Okay, ProveIt. Never mind. This is pretty muddled. Can't go into too much depth right now, but the passive/active thing needs a bit more precise explanation. It's also worth noting that the capacity for cultural evolution (which could, by the way, be considered instinctual) requires a tonne of energy. We humans devote much of our energy to the brain because of the biological changes which allow us to grow them.

right--

Both do the same thing.

Culture does it faster.

Easy peasy.

Well prove it--had a shitty day did we?

if you can't take a joke--don't make a joke.

When you do find the time... can you also PLEASE point out where I have debated any of that except to say that I'M NOT DEBATING IT. They are two different things... What is not clear about that. Do they work together... Yes. What is it that I'm saying that makes it unclear that I'm not freakin debating what you all are spouting????

PocketRocket insinuated that cultural evolution is more important than biological. I don't really see that one is more important than the other as both offer answers for two, similar, but very different things. What I was getting at is that he has pretty much asked the age old question... which came first the chicken or the egg. Is it necessary to have cultural evolution before biological evolution or biological before cultural? I surmise that it is in our best interest to view biological as the basis and cultural as a sub (it is a short cut, isn't it?). This is what I meant by 'trump'; as in importance of (which does fit... even if you don't care for the way that I used it).

Unfinished thought... sorry, gotta work for a minute...

Who's joking? I have no issues taking a joke... provided they are humorous. Sorry, I missed the humor.

Too bad I don't where the guy who said that is anymore, as I'm sure he'd like to know that his insane, mind-numbing stupidity has become a topic of conversation amongst atheists :D

Not turn the topic away from culteral and biological evolution, I just want to say that its kind of a bummer about our sun. Not in that it won't last forever, but that it's not massive enough to become a black hold when it dies. When I first learned about black holes I really got my hopes up. But then I find out our sun is little and stupid :(

Might as well get upset that there will be another Ice Age in about 30,000 years. Holy Shit! (thanks, ADT:lol:).

The idea that we are not currently evolving is just time-centered egotism. People always tend to think that things are diffrent in the current era then they have been in past. Even though we aren't neccesarily evolving to compete against other species anymore, I would guess that we are evolving faster now, due to the fact that people can select who they breed with much more then ever before. It's bound to speed up evolution. People who are attracted to a certain characteristics have children, some of whom are even more attracted to that same set of characteristics, and some of their children even more so, etc etc until you follow the pattern down and end up with major diffrences between humans, add 100,000 years and you could have whole diffrent species or sub-species of human.

I can live with knowing an Ice Age is coming. In fact, it might be kind of 'cool' :lol:

yeah, I know... But I just couldn't help myself.

That's not condecension; it's sad acceptance.

I was using it loosely.

Certainly not. We just have to appreciate our place as one part in the machine of nature that is no better or more important than any other. Religion undermines that dangerously by proposing that humans are somehow superior to the rest of the universe. We ain't.

:|

Yes, yes, the unfortunate thing about dealing with some people who completely lack the ability to think (i.e Carico, Salty) is that ad hominem becomes an expected part of any small disagreement. I would maintain that biological and cultural evolution are, in an exciting sense, both the same thing, despite working very differently, but these are, of course, mostly meaningless ruminations.

What I was trying to do was point out that both your view of cultural evolution being a kind of subcategory building off of biological evolution, and Rocket's view of cultural evolution's rapid speed were not necessarily mutually exclusive unless you look at them dogmatically: one being somehow more truthy. I think both of you are looking at this a bit too dogmatically, although Rocket also makes some incomplete points to try to back his up.

oh, and:
and lest we forget the real winners:

(when I was clearly disagreeing with his response)

[/fightin' words]

PocketRocket... What happened to post 13??? Pulling a Clara on us?

I in no way meant for it to sound like you were a visitor here, or in PR. I meant that if there were others that are guests here (in the RA) from PR, that you may be able to provide the answer to the question, " Would calling stubborn PocketRocket PR for short offend anyone in your neck of the woods..?" Or something like that... no matter now. PocketRocket seems to have accepted the full title. :D

I realize that I am opening the can of worms again here... and I apologize in advance that I will not be able to contact as freely and accurately cited as I would like... but I am not back on the internet yet at home (do to my move back and schedule and all... and that they want too much money for service) but I will respond in time, as I know that you will be responding... so just be patient with me.

