Evolution ("by non-random natural selection")

He did, by the way. If you will indulge me in a quote:

"Harry had once read a famous book called Chimpanzee Politics. The book had described how an adult chimpanzee named Luit had confronted the aging alpha, Yeroen, with the help of a young, recently matured chimpanzee named Nikkie. Nikkie had not intervened directly in the fights between Luit and Yeroen, but had prevented Yeroen's other supporters in the tribe from coming to his aid, distracting them whenever a confrontation developed between Luit and Yeroen. And in time Luit had won, and become the new alpha, with Nikkie as the second most powerful...

...though it hadn't taken very long after that for Nikkie to form an alliance with the defeated Yeroen, overthrow Luit, and become the new new alpha.

It really made you appreciate what millions of years of hominids trying to outwit each other - an evolutionary arms race without limit - had led to in the way of increased mental capacity.

'Cause, y'know, a human would have totally seen that one coming."

Made me go look for the book on Amazon. For once, and this should please The Handle, it is not on Kindle.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801863368

edited 6th May '12 11:27:36 AM by TamH70

I meant references to academic works, actually. Fair enough, I had forgotten about that; but in any case, that's not a reference about the evolution of human intelligence, but one about the behaviour of apes.

edited 6th May '12 11:42:46 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

And what are we? Ninety nine percent genetic commonality with chimpanzees in some studies, ninety four percent in others.

We are the Naked Ape.

Which in itself is the title of a book that those in the field of human intelligence evolution would be familiar with, as it has become widely read since Desmond Morris wrote it in the sixties. Even though it argues slightly against the theory that Yudkowsky and others have popularized, it is still a very good read and for its era, extremely well researched as well.

Something must have happened that gave us brains four times the size of the chimpanzee.

Nonetheless, much of what is generally called "human intelligence" seems to be part of that zero point something percent; and that book does not seem to be even about the evolution of intelligence in nonhuman primates, but only about observations concerning the behaviour of nonhuman primates.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Chimps are intelligent too. They use tools, hunt in packs for meat and form complex social hierarchies. Their branch did not go along the route of making bombs and driving sports cars because they have nothing to do with how intelligent they are but what that intelligence is used for.

And I for the life of me cannot see why the wikipedia page you mentioned says that chimps cannot deal with conflict? I mean, wah? That makes no sense whatsoever. And this quote in particular is laughable, frankly:

"Studies of chimpanzees show that they cooperate well in conflictless situations but not in situations with conflict, so human cooperativeness cannot have evolved to form coalitions against each other."

I guess we haven't spent the last thirty or forty thousand years doing precisely that then.

I never said that chimps aren't intelligent. I just said that when it comes to the evolution of intelligent behaviour in humans, I don't think that an episode of a fanfiction that mentions, offhand, one of the theories about it is the best possible choice for a source.

This said, I get the impression that I have offended you. If so, I apologize — it really, really was not my intention to do that.

edited 6th May '12 12:21:14 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

No, I am sorry, you have not offended me. If you had, you would be in no doubt of that, I can assure you.

I was merely pointing out that a wikipedia page that seems, in my opinion, to ignore evidence that would contradict it, may not be the best source either. It is a source, nonetheless, so I apologize again if I have offended you.

Having intelligent people to debate with, rather than the spammers on Trade Chat in World Of Warcraft, is still something I am getting used to. I only became a troper this year, I think.

Your account's a bit less than half a year old. (It's exactly 160 days.)

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Thanks for that.

Ooh, you can see that? Neat. Can you tell me how old my account is?

Anyway, yeah, you're probably right on the 'fact/theory' bit. Perhaps it should be phrased differently? I mean, the fact that evolution has been directly observed is one pretty fucking convincing argument in favour of it, so it's still worth mentioning in some way, I think.

Mache dich, mein Herze, rein...

Your account is 404 days old. (No, that does not mean that the data could not be found.)

As I said, I didn't really go into evidence for evolution in my OP, but if we want to talk about that, I might, if I have sufficient amounts of coffee tomorrow, write a mega-post about it.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

<feels tempted to buy Best Of some rather good Machu Picchu beans>

Oh... and a grinder.

The folks in these fora seem to really enjoy my long posts (which some refer to as essays.) I don't think there are very many Internet communities where I could write one of those every time I feel like it and have people responding to it in a way that shows that they read the whole thing and enjoyed it to some degree.

Sent a PM.

edited 7th May '12 6:37:04 AM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

No Blue Mountain? /is disappoint.

Oooh, ooh, do my account!

Anyway, if I were to try and write a pamphlet explaining evolution, I'd present something on the order of four types of selection for evolution (evolution being the accumulated result of those types of selection).

1) Natural Selection: selection based on ability to survive and reproduce heirs in a blunt but effective way. Selection works by the removal of "unfit" specimens from the gene pool through physical destruction in some way. "Survival of the most adapted" is a good way of describing it. This depends almost always on competition with fellow members of the species as well as similar bio-niche and predators.

2) Sexual Selection: selection based on an creatures ability to convince others to mate. (My understanding of) The theory is based around the fact that reproducing is incredibly strenuous, so one or both members of the reproducers will seek to screen candidates based on some observable factor that will increase likely hood of survival. Often, this takes the place of some sort of combat test or gift giving.

2 a) Runaway Sexual Selection: essentially, instead of looking at some trait that requires being more "fit" than others, the trait is merely correlative but becomes a trait that is pursued in and of itself. For instance, a peacocks tail feathers were meant to attract the attention of the peahen for breeding purposes, but it eventually became so overriding that it prevents the peacock from flying. In this case, the result was negative. Human brain is a counter example where the runaway sexual selection caused the species to become hyper aggressive in its survival. (from my understanding)

3) Artificial Selection: selection of species A based on a species B consciously driving the evolutionary direction of species A. This will commonly appear to be 1 as well if they are evolving to be symbiotic, such as working together as some species do. Another form is when species B from before finds species A delicious and cultivates it and protects it from predators (this is becoming a very effective way to coexist with humans as bovines have found out). A third way is for species B to have a very negative reaction to a trait species A has and actively preventing such from reproducing, rattlesnakes losing their rattle is due to this.

3 a) Genetic Engineering: a form of Artificial Selection where the "breeding" stage is removed and genes have science done to them to streamline the evolutionary process.

4) Lottery Selection: selection based on some luck factor. Essentially, the gene/mutation doesn't actually provide an advantage, but some luck or chance factor has resulted in the carriers of the gene rapidly out reproducing more beneficial mutations. This most often happens when some localized catastrophe wipes out a sizable population or the lucky gene is more dominant and gets spread around as such.

4 a) Lottery Gene Package: the mutation isn't useful itself, but comes packaged with one that is. For example, a child is born in a family which has a hairy bum gene, but the child is born with a mutation that gives is, oh let's say, not aging past the mid twenties so the child grows up and has a bunch of offspring. Now, the second trait is the valuable one, but because the hairy bum gene is included with the gene package, it gets spread around even if it's useless (or detrimental, as long as the positive one outweighs it).

Fight smart, not fair.

"Evolution" as defined in the OP, is an observed set of facts (life forms have in fact changed over time)- "Natural Selection" is the theory that has been proposed to explain evolution. It's the only theory that comes close to explaining all the observed facts we have at our disposal.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I suppose I could call that section "survival and reproduction selection".

Fight smart, not fair.

From my understanding, the peacock's train feathers is indicative of the fitness level of the said peacock. An unhealthy peacock will have less attractive train. It is also a display of the survivability of the individual sporting the train. If the individual can survive carrying that train around, he must be that good in surviving.

If a chicken crosses the road and nobody else is around to see it, does the road move beneath the chicken instead?

So when is the next essay coming, Best. There plenty left to talk about! And your descriptions are always well done.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

There's always a tradeoff, and tradeoffs can be gamed. If the peacocks live in an environment where fitness is not necessary to survive past breeding age, and less fit peacocks with flashier trains can still reproduce before they die, you may see a genetic drift towards fancy displays at the cost of fitness. Of course, if the environment becomes hostile again and fitness starts to matter more, any strain or subspecies of "style before substance" peacocks may find themselves evolved into a dead end.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

However, even in regions where there are no danger of predation, it is unlikely that the peacock will live in an area totally free of parasites and diseases. A sickly peacock will have less impressive train due to it being the first thing that will be sacrificed to channel resources to fight the disease. An impressive train will not only signal a physically fit individual, but also a sign of a robust immune system, which in turn translates to better genes.

If a chicken crosses the road and nobody else is around to see it, does the road move beneath the chicken instead?

Is anyone interested in discussing how the fossilization process is widely misunderstood, and the implications of that in arguments for and against evolution?

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Quite true; it's all interconnected. Of course, then definitions of 'fit' become context-dependent. Does 'fit' mean having a strong body that can run from predators, or having an efficient metabolism that can go without food for a long time?

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

depends on the environment, really

Thread Hop: The Sun publish this 'brilliant' little article on the fulture of mankind. Figured here was a good place to share it with you guys.

(Warring May Cause Nerd Rage XD)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4575024/Youll-have-smaller-brains-more-wrinkles-and-fewer-teeth.html

edited 9th Oct '12 5:53:41 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid