Cape Cod Institute
 
Behavior OnLine Forums  
The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals.
 
Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine.

Go Back   Behavior OnLine Forums > BOL Forums > Evolutionary Psychology

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread July 14th, 2006, 05:33 PM
James Brody James Brody is offline
Forum Leader
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia area
Posts: 1,143
Default Selling Evolution

A mixed week: Anne Coulter's latest book bombed Darwians as "liberals" and evolution as "holey" rather than Holy. Coulter is quite radical and I sometimes enjoy her bombast; she's also a bit impulsive. Darwinians fight a two-front battle: traditions to the left reject the notion of human instinct, those to the right dislike our skepticism about top-down designers. "New Scientist" pointed out this stuff several years ago but Coulter probably doesn't read it. (Robin Smith has an intriguing title: "Lies at the Altar" but is a disappointment, a stack of mottos rather than a structure spun from mate selection research.)

Not to worry!

Nature and Discovery Channels already converted our kids, I think, because of the immediacy and salience of what Uncle David has to tell them about choosing partners. I've also found the highschoolers to react "cool" when they hear I'm an evolutionist and, over the past decade, more adults know the word and I can spin Buss into recommendations intended to soothe marital partnerships.

I've probably lost a couple of chanters, however, and I've compromised: if they hear voices, I don't first reach for my explanations of schizophrenia or tell them that magnetic stimulation to their temporal lobe will keep them in church all the time.

Even the chanters still want the utility of mate selection data.

Even the chanters want both their immediate and future kids to have some breaks.

Even the chanters get into the idea that parents are the best predictor and exploratory system for their offspring...

And their Commandments instantiate evolutionary good sense.

I sometimes feel like Screwtape recruiting Wormwoods and, like CS Lewis's character, I ratchet ahead unless there's a war...

Life is good!

JB
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread July 14th, 2006, 08:11 PM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Selling Evolution

Quote:
JimB: Darwinians fight a two-front battle: traditions to the left reject the notion of human instinct, those to the right dislike our skepticism about top-down designers.
Jim, I’d not be terribly concerned about the Left, considering their inclination towards self-destruction, and/or their disinclination towards spawning. Regarding most everyone else, however, the problem really seems to be the blatant, hardcore atheism of the current mutation of Darwinianism—the evidence that our 14 billion year old low-entropy universe, and we sapient beings, are accidents, besides being somewhat unpalatable, simply isn’t all that convincing.

But not to worry brother Jim—I suspect that Darwinianism will evolve and adapt.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread July 17th, 2006, 07:30 AM
alexandra_k alexandra_k is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 106
Default Re: Selling Evolution

Not so very much accidents...

Mutation plays a very small part to evolution by natural selection...

Mostly you have inheritence and differential fitness...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread July 25th, 2006, 06:35 PM
Carey N Carey N is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 138
Default not quite . . .

Mutation is the ultimate source of all variation present within a population . . . without mutation, there would be eventually be nothing for natural selection to select, and evolution would halt.

Perhaps you meant that inheritance and differential reproduction through time are the non-random processes that transform variation generated by random mutation into adaptations . . . ? I would agree with that.

By 'accident', Fred refers to the perspective that there is no universally defined (by a supreme intelligence) meaning to life. This notion is very upsetting to Fred and prompts him to cite great minds of the past that, in their dying years, produced platitudes about the necessity and inevitability of a divine creator.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread July 29th, 2006, 09:05 AM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Selling Evolution

Quote:
Carey: By 'accident', Fred refers to the perspective that there is no universally defined (by a supreme intelligence) meaning to life. This notion is very upsetting to Fred….
As I noted in another thread, I don’t find the accident scenario to be “upsetting,” necessarily, it’s just that I find randomness to be a rather ineffective explanation, a masquerade for ignorance, like not knowing which Monty Hall door has the prize, or not knowing how/why entropy at the beginning, 14 billion years ago, was so low. But then it’s my view that “randomness” is an illusion . . . although ignorance certainly seems to be real, and probabilities are nothing more than our attempts to quantify our ignorance. Consider Carey: Can one prove randomness? Is randomness falsifiable?

Last edited by Fred H.; July 29th, 2006 at 02:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread July 29th, 2006, 03:57 PM
Carey N Carey N is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 138
Default Re: Selling Evolution

By randomness, do you refer to an explanation of biological evolution, or of the universe's origin?

If you refer to evolution, then you're mistaken . . . no serious biologist thinks that adaptive evolution is driven by random processes. The generation of variation (by mutation) is effectively random - by which I mean that mutations occur at random with respect to their effect upon organisms (we've had this precise discussion before). Non-random processes, on the other hand, 'select' variants which happen to be better at making copies of themselves, and thereby govern adaptive evolution.

If you refer to the creation of the universe, then I'm not really equipped to enter the discussion, as I'm no expert on astro-physics . . . it's hard to believe that anything with inherent order is created totally randomly, but, on the hand, a non-random process doesn't by any means imply the existence of divinity. In other words, "non-random" is not synonymous with "Creator", as you seem to imply.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread August 3rd, 2006, 12:09 PM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Question Re: Selling Evolution, anything gained, JimB?

From JimB’s opening post on “Selling Evolution”:
Quote:
Darwinians fight a two-front battle: traditions to the left reject the notion of human instinct, those to the right dislike our skepticism about top-down designers….

Not to worry!

Nature and Discovery Channels already converted our kids [to the current Darwinian doctrine]….
Yeah, that Carey sure is a true believer.

Nevertheless Jim, I think that you started a good thread here. At times it seemed that Carey might actually have started thinking for himself, but, alas, the pull of the current dogma, and the admittedly compelling circularity of it all, apparently is still too strong in his life. Plus, let’s face it, getting whatever scholastic credentials Carey’s seeking probably pretty much requires him to buy into the current doctrine, so God bless the lad.

But did you, Jim, get anything out of the thread?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.