RoR: Forum

~ I'm not up on the latest confirmations/contra-indications re the rubric 'Darwinism' (as if there's some other idea of human evolution), but, I am aware that the idea of evolution has been split into concerns about 'micro'-vs-'macro.' I understand that many religious now accept the 'micro' (as in minute flora/fauna needing 'scopes to see) aspect; their prob is with the 'macro' (or, as they argue, 'kinds', like families/classes/phyla/etc.) -- Understandable, to a point. Technically, evolution, per se, not showing predictability (other than expecting 'micro's to continue showing their evolutionariness), properly isn't a theory; it's just a hypothesis.
~ But, it's the most Occam's Razor-ly rationally sensible one around.

LLAP
J:D

Post 41

Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 2:35am

Further, given that Rand's NEVER argued against 'evolution' (however one sees it), though so many seem to innuend this, I really don't understand all this hoo-horaw about her and the subject; really.

The closest she came to...speculating...on it was regarding the 'missing link' being misnomered in terms of pure physicality (as much of this thread has approached) rather than in terms of consciousness-type/spirituality.

LLAP
J:D

Post 42

Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 5:23am

Reply to Post #0

Don't forget about bone marrow. Bone marrow is an excellent source of fatty acids. Early human predators developed tools for cracking open the bones of carcasses left by other predators, not to say anything of the skulls.

Muscle meat is also a good source of fatty acids.

The road to Intelligence is strewn with well eaten carcasses. Protein is the key to our preeminence.

Bob Kolker

Post 43

Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 12:16pm

You're right. Darwinism is just a hypothesis. It isn't even a theory. Karl Popper once called it a "metaphysical research programme" since it pre-filters the kinds of questions one is willing ask, and filters the kinds of answers one will accept.

Then again, some might call that religion.

As for Occam's Razor, it sounds good in theory, but I don't think many research scientists actually follow it in practice. Also, given the fact that most adamant evolutionists explain away the problems of gradualism and randomness by reference to "the environment", and the "impossibility of knowing all the contingencies", it doesn't sound to me like they are following Occam, either. It seems like another variant of "It's too complicated; we can't know; but our theory is true nonetheless."

Rand is probably right about "the missing link" (if such there be) being some creature with a "transitional consciousness" because the distinctive difference between man and everything else indeed lies in this very thing. The 19th century philologist, Max Muller (an expert on Asian languages) debated Darwin on precisely that point. Muller claimed that he might be able to accept that man and ape had a common ancestor from a physical standpoint; but he would never concede that man's mind and the animal's mind were related. He believed (as, apparently, did Rand) that there is an unbridgeable gap between the two; not a smooth continuum.

Personally, I believe that Rand had probably done a good deal of reading on Darwin (as she had done on just about everything else) and had simply concluded that the hypothesis was a non-starter. She could hardly come out and say publicly that she rejected it, or had grave doubts about it, because that would have appeared to conflict with her atheism; even her admirers might have accused her of harboring creationist views. So she did the practical thing: she said little about it and officially remained neutral in regard to it.

Post 44

Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 6:31pm

Claude:

Thanx for the thoughts. I never meant to suggest that the theoreticians/'researchers' in evolution followed Occam; I merely meant that all other considerable alternatives about 'where we came from' are inherently...as you say...non-starters, be such Creationism or panspermia or whatever.

For a layman however, Occam's the way to go...I mean, via his Razor, natural evolution is all that's left, idea-wise as rationally acceptable; until we meet the aliens who made the earth their petri-dish and/or, a la Kubrick 'improved our animal minds'...but, this isn't Occam-thinking.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 12/30, 6:47pm)

Post 45

Monday, December 31, 2007 - 6:54pm

Claude Shannon,

I don't think you understand the Science article at all. While I could have qualified my statement as "that the coding sequences of the genomes of human, apes, etc., are ~99% similar", there are many non-coding regions (eg. introns, etc) in the genome that are not only more different between species, they are even quite different between individuals of the same species. (Just think about where all the different human traits come from!)

Evolution in biology is not a mere theory or hypothesis, it is fact. It is one of the most important principles that are the foundation of nearly all modern branches of biological sciences. Had Rand lived today, she would certainly be fascinated by the amazing advance of biomedical sciences in the last half century. One thing she would never do is to claim understanding when there is none.

Post 46

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 3:06pm

I'm inclined to agree with Hong. I think the primary reason she didn't comment very much on Darwin/Evolution was because she probably hadn't studied it effectively enough to make statements which she truly felt she could stand by on the subject. I'm also inclined to think she would be fascinated in what seems to be one of the most continually active areas of human development and achievement currently.

---Landon

Post 47

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 3:09pm

Oh no, Hong is back. Well...Hong you have my vote for the most objective person around.

Michael

Post 48

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 3:10pm

Mr. Kolker,

You are right that bone marrow is rich with fatty acids. However, these only explain the expensive-tissue hypothesis (that energy density of the diet delimits viable brain-growing mutations). Horrobin's essential fatty acid hypothesis still stands as the best explanation for the evolution of human brains -- brains which run 3 times more efficiently than ape brains do. Under that hypothesis, there are but 3 possible sources for the extra long-chained fatty acids required for human brain development:

(1) animal brains
(2) animal organs
(3) fish

Also, the gut-brain hypothesis (a refinement of the expensive-tissue hypothesis) alternatively supports human brain growth simultaneously occurring along with gut atrophy. Hell, gorilla guts are nearly twice as long (when scaled-down for the difference in body size) than wimpy human guts are.

Ed

Post 49

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 4:01pm

All in all, this is very interesting from all aspects. I sanctioned several posts for strong points they made, even as they seemingly contradicted each other.

1. I think that a model closer to the truth comes from Carl Sagan's Contact or Arthur C. Clarke's 2001/2010/3001. Once it happened, consciousness could plan and create. Perhaps several "generations" of increasingly complex beings arose and will arise. DNA is an unfolding and yet interactive program. We are not the result of random mutation. We here and now are on the verge of "space" travel and self-directed genetic programming -- and who knows what else...

2. Mr. Robert J. Kolker: "As biological theories go* it is predictive and it has yet to be falsified. Genetics works." Well, alchemy was also predictive and was never falsified. Alchemist discovered "new" metals (how to identify and extract metals), new acids and so on. As alchemy matured, its symbology became increasingly complex and cumbersome... just as astrology needed more epicycles... So, a new paradigm provided qualitatively better explanations. Genetics is modern alchemy. It works. Something better will come along.

3. David Kelley suggests that the need and ability to change focus became critical and beneficial.

4. Julian Jaynes theorized that the sense of "self" is only about 7,000 years old. He cited people who still experienced their own thoughts as "hearing voices." (Joan of Arc is a famous example. Ever drive home from work and not remember it? Obviously we can learn complex tasks and carry them out without self-conscious awareness.) He also pointed out the differences in expresssion between the Iliad and the Odyssey: the heroes at Troy were motivated by "gods" but Odysseus held a secret plan carried out by lying.

4.a. Jaynes pinpointed in the invention of writing as the source of the self. In parallel and independently, Deborah Tarn (now Tarn Steiner) in The Tyrant's Writ pointed out that the Greeks spoke in assembly until writing, tyranny, coinage and philosophy toppled the old order.... all of this by (and only by) 700 BCE. Thus, I assert that consciousness, by definition: self-consciousness is a recent phenomenon and we should not look for it in the proto-homids. It may be that not everyone today possesses it.

5. We are genetically programmed to be individuals if you accept the results published here:

Fox, Sidney W., ed., Individuality and Determinism: chemical and biological bases, Plenum Press: New York, 1984. Conference held at the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, at Key Biscayne, Florida, May 1-2, 1982.

Post 50

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 4:13pm

Michael,

Deborah Tarn (now Tarn Steiner) in The Tyrant's Writ pointed out that the Greeks spoke in assembly until writing, tyranny, coinage and philosophy toppled the old order.... all of this by (and only by) 700 BCE. Thus, I assert that consciousness, by definition: self-consciousness is a recent phenomenon ...

