Re: Scientific prediction about evolution, age of chimps and bonabos

MobyDikc wrote:
On Feb 15, 11:37 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
MobyDikcwrote:
On Feb 15, 11:01 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 15, 9:30 am,MobyDikc<mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:43 am, Martin Andersen <d...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
MobyDikcwrote:
On Feb 14, 10:35 pm, Bodega <michael.palm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 14, 7:17 pm,MobyDikc<mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So, I was thinking.
[snip]
To make this hypothesis work, we will need to make one postulate:
Given long enough, a society, of any species, will be dominated by
females.
First, you'd have to define what you mean by a "society of any
species." Are you including jellyfish?
If jellyfish are organized is a societal hierarchy, I suppose they
would be included.
I don't know if that's the case for them or not.
Though I'm sympathetic, I think
you're really out to make a political statement
No statement. Just observations contrasting chimps, bonobos, and our
own culture.
Wouldn't you have to argue against the possibility of a matriarchal
society reverting to a patriarchal (or something in between) at a later
point to hypothesize everything "ending up" matriarchal?
It could be that gender domination occurs in cycles.
But something like this can be argued a million ways over and over. I
think testing it is more interesting.
The hypothesis is flimsy, and if it doesn't pan out, there are a
thousand things that are probably wrong with it. Your point being one
of them.
How would you test it
Look for evidence that confirms the bonobo is an older species than
the common chimp.
That's the prediction.
What would it mean for bonobos to be an older species? You aren't
thinking clearly here.

Perhaps.

But it could mean that something more like a bonobo has existed for
longer than something more like a chimp.

All the genetic differences between the two couldn't have happened
within a single generation.

I'm afraid you aren't making any sense here. When you say "bonobos are an older species than chimps", what does that claim mean? How does it relate to your question?

We have no data that allows us to figure out when
each group became the present species, whatever species definition you
like.

But maybe we will.

No we won't. Even talking about "species" as existing at other than a single point in time is logically problematic.

That's where scientific predictions come in handy. The hypotheses,
however questionable, that predict future discoveries are the
empirical successes.

I don't think you understand what you're predicting here. Since bonobos and chimps are sister species, if bonobos are older than chimps, then bonobos are the ancestors of chimps. And that would mean that a matriarchal system in bonobos (not really accurate, but whatever) evolved into a patriarchal system (even less accurate, but whatever also); and that would be against your theory. Then again, if chimps were older, that would just mean that one of two identical lineages evolved a matriarchal system from the same starting point. Your prediction makes no sense in either case.

All we can determine is when the chimpanzee lineage split in two,
eventually resulting in the two modern species. And under that
criterion, both groups must be of exactly equal age.

But the genetic differences couldn't have all happened at the same
time. They had to split off in a manner that is less black and white
than you are assuming.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm saying that you don't know what speciation is, or what it means for one species to be older than another, at least if they're sister species.

Further, unless
speciation resets the clock, all groups that descend from a common
ancestor must be of equal age, including all primates.

Not speciation, but socialization.

We're talking about societal hierarchies here.

If mutants occurs in a society, and are outcast, and they eventually
create their own society, yes, I would say that socialization of a new
species begins the new clock.

I realize this isn't rock solid or anything. Very hypothetical.

It's not even comprehensible, which is a problem.

I'm also trying to figure out where your hypothesis comes from.

Pure speculation and curiosity.

But you don't speculate about purely random subjects. You must have some reason to entertain a hypothesis in the first place.

Why
would we expect all societies to result in matriarchy given enough time?

I don't know.

But that's a hypothesis I've proposed that can be tested by
determining which set of genes is older, that of a chimp or that of a
bonobo, assuming that is somehow relevant to when each species created
a society.

I'm afraid that "which set of genes is older" is a meaningless phrase, i.e. it corresponds to nothing that could be true or false.

.