measured scientifically. Science has hardly made a start on explaining it. Hell, there it isn't even certain as to what it is that needs explaining.


The properties of light, such as wavelength, are natural phenomena and are completely independent of perception, consciousness or human experience. As natural phenomena, they can be be addressed using scientific methodology and, as such, are science.


As for the rest of your post (I won't quote it), your reasoning is vague and tautological. I will say this, consciousness, as you are expounding it, does not exist, and has no more meaning than any other belief or belief system, such as a belief in god or a belief that giant invisible pink elephants are orbiting the earth.

This difference between belief and reality (natural phenomena) is the crux of the difference between physics and metaphysics, existence and ontology, consciousness and biology. The first term in each pair has no place in a scientific discussion and should more rightly be considered religion.

Finally, in response to some of your (and neville's) posts concerning human social and cultural affects on human evolution:

there are, at minimum, 2 requisites,

1) there must be a genetic basis (heredity) and since there is none (i.e. no genetic basis for performance in the workplace or access to the internet) there's no affect on human evolution

2) must have a relative affect on reproductive success and since there is none (i.e. no differential reproductive success between those who have access to the internet and those who do not) there's no affect on human evolution

educated rich people have on average less people than poor uneducated people in western countries. Hence having money to go to social events probably isn't a factor. Poverty might actually be a positive selective factor. Yeah but this still affects evolution/natural selection!2) must have a relative affect on reproductive success and since there is none (i.e. no differential reproductive success between those who have access to the internet and those who do not) there's no affect on human evolution Yeah but those with money do have a better chance of survival given that those people will be able to afford better/more adequate heating, food nutrition and haven for themselves and those around them i.e. better areas=less crime. Also the rich are less likely to end up in prison because their crimes are harder to detect (fraud) and those crime's have weaker penalties. The rich will also be able to afford better lawyers whether they have committed a crime or not. You still think that humans have no affect on evolution?

What about the fact that non-westerners are probably likely to be involved in a war soon and have a chance of being 'wiped out' while those who reject their native countries to join the west have less chance of 'fitting in' (i would say) and less chance of passing on their genes (imo). This may not be strictly true however the point is that humanity does play a part in natural selection (imo).

as I stated before;

no, these things have no affect on evolution

as I stated before;

no, these things have no affect on evolution Yes they do! :) :D

Originally posted by paulsamuel
Not at all. You said originally, "Reproduction does not determine fitness".

I said, in full, "Reproduction does not determine fitness, fitness (which includes fitness to survive long enough to reproduce lots) affects reproductive success which affects transmission of genes."

You replied "Fitness is ENTIRELY defined by reproductive success. Survival is only a part of fitness as it pertains to reproductive success. This is precisely why traits that DECREASE survival are selected for if they INCREASE reproductive success. There are many many examples of this."[/B][/QUOTE]
I understand the problem. I forgot that 'detirmine' has two meanings. I did not mean 'detirmine' in the sense of 'measure. I meant it in the sense of causation. My intended point was that reproduction does not cause fitness, it is a consequence of it, and the way in which we measure it. In other words reproductive success is the measure of fitness, not its cause. Reproductive success cannot cause reproductive success.

[Next you say, (...) which is crap. You seem to think that natural phenomena are dependent somehow on human explanations, which is, of course, not true. What, do you think that before Newton explained gravity that things didn’t fall to the ground, planets didn’t orbit the sun? Natural phenomena exist independently of human thought, consciousness or existence, which makes gravity, evolution and all other natural phenomena independent of of human thought, consciousness or existence.[/B]
I appreciate your directness, ahem. You seem to have taken my remarks, which were an answer given in the terms of a different conversation, out of context and read something into them that I didn't actually write. It is not proved that anything exists beyond our consiousness, although I agree with you that it is likely that they do. (But cannot prove it).

The properties of light, such as wavelength, are natural phenomena and are completely independent of perception, consciousness or human experience. As natural phenomena, they can be be addressed using scientific methodology and, as such, are science.[/B]
This is philosophically very woolly. Still, it is possible that you are right. Either way I agree that they are the data of science.

As for the rest of your post (I won't quote it), your reasoning is vague and tautological. I will say this, consciousness, as you are expounding it, does not exist, and has no more meaning than any other belief or belief system, such as a belief in god or a belief that giant invisible pink elephants are orbiting the earth.[/B]
I'm sorry that genetics and environmental factors have combined to make you assume this. A scientific proof would win you considerable acclaim. If the universe is self-creating then tautology is a predictable property of any true explanation of it.

This difference between belief and reality (natural phenomena) is the crux of the difference between physics and metaphysics, existence and ontology, consciousness and biology. The first term in each pair has no place in a scientific discussion and should more rightly be considered religion.[/B]
Many philosophers will be horrified to learn that they are in fact practicing theology. Shouldn't they be told? I'm surprise that you can argue your case so strongly without holding any belief in your views.

1) there must be a genetic basis (heredity) and since there is none (i.e. no genetic basis for performance in the workplace or access to the internet) there's no affect on human evolution[/B]
If we hadn't evolved brains there wouldn't be a workplace. And many hard workers work hard to give their children a good start in life. Are you suggesting that quality of parenting has no effect on the fitness of progeny? Your view seems most unscientific.


[2) must have a relative affect on reproductive success and since there is none (i.e. no differential reproductive success between those who have access to the internet and those who do not) there's no affect on human evolution [/B]
It's cheating to pick an easy target such as use of the Internet. Personally I find women to be attracted to men with fast cars and good incomes. (Well, not actually personally).

I'm sorry Canute, I don't know what to say to you. You have started a thread about consciousness and evolution, but it doesn't appear that you know anything about evolution, and you are not willing to learn anything. You have provided us with vague, tautological and varying definitions of consciousness, have not shown any evidence of teleological aspects of evolution, and appear to not know the difference between 'beliefs' and 'reality.'

If you really have a point to make, then you should make it, preferably in a didactic manner so that it can be analyzed.

A typical example of your confusion;

"I do not know what is conscious and what is not. Anything that has the experience of being conscious is conscious, anything that does not is not. Consciousness can be no more than the contents of conscious."

Whatver that means.

One more example is these two statements (I confess I have never seen a more confused pair of statements on the same subject in my life),

first,

"Reproduction does not determine fitness, fitness (which includes fitness to survive long enough to reproduce lots) affects reproductive success which affects transmission of genes."

then,

"reproduction does not cause fitness, it is a consequence of it, and the way in which we measure it. In other words reproductive success is the measure of fitness, not its cause. Reproductive success cannot cause reproductive success."

At least you appear to be 'getting it' in the second statement.

To make it most clear to you, Fitness is measured by reproductive success, period!

Originally posted by Neville
Yeah but this still affects evolution/natural selection! Yeah but those with money do have a better chance of survival given that those people will be able to afford better/more adequate heating, food nutrition and haven for themselves and those around them i.e. better areas=less crime. Also the rich are less likely to end up in prison because their crimes are harder to detect (fraud) and those crime's have weaker penalties. The rich will also be able to afford better lawyers whether they have committed a crime or not. You still think that humans have no affect on evolution?

What about the fact that non-westerners are probably likely to be involved in a war soon and have a chance of being 'wiped out' while those who reject their native countries to join the west have less chance of 'fitting in' (i would say) and less chance of passing on their genes (imo). This may not be strictly true however the point is that humanity does play a part in natural selection (imo).

Dear neville,

I think you have been infected with the meme of survival of the fittest and this made altered your thought structure into thinking that evolution is about physical survival.

Let me comment on your post, otherwise Paulsamuel has to do all the dirty work. I am sure he has more important things to do with his time.

It is not about being able to pass genes on, it is about genes selectively being passed on.

Since there is no direct correlation between these social factors and genetic makeup, there can be no natural selection for these attributes. If there is no gene for being rich than there can't be any selection for the 'rich' gene.

Originally posted by paulsamuel
To make it most clear to you, Fitness is measured by reproductive success, period!
Ah Well. At least you understood this much of what I said.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
Since there is no direct correlation between these social factors and genetic makeup, there can be no natural selection for these attributes. If there is no gene for being rich than there can't be any selection for the 'rich' gene.
As far as it goes your post seems clear and correct. However your last sentence begins with an interesting 'if'. Is it not possible that Jewish people inherit some of the attributes which make them succesful in particular types of activity? Is it not possible that great warriors are less likely to have wimps for kids? Is it not possible, since it is said that our genes determine our brains and thus our minds, that certain basic attributes of personality can be passed on genetically? (NOT acquired characteristics). Do not intelligent parents tend to have more intelligent kids? At this point I feel that Neville and I have a reasonable case here.

I agree that there is no 'rich' gene. However there must be many genes which encode for characteristics which make their phenotypes more than averagely likely to become rich. (Good looks for instance). Certainly my genes make my workplace success more likely that do those of an elephant.

To me your view (and paulsamuels) is anti-Darwinian. Have I misunderstood you?

Originally posted by Canute
As far as it goes your post seems clear and correct. However your last sentence begins with an interesting 'if'. Is it not possible that Jewish people inherit some of the attributes which make them succesful in particular types of activity? Is it not possible that great warriors are less likely to have wimps for kids? Is it not possible, since it is said that our genes determine our brains and thus our minds, that certain basic attributes of personality can be passed on genetically? (NOT acquired characteristics). Do not intelligent parents tend to have more intelligent kids? At this point I feel that Neville and I have a reasonable case here.

I agree that there is no 'rich' gene. However there must be many genes which encode for characteristics which make their phenotypes more than averagely likely to become rich. (Good looks for instance). Certainly my genes make my workplace success more likely that do those of an elephant.

To me your view (and paulsamuels) is anti-Darwinian. Have I misunderstood you?

maybe people that look good are also frigid


you are assuming a lot of things...and assumption is the mother of all fuckups as we all know. A phenotype is not the same a genotype. A single phenotype can be caused by different genotypes. You assume that intelligence is genetic. That might be partly the case. You assume that all intelligence is caused by the same genetic constitution. That's almost certainly not the case. You assume that intelligent educated people only mate with intelligent educated peope. That's not the case. You assume that it is more likely that intelligent educated people reproduce more with other intelligent educated people then with stupid poor people. That might be the case. You assume that intelligent educated people have a higher fitness because they have better living conditions. We know that this is not true, because living conditions has nothing to do with reproductive fitness. Therefore one cannot just assume that intelligent educated people have more children. In fact we know that they have less children, because on average they start having children later. Why, because they make a rational decision to do so because they are on average better educated. You assume because educated intelligent people have more children now (which they don't) will continue to have more children forever. That's an assumption, because it can easily be said that having children late in life for educated intelligent people is fashionable at the moment. Maybe the situation will change in 10, 20 or 100 years. Hence there will not be any selective pressure towards more educated intelligent people anymore, which wasn't present in the first place.

Now put all the if's and assumptions together and you have nothing left

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
maybe people that look good are also frigid ETC)

And maybe people that look bad are frigid. Frigidity is irrelevant.

This is an odd business. Here I am thinking I'm supporting Darwin and I get objections. Let me attempt to get back to basics. Firstly would you agree/disgree with any of these three statements?.

When Africans were brought to the Americas as slaves it resulted in centuries of European/African interbreeding that continues apace.

This interbreeding introduces new genes into the human gene pool in sufficient quantities to be of statistical significance.

Social behaviour affects the gene pool.

Originally posted by Canute
As far as it goes your post seems clear and correct. However your last sentence begins with an interesting 'if'. Is it not possible that Jewish people inherit some of the attributes which make them succesful in particular types of activity? Is it not possible that great warriors are less likely to have wimps for kids? Is it not possible, since it is said that our genes determine our brains and thus our minds, that certain basic attributes of personality can be passed on genetically? (NOT acquired characteristics). Do not intelligent parents tend to have more intelligent kids? At this point I feel that Neville and I have a reasonable case here.

I agree that there is no 'rich' gene. However there must be many genes which encode for characteristics which make their phenotypes more than averagely likely to become rich. (Good looks for instance). Certainly my genes make my workplace success more likely that do those of an elephant.

