Mcnugget or the omelette - a profound evolutionary dilemma (Jul/31/2007 )
QUOTE (dpo @ Aug 21 2007, 02:56 PM)
almost up to 1000 views, you chose an interesting message title here casandra 
It ain't only about the title dpo
and we're still on a race here, remember?QUOTE
Which gets us back to the question how this all started: then what happened with the first believer? how was he/she selected as 'good mating material' if the other one didn't believe? 
I think that it was the first believer who did the "selecting"
. Considering that legions of believers still exist and persist up till this very moment even after the bubonic plague, Spanish flu, 2 world wars, droughts, tsunamis, psychedelic shirts, the American Idol.... I'd speculate that the unbeliever mate most probably was converted or at the very least did not interfere with the rearing of the believer offsprings. S/he either "saw the light" but being hopelessly romantic, I'll bet my last tooney that it's gotta be "true love" 
<sigh>. However, Prof Dawkins would probably diagnose this affliction as another virus of the mind...or is it the heart? 
providing comic relief since 2006,
casandra
-casandra-
QUOTE (dpo @ Aug 21 2007, 11:56 PM)
Anyway, this thread is about evolution, and as faith is also a (uniquely???) human trait, it too is subject to evolution.
I wonder whether anybody has any idea about 'religion' in other species. Does anybody know of anything like a shrine or so in other animals?
QUOTE (casandra @ Aug 23 2007, 02:02 AM)
I think that it was the first believer who did the "selecting" . Considering that legions of believers still exist and persist up till this very moment even after the bubonic plague, Spanish flu, 2 world wars, droughts, tsunamis, psychedelic shirts, the American Idol....
. Considering that legions of believers still exist and persist up till this very moment even after the bubonic plague, Spanish flu, 2 world wars, droughts, tsunamis, psychedelic shirts, the American Idol....you forgot about the Great Irish Famine ...
-dpo-
QUOTE (perneseblue @ Aug 21 2007, 04:13 PM)
I would like to introduce dpo to the concept of a meme.
It is a unit of information that is anologous to gene. A group of memes can become linked together into a cooperative group for mutual aid in propagation. Much like an organism/virus
While you have quoted a small example.... although not quite all there. I don't think agree with the example of Dawkins here. Memes (faith/religion/ideologies/belief/culture) are not quite as ornate as a peacocks feather. They do bind individuals together into a cohesive group. Foster the us and them mentality. Helping people to group/help each other while competing with rival groups. Probably contains other features that increase the groups fecundity, better command organisation, ability to withstand adversity, financing long range projects that have no immediate benefite, improve information/meme transfer over generations.
So Meme do help survival. They are lore stories, culture, habits that pass on from one individual to another, one friend to another, parent to child and down the generations.
Meme also fight each other, and can become relatively agressive (in an unconcious way...much like evolution). Just look at all modern major religions. If you know enough about their histories, you will see a common theme.
There are also ideas of how memes could influence real biology... as the more memes a brain can retain, the better said organism can survive provided that meme can off set the energy of keeping it around and intact (transmission cost).... long live species are more likely to be paracitied by memes because of the above. And meme in turn feed back, causing said organism to live long and invest more energy in keeping said meme. All very interesting and very speculative.
It is a unit of information that is anologous to gene. A group of memes can become linked together into a cooperative group for mutual aid in propagation. Much like an organism/virus
While you have quoted a small example.... although not quite all there. I don't think agree with the example of Dawkins here. Memes (faith/religion/ideologies/belief/culture) are not quite as ornate as a peacocks feather. They do bind individuals together into a cohesive group. Foster the us and them mentality. Helping people to group/help each other while competing with rival groups. Probably contains other features that increase the groups fecundity, better command organisation, ability to withstand adversity, financing long range projects that have no immediate benefite, improve information/meme transfer over generations.
So Meme do help survival. They are lore stories, culture, habits that pass on from one individual to another, one friend to another, parent to child and down the generations.
Meme also fight each other, and can become relatively agressive (in an unconcious way...much like evolution). Just look at all modern major religions. If you know enough about their histories, you will see a common theme.
There are also ideas of how memes could influence real biology... as the more memes a brain can retain, the better said organism can survive provided that meme can off set the energy of keeping it around and intact (transmission cost).... long live species are more likely to be paracitied by memes because of the above. And meme in turn feed back, causing said organism to live long and invest more energy in keeping said meme. All very interesting and very speculative.
Hi pernesebleu,
I’ve already been introduced to Meme…we had a date with dpo but he stood us up
(his loss) 
. I agree that this memetic science of mind and culture is very interesting and highly speculative but is there still a lot of interest in this or has it also gone down the road of ‘tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or building arches” that Dawkins cited as examples of memes? Even the gene analogy has came under scrutiny…this cultural unit or chunk (memeplex) of information, how is it stored as operational units in the memory, what’s the mechanism of replication within the mind (or outside of it), how is assembled into higher-ordered structures then translated or expressed into discrete, measurable bits of behaviour? I guess the transmission mode is by imitation but going back to the gene analogy, there’s everything but absolute fidelity when a meme is transmitted. If the rate of transformation or modification far exceeds that of high-fidelity replication, how can Darwinian selection be possible?There’s noone more vocal in challenging the theory of memetics than the British philosopher Mary Midgley . She criticised it not only as a form of cultural determinism but also for its oversimplification…”[Meme] brackets together indiscriminately such mixed items as ideas, customs, beliefs, traditions, fancies, fashios, art-forms, art-works, tricks of the trade, opinions, doctrines, theories, images, concepts, attitudes, practices and habits. When we are actually trying to study culture, its is not helpful to blur these differences so grossly…They [memeticists] aim to explain changes in all these things by a single cause, and one of the same kind which is used to explain large-scale changes in evolution. So they treat the various elements of culture, not as aspects of human life- ways in which people act and think- but as distinct entities, quasi-organisms or quasi-genes, substantial things existing on their own and somehow acting on people. These entities’ behaviour has then to be understood, like that of genes, in terms of their own reproductive interests, their own competitive interactions with one another, bypassing all reference to human psychology…Because of the current excitement about selfish genes, and the general obssession of our age with competitive models, many have accepted this entity-building, not as a myth, but as somehow a legitimate extension of biology...” Yeah, the feisty grand dame who’s gone toe to toe with Dawkins.
There’s a book (I've read some reviews) by Alistair McGrath, Oxford professor of historical theology but with a PhD in molecular biophysics, entitled “Dawkin’s God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, his rejoinder for Dawkin’s “The Selfish Gene”. Here he also criticised the meme concept. Perhaps you or someone else in this forum have already read it? Soo much to read, soo little time…Thanks for the input.
casandra
-casandra-
QUOTE (merlav @ Aug 3 2007, 06:27 AM)
Sorry guys, but 0ne mutation=one new species is not neccesarily true. Not always darwin theory works like that. First the gene has a tendency(?) to mantein the order and "protect" the function of it so many of the mutations are silent, so you will need an accumulation of mutations in order to make the leap to make another being, then need the physical separation of both until they can't mate and then you maybe will have a new species. In other words you have the pre chicken that has a number of mutations that passes to the offspring and that offspring will mate with the prechicken with old gene sequence and wtih the new gene sequence. They will mate until something take thems appart (for example the formation of a new valley) and they can't mate anymore so you have pre chickens with pre chickens, new chickens with new chickens and the hybrid of both, so lets thinks that the hybrid were all eaten by some Hommo sapiens so now you have the pre chicken in one part of the valley and the new chickens in the mountains, so the pre chicken can't fly and go where the new chickens are and viceversa so they stop to mate. After many generations of no mating and with all the hybrid gone(eaten) then there will be mutations that will create the mecanism to stop the mating of the prechicken with the new chicken and thats how you have now the new specie, the CHICKEN.
Hi - Fascinating debate, you guys! I believe it must be called a "condrary" in light of the discussion it arose in.
You must incorporate into your theory the effect of environment onto the pre-chicken population - the circumstances which led to the mutation(s) the "chicken" - and those who might find this oddity attractive enought to breed with- to lead to this new species. Nesting near volcanoes or uranium deposits might lead to high mutation rates and corresponding punctuated evolution - just a thought. Correlating your discussion with what is known about other avian evolution (Darwins finches, Florida scrub jays) examples could put some light in the henhouse! Niche creation - and whatever led the new "chickens" to separate with the originating "pre-chicken" populations and cease interbreeding ought to be considered as well. Selecitve advantage is certainly a good thought, but isn't the only factor driving evolution! What about predator evasion - no longer tastes like pre-chicken, so not as desirable?
