AS an Evolutionary Condition?

Post Reply New Topic

The theory of evolution does not seek to explain how life came to exist. Your objection makes as much sense as complaining that a refridgerator does not function because it fails to transport you to work.

None of which is relevant to the theory of evolution as the theory of evolution is about what happens once life forms exist, however they happen to come about.


Life did not originate through evolution, evolution is something that occurs after life already exists. The theory of evolution does not contend that evolution caused life. Your objection is analogous to claiming you will not believe refridgerators work unless someone can show you how a fridge could transport you to work. The theory of evolution merely explains why life forms are not all identical to each other; it does not explain, claim to explain or seek to explain why life exists in the first place.

If you want to accurately claim you understand the basics of evolution then you first need to understand that it has nothing to do with how life came to exist and is a theory entirely concerned with what has happened only after life came to exist.

Btw, I think that the theory of evolution perhaps could explains how life appears - basically "life" in nothing more than code for "self-replicating crystal"; by definition, a "self-replicating crystal" will have more success than a "non-self-replicating crystal" in producing copies of itself (the definition of "fittest" according to the theory of evolution), then the expansion of "self-replicating crystals" is explained by T.E..

It's good that the last poster has accurately delineated the true differences between the arguments when creationists argue against evolution, finally using the formation of what we call life as distinct from a series of complex chemical reactions. AngelRho is quite right in saying we don't know the actual start of "life" but we do have a pretty good idea: with a good understanding basic organic chemistry and sufficient time some pretty spectacular compounds can be "created" but that leap to what we consider to be the basis of life, i.e. nucleic acids is currently elusive. What may become "fact" in time may very well involve an better understanding of what could be considered to be a living protein - the prion: is this closer to biogenisis?

Forgive me but I believe you are not using your scientific analysis to it's full extent as you do actually believe and need to; you believe in those that have gone before using the principles that you uphold and, as yet have not been disproved by those same principles. Science is continually reformulating it's "rules" due to this process and "facts" are only a consensus of theory which explain current observations. We can never prove what is, only what is not: in fact it is the only true belief system as opposed to a faith system which does not need any such proof.



My apologies if I didn't explain properly. On first reading, your post suggested that you believed SCA specially evolved to fight malaria rather than it being a fortunate consequence of the condition when infected with a particular (and most deadly) form of the infestation. There are other blood "conditions" which have also been selectively promoted in the endemic malaria regions -well explained sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html for readers interest.


Moving back OT, we should consider that there are very probably more spontaneous abortions that the mother ever knows about, even before she considers herself pregnant, these are the "incompatible with life" mutations that we don't see, before the "embryo" is anything more than a clump of cells. Members here considering the eugenics route should ask themselves who is to decide; true, there may be physically survivable conditions which some would consider are not in the "species best interest" to remain in the gene pool but this is a very slippery slope; definitely immoral perhaps very "unnatural" but I find the suggestion that Down's, Turners, low-functioning ASD or "people like that" should not be allowed to exist utterly repugnant and certainly not what I would expect on these pages - TBH I find it astounding that no-one has yet made comment on this.



Appalling.

It is appalling. You're taking me quite out of context. Natural selection would suggest that weak members of a species would be naturally culled. There are some species of animals that have been known to abandon their young. I've personally seen birds pushed out of a nest for no reason that I could see and no protection attempted for birds unable to fly. What happens then? They die or get eaten by cats!

That's all I meant. Why DON'T human beings cull our own species? If we're only following a natural order, there shouldn't be any problem with eugenics. But we obviously DO have moralistic problems with eugenics as gestalt so clearly demonstrates. In my opinion, this is in open defiance of evolution, not consistent with it. This is also, for me, partial evidence against evolution--but what do *I* know, right?

I do not need to believe anything, a belief is something you know regardless of evidence or reason. I do not do that, I consider it no different than lying personally, though I know others do not see it that way.

You are correct though, science is about finding the least wrong answers, if you can not disprove it, nor find any way to show it may be wrong, it can be accepted as usefully true.

A fact is a provable observation, or a reproducible result of an experiment, or a mathematical statement regarding such.


As for culling, I lack any semblance of faith, yet I am a moral, upstanding, righteous human. Why? I recognize that other people are also aware, and that they would prefer to be treated fairly.

In order to claim I have the right to be treated in a respectful manner, I must treat others the same way, if the only thing people ever got out of the bible was the golden rule, I would be fine with that.

It is the most important part, in my opinion, and arguably it is the "best" moral argument ever presented.

I do not do things because I am worried about angering a deific figure, I do things because I would like to be treated a certain way, and do not feel I can rightfully claim I deserve such treatment without giving it.

Because humans, unlike animals have human rights. Actually we did cull those who had had low IQ or mental retardation. Even those who were in institutions with no sign of recovering were terminated. It's disgusting. Some of those people with low IQ's actually just had learning disabilities. Rosa Marie Kennedy who had an average IQ was supposedly ret*d and given a lobotomy which certainly made her ret*d.
What an awful time to live.

Even if it were that simple (and frankly it is not that straight forward as it happens), this would have no impact on the incidence of conditions caused by mechanical DNA duplication and distribution errors during the creation of sex cells. Both Turners and Downs Syndrome are caused by mechanical copying errors. How do you expect natural selection to have an impact on that?


Some humans do.

I see no reason why not. We are social animals with complex bonding, identification, and empathy capacities, along with a sense of justice. These features do not indicate to me that eugenics are an inevitable practice by members of our species.


Humans are social animals. Our cooperative ties are effected and bolstered largely by behaviours/characteristics that are compatable with refraining from eugenics. These traits and characteristics have been hugely successful for our species, so it is little wonder they are perpetuated.

I was not questioning your faith, or your right to express beliefs in what evolutionary supporting facts may or may not support your argument, your remark was utterly disrespectful to who you consider to be unfit for life - there were individuals of similar thoughts seventy years ago.

However, how could I take that sentence out of context? I quoted the full paragraph and the context to me seemed perfectly clear. Perhaps did not mean what you said but the meaning of the sentence and the paragraph it was written in could only have been taken in the way that I did. You were not talking about animals or birds but actually stated people and that they should not be allowed to live, there was no supposition or hypothetical construct in the paragraph; it was a simple and completely hideous statement. Wriggling out of it by saying I was taking your words out of context is just not good enough but perhaps understandable in this environment; an apology for your poor communication would have been far more appropriate.



Your stance is somewhat contradictory based on the (incorrect?) religious use of the word. Take a step back -
Belief:
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

as opposed to Faith
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

There is a subtle but distinct difference in the word which is illustrated in definition 2 in both words (accidentally).

In your reply "it can be accepted as usefully true" or conversely unable to prove false.

Initially we (man) believed that the smallest unit of matter was the atom (even back in Socrates time), we then found it didn't fit the experiment or reason and explained them by electrons and protons, then smaller and smaller particles until we reach today's "beliefs". I'm fairly sure that you could not "prove" or "disprove" any of the concepts in this historical story without resorting to a belief that something happened or someone did something.

The whole of science is built on a belief system. It believes that the mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity does actually rest on logical proof or material evidence until otherwise proven. You must believe the basic (or not so basic) tools of what you learnt in your early studies otherwise you must be able to prove them yourself, clearly not viable in with the level of understanding you clearly have. As you have said "A fact is a provable observation, or a reproducible result of an experiment, or a mathematical statement" but science is based on the explanation and interpretation of those facts it is this which must be trusted, scrutinised and believed or otherwise, this then builds understanding. Should the explanation or interpretation be incorrect or the observation result or mathematics be later proved to be incorrect, the belief system is changed.

Faith is a completely different kettle of bananas. Something you have or you don't, and arguing with someone who has it is futile other than to refute their explanation and interpretation of observable and demonstrable fact, and then you're arguing belief not faith.

edit:spelling

Well, I do apologize if my statements were seen as promoting eugenics, but if we're keeping to a discussion of evolution, it should not be seen as offensive at all--to say so is to get emotions and personal biases involved. Answering the question of whether I believe in evolution or not is not a question of emotion or bias, but rather a careful consideration of whether it is compatible with other things I know to be true. Despite what seems to be a dogmatic adherence to it, not unlike religious dogma that isn't supported by sacred text, evolution as an absolute fact remains to be proven--and I'm not trying to get back in that line of discussion because we all believe what believe and nothing I can say will change that.

What I do want to address is the idea of natural selection and Down's Syndrome. Natural selection as I see it is "survival of the fittest," among other things. I'm talking PURELY from an evolutionary standpoint. Generally speaking, if an genetic anomaly such as what causes Down's Syndrome were to happen--and why couldn't it?--in another species, it's hardly likely that nature would provide much support at all to that individual.

When I was a child, I had a cousin that lived across the road from me who bred quail. My grandmother volunteered to feed them while my cousin was at work, and of course I followed along and helped. I noticed that one bird had a deformed leg and was a little smaller than the others, and one day was shocked to see that the bird had been thrown out of the cage. I took pity on the poor thing and kept it as a pet for a number of years. Left in the wild, that bird would not have been so lucky.

Apply the same model to a human individual with Down's. I've actually been fortunate enough to spend a fair amount of time with my stepfather's family, including his grandson who has Down's. This man is one of the luckier ones who managed to develop a wide range of abilities and is actually able to live and support himself away from his parents. I've seen other MUCH more severe manifestations of this condition. In all probability, if he'd just been abandoned in his late teens, he MIGHT have adapted. But there's not evolutionary or even naturalistic cause to explain why he was so well taken care of any more than why my bird just happened to survive several years in captivity. Right place, right time? Maybe.

But humans are capable of compassion. Evolution doesn't even touch this. Nature is too harsh a caretaker and seems to have a "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" attitude when it comes to birth defects and genetic anomalies. The things we do defy evolution it seems, sometimes, around every corner of existence. If you want to be offended at the bare mention of the word "eugenics," don't be mad at me. Be mad at the evolutionary principles that foster those kinds of attitudes. If evolution is true, there shouldn't be a problem. Since the mere WORD offends you, that alone should suggest that there is much more to the story.

This is your stand? That people who believe in the theory of evolution should also be fine with eugenics and if they aren't then the theory of evolution must be incorrect? Are you SERIOUS?!?!?!?!?

Well at least an apology did eventually arrive.

A technical problem in your argument AngelRho is both Downs and Turners are unaffected by natural selection. In both cases the fault lies in the reproductive event of gamete production (the sperm and the egg) it's the number of chromosomes not the actual chromosome itself. In most cases the egg (usually for Downs and always for Turners) has incorrect chromosomal separation which results in an aberrant or duplicated chromosome which may be due to the age of the parent. This would not cause a selection process as the event is not the result of a genetic event, but does result in spontaneous abortion with a high frequency in the case of Turners. In conditions such as this, it would have no effect whatsoever to "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out", it would not remove anything from the gene pool. There is also sufficient evidence that even if a gene "anomaly" is removed from the gene pool by eradication, the anomaly can soon return by similar processes that caused it's initial existence.

Technically, you're still missing my point. Those things that happen leading to birth defects and chromosomal disorder such as Down's have absolutely nothing to do with what happens after an organism is born. Evolution, as I understand it, also has to take into account how well an individual adjusts to the environment as well as environmental responses to the individual (and by environment, I'm including all outside factors that may impact the individual, including all other organisms). Certain individuals with defects or anomalies are at the mercy of the environment, perhaps even their own species. Even I won't argue with this because that really is something we CAN possibly observe every day. My cousin thought that deformed quail just unfit enough to make it cat food.