To me your view (and paulsamuels) is anti-Darwinian. Have I misunderstood you?

this seems to be lamarckism. the darwinian type folks gets into a serious tizzy about this.
see here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10394&perpage=20&pagenumber=5) for several quotes i made that seems (to me) to support this heresy

Originally posted by Canute

When Africans were brought to the Americas as slaves it resulted in centuries of European/African interbreeding that continues apace.

yes

This interbreeding introduces new genes into the human gene pool in sufficient quantities to be of statistical significance.

Not necessarily, since there can me more genetic diversity between two african persons than between an african and a european one.

Social behaviour affects the gene pool.
Not necessarily, sometimes, sometimes not.

Originally posted by spookz
this seems to be lamarckism. the darwinian type folks gets into a serious tizzy about this.
see here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10394&perpage=20&pagenumber=5) for several quotes i made that seems (to me) to support this heresy
No, I carefully said NOT acquired characteristics. I read some of the thread you pointed me to and support your fight against unwarranted dogmatism.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
yes

Not necessarily, since there can me more genetic diversity between two african persons than between an african and a european one.

Not necessarily, sometimes, sometimes not.
Greater genetic diverstity is not an issue. The point is simply that this interbreeding created genes that otherwise would not have existed. On the last point I agree that it is 'not necessarily'. However this means it does sometimes.

I'll wait for paulsamuels response before moving on to workplace success etc.

Originally posted by Canute
Greater genetic diverstity is not an issue. The point is simply that this interbreeding created genes that otherwise would not have existed. On the last point I agree that it is 'not necessarily'. However this means it does sometimes.

I'll wait for paulsamuels response before moving on to workplace success etc.

interbreeding would create greater diversity if it were between two genetically diverse populations. Are you saying that they are? Because I am saying that they aren't.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
interbreeding would create greater diversity if it were between two genetically diverse populations. Are you saying that they are? Because I am saying that they aren't.
I'm saying that saying that this particular example of interbreeding affects the human gene pool, and thus human evolution. I wouldn't like to guess what specific effect it might have over evolutionary time. It might be less diversity. Whichever it is it's a different gene pool.

Originally posted by Canute
I'm saying that saying that this particular example of interbreeding affects the human gene pool, and thus human evolution. I wouldn't like to guess what specific effect it might have over evolutionary time. It might be less diversity. Whichever it is it's a different gene pool.

ok...in a sense there would be only evolution if there was also a selective push towards specific genetic information. It is still one species after all...al the mixing in the world won't change the genetic information. And i don't really see a selective push happening at the moment, because a lot of social trends are under the influence of 'fashion'.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
ok...in a sense there would be only evolution if there was also a selective push towards specific genetic information. It is still one species after all...al the mixing in the world won't change the genetic information. And i don't really see a selective push happening at the moment, because a lot of social trends are under the influence of 'fashion'.
ANY change in the human genome is a 'push towards' specific genetic information. Chances are it won't make us fitter and it may even be insignificant, but these things can only be judged later (much later) in hindsight by anthropologists of the future.

I take your point that a genetic change may not necessarily create a trend. But that does not mean that the genetic change is not part of our evolution, part of the genetic background from which trends emerge.

I have a suspicion that we do not really disgree about all this. We are just considering evolution from different angles. In one sense evolution is about the evolution of our phenotype, hands and feet and suchlike, and on the other it is about the species as a whole. Would I be right in thinking that you are focusing on the former and me on the latter? Thus while the argument for the affect of social factors, including workplace performance, on human evolution is perhaps contentious if we are talking about our individual physical form, it does not seem, from what you say, that you think it is contentious when talking about the evolution of the species as a collection of types of people subject to statistical evolutionary trends.

Originally posted by Canute
Greater genetic diverstity is not an issue. The point is simply that this interbreeding created genes that otherwise would not have existed. On the last point I agree that it is 'not necessarily'. However this means it does sometimes.

I'll wait for paulsamuels response before moving on to workplace success etc.

Interbreeding DOES NOT create genes.

Please, if you have questions about stuff, ask me, do not just make stuff up.

Originally posted by paulsamuel
Interbreeding DOES NOT create genes.

Please, if you have questions about stuff, ask me, do not just make stuff up.
Fascinating opinion. However I prefer to accept the scientific evidence. How is it up there on Mount Olympus?

Since you offered I do have a question. Do you agree or disagree with Dan Dennett when he writes:

"Environmental changes due to cultural innovations change the landscape of phenotypic expression so much and so fast that they can in principle change the genetic selection pressures rapidly - the Baldwin Effect is a simple instance of such a change in selection pressure due to widespread behavioural innovation."

Originally posted by Canute
Fascinating opinion. However I prefer to accept the scientific evidence. How is it up there on Mount Olympus?

Since you offered I do have a question. Do you agree or disagree with Dan Dennett when he writes:

"Environmental changes due to cultural innovations change the landscape of phenotypic expression so much and so fast that they can in principle change the genetic selection pressures rapidly - the Baldwin Effect is a simple instance of such a change in selection pressure due to widespread behavioural innovation."

There is NO scientific evidence, and I challenge you to show even one reference in which a gene is created through interbreeding. Genes do not arise de novo due to interbreeding.

I don't like Dr. Dennett's wording ("landscape of phenotypic expression" is ambiguous, at best) and he modifys the statement by using the phrase "in principle", however, if I may rephrase to give you an understanding of my position re: the above statement: If , Environmental changes due to cultural innovations change selective pressures affecting reproductive success, then they will affect human evolution. I'm not sure if that means I agree with Dr. Dennett or not.

However, it has become apparent to me that you do not understand what you've read in Dr. Dennett's book.

How all of this modularity, complexity, and integration arose and changed during the history of life on earth is a central evolutionary question. Localized random mutation, selection operating "one gene at a time" (John Maynard Smith's formulation), and gradual modification of individual functions are unable to provide satisfactory explanations for the molecular data, no matter how much time for change is assumed. There are simply too many potential degrees of freedom for random variability and too many interconnections to account for.

A Third Way (Alternatives to Creationism and Darwinism) (http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br22.1/shapiro.html)

Genome Organization and Reorganization in Evolution: Formatting for Computation and Function (http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/contextgenome.html)

more (http://bostonreview.mit.edu/evolution.html)

?

Originally posted by paulsamuel
If environmental changes due to cultural innovations change selective pressures affecting reproductive success, then they will affect human evolution. I'm not sure if that means I agree with Dr. Dennett or not.
I think it means you do. So do I. Thus it seems we all agree.

Originally posted by Canute
I think it means you do. So do I. Thus it seems we all agree.

now we only would have to find an example and we could publish it straight into 'nature'.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
now we only would have to find an example and we could publish it straight into 'nature'.
I thought that there were lots of established examples of the Baldwin effect. I thought that was why evolutionists accepted it as a real effect. Certainly Daniel Dennet, a much respected Darwinian theorist, accepts it. The examples of cultural change creating change in our fitness landscape are surely too numerous to count.

Originally posted by Canute
I thought that there were lots of established examples of the Baldwin effect. I thought that was why evolutionists accepted it as a real effect. Certainly Daniel Dennet, a much respected Darwinian theorist, accepts it. The examples of cultural change creating change in our fitness landscape are surely too numerous to count.

speculation is not the same as proof

Fair enough I suppose. If evolutionary scientists haven't yet convinced you I certainly can't.

no confirmation (or even published data) of Baldwin effect in my experience as an evolutionary biologist.

perhaps you can come up with a list of refs. (2 or 3 should do)

since you have presumably read dr. Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, perhaps you could tell us if he references E.O. Wilson's book Sociobiology? I suspect he has, so perhaps you could tell us if Dr. Dennett has also referred to the numerous negative responses evolutionary biologists had to this work? If he hasn't, then his book is one-sided and has not presented the data (evidence) not supporting sociobiology. A quick check could tell you, look for references to Lewontin or S.J. Gould in the bibliography and index and what do you see?

Originally posted by paulsamuel
since you have presumably read dr. Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, perhaps you could tell us if he references E.O. Wilson's book Sociobiology? I suspect he has, so perhaps you could tell us if Dr. Dennett has also referred to the numerous negative responses evolutionary biologists had to this work? If he hasn't, then his book is one-sided and has not presented the data (evidence) not supporting sociobiology. A quick check could tell you, look for references to Lewontin or S.J. Gould in the bibliography and index and what do you see?
I don't want to trawl through it but will have a go from memory. The first thing I should say is that I feel it is a well written but fatally one-sided view of evolution, so please don't think I'm any supporter of his general views. However the nature of the praise the book has received suggest that it does not step on too many established scientific views. In fact his avowed purpose in writing it was to cram the prevailing wisdom down readers' throats and banish all non-Darwinians (by his measure) to the realms of madness. One must not forget that DD is the champion of hetero-phenomenology, the view that every single act we make is determined solely by our physical evolution and mindless response to environment. I don't remember him saying anything interesting about sociobiology but I think at some point he rubbished most of Wilsons' core ideas and disagrees with Lewontin's view of adaptionism.

Perhaps, despite all this, I was wrong to assume that DD would have belittled the Baldwin Effect if he could have done so, since it is not helpful to his argument. If so I apologise. I did not imagine he would have discussed it as being real if there is no evidence for it. (Actually I still don't, but I suppose he might have made a mistake).

However even if my argument from DD fails I still find it impossible to believe that the selection pressures on our species are not different today than they were 500,000 years ago partly as a result of changes in our environment that we have wrought ourselves. The idea seems profoundly counter-intuitive and I have seen no proof for it.

In 1896, Baldwin proposed that the body cells themselves achieve a certain plasticity, allowing them to acclimatize to new conditions, and over time a kind of gradual adaptation takes place throughout the population, which eventually becomes instinct. Baldwinism does not cross the Weissman barrier, and is accepted by neoDarwinism as part of adaptationism. Dennett grudgingly finds it useful to append to his 'cranes' theory, because it does some slight explanatory work, while still conforming to dogma. 'The saving grace for the Baldwin effect' he says 'is that organisms pass on their particular capacity to acquire certain characteristics, rather than any of the characteristics they actually acquire.' author (http://www.sqwark.com/Lamarckism.htm)

A New Factor in Evolution By J. Mark Baldwin (http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Bookinforev/baldwin.html)

SOCIAL HEREDITY AND ORGANIC EVOLUTION (http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/baldwin/Baldwin_1899/Baldwin_1899_appA.html)

The Baldwin Effect: A Bibliography (http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/web/baldwin.html)


"is that organisms pass on their particular capacity to acquire certain characteristics, rather than any of the characteristics they actually acquire"

what is the distinction here? it doesnt seem like much.

??

edit: inserted "author" link

unfortunately, no data papers in that bibliography, just theory.

"is that organisms pass on their particular capacity to acquire certain characteristics, rather than any of the characteristics they actually acquire"

Then you asked,

"what is the distinction here? it doesnt seem like much."


the distinction is the heritibility of acquired characteristics (commonly called Lamarckism).

As you quoted "Baldwinism does not cross the Weissman barrier"

that is, the barrier between the soma and the germ cells

Spooks. I am impressed by your summary. I had not quite understood this. I was probably wrong to use Baldwin in my defence since this is not quite what I meant. Having read your explanation I also wonder with Paul whether this is not Lamarckism in a slightly different form.

If I understand you correctly you seem to be right to ask 'what is the difference'. The inheritance of the ability to acquire a characteristic seems equivalent to the inheritance of the characteristic itself. Neither thing seems to suggests the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

the distinction appears quite clear to me.

a good example: in britain, birds (blue tits, no jokes please) learned how to pierce the aluminum caps of milk bottles to reach the rich cream that had risen to the top of the milk bottles. there is certainly no 'open-milk-bottle' gene, so this acquired character is not heritible. However, those birds that learned how to open the milk bottles were more successful reproducers, and therefore, passed on their genes more successfully. The ability to learn how to open the milk bottles, although not itself genetically determined, was linked to the genes in those birds that could open milk bottles.

This is an example of the Baldwin effect.

there are a few more instances where the weissmann barrier might be breached. i think its worth taking a look at. the aquatic thread has more shit if you wanna pursue

Jumping Genes (http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Essays/JumpingGenes.html) Paramutation (http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/faculty/ewalker.phtml) and now Genomic imprinting (http://www.med.jhu.edu/deptmed/Internist/nov99/imprinting.html), are today well known epigenetic mechanisms, but the development of a theoretical framework with which to explain epigenetic phenomena has been significantly hampered by neoDarwinism's insistence on adherence to dogma, and epigenetic research, especially that which indicates any hint of Lamarckism (http://sqwark.com/Lamarckism.htm), remains semi-underground. 'You're not supposed to talk about it' says Steven Rose. (http://www.anth.org/ifgene/vines.htm)


A better understanding of epigenetic inheritance is likely to emerge as the real function of the 97% of the genome not directly involved in coding for proteins, and previously dismissed as 'junk genes', reveal themselves to be anything but, and indeed, possibly a criticial factor in evolution.

http://www.sqwark.com/Epigenetics.htm

*easy now paul!

:D

something's not quite right. so are you saying what did get passed on is the ability to learn (intelligence?)? this linkage of learning ability to genes is the baldwin effect?

The saving grace for the Baldwin effect' he says 'is that organisms pass on their particular capacity to acquire certain characteristics, rather than any of the characteristics they actually acquire.'

The individual cannot transmit learning, but the population somehow acquires it anyway? And does this actually explain evolutionary change? Random mutation followed by natural selection, modified by acclimatisation? For this is exactly what neoDarwinism says. lamark (http://www.sqwark.com/Lamarckism.htm)

Originally posted by spookz
something's not quite right. so are you saying what did get passed on is the ability to learn (intelligence?)? this linkage of learning ability to genes is the baldwin effect?


no, I said what I meant. something acquired isn't inherited, but those individuals that acquired something are passing on their genes more successfully. I'm not saying I agree with its relevance to evolution, but it is what the baldwin effect purports (although what is getting inherited could be an ability to learn).

Originally posted by paulsamuel
the distinction appears quite clear to me.

a good example: in britain, birds (blue tits, no jokes please) learned how to pierce the aluminum caps of milk bottles to reach the rich cream that had risen to the top of the milk bottles. there is certainly no 'open-milk-bottle' gene, so this acquired character is not heritible. However, those birds that learned how to open the milk bottles were more successful reproducers, and therefore, passed on their genes more successfully. The ability to learn how to open the milk bottles, although not itself genetically determined, was linked to the genes in those birds that could open milk bottles.

This is an example of the Baldwin effect.
I'm well off my turf here and you obviously know what you're talking about. However is there not a possible objection to this view? I roughly know the data that you're referring to, in layman's fashion, but was not aware that it necessarily implied that the 'open-milk-bottle' gene was anything at all to do with the genes. Does not the data just day that more and more birds started to do it?

Also I am unsure as to why the fact that those birds who became more successful reproducers (as a result of learning how to open milk bottles) had more progeny would have had any effect on the spread of the ability, since those birds would not have passed it on to their progeny.

I hate to say more but - If the ability to open milk bottles is not genetically detirmined then how did the first bird to do it gain the ability?

Author's note: I am interested, not trying to win an argument.

Originally posted by spookz
there are a few more instances where the weissmann barrier might be breached. i think its worth taking a look at. the aquatic thread has more shit if you wanna pursue

Jumping Genes (http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Essays/JumpingGenes.html) Paramutation (http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/faculty/ewalker.phtml) and now Genomic imprinting (http://www.med.jhu.edu/deptmed/Internist/nov99/imprinting.html), are today well known epigenetic mechanisms, but the development of a theoretical framework with which to explain epigenetic phenomena has been significantly hampered by neoDarwinism's insistence on adherence to dogma, and epigenetic research, especially that which indicates any hint of Lamarckism (http://sqwark.com/Lamarckism.htm), remains semi-underground. 'You're not supposed to talk about it' says Steven Rose. (http://www.anth.org/ifgene/vines.htm)


A better understanding of epigenetic inheritance is likely to emerge as the real function of the 97% of the genome not directly involved in coding for proteins, and previously dismissed as 'junk genes', reveal themselves to be anything but, and indeed, possibly a criticial factor in evolution.

http://www.sqwark.com/Epigenetics.htm

*easy now paul!

:D
This is increasingly interesting. I wasn't aware that such heresies were abroad. (My first though on seeing 'epigenetic imprinting' was of Buddhism, which talks of the imprinting of life experiences into consciousness, those imprints being carried forward from life to life. No doubt a coincidence in the use of images but a surprisingly equivalent metaphor for the passing of information between either lives or generations).

I'll go away and attempt to understand some of your suggested references. Thanks.

Just read it. I am amazed that the topic is being discussed in this way. I did not think Darwinians would ever accept the obvious. (Not that this seems to contradict Darwin's evidence in any serious way).

Originally posted by paulsamuel
no, I said what I meant. something acquired isn't inherited, but those individuals that acquired something are passing on their genes more successfully. I'm not saying I agree with its relevance to evolution, but it is what the baldwin effect purports (although what is getting inherited could be an ability to learn).
I thought you objected to the idea that workplace success had any effect on evolution. (I may have misremebered).

Originally posted by paulsamuel
(although what is getting inherited could be an ability to learn).

this opens up a whole can of worms.

:D

bah! enough of the pussyfooting! it is just a matter of time before lamarck gets his vindication. everything points towards that. let the scientists do the research and actually verify what instinct and common sense tells me is right. i will move on to another limb

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18637

ideas influencing genes! its called memes and as such is respectable.

;)

The free will vs. determinism debate will exist forever. Both camps choose to believe what they want to believe. Both rest upon unproven, and unprovable, metaphysical assumptions. As William James would probably say, "Just CHOOSE to believe what you will and then get on with your life!"

