The Role of Human Culture In Natural Selection

gollum123 writes with this excerpt from the NY Times: "... for the last 20,000 years or so, people have inadvertently been shaping their own evolution. The force is human culture, broadly defined as any learned behavior, including technology. The evidence of its activity is the more surprising because culture has long seemed to play just the opposite role. Biologists have seen it as a shield that protects people from the full force of other selective pressures, since clothes and shelter dull the bite of cold and farming helps build surpluses to ride out famine. Because of this buffering action, culture was thought to have blunted the rate of human evolution, or even brought it to a halt, in the distant past. Many biologists are now seeing the role of culture in a quite different light. Although it does shield people from other forces, culture itself seems to be a powerful force of natural selection. People adapt genetically to sustained cultural changes, like new diets. And this interaction works more quickly than other selective forces, 'leading some practitioners to argue that gene-culture co-evolution could be the dominant mode of human evolution.'"

Comments

eugenics

[Anonymous Coward]

just wait until it becomes culturally acceptable to intentionally modify our genes using technology.

Re:eugenics

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I doubt that eugenics in the classic pre-WWII-and-the-nazis-giving-it-a-bad-name sense will be back any time in the foreseeable future(and fair enough, killing people is really ethically dicey); but I suspect that other methods will become acceptable pretty swiftly after we aquire the technology to make them practical.

Consider, for example, the historical trajectory of IVF. When it first became available, there was significant controversy(to this day, the official Catholic position is that it is contrary to natural law). However, because it delivered the results that people (even the people who condemned it) wanted, public perception warmed considerably. You have to look pretty damn hard to find people actively condemning the practice today, even among the sorts of religious hardliners who are stridently anti-abortion and quietly anti-contraception. Among people moderate enough to be considered "serious" in public discourse, the only controversies come up when somebody does something really tacky(e.g. Octomom) or there is some sob story of an infertile couple who can't afford to have the child they always wanted.

Consider also the example of Trisomy 21, Down's syndrome. The population level incidence is roughly 1 in 8000, and has remained fairly level. The individual incidence is strongly correlated with maternal age. In the western world, average maternal age has increased substantially. Downs incidence hasn't. Obvious(but unspoken) conclusion? Selective abortion.

Once sperm sorting gets reasonably cheap, I assume we'll see the same general warming of attitudes that we did with IVF. Proper genetic engineering will probably go the same way, though it really isn't developed enough for human use yet. Of course, it will be customary to vociferously condemn those who do it for the "wrong" reasons(hair/eye color selection, that sort of thing); but there will be enough medically compelling applications(you'd have to be a real asshole to oppose using genetic engineering to ensure that a child isn't born with cystic fibrosis, say) to make the tech commonly available. Once it is commonly available, the uses that everyone will find fashionable to condemn will be widely available, and widely popular.

Culture is a meme

[hey]

First culture is a meme post.
Culture is a parasite and the host is people.
It just wants to propagate itself.

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[magarity]

The people conducting that study were completely confused:
 
  The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people
 
Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others. Conservatives think that private resources should be used.

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[MyLongNickName]

Ah, yes. Slashdot... where correlation does not mean causation unless the study supports your prejudices.

Does high IQ produce the bent away from conservative values and religion? Or does high IQ cause one to feel "superior to the masses", arrogance and then a rejection of these values? The study is not able to go into this.

And assuming this is the same study as the one I read... was done on a college population (brilliant sampling technique, I must admit). It also found that the "ubermensch" has an average IQ of 103. Clearly our atheist, liberal overlords are far beyond what I can even imagine intellect wse.

Chinese Test Takers?

[Anonymous Coward]

So does this mean that the Chinese should be more inclined to do well in tests?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination

Circa 605 AD

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[interkin3tic]

You can always hope the current crop of Neanderthals will be bred out as their namegivers had.

I wouldn't bet [imdb.com] on that.

You do know that movie was fiction, right? Hmm... maybe the current crop of religious neanderthals will just be replaced by a moviegoing crop of neanderthals.

Biologists haven't seen it this way for a while

[spun]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

The write up is misleading on many levels, and reflects a very nineteenth century understanding of evolution. Fitness criteria are constantly changing, and success changes the fitness landscape. Of course culture will impact evolution. The idea that it could somehow protect from selection pressures is just silly. Culture may protect you from the cold, by giving you a fur coat. Or you could evolve a fur coat, but would you then claim that the fur coat protected you from selection pressures and 'slowed down' evolution? Evolution isn't going some place, it doesn't have a direction, so it is a bit misleading to talk about how fast it is going.

Re:Biologists haven't seen it this way for a while

[Sique]

Evolution isn't going some place, it doesn't have a direction, so it is a bit misleading to talk about how fast it is going.

That's not entirely correct. You can for instance not give a direction for Brownian Motion. But you can give its speed (it is called temperature).

Same for Evolution. While you can't predict the changes it will yield, you can measure the speed of change.

Re:Biologists haven't seen it this way for a while

[spun]

True, you can measure the speed of change. And the speed of change of the human genome has been increasing, not decreasing. The write up, however, presents a view of evolution as directed motion, not temperature. It presents a view where there are objective, external measures for fitness, where a species can be qualified as a success without reference to its environment. And it presents the rather odd view that our social environment and the natural environment are somehow different in regards to our genes.

In short, the write up presents some outdated evolutionary ideas as mainstream, and the mainstream of evolutionary thought as novel.

Re:Biologists haven't seen it this way for a while

[spun]

You are wrong. Wrong about what a scientific theory is, and wrong about the level of evidence for the theory. It is far from being theoretical in the popular sense of the word, and much closer to the popular understood meaning of the word 'fact.'

Re:Biologists haven't seen it this way for a while

[Jamamala]

Anything thing that removes a selection pressure is going to increase the rate of evolution, not decrease it. By removing that pressure, you have reduced the punishment for a bad mutation. Therefore, any new mutations are more likely to be passed down, increasing the observed rate of genetic change.

Re:Biologists haven't seen it this way for a while

[tomhudson]

One of the reasons we were able to achieve such a large brain/body mass ratio is because we do NOT have a fur coat. >p> Humans have hair on the top of the head to protect against the heat of peak insolation, while the rest of the body is comparatively hairless, to allow for sweating.

Let your body temp rise by 5 degrees C and see how well you think. When doing nothing, the brain only uses 6 calories an hour. Thinking raises that to 90 calories an hour. In other words, spending most of your day thinking will mean that your brain is expending more energy than the rest of your body, even though it's only a small fraction of the total mass. Trolling slashdot (especially on Troll Tuesdays) is a good example of an activity that does this, as are puzzles, social games and events, etc., where the cultural interplay requires active thinking.

Contradiction in terms

[joeyblades]

Culture cannot play a role in natural selection, by definition. It does play a role in selection and evolution. That role is known as cultural selection.

Re:Contradiction in terms

[Raffaello]

You misunderstand the definition of natural selection. The term exists in contradistinction to the term "artificial selection" which is to say, human controlled selective breeding of the kind that gives rise to domesticated animals. The llama is the result of artificial selection. Its wild ancestor, the guanaco, is the result of natural selection.

Take the well known example of lactose tolerance. Nobody ever conducted a lactose tolerance breeding eugenics program - our ancestors didn't coral whole villages and kill those who were lactose intolerant and force those who were lactose tolerant to breed with each other (this is how artificial selection works). Lactose tolerance in European and African populations where it is prevalent, arose through natural seleciton. Those that were able to digest milk as adults (i.e., the lactose tolerant ones) left more offspring in areas where milk was widely available. This is an example of natural selection, not artificial selection.

It is also a direct result of cuture. The only reason milk was and is available is because of the domestication of cattle, which is a cultural activity. So here is an example where natural selection, (the increase in lactose tolerance among adults), was influenced by culture, (the domestication of dairy cattle).

Culture evolves too...

[m.shenhav]

Notice the phrasing "gene-culture coevolution" is consistent with Dual-Inheritance theory which considers cultural (behavioural) transmission as an evolutionary process on its own. This can also be extended with Epigenetic mechanisms and Symbolic transmission modes. Technology evolves too and seems like a sensible extension. Its not so far fetched when you consider that Reproduction (or amplification in the continuous case), Variation and Selection are sufficient conditions for evolution. Keep in mind cultural evolution is Lamarckian though... and different in many other ways too.

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[hondo77]

Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others. Conservatives think that private resources should be used.

Did I wake up in a parallel universe where Ike is still President?

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[Bemopolis]

In practice, conservatives think that no resources should be used to help others.*

*Except banks and investment firms. Oh, and Halliburton and Blackwater.

conservatives don't pay

[circletimessquare]

for public or private resources

the ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country: a rich upper class of a few, and a vast underclass of poor

there is no room for the middle class in conservative ideology. this includes no room for middle class idiots who believe the corporate propaganda about "evuls socialisticisms". some people are their own worst enemy

the money you have in your pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth of the society you live in. if you do not invest in your society, the money in your pocket loses value. if you invest in your society, you are paid dividends of a richer society, which pays you back with more business opportunities, etc

"but dem freeloading welfare queens..."

oh shut up retard. take a look at denmark someday. tell me they aren't happier healthier and wealthier than the average american. and then take a look at their tax rate

i'd rather be taxed to high hell than worry about declaring bankruptcy if i get cancer

but the conservative answer about a rising poor underclass (made up of previous middle class people) is to buy more guns

the greatest irony/ tragedy/ comedy is how many previously lower middle class people who are now the new american poor (because of conservative initiatives like gutting depression era financial protections that created the real estate bubble) support with such rapturous passion the gutting of social safety nets that only exist to serve them. some people are full of so much stupidity and hatred- for their own neighbors, their own society, and their own government, that they only destroy themselves

but i'm not going to let the morons take us all down. and if you read my words and agree with me, roll up your sleeves: there is a real life zombie apocalypse of propagandized retards out there, and we need to fight them to save our country from their self-destructive conservative stupidity

Re:conservatives don't pay

[wurble]

No offense, but I'm in the position to know the financial dealings of some tens of thousands of wealthy individuals, and I can tell you flatly and honestly that the primary purpose of the vast majority of those "donations" is to dodge taxes. The majority of such donations are to "foundations" which are run by agents who answer directly to the person who "donated" their funds. Such foundations need only use a small fraction of their donations on actual charitable work. In most cases, the work done is very questionably charitable to begin with.

Don't let actual charitable individuals like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet fool you. Wealthy people by and large donate because there is a net gain in it for them.

I would urge you to especially look into information about Charitable Remainder Trusts.

Re:conservatives don't pay

[spun]

Back up your wild assertions with some links, or everyone will be forced to conclude you just made that up. Here's one rebuttal to the assertion: http://immorallogic.blogspot.com/2007/01/liberal-vs-conservative-giving.html

Basically, if you don't count donations to churches, the gap disappears. And why should you? Even when a church does charitable work, it comes with a sermon which is basically a sales pitch to join something very like an MLM scheme. It isn't charity, it's marketing.

The idea that liberals give away 'other people's money' is ludicrous on the face of it. Liberals don't pay taxes? We're putting our money towards charity, too, but charity is a public good, and we demand that you pay your fair share of this shared good. When I give to a charity, you benefit. because the charity makes society a better place. Charities make the hungry and homeless less desperate, and less likely to steal your stuff. They make the useless and uneducated into productive citizens who grow the economy. Charities do all kinds of beneficial things, and everyone benefits, which is why everyone should pay.

