streaming consciousness…

Tagged: EVOLUTION Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

• 

  hardie karges 8:36 am on February 24, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: equality, EVOLUTION   

  Equality is a fairly useless concept and elusive goal. 

  It doesn’t exist, nor is there any particular reason why it should. Equality in the chain of evolution is the end of evolution, as Darwin himself reluctantly admitted when it was pointed out to him. Blending of genes would blend down to sameness. Genes are not blended; they’re assorted, one or the other, digital, not a mixture of the two traits involved and selected. Mendel already knew the details long before there was even a theory to which it applied, like Reimann’s mathematics lying there in wait for a genius like Einstein to realize what it was good for, then buy it cheap wholesale and parcel it out piecemeal incorporated into cutting-edge physics. Equality in society and culture is no different. Ask the Soviets. When equality is enforced, evolution stops, and equality occurs on a level of poverty and dissipation for all. The issue of equal rights is the bone of contention and the bone we all fight over, a simple syllogism expanded from home to homeland, equal bathroom rights for all. Equality of rights and privileges in fact allows for differentials of accomplishment. Otherwise, forced social results demand unequal rights for their achievement, as in ‘affirmative action’ for racial desegregation in the US. It’s a thankless task.

   

  Reply Cancel reply

  Required fields are marked *

  Name *

  Email *

  Website

  Notify me of new comments via email.

  Notify me of new posts via email.

  Δ

• 

  hardie karges 5:49 am on February 7, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Darwin ( 3 ), EVOLUTION, LaMarck   

  Lamarckian ‘inheritance of acquired characteristics’ 

  was dropped by the scientific community because it has never been experimentally verified. Has natural selection ever been experimentally verified? Has it ever even been proved that a specific random genetic mutation can lead to a specific beneficial biological advantage or even a specific trait? If a genetic mutation is admittedly neutral at the local level, then how does it become transformed into a biological advantage at the species level? Presumably the law of large numbers comes into play, and we assume that given enough time, these things just happen. Since no particular instance can be proven over such a large span of time, we simply invoke the most convenient logic, or in this case, the most scientific logic. Though ‘inheritance of acquired characteristics’ was dropped from the biologists’ lexicon, it’s never been dropped from the popular imagination. It would seem to be the ‘wishful thinking’ option, however, rendering it less scientific than the Darwinist rap. Still scientists talk about a species ‘adapting’ anagenetically, though this requires no mutation. Still human brains keep expanding in size with no apparent change in the DNA sequence, frequently invoking life’s challenges as explanation. Still we keep scanning the stars for radio signals, as if the exact same random genetic sequence might accidentally occur again. Certainly natural selection is not wrong, because it’s a tautology: those that survived were certainly the fittest. An impeccable scientific theory must be useful in making predictions, also, however. Just because it’s not wrong doesn’t mean that it’s right, nor does it mean that Lamarckism is wrong.
   
• 

  hardie karges 12:53 pm on February 6, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: EVOLUTION, founder effect   

  It’s a law of nature that a male keeps as many females as he can service. 

  One guy gets the harem; everyone else gets the hand. Lions do with brute force what men do with money, extrapolate themselves and their line into the future, and create the world in their own image and likeness. This genetic selfishness also inadvertently strengthens the species. The strongest stud propagates the new generation. This is the ‘founder effect’: “I found her; you can’t have her.” Cloning would not only take all the fun out of it, but would weaken the species by separating it from the usual trials of natural selection. Love is finished when there is no forward movement, just up and down, in and out. Evolution appreciates motivation and inspiration, punctuated equilibrium.

   
• 

  hardie karges 2:46 pm on February 5, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: EVOLUTION, Hippos   

  Hippos shit with a little automatic butt-wiper 

  of a tail flicking off the poop steadily. Otherwise it’d be drooling down their legs, I guess. I can’t imagine one getting into a crouch. It’d never get back up. Natural selection never rests. If it’s difficult to envision the transition of land mammals to sea mammals, one only has to look at the hippo to see the transition, overweight and water-logged, gliding through the water, bouncing on all fours, incapable of swimming. They’ll learn. You watch them fight with their mouths and compare to the methods of some of the sea cows currently extant and you realize that this is something not likely to happen, but something that has already happened, though still in progress. Some of the different varieties of current sea mammals might as likely have resulted from different waves of evolution from the same branch stock rather than evolution of unrelated stocks, evolution differentiated by time as well as space.

   
• 

  hardie karges 12:46 pm on February 2, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: creation, EVOLUTION   

  I refuse to believe that man’s skeleton, optimal for erect posture, 

  
  didn’t somehow derive from his distinct preference for an erect posture in preceding generations, and his decreasing need for a four-legged stance or even the intermediate knuckle-walking. The same would hold for distinct hands and feet, two of each, as opposed to four feet or four hands, as found in other species, arising from a new preference for savannas as opposed to forests. The only question is: by what mechanism would something like that occur? What would stimulate imperceptible evolutionary changes in a specific direction toward a general goal? A quantum mechanic must look for a transfer particle. Darwinism invokes mutation, without ever proving a single instance in which a specific mutation caused a specific trait to be selected for long-term adaptation. Darwinism has merely been accepted, not proven. The mechanism I’m looking for must have something to do with memory, re-programming, visual basic, feedback, something similar to creativity, without invoking creationism nor ‘inheritance of acquired characteristics’. Genetic drift must be inherent to the process of evolution, itself to be selected or rejected for usefulness, and re-directed in another direction. Evolution must be inherently directional, whether or not purposefully, adrift in a sea of probabilities.

   
• 

  hardie karges 7:55 am on November 9, 2008 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: EVOLUTION, language ( 149 ), thought ( 15 )   

  The history of language is a family tree that maybe began with a single stalk. 

  They say that 5% of any two languages will show similarities, as if that proves the insignificance of any similarities when in fact it may show just the opposite. They may well have all derived from just a very few, maybe just one. Don’t be surprised if that evolution parallels the evolution of homo sapiens sapiens themselves, if not directly, then by analogy. Whether there is any direct connection between language and DNA or not, they seem to function similarly in how they evolve over time. Much is made of the fact that homos are the only species that can speak, then going into elaborate explanations of the human vocal chords having worked their way deep into the throat for proper enunciation of modern languages. All this seems a bit anthropocentric to me, diminishing if not outright ignoring or rejecting the fact that communication can be equally, if not more, effective in other ways. If anything, humans’ own writing systems are more articulate than the speech they represent, but which may never actually be vocalized, particularly in the case of mathematical equations. Beyond the human sphere, other animals convey rather complex information, which, while it cannot be properly regarded as speech, is certainly a form of communication, i.e. transfer of information.

   
• 

  hardie karges 8:41 am on September 18, 2008 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: EVOLUTION, love ( 49 ), sex ( 39 )   

  Sex sells like hotcakes to hungry men, and women too, 

  
  packaged many different ways for maximum market penetration. If it keeps knocking on the back door and the side exits, waking you up in the middle of the night, then that makes it more exciting and longer-lasting. ‘Wham bam’ (‘boom boom’ in Asia) barely scratches the surface of sex’s economic potential, and it’s all perfectly legal. You’ll never see a female singer anymore who’s not absolutely stunning, especially in country music. ‘Em boys know what sells. Movies are a little better, but not much. Many a beautiful woman gets steady work while many a great actress doesn’t, because of you know what, yes, IT, the black hole from which not even light can escape. The apologists will say that it’s beauty, not sex, that’s up for grabs. Yeah, right, people call 1-900 for the beauty of cultural interface, not for the illusion of intimacy strong enough to achieve hydraulic genital peristalsis. Mai bpen rai. It’s all for evolution, the faster the better. Let’s get to wherever we’re going as a species. Let’s get there tonight, baby.

   
• 

  hardie karges 1:49 pm on September 12, 2008 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: EVOLUTION, love ( 49 ), reproduction ( 3 ), sex ( 39 )   

  Bottom line on reproduction is as clear as the line of her bottom. 

  There’s no rulebook any more and far fewer rules. We can reproduce the species without any reference to family structure if that’s what people want. We can reproduce the species without any reference to sex if that’s what people really want, though our sentimental attachment to sex seems pretty strong. The real issue, of course, is gene-splicing. Do we really want or need designer babies? Are we that dissatisfied with our current lives and that confident of our technological prowess that we’re willing to risk it all for cosmetic enhancements? Once genes are released into the environment, they are like viruses with lives of their own. The problem is that you might not even know the effects of long-term experimentation until it’s too late.

   
• 

  hardie karges 7:17 am on September 3, 2008 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: EVOLUTION, sex ( 39 ), women ( 5 )   

  Women have the upper hand 

  in the meat market in the modern Piggly Wiggly. A nice-looking woman can get laid anytime she wants, foreplay optional. A nice-looking guy still has to go through all the motions, all the phone calls, all the arrangements, all the hors d’oeuvres, all the over-priced drinks, and even then has to ‘get lucky’ to get his order filled from the butcher. Still an unattractive guy can at least buy canned ham or get a face full of Spam as long as he can afford it. Unattractive women must resort to electrical appliances and divine intervention. It’s a sad fact of Evolution- the ugly ones don’t get to breed, Nature’s path of least resistance. The ugly ones don’t get to breed, and the smart ones hardly care to anymore. They just go through the motions. Sexual selection drives evolution dumber and prettier. Now that we no longer need our wits to survive, the world dumbs itself down exponentially. Still, sex is a heavenly way to ensure reproduction of the species. Having sex is looking upon the face of God, connecting to the ultimate source of space-time creation without all the unnecessary drugs, and realizing that, yes, it is good.

  nottibits is discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    nottibits 7:37 am on September 3, 2008 Permalink | Reply

    Wow this is the exact plot of Idiocracy.

    And you have to think that the whole strategy is messed up when money enters the picture. Otherwise known as “What’s he doing with HER?” or vice versa.

• 

  hardie karges 8:09 am on June 11, 2008 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: DNA ( 45 ), EVOLUTION, language ( 149 )   

  DNAANDDNA 

  This is not writing; this is word processing, processing words to infinity in some sort of differential calculus. Word corresponds to thought corresponds to perception corresponds to reality. Did thought create language or did language create thought? The only questions remaining are those concerning reality itself, the field of reference. Language itself is only a medium, certainly neither rare nor well-done, high nor low, and an overstuffed one, spilling tracks and traces of ancient transgressions and future possibilities. I doubt that language can actually create reality, but then you wouldn’t expect that of DNA until you see the results. Does DNA create evolution or does evolution create DNA? To find some creative principle in evolution would be the greatest discovery of the 21^st century. If bacteria can create enzymes to combat antibiotics from scratch without the slow motion process of mutation and natural selection, then what else might be possible? Even if a bacterium is merely dialing up DNA at random to try and come up with a winning combination, still it is doing so in response to a need. While the needs of humans are far more complex than those of microorganisms, and an average generation twenty-five years, not twenty-five minutes, still the effects might be cumulative. The finest paintings of history are made of individual brush-strokes, as is the finest literature, even closer by analogy to DNA.

  Joram Arentved is discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    Joram Arentved 1:56 pm on June 11, 2008 Permalink | Reply

    If there has to be any certain obligation of mine©, it’s This Time Travel Phenomenology, on which issue you & your nearest Lawyer, Police & even Any Judge are a.s.a.p. for whatever why please welcome to receive any of my further & most relevant information, i.e. most accurate, so that I can later on & the sooner, the better, of course tell & e.g. help You All & myself etc. find out, What’s Common Sense & e.g. All About: to be continued.
    Greetings from Yours, faithfully,
    Joram Arentved, The Universe’s
    legal & official owner©,
    (there are 2 more).