Yes, 'cultural evolution' has it's place. It provides insight into many areas of knowledge and is a more 'quick' answer. But I am of the opinion that there are too many holes in it. How precise is it exactly? We can get much data, don't misunderstand what I'm thinking. It is easier to test outcomes for problems that some people demand to have answers to 'today'.

I see cultural evolution as the 'new drug' that is pushed by the medical field, that has extreamly positive feedback for the first 10-15 years. Then come to find out year 16 there is an amazingly destructive new cancer (or whatever ails you) out that had proper testing been done could have been avoided. Just because 'culture' accepts an idea into the mainstream does not necessarily make it 'effective'. Due to time restraints and a strict need for 'answers now' I see why this concept is still used. Do I think that that makes it superior to a 'natural' approach that biological evolution will work it all out on it's own? Over time. Time that, because an answer would not be provided in this generation (or longer), we simply don't think that we have.

I believe that it was Cap'n (sorry if I'm wrong I'll come back and edit) that mentioned that once we are extinct the Earth has a better opportunity to 'heal' itself. I agree. Though I also think that should our worldly posessions be taken away (majority culturally based) the Earth would have an easier time healing as well.

Biological evolution is the constant, that, with or without our culture will continue.

This claim is why I put more stake in the idea that biological evolution is more 'important' than cultural evolution. The need for one, in todays society, does not mean that the need for the other ceases to exist. However, if there were no biological evolution -Would there be any possibility for culture. I think not, again, that's just me.


Is this the missing post 13???
I too enjoy a nice cup of coffee... Hazelnut is my fave.

Both biology and culture are aresult of dealing with the environment. THis includes the specific history of a species.
Yes, both biology and culture gain results from dealing with the environment as well as needing to draw specifics from history, individually.

In the case of biological evolution there is only really the passive change brought on by surviving offspring due to adaptations that do not lead to their extinction.
Which provides the current day as a result. Agreed.
{On a side note: I think that you may be referring strictly to natural selection and not biological evolution; I do not see them as one in the same.}

Human beings are constrained by biological evolution.
Not constrained. We are biological evolution... in a process. We are not held back because of biological evolution... that just wouldn't make sense. Our knowledge of the future biolgical line of evolution is limited or possibley 'constrained' due to current knowledge, easiest attained by cultural evolution (quick results as you have mentioned).

Biological evolution produces behavioural adaptations along with morphological ones.
True. Cultural can also produce behavioural adaptations and physical changes, it's a stretch but I'll even go so far as to say predictible 'designed' morphing.

Behavioural adaptations are exceptionally successful in most cases becasue they require little energy in comparison with morphological change.
Agreed. Unless your subject is stubborn (such as myself... then maybe you should have opted to try to grow that horn in the center of my forehead.)

Cultural evolution parallels biological evolution in that it is an adaptation that copes with environmental effects and like behavioural adaptaion allows for more active intervention with the environment. Sometimes it succeeds, sometimes it doesn't.
You are not hearing me on this one. AGREED. BUT, they do not necessarily come to the same conclusion. Therefore - NOT THE SAME.
I don't know how you can say 'allows for more active intervention with the environment' - Biological evolution IS the freakin environment. Are you saying that it is easier to interpret cultural evolution than it is to interpret biological? This is the part I think I'd like you to expand on the most... cause this is where your opinion is losing me.

Parallel, but with a grounded root in biology. They study the same thing... but are not the same....


____Cultural evolution_______________________________
|
______________Biological evolution__(the constant)______________________________

We can have an effect on the biological aspect, it can have an effect on us (culture), but biology does not necessarily predict what culture will do. Culture predicts what biology will do. Which do you suspect is more advanced? My money is on biology. Anything that either doesn't give a shit about what culture is doing or has the balls to say, too bad, this is how it's gonna be... that gets my vote.