Re:conservatives don't pay

[PPalmgren]

Your agenda is showing. The world isn't black and white. You paint conservative idealism, yet don't point out the flaws in liberal idealism. Idealism is dangerous in general, since the solution is always in the grey area. Deciding on a solution to a problem based on the current situation always beats deciding based on an ideal.

Re:conservatives don't pay

[Captain Splendid]

You cannot donate $1 and get back more than $1.

You can with the American Tax Code. Ask Warren Buffett sometime.

Re:conservatives don't pay

[NotQuiteReal]

[conservatives don't pay] for public or private resources Huh? Conservatives pay for plenty of both.

the ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country: a rich upper class of a few, and a vast underclass of poor The ultimate effect of a liberal ideology is a third world country: a rich elite ruling class of a few, and a vast underclass of dependents of the state.

there is no room for the middle class in conservative ideology. this includes no room for middle class idiots who believe the corporate propaganda about "evuls socialisticisms". some people are their own worst enemy I think you are confusing plutocracy for a "conservative ideology". A liberal ideology can lead to the same problems by believing all the propaganda about "evuls greedy capitalists". the road the hell is paved with good intentions.

the money you have in your pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth of the society you live in. if you do not invest in your society, the money in your pocket loses value. if you invest in your society, you are paid dividends of a richer society, which pays you back with more business opportunities, etc The money in my pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth that I have earned. I know best how to invest my money. The money in the pocket of someone who didn't earn it represents the generosity of a charitable person, or the fruits of another's labor, taken by the state, diminished in value through the inefficiencies of layers of bueracracy and allocated to those who can get it.

"but dem freeloading welfare queens..." These are the ones who don't pay for public or private resources.

oh shut up retard. take a look at denmark someday. tell me they aren't happier healthier and wealthier than the average american. and then take a look at their tax rate Denmark is a country with a population the size of an average US state. Conservatives want to "conserve" the original intent of the constitution - e.g. the Federal government has very specific duties, and then ought to butt out and leave each State to sort things out, state by state. After all, who knows better what a population needs, then the people themselves?

i'd rather be taxed to high hell than worry about declaring bankruptcy if i get cancer I'd rather buy a really high deductable major medical policy. Nobody can insure your health, everyone will die sooner or later. You can, however, insure against financial risks - like your house buring down, or a major medical bill. Allocate your resources as you see fit.

but the conservative answer about a rising poor underclass (made up of previous middle class people) is to buy more guns Huh? I don't know what to say about this. Oh, wait, I think I just saw the perfect quote somewhere... "oh shut up retard".

the greatest irony/ tragedy/ comedy is how many previously lower middle class people who are now the new american poor (because of conservative initiatives like gutting depression era financial protections that created the real estate bubble) support with such rapturous passion the gutting of social safety nets that only exist to serve them. some people are full of so much stupidity and hatred- for their own neighbors, their own society, and their own government, that they only destroy themselves There is a fine line between a safety net that breaks your fall and a net that catches one into a life of dependency. The greatest irony /tragedy is that the previously lower middle class of people who "use these services" are now caught in the net, to their own detriment, yet demand more and more.

but i'm not going to let the morons take us all down. and if you read my words and agree with me, roll up your sleeves: there is a real life zombie apocalypse of propagandized retards out there, and we need to fight them to save our country from their self-destructive conservative stupidity But I'm not going to let the morons take us al

Re:conservatives don't pay

[digitalhermit]

I will speak to this.

Based on world per capita income levels, I am quite wealthy. In fact, my income is beyond the dreams of avarice of the inhabitants of several sub-Saharan peoples.

Last week I bought 5 Casual Day stickers benefiting the American Red Cross. They cost $2 apiece, which is equivalent to me working four days in the field on a Guatemalan farm.

Have I not done enough?

Re:conservatives don't pay

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the worst part of the two above posts is that it illustrates what is *really* wrong. And that is that liberals believe that conservatives are destroying the country and conservatives believe that liberals are destroying the country. It's very easy to see everything as black or white, meanwhile, life goes on and is *neither*. The real world is messy and confusing and does not benefit from applying a single ideology to everything. There are certain instances where a "conservative" approach might make more sense, and others where a "liberal" approach will be better. What is important is to be able to look at each situation independently so that the *best* solution can be reached. That is what "intelligent" people do. The real "zombie apocalypse" approach would be to blindly apply one particular ideology to every problem, regardless of the outcome.

*end rant*

Re:conservatives don't pay

[spun]

Okay, I will run that by you one more time. Do try to keep up.

People in desperate situations do not just give up and die. They take desperate actions. Not only do they not contribute to society, not only are they a drain, they are dangerous, and a destabilizing element.

Keeping people from desperation thus benefits society. Yes, they are 'freeloaders,' but that is better than being a desperate animal with the brains of a human. And, because people value fairness and reciprocity over self interest, when we help people out, they want to pay it back and contribute to society. They aren't freeloaders for long. They become productive, and as I'm sure we both agree that the economy is not a zero sum game, the more productive members of society we have, the more we all benefit.

See? Everyone benefits. So why should some people get away without paying for that benefit? If they are in a desperate situation themselves, I could understand, but if they can afford to pay for this benefit, and they don't, why should they continue to receive all the other benefits that come from living in a mutually beneficial society?

What statistics do you suggest I look at, exactly? And where do you get the idea I'm a liberal? I'm far scarier than that. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.

Re:conservatives don't pay

[Artifakt]

I like your point about liberalism and taxation - to put it simply, nobody gets to vote for spending just other people's money on a cause, they have to include raising their own taxes with everyone else's.

However, I have to take exception to this:

Basically, if you don't count donations to churches, the gap disappears. And why should you? Even when a church does charitable work, it comes with a sermon which is basically a sales pitch to join something very like an MLM scheme. It isn't charity, it's marketing.

I'm on the outreach committee of a church. This involves donating specifically to non-members and non-member causes. We have other charitable funding earmarked for our own members who become destitute or ill, but this money all goes outside the church, and much of it outside the local community. First, about $32,000 a year goes to Haiti (and that will go up this year for obvious reasons). Other money goes to various medical flight providers, some people doing experimental plant breeding three states away from our location, some middle east peace initiatives, and other such causes.
      Then there's money going to northern Ireland to promote peace there. You could argue we're preaching a bit on that, because we have about 25-50 kids of mixed Protestant and Catholic backgrounds we bring to the US for a couple of weeks each year as part of this. Since they already are mostly Christians,and their parents want them to practice, they mostly attend services with us or our local R.C. 'competition' when they are in the US, although that's optional. I don't know of any offhand who has ever moved to our area, but some have immigrated to the US as adults, so they could conceivably become members, and make enough to donate more than they once got. That sounds like lousy odds, or an incredibly poor rate of return if you prefer.
      None of that money seems to be actually getting us members in our locale, so far. Then we feed some more local families. They are selected for us by people who work for the local school systems as counselors. The conditions to put them on or take them off the list are thus agreed to with secular government officials, and are basically that the kids in those families stay in school and get decent grades. We have completely relinquished any right to vet these people based on their religion, if any. If we're preaching to them, it's pretty well limited to wishing them a Merry Christmas or Happy thanksgiving as they leave.
      There's a local ecumenical storehouse, which provides free, mostly used furniture and fixtures to the poor. The quickest way on their list is for a local fire department official to put a family on there after they have a burnout, rather than to listen to any sermons. Certainly nobody is making anyone sit and listen to anything spiritual or promise themselves to Jesus before they will load a kid's mattress and springs on a truck and tie it down, although I have made a few people promise to not drive over 45 with the load.
      The idea that we can help people enough that they start being able to give and help others actually doesn't sound so bad. I wish what we do could be a multi level marketing scheme, where the various people we help, get rich enough to take up the load and help others in the same way. That's simply, absurdly far from reality, where most people who start off poor stay poor, and never get to the point whey they can pay anything forward. We are accomplishing a lot more survival than real leg ups,

Re:Nothing to see here, move along

[Raffaello]

Milk drinking is a direct result of culture - the domestication of cattle for meat and dairy. None of our human ancestors could ever drink milk from a wild Aurochs and survive - (think 2-3 meter horn span, one metric ton, and very touchy).

social evolution

[johnrpenner]

the nobel prize winner, john eccles - brain neurologist considers the known/experienceable world to actually be comprised of three 'worlds' -- i) that of matter, ii) that of states of consciousness, and iii) objective knowledge -- 'the sum total of human culture':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eccles_(neurophysiologist)#Philosophy

there is not only an evolution of the physical human form, but also an evolution in the states of consciousness mankind has achieved in order to attain to the states of consciousness which prevail in order to, for example make scientific and logical judgements -- evolution of consciousness, and its consequences must be taken be taken into account, because all that you see as the effects of HUIMANS -- cities, bridges, buildings -- is all due to a change in the consditions of consciousness that humans have developed.

in fact, the social organization may be more important than the material organization. there are enough physical resources and technological expertise on this planet to feed every woman, child and man on this planet -- given that we are adequately socially organized -- this is not yet the case, so war and poverty are not necessarily a lack-of-resources issue -- but a social one.

2cents from toronto island
jrp

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[Foobar of Borg]

Well, if by "help" you mean oppress financially or shoot you down in cold blood.

Evolves the meme

[moteyalpha]

In Russia the culture evolves you. Karma whoring is the oldest profession.

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[c6gunner]

Education can contribute to IQ, though. We've been seeing a steady rise in IQ points for quite a while now, and the best theories I've seen suggest that it's directly caused by the rise in abstract-thinking skills amongst the general populace. Since abstract thinking is a learned behavior, this certainly suggests that IQ measurements - no matter how well designed - will be influenced by the level of education of the person being tested.

You'd think at this point

[Low Ranked Craig]

most women would have DDD breasts and men would have penises that hang to the knee...

Natural selection gives way to human selection

[JamJam]

It's not just humans impacts on themselves. Humans have become 'superpredators' speeding up the evolution of the species they hunt and harvest at rates far above what is found in nature. Hunting techniques such as bagging the biggest trophy animal to commercial fisheries where mesh openings in nets capture the largest while allowing the smallest to escape has impacted the natural selection process. Removing the strongest and biggest species from the gene pool has resulted in offspring characteristics such as reduced body size and lower reproductive age.

More info from this article

please tell me

[circletimessquare]

how the average lower middle class person is supposed to pay for healthcare in this country

the conservative answer is "shut up and get busy dying"

you don't have an answer beyond that, and it makes my blood boil. the cost of a sick society is much higher than the cost of a health care system which is attuned to taking care of people, rather than raping them for profit

"the ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country: a rich upper class of a few, and a vast underclass of poor"

The ultimate effect of a liberal ideology is a third world country: a rich elite ruling class of a few, and a vast underclass of dependents of the state.

can you point to such a society for me please? this is a pleasant fiction to support your bankrupt thinking, as this country doesn't even exist

meanwhile, i can point to many countries without a strong central government which naturally gravitate towards a rich upper class and the vast majority being poor. i don't understand why you cannot see that without strong functioning social nets this is the inevitable result of your ideology. how many examples of how many third world countries with weak central governments and no protections do you want? and yet this third world status quo is EXACTLY what you are arguing for. can you not see the obvious result of your ideology?

Re:please tell me

[Culture20]

"the ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country: a rich upper class of a few, and a vast underclass of poor"

The ultimate effect of a liberal ideology is a third world country: a rich elite ruling class of a few, and a vast underclass of dependents of the state.

can you point to such a society for me please? this is a pleasant fiction to support your bankrupt thinking, as this country doesn't even exist

You are incorrect. While the largest such country ceased to exist 1991, there are a few that still exist, including North Korea and Cuba.

