1. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    12 Jan '17 13:46
    Originally posted by apathist
    Genes don't make decisions. You are saying we are programmed to die. But I'm drunk and probably wrong.
    Individual genes no, but at the level of the genome it's not clear to me that that is right. Earlier in the thread moonbus mentioned apoptosis, programmed cell death. Cells have a self-destruct mechanism, which is active, but held in check. If the cell is unable to keep the mechanism in check, due to DNA damage or external signalling, it is activated and the cell dies. This is one of the various anti-cancer mechanisms organisms have. The mechanism is also used during embryo development to separate digits and so forth. So I don't think it is obvious that this does not involve a sort of decision made at the level of a genome.
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    12 Jan '17 15:56
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Individual genes no, but at the level of the genome it's not clear to me that that is right. Earlier in the thread moonbus mentioned apoptosis, programmed cell death. Cells have a self-destruct mechanism, which is active, but held in check. If the cell is unable to keep the mechanism in check, due to DNA damage or external signalling, it is activated ...[text shortened]... think it is obvious that this does not involve a sort of decision made at the level of a genome.
    obviously, when you say 'decision' here, you are not referring to the standard meaning of the word 'decision' that implies involvement of intelligence or mind but rather a non-standard meaning of the word 'decision' that doesn't.
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    12 Jan '17 16:00
    Originally posted by humy
    Correct, and what you don't get is the operative words there are "with all else being equal" ; they are not i.e. not all else is equal in this case;
    If we evolved to select an average face, that means there must be an increase chance of reproductive success by doing so because that is the way evolution works. And if there is an increase chance of reproductive ...[text shortened]... evolved when that 'average' actually works against chances of reproductive success." (of genes)
    Against chances of reproductive success???? That is just plain silly. Average characteristics have already proven reproductive success, that is why they are average. The only question is how many generations in the past contributed to that average. I was told that heavy set women were more attractive in the past than now. During times of famine that could increase the chances of survival, but now skinny seems to be more attractive in these times of plenty.
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    12 Jan '17 18:08
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Against chances of reproductive success???? That is just plain silly. Average characteristics have already proven reproductive success, that is why they are average. The only question is how many generations in the past contributed to that average. I was told that heavy set women were more attractive in the past than now. During times of famine that coul ...[text shortened]... se the chances of survival, but now skinny seems to be more attractive in these times of plenty.
    Average characteristics have already proven reproductive success, that is why they are average

    that sentence seems to be gibberish; in what sense "proven"? Proven to be what?
    The only question is how many generations in the past contributed to that average.

    why? what has "how many generations" got to do with anything?
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    15 Jan '17 18:46
    Originally posted by humy
    Average characteristics have already proven reproductive success, that is why they are average

    that sentence seems to be gibberish; in what sense "proven"? Proven to be what?
    The only question is how many generations in the past contributed to that average.

    why? what has "how many generations" got to do with anything?
    Proven to have survived and reproduced. The average is determined by those. Claiming it has to be against reproductive success is what is nonsensical. You made no sense. It was really stupid to even suggest it. Maybe you should explain....if that is possible and be logical at the same time.

    The average is determined by multiple generations. That is the only possible way the average can be determined effectively. It also has to be limited to a certain amount of generations which is really just common sense. I'm surprised you cannot grasp the obvious.
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    15 Jan '17 20:251 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Proven to have survived and reproduced. The average is determined by those. Claiming it has to be against reproductive success is what is nonsensical.
    I did NOT claim this. You lie yet again.
  7. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    19 Jan '17 17:39
    Originally posted by humy
    I did NOT claim this. You lie yet again.
    You said this:

    "There is no evidence or reason to think that evolution favors, with all else being equal, 'average' traits in particular over those that aren't 'average'."

    You are clearly wrong. Saying "with all else being equal" does not change that. You are the liar. Your dishonesty is pathetic!
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    19 Jan '17 18:011 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    You said this:

    "There is no evidence or reason to think that evolution favors, with all else being equal, 'average' traits in particular over those that aren't 'average'."
    How, as you claim, does that statement imply that claiming 'average' traits has to be "against" reproductive success? It doesn't because it is possible for a trait to be neither in favor nor against reproductive success but rather have no effect on reproductive success; where is the contradiction in that?
    Why are the two (being in favor or against) mutually exclusive?

    In addition, the "all else being equal" obviously allows for the possibility that, if all else is not equal, 'average' traits might favor reproductive success.
    I confirmed that by explicitly saying on page 5;

    "Natural selection would select for as to be attractive to an 'average' face where and when that maximizes the chances of reproductive success (of genes ) "
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    19 Jan '17 18:112 edits
    Originally posted by humy
    How, as you claim, does that statement imply that claiming 'average' traits has to be "against" reproductive success? It doesn't because it is possible for a trait to be neither in favor nor against reproductive success but rather have no effect on reproductive success; where is the contradiction in that?
    Why are the two (being in favor or against) mutually ex ...[text shortened]... n 'average' face where and when that maximizes the chances of reproductive success (of genes ) "
    Your claim is irrelevant. Your words "against reproductive success" makes no sense in this context. All reproductive success results in a preferred selection of those average characteristics. You have yet to demonstrate why "against reproductive success" was a good choice of words. It wasn't. It is meaningless to even suggest such a thing. You goofed and just will not admit your error.
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    19 Jan '17 18:29
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Your claim is irrelevant. Your words "against reproductive success" makes no sense in this context.
    My words of "against reproductive success" is made in the context of;

    "How, as you claim, does that statement imply that claiming 'average' traits has to be "against" reproductive success? It doesn't because it is possible for a trait to be neither in favor nor against reproductive success but rather have no effect on reproductive success; where is the contradiction in that? "

    how does that make "no sense"? Which part of that statement and question do you not understand?
  11. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    22 Jan '17 17:29
    Originally posted by humy
    My words of "against reproductive success" is made in the context of;

    "How, as you claim, does that statement imply that claiming 'average' traits has to be "against" reproductive success? It doesn't because it is possible for a trait to be neither in favor nor against reproductive success but rather have no effect on reproductive success; where is the cont ...[text shortened]...
    how does that make "no sense"? Which part of that statement and question do you not understand?
    That is not your original statement. You are deliberately digressing to avoid addressing your mistake. FAIL!
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree