Author Topic: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:  (Read 41991 times)

Ambassador KAOS

  • Bullet Proof Scourging Schism Catechist
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 774
  • Omni Ignotum Pro Magnificeo
    • View Profile
    • A kLoKwErK kAoS
Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
« Reply #105 on: March 27, 2007, 06:33:29 am »
Because you asked for it, cards go on the table now.

I find the opening statement here to be entertaining and thought provoking.  My replies however were loaded with sarcasm.  This was mainly due to the fact that I did not take the article seriously as it is not clear how much of the the variables involved in mankind's evolution allow for the production of specific beneficial traits in response to environmental signals VS genetic predisposition.

I do not deny that biological organisms genetically adapt.  This, to me is a self evident truth that can easilly be understood by viewing a single life cycle of birth, growth, deterioration and death with further evidence backed by genetic mutations and cancers.

To help explain the sarcasm I used I will share with you a bit of my background on the subject.

I spend 40 hours on duty at an institution of higher education.  one of the departments in my wing is the Biology labs and as such I frequently interact with the proffessors there.  As one might infer, evolution is a hotly debated topic even among proffessors, especially so among biology proffessors.

A campus wide survey showed that 39% of the faculty believed that human life has existed in present form only(it's a lineral college so this doesn't surprise me).  26% believed in various forms of evolution (be it guided, natural or otherwise) and the rest (35%)were unwilling to commit to any sort of answer.

My problem with so many evolutionary arguments is that is simply not clear how intelligence and environmental factors correllate to what is and is not favorable.

By this I mean that when bubba IQ 65 shoots a dear this does not indicate superiority, it simply proves that he shot a deer.  In all likelihood even taking into account theories of collective unconscious and memes if bubba had not been taught how to use a weapon and how to hunt he very likely would not survive independantly in the wild.

Humans have come to thrive on the surface for various reasons. 

One of the major contributing factors is superior methods of communication.  From language, writing, printing press, radio, telephone and televesion and internet; mankind has allowed for samples of the species to have more accessability to information and thus allowed otherwise weaker members of the species to thrive.

This really throws a monkey wrench in the whole darwinian paradigm of survival of the fittest as well many attitudes of human superiority as humans consider themselves at the top of the food chain.

This is further backed by studies that low income and low education families reproduce in greater numbers than high income and high education families.

This is not a trend, this is a by far the law.

Further, ancient texts of Plato are beyond the innitial grasp of many moderately educated and even some well educated portions of the human population, though like a dog, if you beat the lesson in long enough it will eventually stick.

When i said "I don't believe in evolution" what my sarcasm was really communicating is "I don't think humans have gotten any smarter, and being at what we percieve as the top of the food chain does not make us superior."

In this fashion if you were to ask a bacteria in the mariana trench it would probably tell you it was the supreme species.  In it's world it is all it percieves.  Indeed humans cannot survive (naturally) there, or even breathe under water (naturally). 

This is offset however, by the fact that those same bacteria could not survive under the sets of gravity we are accustom to.  Which is more resiliant then?  Niether.  Instead they are both suited to their environments and niether is superior.   This is why when bubba shoots a deer, or even when an educated man shoots a deer he is not establishing anything more than primal dominance, not intellectual superiority.

To do so he would have to become a deer and be a better deer than the one he killed.  This is unlikely as the deer has more experience at being what it is.

If that isn't enough to convince you that nothing is superior to anything else, refer to the second law of thermodynamics.

If you dissagree, post superior factual data and I will admit to being wrong if you sway my opinions.

Ambassador KLOK KAOS



AKK: twice as modded as you'd believe.

phear my 1337 braynz!!!!11one!

At this point, I believe there only two things that are going to stop him.

1.  His connection going down
2.  HIMEOBS



NEWS:  Principia Discordia dot com:  Now with 90% less Ambassador KAOS!

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 90457
    • View Profile
Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
« Reply #106 on: March 27, 2007, 07:40:42 am »
BMW, this one's all yours.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

B_M_W

  • The Artist Formerly Known As Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 4047
    • View Profile
Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
« Reply #107 on: March 27, 2007, 02:01:01 pm »
BMW, this one's all yours.

Goody. I'll eat this later, when I have a little more time.  :D
One by one, we break the sheep from their Iron Bar Prisons and expand their imaginations, make them think for themselves. In turn, they break more from their prisons. Eventually, critical mass is reached. Our key word: Resolve. Evangelize with compassion and determination. And realize that there will be few in the beginning. We are hand picking our successors. They are the future of Discordianism. Let us guide our future with intelligence.

     --Reverse Brainwashing: A Guide http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=9801.0


6.5 billion Buddhas walking around.

99.xxxxxxx% forgot they are Buddha.

Ambassador KAOS

  • Bullet Proof Scourging Schism Catechist
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 774
  • Omni Ignotum Pro Magnificeo
    • View Profile
    • A kLoKwErK kAoS
Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
« Reply #108 on: March 27, 2007, 02:36:40 pm »
BMW, this one's all yours.

Goody. I'll eat this later, when I have a little more time.  :D

Please do, in all honesty I don't like being ignorant to facts and I don't hold tightly to precepts and opinions.  If you have something good to offer I'll eat it up.  That goes for anyone.
AKK: twice as modded as you'd believe.

phear my 1337 braynz!!!!11one!

At this point, I believe there only two things that are going to stop him.

1.  His connection going down
2.  HIMEOBS



NEWS:  Principia Discordia dot com:  Now with 90% less Ambassador KAOS!

Idem

  • Adorable Lesbian
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 3850
    • View Profile
    • Kitschstortion
Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
« Reply #109 on: March 27, 2007, 03:48:30 pm »
tl;dr

Triple Zero

  • DO NOT ABUSE EXCEPT FOR URGENT FURNITURE MOVING EMERGENCIES
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 25403
  • Horrible and Sexy Queen of Cheese
    • View Profile
    • Random BIP
Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
« Reply #110 on: March 27, 2007, 06:05:23 pm »
tl;dr

and if you did, you'd have said

what

so, yeah.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

B_M_W

  • The Artist Formerly Known As Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 4047
    • View Profile
Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
« Reply #111 on: March 27, 2007, 07:15:49 pm »
Because you asked for it, cards go on the table now.

I find the opening statement here to be entertaining and thought provoking.  My replies however were loaded with sarcasm.  This was mainly due to the fact that I did not take the article seriously as it is not clear how much of the the variables involved in mankind's evolution allow for the production of specific beneficial traits in response to environmental signals VS genetic predisposition.

Okay, this first statement is good. Natural selection vs Genetic drift (that is, what amount of genetic evolution is due to direct enviromental selection for beneficial traits and what is due to stocastic selection, basically random combinations of traits in a population) is actually a valid debate in evolutionary biology today. Very high profile. Lots of math. I really barely understand the data myself.


Quote
I do not deny that biological organisms genetically adapt.  This, to me is a self evident truth that can easilly be understood by viewing a single life cycle of birth, growth, deterioration and death with further evidence backed by genetic mutations and cancers.

Here is where you get off track. Organisms do not adapt. Naturally, the genetics of an individual are fixed over a lifetime (lets leave out horizontal gene transfer for the moment). Evolution in the biological and genetic sense occurs on the population level, that is, it is the change in genetics of a population as effected by enviromenal and drift over time. Mutations are mearly changes in phenotypic traits due to genotypic combinations, and they are not something that just arises in a person life, they are passed from parents to offspring. Cancer, while people maybe more subseptable to it due to genetic traits, it doesn't necessarily have any connection to genetic predisposition. When you say adaptation in this paragraph, you mean behavioral, which is an entirely different subject than what I am talking about.


Quote
To help explain the sarcasm I used I will share with you a bit of my background on the subject.

I spend 40 hours on duty at an institution of higher education.  one of the departments in my wing is the Biology labs and as such I frequently interact with the proffessors there.  As one might infer, evolution is a hotly debated topic even among proffessors, especially so among biology proffessors.

A campus wide survey showed that 39% of the faculty believed that human life has existed in present form only(it's a lineral college so this doesn't surprise me).  26% believed in various forms of evolution (be it guided, natural or otherwise) and the rest (35%)were unwilling to commit to any sort of answer.

Science isn't based upon public opinion though. Its not based upon opinion at all. Its based on evidence, and for evolution, the evidence has become so obvious that I have no real sympathy for those who would flail against it.

Quote
My problem with so many evolutionary arguments is that is simply not clear how intelligence and environmental factors correllate to what is and is not favorable.

By this I mean that when bubba IQ 65 shoots a dear this does not indicate superiority, it simply proves that he shot a deer.  In all likelihood even taking into account theories of collective unconscious and memes if bubba had not been taught how to use a weapon and how to hunt he very likely would not survive independantly in the wild.

Evolution isn't about what could be. Its about what works, and has worked. If things didn't work, they wouldn't be around today; the very reason that humans exist today is because they can survive and reproduce to the next generation. All other ideas about this are purely philosophical.

Quote
Humans have come to thrive on the surface for various reasons. 

One of the major contributing factors is superior methods of communication.  From language, writing, printing press, radio, telephone and televesion and internet; mankind has allowed for samples of the species to have more accessability to information and thus allowed otherwise weaker members of the species to thrive.

And for the moment that has worked. Those individuals are fit enough to survive and reproduce. Under previous conditions things may have been different, but evolution doesn't take into account previous conditions. Only the present.

Quote
This really throws a monkey wrench in the whole darwinian paradigm of survival of the fittest as well many attitudes of human superiority as humans consider themselves at the top of the food chain.

No it doesn't throw the monkey wrench into survival of the fittest. Those individuals who can survive under the conditions too. Seeing as the conditions include modern medical systems and the like, more individuals survive to adulthood to reproduce. Thats all a mesure of fitness is: the ability of an individual to survive to adulthood and reproduce. If they can reproduce, they are fit. If their ofspring don't survive to reproduction, they end up being unfit, and do not reproduce. No more to it than that.

Also, biology doesn't deal in the whole philosophical question of superior and inferior. If we want to talk about newer or younger forms of life, meaning those that have greater complexity of systems or newer morphology, we used the word derived. A statement could be something like "a human is a more derived form than a mollusk", which is a true.


Quote
This is further backed by studies that low income and low education families reproduce in greater numbers than high income and high education families.

This is not a trend, this is a by far the law.

Further, ancient texts of Plato are beyond the innitial grasp of many moderately educated and even some well educated portions of the human population, though like a dog, if you beat the lesson in long enough it will eventually stick.

When i said "I don't believe in evolution" what my sarcasm was really communicating is "I don't think humans have gotten any smarter, and being at what we percieve as the top of the food chain does not make us superior."

Okay, theres your problem. Evolution is merely change over time. It doesn't have to mean smarter, it doesn't have to mean bigger, it doesn't have to mean more complex. Processes can be evolved to simplify. If there is no need for greater intelligence, then it won't be selected for. Though I would say that intelligence is as much a factor of your childhood as it is your genetics. You don't have to believe humans have increased in intelligence over the last 3000 years to know that evolution is real. In fact, I would tell you that evolution in such a large and diffuse population as humans have is going to be very slow. You aren't going to see much general change over even 10,000 years. Now, you get an isolated population with a founder effect, THEN you'll start to see some change pretty quickly, both by natural selection and genetic drift. The galapagos finches are prime examples of this.

Quote
In this fashion if you were to ask a bacteria in the mariana trench it would probably tell you it was the supreme species.  In it's world it is all it percieves.  Indeed humans cannot survive (naturally) there, or even breathe under water (naturally).
 

No offence, this statement is ridiculous. Asking a bacteria if it was the supreme species in its relm....*sigh*

Still, I can make something of this. Its true, humans cannot survive in the mariana trench. We don't have to. Its not our environ. We didn't evolve there, we are not naturally adapted to that situation. So, compairing the two is moot.

Quote
This is offset however, by the fact that those same bacteria could not survive under the sets of gravity we are accustom to.  Which is more resiliant then?  Niether.

Each is suited to their own environ. They are obviously fit enough, or they wouldn't be around.

Quote
Instead they are both suited to their environments and niether is superior.   This is why when bubba shoots a deer, or even when an educated man shoots a deer he is not establishing anything more than primal dominance, not intellectual superiority.

What is with this superiority stuff? Really, it has no place in biology.

Quote
To do so he would have to become a deer and be a better deer than the one he killed.  This is unlikely as the deer has more experience at being what it is.

Another ridiculous statement. I'm sorry, it just is.

Quote
If that isn't enough to convince you that nothing is superior to anything else, refer to the second law of thermodynamics.

If you dissagree, post superior factual data and I will admit to being wrong if you sway my opinions.

Ambassador KLOK KAOS

Im gonna give you a link to something I wrote, and you can decide for yourself if I believe in human superiority or not.

http://pseudobuddhaodiscordopastafarian.blogspot.com/search?q=The+process+of+sustaining

Thanks for listening.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2007, 07:31:02 pm by Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe »
One by one, we break the sheep from their Iron Bar Prisons and expand their imaginations, make them think for themselves. In turn, they break more from their prisons. Eventually, critical mass is reached. Our key word: Resolve. Evangelize with compassion and determination. And realize that there will be few in the beginning. We are hand picking our successors. They are the future of Discordianism. Let us guide our future with intelligence.

     --Reverse Brainwashing: A Guide http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=9801.0


6.5 billion Buddhas walking around.

99.xxxxxxx% forgot they are Buddha.

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62806
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
« Reply #112 on: March 27, 2007, 07:27:01 pm »
Apart from the BBScode fuckup, that was a very interesting read, BMW.  thanks.

B_M_W

  • The Artist Formerly Known As Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 4047
    • View Profile
Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
« Reply #113 on: March 27, 2007, 07:31:51 pm »
Apart from the BBScode fuckup, that was a very interesting read, BMW.  thanks.

ARRRGGGHHH....I fucking suck at the internets...

BMW,

Has done this same screw up twice today already.
One by one, we break the sheep from their Iron Bar Prisons and expand their imaginations, make them think for themselves. In turn, they break more from their prisons. Eventually, critical mass is reached. Our key word: Resolve. Evangelize with compassion and determination. And realize that there will be few in the beginning. We are hand picking our successors. They are the future of Discordianism. Let us guide our future with intelligence.

     --Reverse Brainwashing: A Guide http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=9801.0


6.5 billion Buddhas walking around.

99.xxxxxxx% forgot they are Buddha.

Ambassador KAOS

  • Bullet Proof Scourging Schism Catechist
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 774
  • Omni Ignotum Pro Magnificeo
    • View Profile
    • A kLoKwErK kAoS
Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
« Reply #114 on: March 27, 2007, 07:47:18 pm »
You missed the instructions on the end. 

You're argueing matters of opinion. 

You have your opinions and you like them better than mine. 

That's cool. 

You have failed to sway my opinions with your critique, lacking data to support it.  Many (most) of your points I disagree with.  Specifically that organisms do not adapt.  They do adapt, their genes even alter under certain circumstances (excessive radiation, cancer).  This is how those survivability traits become predominant, by climbing to the top of the DNA ladder so to speak.  There is more but I already feel I am wasting space because I can't agree with so much of what you have.

Any data you did use to support that was factual I can assure you was already accounted for before you added it. 

It is apparent you assume I am stupid.  How many times are you going to keep making this mistake? (agreed I can act dumb, that is an act for entertainments sake a good majority of the time because I'm not a bullshit claimer, learn that).

Agreed, I am not all knowing.  I feel I know very little.  But niggah please...

More importantly, there is no one truth.  Show me a study that says milk is bad for you and I'll show you one that says it's good.  Both are liable to be correct on some level and no grid works universally.

You cannot calculate infinity.

It is my supreeme understanding that the majority of people who wander  into this forum are retarded and are shuffled out as quick as they came in.

You will find as I post more that there is much value in many things that I have to say.  You will find if you dig and read without negative bias that I already have posted plenty of ideas, some of which are sure to entice you on some level.

Not everything that I post will be a gem.  I promise that.

I don't ask that anyone ever agree with my opinions.  I do expect that they respect them as I do theirs.*

I will read your article as u proposed it to me in a polite manner.


*And even if I tell someone that their is fucking dead wrong and they are ignorant and retarded, I don't take away their right to their opinion, in doing so, I respect their right to their opinion.

I really feel this sort of round for round shit I have to keep imprinting on you should really be self evident and I have to wonder why...

AKK: twice as modded as you'd believe.

phear my 1337 braynz!!!!11one!

At this point, I believe there only two things that are going to stop him.

1.  His connection going down
2.  HIMEOBS



NEWS:  Principia Discordia dot com:  Now with 90% less Ambassador KAOS!

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 90457
    • View Profile
Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
« Reply #115 on: March 27, 2007, 07:48:18 pm »
You're argueing matters of opinion. 

No, he fucking isn't.

Did you go to school in Kansas?
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

B_M_W

  • The Artist Formerly Known As Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 4047
    • View Profile
Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
« Reply #116 on: March 27, 2007, 07:52:10 pm »
Quote
You have failed to sway my opinions with your critique, lacking data to support it.  Many (most) of your points I disagree with.  Specifically that organisms do not adapt.  They do adapt, their genes even alter under certain circumstances (excessive radiation, cancer).  This is how those survivability traits become predominant, by climbing to the top of the DNA ladder so to speak.

No. No No NO.

*sigh*

Why the fuck do I even try?
One by one, we break the sheep from their Iron Bar Prisons and expand their imaginations, make them think for themselves. In turn, they break more from their prisons. Eventually, critical mass is reached. Our key word: Resolve. Evangelize with compassion and determination. And realize that there will be few in the beginning. We are hand picking our successors. They are the future of Discordianism. Let us guide our future with intelligence.

     --Reverse Brainwashing: A Guide http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=9801.0


6.5 billion Buddhas walking around.

99.xxxxxxx% forgot they are Buddha.

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62806
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
« Reply #117 on: March 27, 2007, 07:52:29 pm »
AKK, exactly what do you consider an "opinion", as it relates to the discussion at hand?


As far as I can see, BMW is posting confirmed Biological consensus, not "opinion".

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62806
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
« Reply #118 on: March 27, 2007, 07:53:28 pm »
Quote
You have failed to sway my opinions with your critique, lacking data to support it.  Many (most) of your points I disagree with.  Specifically that organisms do not adapt.  They do adapt, their genes even alter under certain circumstances (excessive radiation, cancer).  This is how those survivability traits become predominant, by climbing to the top of the DNA ladder so to speak.

No. No No NO.

*sigh*

Why the fuck do I even try?


Is AKK saying mutation == adaptation?


That's retarded.

Triple Zero

  • DO NOT ABUSE EXCEPT FOR URGENT FURNITURE MOVING EMERGENCIES
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 25403
  • Horrible and Sexy Queen of Cheese
    • View Profile
    • Random BIP
Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
« Reply #119 on: March 27, 2007, 07:55:34 pm »
Why the fuck do I even try?

hey BMW, for what it's worth, i really commend you for trying. i know i couldn't have done it without pulling my hair out and giving up halfway.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.