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[ElectricTurtle]

Actually, everybody is deciding to reproduce less, does this mean they are getting smarter?

(It probably does.)

new American Scientist article about diet

[peter303]

Primates evolved trichomatic eyes to find fruit better. Most mammals are dichromatic. Now humans eat more meat, cooked food, more starch from grains and more dairy from cattle. Each diet change affected the genes . One could argue the next stage- hyper nutrition and processed food- selecting against humans with metabolic disease like diabetes, obesity, and bad hearts. This was very interesting article.

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[c6gunner]

Huh? The number 100 has continued to rise? :P

Smartass :)

On the off chance that you're serious - and for those who aren't aware - IQ tests are re-normalized periodically in order to keep 100 as the average. In other words, if a person today and a person 30 years ago took the exact same IQ test and got the exact same answers, the person writing it today would receive a lower score. So yes, the average IQ does keep getting higher, even though it stays at 100 :)

Check here for more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[ArhcAngel]

You do know that movie was fiction, right?

I never thought of it as fiction so much as

A FRIKKEN HILARIOUS COMEDY

*sheesh*

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[rs79]

but if you're going to suggest that the human race is about to start getting stupider then you'd better have some damn good evidence to support that."

Texas. Australian Internet regulators. ICANN.

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[I(rispee_I(reme]

or, "Liberals want a welfare state. Conservatives want a corporate welfare state."

bad form to quote myself, I know...

Evolution is not...or is that naught?

[GodfatherofSoul]

Been awhile since I tried slogging through Natural Selection, but the impression I got was the choicest survivability attributes may be fleeting things. On top of that, the sexual selection attributes might even conflict with survivability. So, you could be the moose with the prettiest antlers that get all the girls/cows, but you'd get locked up in brush and starve to death. Same thing with humans. The hottest girl you've ever seen might be too dumb to tie her shoe laces. How's that help further the species, besides making you extremely pleased during your breeding years? So, just because we've evolved some attributes or culture doesn't say a damned thing about how good it is for humanity either right now or in the long run. Chance seems to play a very large part in the game.

We're evolving other species, too

[andrewagill]

Take the example of teosinte (originally Zea mays parviglumis), a grass that has since evolved from a very fit organism to a biological freak: its reproductive organs are encased in a husk and located in a place that makes reproduction less probable unless it's mediated by another organism with opposable thumbs. Why did it evolve this way? Because humans really liked to kill the plant and eat its embryos, and thus wanted to ensure the survival of the species.

And while Zea mays parviglumis is still around, you're probably less likely to run into that plant than the more common mutant subspecies that humans evolved: corn.

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[c6gunner]

We can argue back and forth about who has evidence, since the tendency is to simply dismiss the other side's evidence as non-evidence... with any debate, that's the case. Just look at the AGW debate.

The ideological side of the AGW debate, sure. On the science side, it's quite a bit different.

The word "evidence" has a pretty clear meaning. If you can submit actual evidence, I'd be more than happy to look at it. On the other hand, if all you can do is pull out Pascals Wager, a God of the Gaps argument, or a claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics ... then you don't actually understand what the word "evidence" means. Those types of arguments should be rejected offhand, regardless of what claim you're trying to prove. If someone was trying to argue for a position in which I do believe and was providing "evidence" of similar quality, I'd reject their argument too, and call them out on it. Ideology should not be a basis for accepting or rejecting evidence.

In other words, many of our words seem to have gotten quite broad in meaning

Yes, that's true. That's why when people ask me if I believe in a god, I usually say "which one?". There are at least a few thousand different definitions. For all I know, your definition of "god" might be one that I can believe ... but I sincerely doubt it :)

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[denobug]

"Atheism is a belief"

Only if not collecting stamps is a hobby.

But having a passion to stop others collecting stamps and become active about it IS a hobby. He/she active engaging in such activies feels rewarded by such activities.