In nature breeding is random without selection of any kind. It is Nature that does the unintentional testing and selection for fitness.
Breeders breed non-randomly by intentionally introducing selected desirable traits into offspring for the utility (pleasure) of man.
1 Like
It does mean something, cultural context. The culture of science evolved along with the science which is why you don’t seem to get that the culture is still evolving. When Noble said the culture was shifting he seemed to indicate in a specific direction but it too has enough randomness in it that it is hard to predict.
Well so is it in human breeding. The randomness however comes from a different sources. A lot of the process of animal husbandry involves subjective values and cultural influences. Noble talked about that when he said that the environment was random. What makes it confusing is that the environment determines the organism but the organism influences the environment, what is called complex chaotic systems. Whatever influence the organism has on the environment is random because evolution starts with a random event.
As I keep saying there is nothing complicated about this.
Oh I agree that there is no mystery involved.
But please read the edited post above for the difference between random breeding in nature, where 1 in a 1000 may show an advantageous trait, and targeted breeding domestically where the success rate might be 1 in 4 .
Hmmm, what did happen here?
I listen to a talk by Noble that impressed me and I pulled out some key points that made excellent food for thought and that touch on the evolutionary perspective, and where to look for learning about the source of human consciousness.
Now you come at me with Dawkins again, which seems to me a distraction from those specific points I was sharing, and that I was hoping to discuss a little.
But you wanna go there? OK. Dawkins was a great scientist, wrote an amazing book, did a lot of wonderful work in his day. Work that remains valid in outline, still it’s dated, plus many have misunderstood what Dawkins “selfish” in the gene was all about, (so I’m told by experts - not my assessment).
I don’t want to talk about what today’s public performer the old man Dawkins said in some public debate, because he’s become irrelevant to me, because of what I’ve heard from him. It me he seems to still think his book is the last word, or something like that. It’s not, lots of nuances and details and surprises have been added to the story since then and he seems to dance around that - but would have spend a lot more time on him to offer anything more substantial. Since you’re pressing on Dawkins’ he’s irrelevant to me, it’s the cumulative evidence I’m concerned with.
I’m certainly not going to argue against the genetic foundation of life. Just that it’s not as simple as many want to believe.
We have a whole lot more to learn. Heck, check out those video by SubAnimal’s for a taste of how wild our Earthly biological reality really is. Supremely, mind blowing, (if you’re into that sort of stuff) and to the best of my knowledge factual representations the current state of “understanding”. No one has the right to be as smug as Dawkins displays.
But humanity as a whole is proving that’s just how it is. As a whole, by and large, we seem to be incurably self-obsessed and self-serving. We still can’t even recognize physical reality for what it is, because too few truly confront the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide. Why else do so many think we have the right to act (and desire) like gods. Also why so many simply can’t relate to Earth’s natural world anymore. That’s what’s going to seal our civilization’s suicide pact.
That doesn’t make sense, epigenetic work on genes.
Nothing about epigenetic disputes the underlying genetic structure as the recipe for components and organisms. Epigenetic’s is about editing those genes.
Not sure where Noble says otherwise. Sounds more like something was misunderstood.
I never ever ever questioned that culture is evolving. You have made claims that it is evolving in a specific way. Defend that and quit making assumptions about what I think. Ask clarification questions. If you think what I said is wrong, help me understand. But when you start a sentence with “you don’t seem to get”, stop, think about what you’re saying.
As I keep saying. With a few exceptions, people who rarely post, the members here know how evolution works. I’ve reflected that back to you in numerous posts. Write just did it again. I don’t know what it is you think we are missing.
I don’t know what this even means. I don’t “come at you”.
In the discussion with Noble, Dawkins says he is open to the ideas. Dawkins often talks about the importance of responding to new data. I have no idea what leads you to conclusions like this. You’ve done the same to me. It’s pretty much impossible to have a conversation with you because you do this.
I’m not “pressing” on him. You put up a video titled “Dawkins is wrong”. It’s the topic. I’m not defending the man, I’m discussing the ideas presented.
Seen at a library:
1 Like
See, now, that’s cool. I paraphrased what I heard Noble say. Now, you are suggesting I misheard it. We have spent almost zero time discussing what Noble is trying to say. Like this; someone says, “I heard X”, and the other says, “Oh, I heard Y.” And, sometimes it turns out, it was Z.
Instead, this thread is full of “you don’t get it”, “I don’t like that person”, “you really need to understand this other thing”, “it’s a paradigm shift”, “that guy is old”, etc. (note, these quotes are not taken from a particular post, they are my interpretations of the general tone of 250 posts)
I’m not talking about a provocative title placed on a video, I was discussing specifics - that I repeated try to spell out and you are back to coming at me with “Dawkins” and I’m simply saying that is a diversion. Dawkins is not the topic, it’s about primitive cells having to take in evidence, make decisions and take actions, then one thing leading to another.
Dawkins makes the DNA sound like blue print and it been established that this analogy is wrong on multiple levels.
Spare me the snarky Rorschach images and cartoon - Your invitations to unravel, are traps and not attempt to clarify anything.
We’re reading here and how many times have I posted that in this thread?
Why not about I don’t like him and don’t trust what he’s become . Now stop ignoring what I write and pushing diversions on me!
Well, you and others really would benefit from understanding this other thing!
Absorbing what I mean by the learning to appreciate the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide, because without it, we humans are over powered by ego driven desires to the exclusion of all else.
That self-absorbed thinking and self-serving actions.
And your line of dialogue has been about telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about, and that the old geniuses all need to be bowed down to, no matter how blindsided we’ve learned that they were.
When I say look at the world today, our self destructive global reality flows from their intellectual self-centered western God fearing mindset You point to some NGOs and let me know I should look on the bright side.
Sorry I don’t see the bright side anymore. Just a lot of self satisfied talking heads marching all of the rest of us sheople (and innocent biological bystanders) off the cliff.
As moderator, I’m not allowed to put people on ignore. OTOH, I’m not required to read or respond.
Well, reading sort of helps to know whether or not things are going well in a conversation and no one is violating the rules.
Yeah. I’ll read. Not everything. Just won’t bother with most of it. Watch the Pat Methany videos.
1 Like
I tried to cover that by talking about the value of traditional virtues such as humility. I even through Darwin in by provoking the WOW comment to illustrate the point.
I call that the abstract nature of language. The value of things that are not “real”. What Dennett calls thinking tools. In a strange way people are confusing the thinking tools with the thing itself. A good example, that is often used, is how people confuse those little pictures of atoms we grew up seeing with actual atoms.
I don’t know if you even read my posts. I’m just curious if you see any similarity between the “arguments” I’m presenting and those you are?
There is no argument there, as I said it is why I was reluctant to involve you in this discussion. We are not actually talking about the mechanics of these processes. Everyone understands them fairly well, perhaps with the exception of some details that you are trying to cover. The simple point I’m trying to make is that up until the point of genetic engineering domestication still relies on random events. But it is even deeper than that because Randomness plays a role in what is genetically engineered. What has happened in the culture to lead to the decisions that people make.
I think that we agreed that the use of philosophy to science is fairly limited but the use of science to philosophy is not. The exception may be that philosophy can sharpen our “thinking tools” and are ability to communicate both in terms of talking and listening. Or not it seems, depending on the topic.
I totally agree with you about “natural evolution” being random.
This is not true about “artificial selection” which is strictly controlled generation after generation.
This artificially bred cat would not last month in the wild.
In artificial selection, the offspring has no impact on its artificial environment. The “artificial” environment is strictly controlled. That 70 million-dollar horse has more modern environmental facilities than you and I could ever hope for. Nothing random about any of that.
I believe, what you call random (chance) is actually probabilistic, statistically predictable. Mixing genes is not a random process.
And with a few exceptions, natural selection is not random either.
1 Like
This is really very simple. Without random mutations there would be nothing to “artificially” select. Evolution starts with mutations not selection. If you reverse the process you get really confused.
I am not disagreeing with any of that in the wild.
In a domesticated environment, “random selection via competition” is replaced by “artificial selection” via matching traits for specific purposes other than survival.
That cat above is not a product of randomness.
I’ve seen those cats IRL. My sister is a vet tech. They have trouble breathing. They need constant care.
Where do those traits come from and why do you say matching. Have you ever heard of outbreeding depression. The opposite of what lausten is trying to say with a reference to inbreeding depression. In any case lausten is right randomness slips in because if you keep inbreeding you get unexpected results. How could they be unexpected if you are matching something that already existed? You can’t clone animals by selective breeding is the point and if you try you run into all sorts of inbreeding problems because one set of genes effect another set of genes in random ways. I wish you would just accept the point so we can move on to genetic engineering which could be more interesting.