If you are attempting to debate which is easier to gain educated results from fastest I will agree that cultural evolution will provide you with a reasonably accurate basis to set up a hypothesis and a decent prediction to any outcome. But, I don't feel that this is what you are getting at. I am understanding you to say that cultural evolution provides as specific an answer to some very tough questions as biological evolution does. I must disagree on that.

Okay, I realize this is between you and Rocketman, but come on, you're just being argumentative here. This definition of cultural evolution is completely errant; it has nothing to do with what Rocketman was likely bringing up (although granted, he was particularly unclear). I assume when he says "Cultural Evolution", he means Meme theory, which bears no resemblance to the idea defined above.

This whole argument is one huge mess. Jesus Christ. I can't even begin to understand what is going on here with the confusion of terms. Are you trying to make a statement on how human society as a whole is a kind of cancer? That the (clearly ethnocentric) Victorian idea you defined above is a cancer? I think you're looking a bit too deep for answers which are right in front of you.

Dammit, though, this "more important" business is complete crap. You can describe ideas and you can test ideas, but you can't attribute false concepts like "better" to them, especially in an argument, when it's clearly just an excuse to bite the other guy's head off.

If my concept and your concept got into a fight... my concept would kick your concept's ass.

Are you implying that a change in the genetic makeup of humans must accompany any change in culture, or do you take "biological evolution" to mean the wholistic state of human genetics?


WTF? "Includes the history"? " draw specifics from history, individually"? This doesn't make any sense at all.

"knowledge of future biological line of evolution"? The language you two are using is completely inappropriate for what you may or may not be arguing. Any future developments of "biological evolution" (which I take you mean to be genetics as a whole, and not the process of genetic change?) is not going to happen over human time scales, so I don't quite see what you mean. Are you now equating "cultural evolution" to philosophy and science?

Let me try to put these two concepts into terms I can deal with, and both of you please tell me what you think. Natural Selection acting on genes can produce behaviors in many animals that in some sense mimic consciousness in organisms far too primitive to understand what they are doing. Genes tell the brains of ducks, for instance, to incubate anything smooth in or around their nest. They do not understand that this usually means an egg and that they intend on raising a chick from it and no one taught them how to do it; it is instinct. The same goes for cuckoo (European, not American) chicks. They are brood parasites, so their eggs are laid in the nest of surrogate parents from other species. The newborn chick will push any competitors out of the nest, without ever understanding that doing this is a good (if brutal) survival strategy. These (and most all) animal behaviors are like this; they are the result of genes programming for immutable logic circuits in the brain. This is a slow and inefficient way of adapting to an evironment, because it requires genetic mutations to occur and be selected for over whole lifetimes. Humans, on the other hand, have brains capable of complex and abstract thought. We can come up with adaptive strategies and spread them in the form of language. These ideas (memes) undergo selection in much the same way as genes, only much, much faster. It is this that gives humans the survival edge in nearly all environments in a time span that organisms relying on biological (genetic) evolution cannot touch.

See above. ProveIt, what are you trying to get at? Why do you feel the need to create an ambiguous argument with no support?


The claim that the two are "the same thing", I think, comes from the fact that they both rely on the principles of Natural Selection. Your definition of "biological evolution" is again confused here. In this context, it probably means Natural Selection acting on genes, which is a long way from "the physical environment", or "ecosystem". You could argue that the results of this evolution is the habitat of memes (and thus this confused idea of cultural evolution), but, again, it would be imprecise language to put it the way you have.

Jesus Fucking Christ. Is it written somewhere, hidden, that one of these concepts is more advanced? Can you place your bets, and then find the Evolution Gospels and look who's right?

Culture does not neccessarily predict what biology will do, and yes, biology does predict what culture will do. Just look at the cuckoo example above, and realize that memes are selected for based on how well they appeal to their hosts. A meme which makes us feel good because of the result of genetic selection will be selected for memetically.

*Sigh*. In this case, it might be helpful to look at memetics as all of human thought. Does it make sense to say that a process devoid of all thinking can give a better answer than one that is actually thought and answers (competing in a pool)? I still can't see quite where you're going with such words as "specific answers" or "tough questions".

I feel like I'm having a siezure here.