Originally posted by Canute
I'm well off my turf here and you obviously know what you're talking about. However is there not a possible objection to this view? I roughly know the data that you're referring to, in layman's fashion, but was not aware that it necessarily implied that the 'open-milk-bottle' gene was anything at all to do with the genes. Does not the data just day that more and more birds started to do it?

as I said there is no 'open-milk-bottle' gene. acquired characteristics can't be inherited given our current knowledge of gene transmission.

Originally posted by Canute
Also I am unsure as to why the fact that those birds who became more successful reproducers (as a result of learning how to open milk bottles) had more progeny would have had any effect on the spread of the ability, since those birds would not have passed it on to their progeny.

they would not have any genetic or heritible effect on the spread of the ability


Originally posted by Canute

I hate to say more but - If the ability to open milk bottles is not genetically detirmined then how did the first bird to do it gain the ability?

not all abilities have a genetic foundation. I am an evolutionary biologist, but that is not due to any gene.

Originally posted by paulsamuel
as I said there is no 'open-milk-bottle' gene. acquired characteristics can't be inherited given our current knowledge of gene transmission.
I don't understand the point of mentioning the birds then. That birds can learn to open bottles does not seem to tell us much about Baldwin or anything else.

they would not have any genetic or heritible effect on the spread of the ability.[/B]
Your example is therefore nothing to do with evolution. As a result of genetic inheritance birds have evolved an abililty to learn how to open bottles. We would know this if even one bird opened a bottle.

not all abilities have a genetic foundation. I am an evolutionary biologist, but that is not due to any gene. [/B]
Surely being a evolutionary biololgist is not an ability, it is just the way you happen to apply your genetically inherited abilities.

Originally posted by Canute
This is increasingly interesting. I wasn't aware that such heresies were abroad. (My first though on seeing 'epigenetic imprinting' was of Buddhism, which talks of the imprinting of life experiences into consciousness, those imprints being carried forward from life to life. No doubt a coincidence in the use of images but a surprisingly equivalent metaphor for the passing of information between either lives or generations).

These are not hertical concepts.
I'm not sure you guys are understanding what epigenetic inheritance is. I am not as well versed in evo-devo as I should be, but epigenetic effects are regulatory effects which can create new combinations of genes and alleles, which then can be exposed to selection. Some of these epigenetic interactions can be inherited. Therefore, epigenetic effects can potentially be evolutionarily important. However, at the genome level, it is not anti-Darwinian to accept that these effects can be inherited, and they're no more Lamarckian than saying that the effects of mutagenic environmental factors are Lamarckian (you know, like radiation exposure).

Originally posted by Canute
I thought you objected to the idea that workplace success had any effect on evolution. (I may have misremebered).

I do emphatically object to that idea. I cannot fathom how you would assume otherwise from what I've written.

Originally posted by Canute
I don't understand the point of mentioning the birds then. That birds can learn to open bottles does not seem to tell us much about Baldwin or anything else.

I don't know how else to explain it to you. Perhaps you could read some more on the topic.

Originally posted by Canute

Your example is therefore nothing to do with evolution.

Then the Baldwin effect has nothing to do with evolution.

Originally posted by Canute
As a result of genetic inheritance birds have evolved an abililty to learn how to open bottles. We would know this if even one bird opened a bottle.

Crap! Birds have evolved no such trait. It's like saying, "I learned how to speak French. Therefore I have evolved an ability to speak French." Of couse, no such thing happened.

Originally posted by Canute

Surely being a evolutionary biololgist is not an ability, it is just the way you happen to apply your genetically inherited abilities.

Why can't you apply this to the above example?

If there is no gene for being rich than there can't be any selection for the 'rich' gene. No but survival is what ensures a gene being passed on and survival for social creatures like humans must have some monetary link because there are certain people who will never go cold, starve or be homeless. While i can see your point that even though inherited wealth can stay within a blood-line for generations and protect them up to a point, this material wealth is not linked to any particular gene and therefore less favorable genes will be 'weeded out' in the future, i think that there will always be someone who doesn't care for romantic values and notions of 'love' etc and will go for the shiny 'reward'.

In a society that values, protects and praises capital- capitalism, then there is not much that competitors can do. Did you know that there are more laws protecting property than there are to prevent or punish child abuse! Where do you think the police force came from?! Those with capital agree to share it for their co-operation. This force is then used to protect themselves (imo).

There will always be those who do not understand this kind of society in a wider context (as any adult should) and will just want to be a 'player' within that society. A society such as Capitalism is based on the possession of Capital! It's as simple as that! Capital=success. It's what the society has been built on. Anyone with enough money can buy some property and start a business and as the owner of that property they can exlude entry, have rules of conduct or remove people.

but neville, reproduction isn't about being comfortable, it is about reproducing. If poor people reproduce under less comfortable situations they still reproduce and still multiply their genetic information. Genes don't care about having a heated toilet seat as it were. or something like that.
look around you and you will see that the poor people in your society still reproduce like little rabbits despite their less comfortable situation. Do they really have less offspring?

Genes don't care about having a heated toilet seat as it were. or something like that. I'm not saying they do! I was saying about chances of survival: having a home means that you are more likely to survive due to things like warmth and cleanliness (diseases etc) than without one!

I understand that you are refering to a principle of Darwinism which says that 'the reproducion rate is inversely proportional to the survival rate' i.e. if baby crocodiles have a short life expectancy (say a day) then it is likely that the species will die out unless their genetic-coding/physiology states that they give birth to many new croc's in one go (and increase the chances of survival) Any crocodiles without this coding/physiological advantage are likely to become extinct!

In us (humans) however it can be seen that even the housing is grouped together. Some areas exlude the poor from their housing with the prices (birds of a feather flock together). The police are less likely to patrol these areas because of the lack (perceived lack!) of crime. It is thought that these people, and their children, are responsible members of society and do not need watching. These people are less likely to be caught for a crime because of this and end up in a punishment system such as prison where the chances of death must increase!

