Morons are needed (some considerations on evolution) — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

Philosophy and other Silliness

Morons are needed (some considerations on evolution)

This page's ID: 28036

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	[quote] It may sound like semantics but it is actually an essential point. [/quote] It even is the crux of it all, but really, selection is treated as a part of the process called evolution in my understanding, only a part of it, not something distinct. In terms of AG, it's an "evolutionary operator" along crossover and mutation namely (like + or - or * or / for integer numbers). I do look at it in terms of "how it impacts a gene pool": in the continuity of what I said so far, a niche appears in an ecosystem, some beings of a given species are close to fitting that new niche, then reproduction, including sub-processes of evolution like mutation and cross-over, will cause one of the new individuals to be "really close" to fitting that niche, which will eventually lead the species, through selection, to create more individuals that fit that niche. The point? Disagreement with this: [quote] Evolution does not cause species to become more adapted to their environment. [/quote] It doesn't seem to, it seems "accidental" but is a lot less random than what it appears to be. Once a niche, a gap is open, evolution aims at least at the short term goal of filling it (which doesn't contradict the fact it doesn't make sense to look for a final and absolute goal to evolution). How, who and why are to determine, and it's the job of evolution - wether such an adaptation seems predictable or not. What I mean is that as random as the steps seem to be, as casual as natural selection seems to be, it seems to be so because we don't have means to draw the big picture in details, but it flawlessy wants and works at filling niches: regardless of what will work for that niche, evolution will build beings that can fill it. That's why GA works: what you define in GA is the exact specification of the niche you want to be filled (eg. the rules of Sudoku), and an evolutionary simulation (that includes selection) will flawlessly reach that state -without your program knowing it's aiming at that solution- the fittest will invariably be the solution (and it willl invariably occur in a certain amount of generations). Go figure, but it's really a clever process, not a permanent chain of accidents: it's a "fitness machine" that balances nature and the ecosystem all the time. That's the whole magic. Give evolution some beings and an ecosystem, and it will balance them evenly no matter what. [quote] I strongly disagree with this one. Our societies are little different in the modern world than in any time in the past. Some minor differences, and of course the technology which makes things seem so different, but which in fact is mostly just variations on themes... [/quote] Hey, what about the invention of language? What about religion, and it's early purpose as a "families consolidator", which, to an extent, was favourable to the development of our societies in the first centuries after J.C. (before becoming a way to abuse and control masses). What about the invetion of money to rule commercial exchange? What about all those processes, social structures, school, law and a legal system, politics, what about moving from a few hundred cavemen to billions of humans getting so much power they can impact (and potentially destroy) the work of nature? I don't think these are only variations on a theme, I really think these are major non-biological changes. And I wasn't meaning to say we were so special, but merely pointing out the fact that we don't go hunting anymore, we don't ride horses anymore, etc. [quote] aside from not seeing much in the way of an actual theory there, I see nothing controversial. There are basic facts out there, based in our biology and genetics. ~shrug~ [/quote] Theory: mating is not based on "formal communication" but essentially on informal communication (eye contact, looks, gestures, voice..) and instinct (and therefore, hasn't changed much since cavemen came out of theyre caves). And yes, this can be defended as a scientific theory. Science accepts what can be proved as fact and the rest as theory, worthy an investigation or not. To biologists, this is not strict scientific fact. Because while it applies to all mammal species and can be experimented, it's a lot harder to experiment it on human beings. It is assumed true, but untested. To psychologists, this is highly controversial. It will irk some, because they do attach a strong power to the mind, while in reality, conscious thinking has little to do with mating. To most male humans, society teaches the opposite of what it takes to seduce, and that's what I am trying to point out when stating a "gap" between culture and reality. Mommy tells her babies to be kind, gentle. Romantic, I mean, twisted and wrongly named romantic cliches instruct males to "buy gifts", set "rrrrrromantic dates in restaurants", be servant knights to theyre princess, etc. The crappy dating classics. 95% of movies and modern books tell us tales that look like this. Example: Mel Gibson in "what women want". Women do want a girly guy according to that movie. There is a whole buzz on those wacky romantic practices. You do know it, I do know it, but society teaches the opposite: women want dominant males, not wussbags or servant knights. Try to be like Mel Gibson in "what women.." and you'll land somewhere between enjoying a curious dry feeling where your legs meet, or meeting an abusive woman that will drain and dump you. Ok, it is obvious to you DL, it is not to 9/10 mens I meet. My 2 cents. Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

« Backwards — Onwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu