Re: Is this the time for evodevo?

(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.

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.

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.

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.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is this the time for evodevo?
    ... mythological products of human brain designed for rationalizing ... evolution of knowledge is a law of the development of science, ... "The very fact that chimps do not, nor ever will, possess the ... morphology in animals and animal behavior is not a function of ...
    (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)