Re: New York Times on natural selection

On Sep 7, 10:26 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:40 pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And it seems to me possible to define examples of evolution for which
the expression "change in allele frequency over time" is either
inadequate or even wrong.

For instance - if as a result of global warming, the white salami
colonises new territory further north than usual, the grey salami
migrates into the former territory of the white salami and drives them
out, and the blue salami expels the grey salami from their home
latitude - is that evolution?  And is it change in allele frequency?

You might as well define chemistry as "dynamics of electrons".  It's
too reductive and also too restrictive.

Robert how must I interpret your post in the light of what Lenny Flank
wrote here:

"..> That doesn't mean that ANY of them are genetic.
What's with this requirement that it must be genetic? Evolution
doesn't
require genes, and it doesn't mean that anythng that has differential
survival and reproduction must be genetic.
It's *cultural* evolution, not *biological*....."

================
Rev Dr' Lenny Flank <lfl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

On Feb 19, 12:42 pm, dkomo <dkomo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Natural selection can act on human culture too
"Washington, Feb 19 (ANI): Natural selection can act on human culture as
well as on genes, says a new study which shows that cultural traits
affecting survival and reproduction evolve at a different rate than
other cultural attributes."
http://www.thecheers.org/news/Science/news_12280_Natural-selection-ca....
Kind of a strange web site.  You may see some sexually titillating GIFs
in a sidebar.  There should be better source on the above study, but I
don't have time to search this morning.
I don't see a word anywhere in there about religion being
genetic . . . . . .
As for "cultural traits effecting survival get selected for", all I
can do is shrug and say "no ***".
That doesn't mean that ANY of them are genetic.

What's with this requirement that it must be genetic? Evolution
doesn't
require genes, and it doesn't mean that anythng that has differential
survival and reproduction must be genetic.

It's *cultural* evolution, not *biological*.

Culture is "epigenetic" transmission. You may be able to use a stick
to break open a nut (and not necessarily be a human being) because
your parent or sibling or neighbour taught you how to do it, not
because it's genetic. On the other hand, much animal and human
behaviour /is/ genetic, or has a genetic factor. Certainly the
ability to learn - probably the desire to do so too - is a matter of
having a "correctly" functioning brain, and that's physiological and
genetic.

If a "gene" is exclusively defined as "a piece of DNA", and an allele
is a variant gene, this cultural transmission is overlooked.

(And formally, I'm not sure how this language deals with a single
novel gene which technically is not an "allele". This is somewhat
like the argument on whether 1 is a "prime number". Although in
practice, almost any "functioning" gene is liable to be at most a copy
of another "functioning" gene, although the "function" may be totally
different.)

Knowledge also usually requires a physical capability to put it to use
- many human activities depend quite a lot, if not entirely, on our
opposable thumb. And that's a matter of physical development. Or
speech - that requires a versatile "voicebox", and of course the sense
of hearing.

.

Loading