Re: Dawkins admits......Part 2

Himself wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:07:47 +0000, Fish4Cats <fish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Himself wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:50:13 +0000, Fish4Cats <fish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Himself wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:31:37 -0800 (PST), Eric Root <eroot@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
....snip...8<

No, because whatever the genetic component of the lesser fitness would
be present no matter what I taught them.
True, but irrelevant. You are lowering their fitness by transmitting
ideas to them that are statistically associated with the production of
fewer offspring. You could accomplish the same thing even more
effectively by convincing them to become celibate monks and nuns.
Fitness isn't just about a decision to product a large number of offspring. It's about resistance to disease, intelligence, decent genes etc, otherwise, religions that promote 'free love', polygamy and so forth, would be rampant. The fact that they are not shows that your ideas are wrong.
From the Wikipedia article on fitness:

"Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central
idea in evolutionary theory. It describes the capability of an
individual of certain genotype to reproduce, and usually is equal to
the proportion of the individual's genes in all the genes of the next
generation. If differences in individual genotypes affect fitness,
then the frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations;
the genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is
called natural selection."
You are forgetting that the proposed 'advantage' is not the "capability
of an individual of a certain genotype to reproduce" but merely the
prevailing social construct promoting large families. It has nothing to
do with genotype.

The social construct is associated with particular subsets of the
population and promotes the fitness of "any and all" alleles that
differ from the corresponding alleles within the broader population.

The problem is that as there are no alleles for (or against) a belief in
having large families, the argument is vacuous.

I think you should read a bit more about evolution on wikipedia as a
starting point:

Natural selection:

"Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make
it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce
become more common in a population over successive generations."

Heritability:

"Heritability is the proportion of phenotypic variation in a population
that is attributable to genetic variation among individuals."

Evolution:

"In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population
of organisms through successive generations."

The 'social construct' of wanting large families is not associated with
any particular genotype. Therefore it is not a heritable trait. Strike
1. Therefore natural selection cannot act upon it. Strike 2. Therefore
it is not associated with evolution. Strike 3, you're out.

Therefore, unless a particular allele is markedly disadvantageous, it
will tend to increase in frequency within the population taken as a
whole.

There is no allele for the belief in having large families. So there's
nothing to increase.

Let us suppose that, under a particular set or range of habitat
conditions, a genetically heritable trait predisposes you to have
fewer children than individuals who lack this trait or express it to
lesser degree. You mention intelligence. If individuals of higher
intelligence produce smaller families on average than do their
intellectual inferiors, the alleles producing that intelligence will
tend to decrease in frequency within the population.
I don't need a lecture in evolution thanks. I've been reading Dawkins
since I was about 13 (as well as many other authors such as Steve Jones
and so on), as well as many other technical sources.

There is absolutely no link between a genotype and a specific belief
that encourages large families or denies evolution.

Links could exist between genotypes and psychological tendencies to
accept particular types of belief.

Please show the peer-reviewed scientific evidence for this assertion.

It doesn't matter anyway, because
any belief that is associated with the production of larger families
will increase the frequency of all alleles of those holding the
belief.

Ok, so going with the (IMO correct) premise that there's no genetic
link, what does this mean? Well, it means that there will be no genetic
divide arising because of the belief, so it will not cause speciation.
Also, there is no underlying reason or mechanism that will cause people
to follow the belief, so unlike an advantageous genome, it will not
follow the 'laws' of evolution and there will be no driving force behind
it. The children of the affected parents are still free to choose other
beliefs and do other things. This is in stark contrast to genes which
has a very powerful driving role in evolution. So basically, in summary,
the original premise that the belief will take over the world, is proven
wrong.

Any genotype within the more rapidly reproducing subpopulation
will be advantaged with respect to the corresponding genotype within
the broader population.

Not necessarily. There are lots of other factors at play.

But this judgement cannot be made anyway since there is nothing special about the genotype in question, and like I point out above, the genotype does not give rise to the belief, which means that natural selection cannot act upon it, which means that evolution won't be a driving force.

Human fitness is influenced by beliefs.
You've just quoted from Wikipedia which clearly states that fitness is a measure of the genome, not belief.

Fitness is a measure of the frequency within a population of
particular genotypes over time. If any allele is reproducing more
rapidly, it is more fit, regardless of what genotype it's associated
with.

Good grief. Did you really just write that? That should be nominated for
Chez Watt. Alleles are what make up a genotype.

Again, from wikipedia:

"The genotype is the genetic constitution of a cell, an organism, or an
individual (i.e. the specific allele makeup of the individual) usually
with reference to a specific character under consideration."

Your statement makes no sense. Strike 4.

Also, let me point out again that there is no allele for the specific
belief that promotes large families.

If some individuals within a
population believe God wants them to raise as many children as
possible, and if most of these children survive, then this belief
increases the fitness of those individuals with respect to other
individuals within the population whose beliefs or customs are
associated with the production of smaller families.
Not so. Since you have pointed out that fitness is related to a
genotype, not a belief, there is nothing heritable about it. The
fitness is directly related to their genes.

Who said there is anything heritable about it?

You did, and the OP.

If there is nothing heritable about it (which I believe there isn't)
then it means that the original proposition, that evolution will make a
belief in large families take over the world, is nonsense. You can't
have biological evolution without heritable traits.

The belief that one
should eat the brain of a dead relative wasn't heritable, but it
reduced the fitness of those who believed it.

That's not how fitness is measured. If you can't identify the specific
genotype then you can't calculate fitness. Beliefs affect all kinds of
different genotypes, they are non-specific. Non-specific events that
affect reproduction do not target any particular genotype, so on
average, they should effect all genotypes equally.

(Additionally, it's quite possible that a natural resistance to the
disease that might be contracted through eating brains is selected for
under these circumstances. Then you have a belief results in a possibly
very rapid selection, but for the resistance, not the belief.)

Again from wikipedia:

Fitness:

"It [Fitness] describes the capability of an individual of certain
genotype to reproduce"

"Certain genotype" is the essential phrase here.

Maynard-Smith's Definition:

"Fitness is a property, not of an individual, but of a class of
individuals – for example homozygous for allele A at a particular locus."

No identifiable allele means no calculable fitness. Is that strike 5 or
6? I'm starting to lose count.

I think the incorrect line of reasoning you have followed is to take a
simple sentence that was used to merely outline what fitness is and then
make all kinds of assumptions and false extrapolations about what it
really means.

Also, where does the fitness come from? From the larger families, or
>from the fundamentalist beliefs? Or from nonfundamentalist religious
beliefs?
Directly from the production of larger families,
Large families require a large amount of resources, it doesn't mean that they are automatically 'fitter' just because there are lots of them.
Correct. The fundamentalist beliefs will increase an individual's
fitness only if enough of his or her children survive and reproduce.
Again you are misusing 'fitness' like the OP was. I think I've pointed
out the reasons why enough times now so I shall ignore the error from
now on for the purposes of brevity.

It's your own confusion that you're ignoring.

For example?

I'm not the person who wrote:

"If any allele is reproducing more rapidly, it is more fit, regardless
if what genotype it's associated with."

But if the families are twice as large, only half as many need to
survive and reproduce in order to maintain parity with individuals
whose beliefs lead to the lower fecundity. If three-quarters as many
survive, the genes of the parents will nevertheless increase in
frequency in succeeding generations.
The problem, again, is that there are no genes controlling belief in
creating large families. There is nothing genetic to pass on. There is
nothing to measure (w.r.t. fitness) in that regard. You are trying to make a link between a specific belief system and genes that just doesn't exist.

Variations exist in psychological types.

Yep.

Some of these are associated with religiosity.

Maybe, maybe not. Could you point to the peer-reviewed articles?

Regardless of this, religions say many different things. There is still
not a gene or set of genes encoding for the belief in having large
families. That is what is needed for your argument to succeed.
Unfortunately for you, there aren't such genes. Religiosity on its own
isn't enough anyway because the genotype (if there was one) that promotes religiosity would not necessarily promote a belief in large families. The religion could promote celibacy or small families, for example.

If such tendencies encourage one to join or remain
in communities whose beliefs, in turn, encourage one to "be fruitful,"
those genes will be favored by natural selection.

Not really. Even if there were genes for being more religious, the lack of a link between the genes and wanting to be more fruitful than everyone else means that natural selection can't affect it unless there are other reasons that are linked to the genes.

but indirectly from
any belief that promotes large families; any belief that opposed
effective birth control methods, for instance. I'm not saying this is
a good thing; the earth is overpopulated. Nonetheless, if you teach a
belief that causes its adherents to have fewer children than do
non-adherents, the genes of those adherents will lose out to those
whose beliefs promote large families.
The problem is that there is no correlation between the genes and the belief. The genes themselves may be still be less fit, there will just be more of them, temporarily.
There may be no initial correlation, but eventually there will be
because the beliefs tend to be passed down in families or particular
genetically isolated segments of the population.
What you are suggesting is that repeated behaviour over many generations
results in a heritable genetic change. What you are therefore proposing
is Lamarckian evolution and this was disproven long ago.

If the belief involves reproductive behavior, then it can result in
heritable genetic change.

Anyone with even a modest understanding of evolution would realise the
error in your reasoning.

Even if the belief involves reproductive behaviour, a gene will not
suddenly magically appear simply because people are following the belief.

Next you'll be suggesting that giraffes obtained their long necks
because of repeated neck stretching over many generations.

Strawman.

No, that was a conjecture. Please learn about your logical fallacies
before attempting to use them.

If, in addition, evolutionary theory is correct in stating that this
process can bring about speciation,
It doesn't even make that kind of statement.
Sure it does. You have an initial population, then you split it in
half with a river or mountain range. Wait long enough and you have two
species. Any kind of effective reproductive barrier should produce the
same kind of effect if continued long enough and if evolutionary
theory is correct.
And what is the reproductive barrier that having more children creates?

You really haven't thought this through have you.

The reproductive barrier is the prohibition against marrying
unbelievers.

Lol, I see that you've given up attempting to be serious. Not only have
we got to have genes promoting belief in large families, but we've got to have genes promoting bigotry as well. Maybe there will be genes for specific sects or sub-sects of a specific religion, or for wearing special hats, lol.

the possibility opens up that this
theory is contributing to the emergence of a new human species whose
members will, on average, be even more opposed to the idea of
evolution than are many members of good-old _Homo_sapiens_.
Evolution doesn't work that way, nor does the human brain.
Various theorists *say* evolution works this way,
Such as? Names please, and peer-reviewed papers. Otherwise admit that
you are making up assertions just to support your argument. Just to be clear, what I'm talking about is what the OP wrote, namely that it's
possible for complex and specific beliefs to evolve, such as a dislike
for evolution theory itself (ignoring the fact that acceptance of
evolution doesn't have anything to do with how many children you choose
to have, or are capable of having, or any bearing on how well they are
suited to their environment), and that this belief will somehow cause
speciation.

It would be quicker to list the evolutionary theorists who have
suggested speciation is nonadaptive. Gould, Eldridge and Richard
Goldschmidt come to mind. Everyone else disagrees. Conservative
religious belief is currently adaptive.

That has nothing to do with what we were discussing. So you've produced another straw-man. Your claim was that speciation would occur in the religious people because they were having more children. You gave no mechanism that would cause the genetic barrier to form, you just made an assertion.

and brain
development is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors.
Yes, brain *development* is influenced by genetic and environmental
factors, but there is absolutely no link between complex specific
beliefs and genes and there is *no* feedback from the environment to the
genome apart from the selection of pre-existing genes.

I
think you'll have a difficult time arguing that humans have no innate
behavioral predispositions.
Straw-man. I claimed nothing of the sort. Humans clearly have
genetically programmed behaviour. What they don't have is genetically
programmed, highly specific beliefs along the lines of what the OP was
proposing.

That's between you and him, if he wants to discuss it with you.

Since you entered the discussion I presumed you were interested. I was
merely establishing the original point which I disagreed with because
you were clearly attempting to create straw-men and divert the argument.
Personally I doubt that either of you have enough knowledge or intellect
to engage in rational discussion on this subject.

...fish



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dawkins admits......Part 2
    ... any particular genotype. ... any belief that is associated with the production of larger families ... This is in stark contrast to genes which ... You've just quoted from Wikipedia which clearly states that fitness is a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dawkins admits......Part 2
    ... any particular genotype. ... it is not associated with evolution. ... any belief that is associated with the production of larger families ... This is in stark contrast to genes which ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dawkins admits......Part 2
    ... Fitness isn't just about a decision to product a large number of offspring. ... It's about resistance to disease, intelligence, decent genes etc, otherwise, religions that promote 'free love', polygamy and so forth, would be rampant. ... prevailing social construct promoting large families. ... individuals within the population whose beliefs or customs are ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dawkins admits......Part 2
    ... You are lowering their fitness by transmitting ... It's about resistance to disease, intelligence, decent genes ... individual of certain genotype to reproduce, ... individuals within the population whose beliefs or customs are ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dawkins admits......Part 2
    ... You are lowering their fitness by transmitting ... It's about resistance to disease, intelligence, decent genes ... Human fitness is influenced by beliefs. ... associated with the production of smaller families. ...
    (talk.origins)