It's these kinds of ideas that gave rise to the horrible kinds of policies of Nazi Germany--a kind of (r)evolutionary "next step" for a single race of people. I'm not familiar with other cultures that practice eugenics, but I don't doubt that there may even be (relatively) primitive tribal people that practice a mild form of this because of lack of knowledge or ability to provide proper care. There is something "wrong" about these individuals, so the only logical thing would be to set them apart from the rest of the tribe--what happens next, I would think, would be up to whatever god they believe in or nature itself, and as I've already stated, nature isn't a very compassionate mother. I'm not saying that's the RIGHT thing to do, but we do tend to go with what we know. If they knew any other way, things might be different. But I think, by and large, that humanity is more concerned about EVERY individual life, whether it's convenient to be so or not. It's certainly NOT convenient, and this is another fault I see with evolution. If it's not convenient, why bother? The reason we DO bother at all is because laws of nature do not govern our human values.

If you think that's bad, consider some of the realities of health care in the United States. Assisted suicide in some jurisdictions is considered an acceptable alternative to long range care for incurable conditions. I think MOST of us disagree with the morality of this practice. A month or so ago I heard the story of a woman diagnosed with a dangerous form of cancer that had not responded to conventional chemotherapy. The doctor recommended at least trying a new chemotherapy drug that HAD shown significant promise, though the treatment itself was rather expensive compared to other therapies. When the woman appealed to her insurance company, she was denied benefits that would have helped towards the expense of the treatment. She was actually told by the insurance company that they'd pay for assisted suicide. Here's the link, btw: Cancer Patient

If evolution is the beginning and end of this whole human story, there shouldn't even BE an ethical issue surrounding euthanasia and eugenics. In fact, we already practice eugenics in other forms: Couples who specifically want a boy or girl child can pick the sex of the baby from a selection of embryos. Since abortion is legal, couples have the option of having a mentally/physically defective child (or even autistic) or quietly getting rid of it. I'm not trying to start "right-to-life" or "pro-choice" arguments. Strictly along evolutionary lines, what is so WRONG with getting of a person who has lived past their useful life and converting them to Soylent Green?

But as you so clearly demonstrate, gestalt, there IS an ethical, maybe even a moral issue against these things. Otherwise, there WOULDN'T be so much of an outcry against them. This isn't meant as disrespect. It also isn't intended to paint evolutionists as misguided, evil Satan worshipers. There are a lot of subjective things (that is, only perceived in the mind) that we almost universally agree upon which can't be explained in scientific terms, much less within the more specific field of evolutionary science.

Before I get too far into this, maybe someone can help me out on a matter of definition. When I studied evolution "back in the day," my understanding of Darwinist theory was that natural selection impacted, among other things, who lived and who died. Another poster established that "evolution" and "abiogenesis" are completely separate--I'm guessing this is so because adaptive variation and other microevolutionary changes have been demonstrated, while "origin of life" theories are likely not falsifiable at this time (it has been attempted, but we're still working on it). Are the terms "Darwinism" and "natural selection" separate and apart from what is labeled "evolution" in THIS day and age? As I understood it, Darwin's theories were fairly broad in scope and certainly SOME ideas are justified by some things which we can observe. The part of it I have trouble buying into has more to do with its long-range effects.

I do not do 1, 2, or 3.






I do not do any of those either, accept as usefully true, means it is false, but it is useful to behave as if it were true in some cases, I do not believe it is true, I know better than to do that.



I can recognize that our knowledge is limited, and until I can provide a purely mathematical framework for this phenomena, I know it can not be true.



You can operate without belief, I do not need to trust these facts to be correct, I need only trust that they have yet been proven incorrect.

As I explained to someone else who could not believe that I lacked belief entirely, "accept as usefully true" does not mean 50% true/50% false, as he suggested. It means the scale goes 99.999999999~% false, until that last bit pushes it to 100% true.

If that last bit is never found, I accept that it is merely something which I can not provably show is false yet.



There are very few facts in my view, and most are only factual within a certain realm of interpretation, which I make efforts to state clearly.

This is a large part of why I seek a purely mathematical form of physics, as THAT is something I can state is true, without belief, as it is provable. Intuition suggests this should be possible, so I work at it.

It took a while to get comfortable enough to recognize that belief did not work in my mind, and that any time I stated I believed something, I was lying. It is almost a curseword to me at this point.


Anyways, enough derail, we can start a thread on belief or something elsewhere if need be.

In a limited way I do. I don't think it's a new thing, but I think it's on the increase because Aspie's are often able to excel in the current environment. Without them I doubt we'd have electricy, computers and a lot of other cool stuff, or maybe it would have take us a lot longer to get there. People who might once have been relegated to the fringes and not have had a chance at a family life, now have that opportunity.

I've got a good friend who I'm sure is a high functioning Aspie. She's in her sixties and never considered seeking diagnosis. She doesn't need one. To her family she's just odd. She's chosen a path through life they don't understand and she's excelled. I think if we could count up people like her, and then stop assuming that all NTs are really T, we'd find that typical really isn't all that common. Aspies might outnumber true NTs. It's just a thought not a firm opinion.

Kiley

[quote=AngelRho]Before I get too far into this, maybe someone can help me out on a matter of definition. When I studied evolution "back in the day," my understanding of Darwinist theory was that natural selection impacted, among other things, who lived and who died. Another poster established that "evolution" and "abiogenesis" are completely separate--I'm guessing this is so because adaptive variation and other microevolutionary changes have been demonstrated, while "origin of life" theories are likely not falsifiable at this time (it has been attempted, but we're still working on it). Are the terms "Darwinism" and "natural selection" separate and apart from what is labeled "evolution" in THIS day and age? As I understood it, Darwin's theories were fairly broad in scope and certainly SOME ideas are justified by some things which we can observe. The part of it I have trouble buying into has more to do with its long-range effects[/quote]

I think I'm beginning to understand where you are and, if I forget the earlier transgression of language, broadly I think your argument has some validity. There clearly some sociological changes that have created evolutionary consequences but most of the issues we are discussing here are but a fleeting nanosecond in evolutionary terms. American Healthcare, European revolutions and even the entire phase of Christianity is but a blip in a species evolution, this period covering perhaps only 40ish generations so far. Single individuals may introduce a potential evolutionary advantage/disadvantage, only proliferation of that advantage/disadvantage through it's repeated generations will show its success or failure. I would consider evolution the process, natural selection the mechanism and Darwinism to be a respectful attribution to that mechanism.

[quote=justMax]

There are very few facts in my view, and most are only factual within a certain realm of interpretation, which I make efforts to state clearly.

This is a large part of why I seek a purely mathematical form of physics, as THAT is something I can state is true, without belief, as it is provable. Intuition suggests this should be possible, so I work at it.

It took a while to get comfortable enough to recognize that belief did not work in my mind, and that any time I stated I believed something, I was lying. It is almost a curseword to me at this point.[/quot]

I would respectfully suggest that you are kidding yourself my friend, but what the heck. Physics is simply another observational science and it's alignment to truth based on the accuracy of the observation and construction of the hypothesis. The difference between other science is that Math plays a great part in that hypothesis and as Math is abstract, created to quantify our expectation and works only within the assumptions you put into it, those proofs are made or broken on those assumptions - didn't even Hilbert get it a bit wrong? While I will not even attempt to argue the elegant and sometimes beautiful construction of theory you may very well be ready to provide, your use of the word intuition makes me think that you just won't admit what is clearly evident. I'm sure that when you next get on a plane you actually do BELIEVE that the engineers really did bolt that engine back on correctly.

My apologies to the OP for the derail, it wasn't intentional and I'd like to get back to it too.

*snipped and taken to PM*

Nonetheless, while my knack at grasping geometrical concepts is useful for my work, it is not something which a person without AS would be unable to do.

That being considered, I recognize that the inherent difficulties related to socialization from my AS, would likely prove a near insurmountable barrier against selecting for these traits, and attribute my success at finding a mate to the "even playing field" of the internet, combined with simple physical attractiveness (I'm aesthetically pleasing), and effort applied to the process.

My attempts "offline" were often thwarted by something outside of my understanding, that being social cues which I simply could not observe.