I would say that a simple thing such as housing can affect evolution. Apart from natural conditions affecting the chances of survival (cold and damp will affect a childs survival rate greatly i would think!) there are other factors. These may seem minor yet i would say they are relevant. When growing and exploring the environment, maybe even the travelling the world, then one encounters other people. It is these perceptions that determine ones life paths. Money is todays method (in our society anyway) for keeping warm and having the neccesities for survival. Less money will mean a threat to the necessity's of life (the bear necessity's?! :rolleyes: ). If one could only afford to live in certain areas because of financial factors then not only is one going to be living in an area which is more likely to be patrolled by the police and therefore decrease the risk of survival (the risk of capture is increased immediately regardless of how much more crime is committed) but one will also have to take on an ascribed name of where they live: which becomes as much of ones identity as ones name. What I am saying is that when ones meets people it is likely that one would 'get further' in life i.e. have a more respected job and more money (and better chances of survival!) if, when asked, they live in Chelsea or Middlesborough rather than: Oldham (Old Ham), Pity Me (In Sussex/Essex/somewhere around there), Brown Willy (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=south+england+brown+willy) (similar area) or Crouch-End. Even things like this effect life chances (imo) yet if you can only afford particular housing you not only have less chance of survival but you also label yourself so and therefore have no chance to move forward. There are advantages to the society as a whole by keeping some people down (i'm not condoning this just observing it!). Somebody has to do the manual work and who better than those who have little choice. Those with a choice between living or dying.

This housing point also shows how as well as the area naming (which some people may regard as flimsy argument) there is the greater probability that if you are poor yourself, you will be living in an area with other people of similar circumstances, and so you are more likely to experience crime yourself just becuase of your locality! The opposite, the rich, is also true! (it is strange how even the design of some housing is designed to keep people down. The cheapest and most common in england, the Terraced houses, are built with adjoining walls. Neighbours live chained to each other: they can hear each others rows, they know when they go to bed and get up, they can hear when they go to the toilet etc. Someone has designed these housed this way!

yes neville that is all clear...but it is a fact that poor people have more children than rich people...

that's why in the developing world the population is growing much faster than in the developed world. reproductive success is apparently not stimulated by wealth at all in our world.

So why is the power of the rich held by few?? i thik it's becuase no one cares :D . There are more important things in life.

Originally posted by Neville
So why is the power of the rich held by few?? i thik it's becuase no one cares :D . There are more important things in life.

i didn't understand this. could you explain?

The rich have a longer life expectancy than the poor, but that is irrelevant the point under discussion here. From the Darwinian point of view, the only issue is whether you live long enough to reproduce and, for girls in the inner city poverty areas, that seems to be about age 15 these days.

Originally posted by paulsamuel
I do emphatically object to that idea. I cannot fathom how you would assume otherwise from what I've written.
You said that birds with the ability to open milk bottles reproduced more successfully. It follows that birds with better evolved abilities to learn how to open milk bottles pass on their genes more successfully. Then you deny that the success that birds have in what might be considered to be their workplace, in which they 'earn' milk, has any evolutionary effect. This seems self-contradictory.

Originally posted by paulsamuel
I don't know how else to explain it to you. Perhaps you could read some more on the topic.
You told me that the birds were an example of the Baldwin effect. You then told me that the birds inherit precisely nothing from their parents realting to opening milk bottles. It follows that the Baldwin effect is no more than the effect of the fact that birds can learn to open milk bottles. It follows that Mr. Baldwin was off his rocker. I am not convinced that other evolutionists would refer to his work if this was the case.

Then the Baldwin effect has nothing to do with evolution.[/B]
Not at all. From what you say there is no such thing as the Baldwin effect.

Crap! Birds have evolved no such trait. It's like saying, "I learned how to speak French. Therefore I have evolved an ability to speak French." Of couse, no such thing happened.[/B]
Where the hell did it come from if they did not evolve it? Birds have an ability to learn that includes the ability to learn how to open milk bottles. Are you saying that evolution does not explain this? Do bird brains not evolve?

Why can't you apply this to the above example? [/B]
I did, and have here again.

Originally posted by Neville
The cheapest and most common in england, the Terraced houses, are built with adjoining walls. Neighbours live chained to each other: they can hear each others rows, they know when they go to bed and get up, they can hear when they go to the toilet etc. Someone has designed these housed this way!
Don't slip into paranoia. I live in a terraced house and love it. It is a very sensible way of building houses, and fosters a sense of community rather than indulge in the marketing ploy of putting a three foot gap between house to pretend that they are independant castles and worth more because of it. Mind you terraces have to be well built to work. A fact that encourages builders to put up cheap detached stuff. Pardon my picking out this irrelevant issue.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
yes neville that is all clear...but it is a fact that poor people have more children than rich people...

that's why in the developing world the population is growing much faster than in the developed world. reproductive success is apparently not stimulated by wealth at all in our world.
Thus workplace success and social systems have an effect on human evolution.

Originally posted by Canute
You said that birds with the ability to open milk bottles reproduced more successfully. It follows that birds with better evolved abilities to learn how to open milk bottles pass on their genes more successfully. Then you deny that the success that birds have in what might be considered to be their workplace, in which they 'earn' milk, has any evolutionary effect. This seems self-contradictory.
not in the least. the ability to open milk bottles is not 'evolved.' birds don't have a 'workplace,' and you will continue to be confused if you insist upon anthropomorphizing the issue.

Originally posted by Canute
Not at all. From what you say there is no such thing as the Baldwin effect. in response to
Originally posted by paulsamuel
Then the Baldwin effect has nothing to do with evolution.
now your just be contrary for the sake of it.

if A = B (my example of the Baldwin effect)
and A is not C (as you said my example had nothing to do with evolution)
then B is not C (as I stated given your assumption).

Originally posted by Canute
Where the hell did it come from if they did not evolve it? Birds have an ability to learn that includes the ability to learn how to open milk bottles. Are you saying that evolution does not explain this? Do bird brains not evolve?
Dude, don't take it out on me if you don't understand evolution. Do more reading, there's plenty out there.

how about: behavior that was learned in the first generation may become instinctual in successive generations? the genotype remains unchanged?

review of book

The evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith(1998) is unaware of Steele's newer research, and mentions only far less interesting exceptions to the central dogma, but has an open mind to Lamarckism: "it is not so obviously false as is sometimes made out." (9). Steele rightly criticises Richard Dawkins(10) and Daniel Dennett's (11) condemnation of Lamarckism. They don't know the evidence

Lamarck's Signature. How Retrogenes Are Changing Darwin's Natural Selection Paradigm (http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho39.htm)

steele responds

Before closing I would like to state that our data and analyses have been peer reviewed and published in quite a few professional journals these past few years ie. we have passed through many critical 'negative selection gates' in science and as yet we have not been refuted by the professionals in the field. Our most recent definitive paper which closely approximates
and underpins the book is..

Blanden RV, Rothenfluh HS, Zylstra P, Weiller GF
& Steele EJ 1998 The signature of somatic hypermutation appears to be
written into the germline IgV segment repertoire. Immunological Reviews 162 : 117 - 132. (http://www.munksgaard.dk/immunological/i162.html)

response (http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho39b.htm)


:D :m:

It's not all in our genes (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s63731.htm)

[/QUOTE] This was basically what i was trying to say, but in a boobed way. :rolleyes: i didn't understand this. could you explain? Im not surprised neither do I. :D Sorry, I couldn't think of anything else to say.

Your right Spuriousmonkey! They must be muliplying faster than aids.

[QUOTE]The rich have a longer life expectancy than the poor, but that is irrelevant the point under discussion here. From the Darwinian point of view, the only issue is whether you live long enough to reproduce and, for girls in the inner city poverty areas, that seems to be about age 15 these days.

Originally posted by spookz
how about: behavior that was learned in the first generation may become instinctual in successive generations? the genotype remains unchanged?

instinctual means hard-wired means genes. acquired behavioral traits are not inherited

have you read Steele?, because I have (Lamarck's signature and his Science paper) What Steele is proposing (and what he says his data shows) is that acquired immunity can be inherited. He concedes that this must mean that there has to be some reverse to the DNA->RNA->protein in addition to reverse transcriptase, perhaps some reverse translational pathway, AND, that there is some communication between the soma cell line and the germ cell line. This would preclude any acquired behavioral trait from being inherited in this way.

You said that birds with the ability to open milk bottles reproduced more successfully. It follows that birds with better evolved abilities to learn how to open milk bottles pass on their genes more successfully. Then you deny that the success that birds have in what might be considered to be their workplace, in which they 'earn' milk, has any evolutionary effect. This seems self-contradictory. Good point Canute. :)

I live in a terraced house and love it. So do I! I was just pointing out some basic Marx theory (I believe)

paul
i just dabble. i have zero knowledge about this stuff. havent read steele.

AND, that there is some communication between the soma cell line and the germ cell line.

which is a breach of the weismann barrier?

ps: it was you who got me on this epigenetics stuff (aquatic ape thread) and i am not really giving it more significance than it should have. i am merely keeping an open mind.

;)

thanks for your patience!

Originally posted by paulsamuel

As you quoted "Baldwinism does not cross the Weissman barrier"

that is, the barrier between the soma and the germ cells

Originally posted by paulsamuel
not in the least. the ability to open milk bottles is not 'evolved.' birds don't have a 'workplace,' and you will continue to be confused if you insist upon anthropomorphizing the issue.
You clearly have no wish to understand what I said. Shame. It was getting interesting.

Originally posted by paulsamuel
in response to

now your just be contrary for the sake of it.

if A = B (my example of the Baldwin effect)
and A is not C (as you said my example had nothing to do with evolution)
then B is not C (as I stated given your assumption).


Dude, don't take it out on me if you don't understand evolution. Do more reading, there's plenty out there.
Well, that's a clear and helpful answer if ever I saw one.

acquired behavioral traits are not inherited Says who?? Isn't it possible that a creature is not aware that it does something and the offspring picks it up such as a birds hea dbobbing when it walks. If this had some evolutionary edvantage then it could be so.

Originally posted by Neville
Isn't it possible that a creature is not aware that it does something and the offspring picks it up such as a birds hea dbobbing when it walks. If they it 'picks it up' then it isn't inherited, but learned.

But it will still effect evolution! Genetics would have a greater effect on the evolution of a species if the 'species chain' is broken somehow and taken '2 steps back', but as long as the chain stays linked, learnt behaviour that increases the chance of survival means that genes independent of this behaviour will still be passed on! This was what i was trying to say about the rich (and i think someone else was saying somrhing along these lines too).

Originally posted by spookz

AND, that there is some communication between the soma cell line and the germ cell line.

which is a breach of the weismann barrier?
yes
Originally posted by spookz
ps: it was you who got me on this epigenetics stuff

thanks for your patience!

when I said,
Originally posted by paulsamuel
"Baldwinism does not cross the Weissman barrier" it did not pertain to Steele and his work. Steele's thesis requires a cross of the Weismann barrier, the Baldwin effect precludes it.

that is, the barrier between the soma and the germ cell lines

Originally posted by Neville
Says who?? Isn't it possible that a creature is not aware that it does something and the offspring picks it up such as a birds hea dbobbing when it walks. If this had some evolutionary edvantage then it could be so.

i say it, and every other evolutionary biologist in existence. learning is not an inherited characteristic. example, you go to school, learn to speak french, can your children speak french? if so, did you teach them?, or did it get passed to them from your genes?

Originally posted by Canute
Well, that's a clear and helpful answer if ever I saw one.

well, if you refuse to take help or learn from me, you have to go to some other source, which is why i suggested the reading

Originally posted by Neville
But it will still effect evolution! Genetics would have a greater effect on the evolution of a species if the 'species chain' is broken somehow and taken '2 steps back', but as long as the chain stays linked, learnt behaviour that increases the chance of survival means that genes independent of this behaviour will still be passed on! This was what i was trying to say about the rich (and i think someone else was saying somrhing along these lines too).

if you think this, you should be more explicit in your exposition. first, what is evolution? how is learned behavior going to affect evolution? lead us through your argument step by step. include increased fitness and selection. use examples with literature references to support your argument. if you have a point, convince us!

Originally posted by paulsamuel
i say it, and every other evolutionary biologist in existence. learning is not an inherited characteristic. example, you go to school, learn to speak french, can your children speak