Maybe so, but definitely not so recent as 700 BCE. The written Code of (King) Hammurabi dates back to 1800 BCE. And it's reasonable to assume that it was spoken of long before it was written down. Also, just having a King invites the idea of self-consciousness into the picture. Also, Traditional Chinese Medicine is acclaimed to have medical works that are over 5000 years old ...

Ed

Post 51

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 4:37pm

Then there are also the writing in Crete, still undecyphered but yet several thousands of years old....

Post 52

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 5:26pm

And, for what it's worth, there are cave paintings (of herds of animals) which are over 15,000 years old (in France and Germany -- I believe).

Ed

Post 53

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 7:58pm

Robert and Ed, yes, we have writing older than 700 BCE. Tarn Steiner was writing (!) specifically about Greece in the 9th-7th centuries BCE. As the region came out of its post-Mycenaean "dark age" writing came in from the Levant. The Greeks attributed the alphabet to "Prince Cadmus" of the Phoencians and we can see the direct link between Phoenician writing and Greek.

I know about the Chinese scapulomancy which may come from about the same time as the I Ching, 1200 BCE or 3000 BCE or even earlier, perhaps. The very fact that the writing could be understood today made people suspicious about its authenticity.

In Mesopotamia, there was another origin of other writing. This was the clay tokens used for accounting. These go back to about 5000 BCE, perhaps. They became pictograms which became cuneiform about 3000-2500 BCE.

I agree also that the cave paintings and other recovered remains suggest some hint of "spirituality." I find compelling the admittedly weak evidence that about 30,000 years ago, humans were more "intellectually developed" than they were 18,000 years ago, depending on how you want to mean that. In any case, we should be careful not to project ourselves on the past.

Taken all in all, consciousness -- self-consciousness -- may antedate written history. But human consciousness needs an explanation that geological gradualism cannot provide and writing may be that factor.

Self-awareness may not have developed everywhere at once, but was invented or reinvented or even transmitted across cultures. I find Jaynes's argument compelling but to be falsified, we would need to have had discussions with non-literate people about things that even literate people did not understand. It would be interesting to trace the origins and developments of self-reflective literature. "Who am I and why am I here?" might be implicit -- again, cautioning against projection -- but when did this become explicit?

We take it for granted that "people" were "always" like "us." Ayn Rand's Missing Link might be all around us. Galt's Speech might not be far off the mark in speaking of "modern savages." I think that is unfair to the real primitives -- again not the right word. I thoroughly enjoyed Laura Bohannon's Shakespeare in the Bush. The Tvi might believe in zombis, but she believes in ghosts, which they do not. To me the point is the error that she and the Tvi elder both make in assuming that "people are the same everywhere."

Post 54

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 8:45pm

Michael,

I am not in the position to comment on the rest of your post -- and it would like take me several hours of research to get into that position (take that as a compliment). But, as a biological scientist, I have some expertise regarding this ...

I find compelling the admittedly weak evidence that about 30,000 years ago, humans were more "intellectually developed" than they were 18,000 years ago, depending on how you want to mean that.

In hominids, there was an increase in skull size about 30,000-40,000 years ago -- which was reversed about 10,000-15,000 years ago. The best explanation for this reversal of a previous increase in skull size is a reduction in carnivorous lifestyle (i.e., reduction in long-chain fatty acid intake).

Skull size, and even overall skeleton size, decreased dramatically along with the substitution of grains for animal food in the diet. Anatomically modern humans lost more than a couple inches in height after adopting grains as a staple food in the diet (and osteoporosis and tooth decay skyrocketed, too).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/01, 8:47pm)

Post 55

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 8:53pm

Claude Shannon,

I don't think you understand the Science article at all.

I’m sorry you feel that way. Did you actually read the complete article in "Science"?

While I could have qualified my statement as "that the coding sequences of the genomes of human, apes, etc., are ~99% similar", there are many non-coding regions (eg. introns, etc) in the genome that are not only more different between species, they are even quite different between individuals of the same species. (Just think about where all the different human traits come from!)

Then you should have qualified it, because it vitiates the notion that the genomic similarities between humans and chimps demonstrates anything important about a putative descent. It does not.

Evolution in biology is not a mere theory or hypothesis, it is fact.

Evolution via Darwinian pathways of random mutation and natural selection is a hypothesis only. It doesn’t even rise to the level of a theory because it has no model and its advocates spend their time inventing explanations for phenomena retroactively rather than doing what all other real sciences do: drawing out expected phenomena from a model and then comparing the conclusion to real world data.

If by “evolution” you mean that very old fossils show evidence of flora and fauna, and later fossils show evidence of different flora and fauna not found in the older fossils, I agree. “Things change” is about the only fact that biology has as far as evolution is concerned.

It is one of the most important principles that are the foundation of nearly all modern branches of biological sciences.

Not a single important discovery in biology in the 20th century was made by anyone having anything to do with “evolution” or “evolution studies.” The structure of DNA was discovered by Watson and Crick, two biochemists. The digital code nature of the nucleotides was first suggested by George Gamow, a physicist. The complexity and specificity of cellular machinery was elucidated by molecular biologists. None of these discoveries required any use, application, or knowledge of Darwinism.

People like Stephen Jay Gould, Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Niles Eldridge . . . Richard Dawkins, etc., have contributed nothing to our modern understanding of biology. Not a thing.

True, once others made their spectacular discoveries, evolutionists would then interpret them in the light of Darwinian dogma, and – again, retroactively – declare that it is they, the Darwinists, who provide the real light and the real truth in biology, and integrate all the biological sciences together. Some people, apparently, still believe them.

Lucky for us, there’s absolutely nothing in the Darwinian hypothesis that a researcher in biochemistry, molecular biology, medicine, bioinformatics, etc. must take into account in his or her researches. This is unique. A researcher in physics and chemistry, for example, would have to take into account either classical Newtonian concepts or later quantum ones, but they wouldn’t be able to do their work without them. Researchers in the biological sciences, conversely, can quite easily do almost all their research without reference to what you claim is "the foundation of nearly all biological sciences."

Had Rand lived today, she would certainly be fascinated by the amazing advance of biomedical sciences in the last half century.

We are all fascinated by it. It’s quite another thing to then, after the fact, interpret all this advance in the light of the Darwinian hypothesis. I doubt Rand would have made that mistake.

One thing she would never do is to claim understanding when there is none.

In that case, Rand would never have made a good Darwinist. They all claim understanding when there is none.

Post 56

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 9:05pm

But human consciousness needs an explanation that geological gradualism cannot provide and writing may be that factor.

Thank you for that.

Don't know if writing was a cause of self-consciousness, or merely a sign of its having come into existence. Writing and reading certainly cultivate a sense of "I".

I might add, tentatively, that the discovery of perspective in painting -- which tends to project the individual and isolate him in space -- might be an even more recent "jump" in the evolution of self-consciousness.

If we ask "from what did self-consciousness emerge?" Could we posit something called "mere consciousness?"

Post 57

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 - 12:45pm

Gosh, Claude Shannon, what outrageous claims you had in your post. It is not that I "feel" that you don't understand the Science article, it is a fact that you don't. Your last post just proved it. Luckily for everyone, people like you have absolutely nothing to do with any biomedical research, despite all your claims.

I should now take Dean's advise and stop feeding the troll.

Post 58

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 - 4:37pm

Gosh, Claude Shannon, what outrageous claims you had in your post.

Thanks!

It is not that I "feel" that you don't understand the Science article, it is a fact that you don't.

You evaded answering my previous question. I asked you if you had actually read the complete article in “Science.” You didn’t answer. (I'll assume, therefore, that it was a "no.") You simply repeated an arbitrary assertion that you made in your previous post that I must have misunderstood it. Arbitrary assertions are not in my line, and are not what Objectivism is all about.

Your last post just proved it.

More arbitrary assertion. No evidence given.

Luckily for everyone, people like you have absolutely nothing to do with any biomedical research, despite all your claims.

Whatever. No important 20th century discovery in biology was made by any sort of "application" of Darwinian principles.

I should now take Dean's advise and stop feeding the troll.

I approve. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

Post 59

Thursday, January 3, 2008 - 9:56am