Old 03-03-2006, 01:29 PM   #16
whoneedscience
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Rocketman wrote
Apologies...fifth coffee this afternoon.

Both biology and culture are aresult of dealing with the environment. THis includes the specific history of a species.

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.

Human beings are constrained by biological evolution.

Biological evolution produces behavioural adaptations along with morphological ones.

Behavioural adaptations are exceptionally successful in most cases becasue they require little energy in comparison with morphological change.

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.

Cultural evolution is even more flexible than behavioural adaptation. It is not an instinct--it is a free flowing behavioural construction that in ingraned within human beings but is not defined except by the human being that raises the new human being.

...
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 01:40 PM   #17
Rocketman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
right--

Both do the same thing.

Culture does it faster.

Easy peasy.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 01:42 PM   #18
Rocketman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Well prove it--had a shitty day did we?

if you can't take a joke--don't make a joke.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 02:04 PM   #19
ProveIt
Obsessed Member
 
ProveIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northeast
Posts: 1,711
Quote:
whoneedscience wrote
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.
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????

Quote:
whoneedscience wrote
"Cultural evolution" is perhaps better known as Memeology, for one. There's no need to attack the guy for relating to a fairly well accepted theory. Second, you need to define "trump" if you're going to use it where it doesn't really apply. Memes replicate, mutate and are selected for much faster than genes in human populations. Evolutionary theory describes the situation very effectively, as you suggest, but to rank one above the other in a purely quantitative way is irrational. Natural Selection was first applied to genes, but the theory itself applies to anything that reproduces differentially and competes for limited resources. You can look at it as memes reproduce in biological machines, and are thus second-level, or you could say that memes work much faster and might have a more significant impact on our lives (in the form of technology, etc.). Applying a kind of ostensible betterness quality to them is not valid.
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...

To pray is to verbalize that which some may have difficulty saying aloud in everyday life, in an effort to gain support or smarts from an outside source. I have no need for prayer. I am able to rationalize within my mind, and have no problem speaking it.
ProveIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 02:09 PM   #20
ProveIt
Obsessed Member
 
ProveIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northeast
Posts: 1,711
Quote:
Rocketman wrote
Well prove it--had a shitty day did we?

if you can't take a joke--don't make a joke.
Who's joking? I have no issues taking a joke... provided they are humorous. Sorry, I missed the humor.

To pray is to verbalize that which some may have difficulty saying aloud in everyday life, in an effort to gain support or smarts from an outside source. I have no need for prayer. I am able to rationalize within my mind, and have no problem speaking it.
ProveIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 05:12 PM   #21
antix
Obsessed Member
 
antix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: inside a hill
Posts: 2,910
Quote:
ProveIt wrote
Inspired by a post in the top ten thread...
Quote:
Antix wrote
6) (Cant remember what led to the stupid part, but here goes) A guy I work with said that he believed the sun would literally last forever. Doing my best not to laugh, I simply corrected him, saying that the sun will eventualy burn up all of its fuel and that'll be it. He said that it was still his belief and that I couldn't prove that the sun will burn out. I stood in stunned silence for a while before asking where the sun was getting new energy from, and right on que, he replied: God. (I then decided it was appropriate to laugh hysterically)
Scientists have discovered that it takes four years for us, on Earth, to know that a star has died out simply because we can no longer see it. (right? - Do to speed of light and what not...) Where the sun is a star... Scientists can determine when a star has died earlier than you or I looking up an realizing it is gone... what with technology and all. What kind of warning will everyone have before the sun goes out? Are there dimming effects were the last few years will just get colder and colder and darker and darker? Or is it a less predictible... one minute there is light, the next it is dark...?

Are we talking we will fuck up the Earth beyond livablilty long before this occurs? Millions of years? Never?
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 :(
antix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 05:15 PM   #22
Rat Bastard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Might as well get upset that there will be another Ice Age in about 30,000 years. Holy Shit! (thanks, ADT:lol:).
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 05:23 PM   #23
Cap'n Awesome
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 05:30 PM   #24
antix
Obsessed Member
 
antix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: inside a hill
Posts: 2,910
Quote:
logarithm wrote
Might as well get upset that there will be another Ice Age in about 30,000 years. Holy Shit! (thanks, ADT:lol:).
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.
antix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 06:21 PM   #25
anthonyjfuchs
Obsessed Member
 
anthonyjfuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
ProveIt wrote
First let me state that your condesending tone has struck a nerve and you may wish to watch your footing.
That's not condecension; it's sad acceptance.

Quote:
ProveIt wrote
Quote:
anthonyjfuchs wrote
3) we are unable to evolve to exist in the new conditions (demonstrated above)
(I think that it is obvious that the words 'demonstrated above' are used extremly loosely here.)
I was using it loosely.

Quote:
ProveIt wrote
Are you surmising that we should now just give up as far as surviving goes?
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.

atheist (n): one who remains unconvinced.
anthonyjfuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 09:39 PM   #26
defanatic
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
antix wrote
I can live with knowing an Ice Age is coming. In fact, it might be kind of 'cool' :lol:
:|
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 10:17 PM   #27
whoneedscience
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
ProveIt wrote
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).
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:
Quote:
ProveIt wrote
What is it that I'm saying that makes it unclear that I'm not freakin debating what you all are spouting????
Quote:
You are demonstrating too many theistic characteristics for me to continue this conversation
and lest we forget the real winners:

Quote:
Rocketman wrote
right--
Easy peasy.
(when I was clearly disagreeing with his response)

Quote:
Well prove it--had a shitty day did we?
[/fightin' words]
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2006, 08:34 AM   #28
ProveIt
Obsessed Member
 
ProveIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northeast
Posts: 1,711
PocketRocket... What happened to post 13??? Pulling a Clara on us?

Quote:
Eva wrote
actually, i'm a little more than a mere visitor....
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

To pray is to verbalize that which some may have difficulty saying aloud in everyday life, in an effort to gain support or smarts from an outside source. I have no need for prayer. I am able to rationalize within my mind, and have no problem speaking it.
ProveIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2006, 07:19 PM   #29
ProveIt
Obsessed Member
 
ProveIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northeast
Posts: 1,711
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.

Quote:
reference.com wrote
Evolutionary biology is a subfield of biology concerned with the origin and descent of species, as well as their change over time. Evolutionary biology is a kind of meta field because it includes scientists from many traditional taxonomically-oriented disciplines. For example, it generally includes scientists who may have a specialist training in particular organisms such as mammalogy, ornithology, or herpetology but use those organisms as systems to answer general questions in evolution.

Evolutionary biology as an academic discipline in its own right emerged as a result of the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s and 1940s. It was not until the 1970s and 1980s, however, that a significant number of universities had departments that specifically included the term evolutionary biology in their titles.

<_________________________________________________ _______________________>

Cultural Evolution

(anthropology) A theory popular among Victorian anthropologists that human cultures could be ranked on an evolutionary scale, and even that every community was fated to pass through a fixed series of stages of cultural evolution. This view is now discredited, but the term is still used to describe the cultural adaptation of a particular community to its human and natural environment.

(emphasis mine on the last one)
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???
Quote:
PocketRocket wrote
Apologies...fifth coffee this afternoon.

Both biology and culture are aresult of dealing with the environment. THis includes the specific history of a species.

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.

Human beings are constrained by biological evolution.

Biological evolution produces behavioural adaptations along with morphological ones.

Behavioural adaptations are exceptionally successful in most cases becasue they require little energy in comparison with morphological change.

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.

Cultural evolution is even more flexible than behavioural adaptation. It is not an instinct--it is a free flowing behavioural construction that in ingraned within human beings but is not defined except by the human being that raises the new human being.
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.



Quote:
Dictionary.com wrote
same Audio pronunciation of "same" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sm)
adj.

1. Being the very one; identical: the same boat we rented before.
2. Similar in kind, quality, quantity, or degree.
3. Conforming in every detail: according to the same rules as before.
4. Being the one previously mentioned or indicated; aforesaid.

To pray is to verbalize that which some may have difficulty saying aloud in everyday life, in an effort to gain support or smarts from an outside source. I have no need for prayer. I am able to rationalize within my mind, and have no problem speaking it.
ProveIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2006, 11:21 PM   #30
whoneedscience
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
ProveIt wrote
Quote:
reference.com wrote
Cultural Evolution

(anthropology) A theory popular among Victorian anthropologists that human cultures could be ranked on an evolutionary scale, and even that every community was fated to pass through a fixed series of stages of cultural evolution. This view is now discredited, but the term is still used to describe the cultural adaptation of a particular community to its human and natural environment.

(emphasis mine on the last one)
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'.
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.

Quote:
wiki wrote
Dawkins observed that cultures can evolve in much the same way that populations of organisms evolve. Various ideas pass from one generation to the next; such ideas may either enhance or detract from the survival of the people who obtain those ideas. This process affects which of those ideas will survive for passing on to future generations
Quote:
ProveIt wrote
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.

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.
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?


Quote:
nonsense wrote

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

Quote:
nonsense wrote
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).
"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.

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


Quote:
nonsense wrote
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....
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.

Quote:
ProveIt wrote
____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.
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.

Quote:
ProveIt wrote
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.
*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.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:27 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational