Re: Is this the time for evodevo?

John Harshman wrote:
(M)-adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
CNCabej@xxxxxxx wrote:
All religious beliefs, polytheistic and monotheistic alike, are
mythological products of human brain designed for rationalizing
and explaining the world via the supernatural. By excluding any
feedback from observations and by rejecting the need for
experiments, religions do not experience internal pressure for
change.
Science instead tries to explain the world by studying natural
objects. As a self-correcting human enterprise science has itself
evolved by building on existing knowledge, on human observation
and experimentation, the indispensable food of science. While
evolution of knowledge is a law of the development of science,
for religion the basic dogma is unerring, eternal and perfect,
hence it needs not be verified.

Unfortunately, the evolving nature of scientific knowledge in
this forum is ignored not only by creationists but in some cases
by evolutionists as well.

I believe that, for a number of reasons not to be discussed here,
presently the theory of evolution lags the rapid development of
experimental biology. The evolution theory has failed to
incorporate the achievements especially from the field of
evodevo that have unambiguously shown that morphological
evolution of animals is decoupled from evolution of their
morphology.
You might like to rethink that last sentence.

AOL users do not know how to think! That was established in the
early 90's.


This is not without consequences even in discussions taking
place in talk.origins. The central idea of the recent post "1.23
percent" is (I am quoting):

"Since we share so much genetically with the chimp, then we
should be more like them, or they should be developing more like
us."

Essentially this is related to the "Haldane's dilemma".
No it isn't. Why would you think so?

He is pulling ideas outta his BUTT. Thats why. However, to give
credit where credit is due, this was an extrodinary bluff if you
ask me.

He (or she) gets a 100% on the bluff test.

I bet all the lil kiddies on TO were impressed.

Not me. Nor you obviously.

Please don't try to gain legitimacy by associating yourself with me.

BWAHA!!!!! Next time i will not point the obvious out!

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!!


The author of the post presents a number of specifically human
intellectual, behavioral, and emotional properties to show that
we humans are very different from chimps even though genetically
we are very similar.

In line with the genecentric view, he also states that

"Science claims that biologically we are only 1.23% different
from chimpanzees"

Clearly this is false, as it seems to be rejected by the author
himself when he says that

"The very fact that chimps do not, nor ever will, possess the
requisite anatomical structures is what makes us superior."

Most responses to the original post seem to insist that 1.23%
difference in the genomes of human and chimps are sufficient to
produce the changes we see in human intelligence and behavior.
However, all of them, and to the benefit of the creationists,
fail to provide evidence in support of their opinion.
What is your alternative? Do you think that the differences
between humans and chimps are due to epigenetic inheritance? If
so, what is the mechanism? If not, what makes them different?

There can be only one mechanism if epigenetic inheritance and
morphogenesis is involved.

God-Did-It

Gesundheit.

Bless you my son


Is this a failure of the biological science? No way. Evolutionary
theory is paying a high toll and is making a big favor to
creationist dogma with it stubbornness to stick to the one
century-old positions and by neglecting/ignoring the new
knowledge from the field of evo- devo, which has clearly shown
that evolution of genes is decoupled from evolution of
morphology in animals and animal behavior is not a function of
genes but of supramolecular and suparcellular levels of
organization, of neural circuits.
Evo-devo shows no such thing. I think, once again, that you are
ignoring mutational differences in regulatory sequences. That's
the real point of evo-devo: much morphological evolution is not in
protein-coding sequences but in regulatory sequences.

How are the organizations of neural circuits inherited?

They aren't. I have been discussing the brain verses evolution in
various threads and under various conditions for a week now. It
don't happen. Only the biological functions and biological
processes of the brain can evolve with the species. The individual
personality cannot. It never has. It never will.

Give to Rome what belongs to Rome. The rest belongs to God

Nobody is talking about personality here. We're talking about the
architecture your brain shares (or should share) with everyone else,
part of which is also shared with chimps. Broca's Area; visual
cortex; the hypothetical language module; etc.

Personality, emotion, etc etc.. all intrinsic, all part of the brain.


http://www.epigeneticscomesofage.com

The creationist argument (Since we share so much genetically with
the chimp, then we should be more like them or they should be
developing more like us) is not valid when the evolution of
humans and chimps is epigenetically understood.
It's not valid anyway. We know that small genetic differences can
make big differences in morphology. Nobody needs your nebulous
theory to show that Madman is wrong.

What is the reason (or your opinion(either will do)) for humans and
apes to have evolved on an intellectual level in such different
ways? Especially since they have so much genetic material in common.

Nobody knows the reason. There is much speculation (your favorite
word). But of course species frequently evolve in different ways. It
all depends on the selective environment and, perhaps, on what
mutations happen to come along. After we parted company from the
chimps, their selective environment didn't encourage greater
intelligence. Neither did ours, for a couple of million years,
though it seems to have pushed for a bipedal stance. Then, a million
or two years ago, brains started getting bigger in the human line.
Don't know why. Increased tool use? Language? Sexual selection? It's
really hard to study selection in the distant past, especially when
we don't know the environment in detail.

What we know is that it did happen. It may be that further
examination of our respective genomes will provide more clues. Or
maybe not.

Even your speculations would be more valid then the
wikipedia-king-queens here @ TO.

Thanks in advance should you decide to put-forth your knowledge on
the matter.

I don't understand why you want my knowledge, since you reject
everything I say automatically.

I consider everyone's POV. Some people's POV i consider more then others.

Thanks.


--

It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is this the time for evodevo?
    ... While evolution ... decoupled from evolution of their morphology. ... "The very fact that chimps do not, nor ever will, possess the ... Only the biological functions and biological processes of the brain can evolve with the species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is this the time for evodevo?
    ... Science instead tries to explain the world by studying natural ... While evolution ... decoupled from evolution of their morphology. ... "The very fact that chimps do not, nor ever will, possess the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is this the time for evodevo?
    ... Science instead tries to explain the world by studying natural ... presently the theory of evolution lags the rapid development of ... decoupled from evolution of their morphology. ... "The very fact that chimps do not, nor ever will, possess the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is this the time for evodevo?
    ... Science instead tries to explain the world by studying natural ... While evolution ... decoupled from evolution of their morphology. ... "The very fact that chimps do not, nor ever will, possess the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why dont we have a stong AI by now? (To Curt Welch and other)
    ... I'm leery of approaches that use high-level speculation on the workings ... of the brain as the cornerstone of their approach. ... of 100 humans a day to gain a good understanding of how the brain worked, ... an example of where the process of evolution, ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)