-microbiobeast-
QUOTE (dpo @ Aug 23 2007, 04:12 AM)
QUOTE (casandra @ Aug 23 2007, 02:02 AM)
I think that it was the first believer who did the "selecting" . Considering that legions of believers still exist and persist up till this very moment even after the bubonic plague, Spanish flu, 2 world wars, droughts, tsunamis, psychedelic shirts, the American Idol....
. Considering that legions of believers still exist and persist up till this very moment even after the bubonic plague, Spanish flu, 2 world wars, droughts, tsunamis, psychedelic shirts, the American Idol....you forgot about the Great Irish Famine ...
Ooops forgot about that as well as the "izzms".... fascism, nazism and communism
-casandra-
QUOTE (microbiobeast @ Aug 24 2007, 10:08 PM)
What about predator evasion - no longer tastes like pre-chicken, so not as desirable?
Hmm, I think I like your proposal for the predator evasion, as this could also be caused by a single mutation
(But you could also qualify this as selective advantage) No longer being attractive dinner could indeed lead to an increase in the community of that variant, but this will require some luck. If the first foul-tasting fowl is attacked by a predator and suffers a fatal blow, then that's the end of it. You need a couple of foul fowls, of which some can be attacked (and spat out), but the rest then lives on without fear for the predator.casandra, have a look at the number, I made it!
-dpo-
QUOTE (dpo @ Aug 27 2007, 02:29 PM)
QUOTE (microbiobeast @ Aug 24 2007, 10:08 PM)
What about predator evasion - no longer tastes like pre-chicken, so not as desirable?
Hmm, I think I like your proposal for the predator evasion, as this could also be caused by a single mutation
(But you could also qualify this as selective advantage) No longer being attractive dinner could indeed lead to an increase in the community of that variant, but this will require some luck. If the first foul-tasting fowl is attacked by a predator and suffers a fatal blow, then that's the end of it. You need a couple of foul fowls, of which some can be attacked (and spat out), but the rest then lives on without fear for the predator.casandra, have a look at the number, I made it!
Yeah, yeah I could see it…but Fred has already raised ze bar to 4000
. Now if we can just stop goofing around and start posting more, we may still have a chance. BTW are we back again to the one mutation thingy and this time for predator evasion….could it be one mutation in the predator that’s why it didn’t like the look and the taste of the new chicken?... or your new premise of one mutation=new flavor of the new chicken which was not to the liking of the pre-chicken’s old predator hence allowing it to escape the food chain? Too bad Jacques Pepin wasn’t there to fix this “palatability” problem. 
goofing around no more,
casandra
-casandra-
QUOTE (casandra @ Aug 28 2007, 06:20 PM)
Yeah, yeah I could see it…but Fred has already raised ze bar to 4000 . Now if we can just stop goofing around and start posting more, we may still have a chance. BTW are we back again to the one mutation thingy and this time for predator evasion….could it be one mutation in the predator that’s why it didn’t like the look and the taste of the new chicken?... or your new premise of one mutation=new flavor of the new chicken which was not to the liking of the pre-chicken’s old predator hence allowing it to escape the food chain? Too bad Jacques Pepin wasn’t there to fix this “palatability” problem.
goofing around no more,
casandra
. Now if we can just stop goofing around and start posting more, we may still have a chance. BTW are we back again to the one mutation thingy and this time for predator evasion….could it be one mutation in the predator that’s why it didn’t like the look and the taste of the new chicken?... or your new premise of one mutation=new flavor of the new chicken which was not to the liking of the pre-chicken’s old predator hence allowing it to escape the food chain? Too bad Jacques Pepin wasn’t there to fix this “palatability” problem. goofing around no more,
casandra
I'm not goofing around either (and have never done so
) , but to get to Fred's level... I think he's out of our league 
The one mutation would necessarily be in the pre-chicken, as otherwise the chicken wouldn't develop to a new species. Of course the predator can also get a mutation in it's taste receptors, but this will put selective pressure on the chickens to keep the taste they have, so no change is to be expected here. I didn't know Jacques Pepin (Wikipedia saved me once again), but who knows, maybe that's where the invention of the use of certain herbs comes from? Nasty chickens trying to avoid being roasted on a grill by mutating there taste, here comes human with the invention of the use of herbs!
-dpo-
i think you're way off on this one
good taste = raised and protected by humans = bred to a better taste (controled not forced evolution)
so again i ask
who came first the chicken, the egg or the farmer
(i think the farmer)
dom
-Dominic-
oh - and since i talk a lot less than you two (not hard) maybe you should just aim for veteran like i did (has a nice ring to it dont you think?)
dom
-Dominic-