Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-11-2012, 08:57 PM
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
I would say the only thing about eliminating certain genetic diseases would be the limiting of genetic diversity.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 09:06 PM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2012 09:09 PM by tiagorod84.)
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
The blind watchmaker, as you might know, is the parabole made by Dawkins to explain Darwinism, i.e. how a blind process like evolution was capable to generate complex organisms. The blindness of this 'watchmaker' comes from the randomness of mutations: it can create adaptation, misadaptation, or be simply neutral, the environment will be the judge.

What do I mean by Mr. Magoo watchmaker. This 'careless' mechanism (sorry for the IDer meme) was capable to generate a species that in a few years will be able to give a direction to evolution. Thus the Watchmaker will no longer be completely blind, but instead it will see really really really bad. In a sense it will be like Mr. Magoo.

I think that what amazes me the most in the Darwinian algorithm is the ability to break its own restrains and add other layers of complexity.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 09:19 PM
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
(30-11-2012 08:57 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  I would say the only thing about eliminating certain genetic diseases would be the limiting of genetic diversity.
That is completely true. My point was a proof of principle. Nonetheless, it can be useful in some extreme situations.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 11:59 PM
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
(30-11-2012 09:19 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  
(30-11-2012 08:57 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  I would say the only thing about eliminating certain genetic diseases would be the limiting of genetic diversity.
That is completely true. My point was a proof of principle. Nonetheless, it can be useful in some extreme situations.
High five to that!

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2012, 12:28 AM
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
Hey, Tia.

I don't see how it's broken its restraints. The focus on the notion that evolution doesn't require a designer stems from the pitched battle between evolutionists and creationists. It is in no way a hard and fast rule of Darwin. I mean don't get me wrong, I dig on Dennet's idea that evolution is an algorithm. It doesn't require a designer. But doesn't require is a different proposition. My robot vacuum doesn't require an operator, but there's nothing stopping me from directing it towards the spilled cocaine on the carpet... I mean... shit...

But I mean, this notion that we've never had a hand in selection before is silly. First, every single organism on this planet, every drop of water, gust of wind, mountain and valley is an agent of selection. It's not the watchmaker that drives things, it's the watch parts. Second, we've been deliberately affecting things at least since the agricultural revolution. When we burn a field and then plant grain where there was once diversity, we're selecting. When we make piles of garbage because we're sedentary and wolves come to scavenge and we wind up living with the least timid ones, we're selecting. When we breed chihuahuas for Paris' handbag, we sure as shit are selecting. So I don't buy this Magoo thing.

Wow. I'm about to pass out. So, to conclude, the complexity was always there, we've just refused to see much of it.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
02-12-2012, 11:27 AM
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
(01-12-2012 12:28 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Tia.

I don't see how it's broken its restraints. The focus on the notion that evolution doesn't require a designer stems from the pitched battle between evolutionists and creationists. It is in no way a hard and fast rule of Darwin. I mean don't get me wrong, I dig on Dennet's idea that evolution is an algorithm. It doesn't require a designer. But doesn't require is a different proposition. My robot vacuum doesn't require an operator, but there's nothing stopping me from directing it towards the spilled cocaine on the carpet... I mean... shit...

But I mean, this notion that we've never had a hand in selection before is silly. First, every single organism on this planet, every drop of water, gust of wind, mountain and valley is an agent of selection. It's not the watchmaker that drives things, it's the watch parts. Second, we've been deliberately affecting things at least since the agricultural revolution. When we burn a field and then plant grain where there was once diversity, we're selecting. When we make piles of garbage because we're sedentary and wolves come to scavenge and we wind up living with the least timid ones, we're selecting. When we breed chihuahuas for Paris' handbag, we sure as shit are selecting. So I don't buy this Magoo thing.

Wow. I'm about to pass out. So, to conclude, the complexity was always there, we've just refused to see much of it.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
I guess will have to agree on disagree. Consider

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 11:31 AM
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
Anybody who spills cocaine on the carpet, ain't got a valid opinion.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 12:39 PM
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
Kurzweil calls it the Singularity, but fucker is usually deliberately provocative. Evolution got us here, but we don't need it anymore. It is inefficient and clumsy. Evolution is like a club to technology's laser scalpel. Technology advances at an ever increasing rate, evolution can't keep up.

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 12:47 PM
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
(02-12-2012 12:39 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Kurzweil calls it the Singularity, but fucker is usually deliberately provocative. Evolution got us here, but we don't need it anymore. It is inefficient and clumsy. Evolution is like a club to technology's laser scalpel. Technology advances at an ever increasing rate, evolution can't keep up.
Technology is a product of evolution. Thus what I think is that evolution evolved, but is still evolution!

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 01:02 PM
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
Evolution can no more be dispensed with than gravity can.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: