Are we discovering more than we can process?

[Kai]

Then please enlighten me?

First of all, variation (ie mutation) and it's causes are a completely different topic. Second, why would "geeks" interacting over the internet have anything at all to do with this topic at all, seriously? And third, larger population size and more immigration/emigration leads to more mixing of alleles and tends to stabilize and slow evolutionary changes, not increase them. Fast evolutionary change tends to occur in small isolated populations.

[Captain Utopia]

Small isolated populations would seem to describe the situation prior to this period of relatively high immigration/emigration - we have evolved many races with distinctive features, tied to geographical regions.  Mixing of alleles may stabilize and slow evolutionary changes overall, but isn't it also the fastest way to spread the changes which have already occurred throughout the wider population?  That just describes the creation of another plateau, yes?

It seems to me that you could have less evolutionary change overall, but within that set, higher isolated spikes.  E.g. the surge in autism/asperger's cases which have been noted in Silicon Valley.  If that occurs between computer geeks, then are jocks creating little hyper-jock babies?  What are art lovers spawning?  It would seem odd to me if there's a statistical difference in the children of no other flavour of geek than those who show a natural aptitude for computers.

Second, why would "geeks" interacting over the internet have anything at all to do with this topic at all, seriously?

I mentioned it because the internet gets people laid.  It helps people with similar predispositions discover one another, get together, and get it on.  Is that insignificant to this discussion?

First of all, variation (ie mutation) and it's causes are a completely different topic.

I thought we were talking about whether we humans will genetically adapt to our environment, more quickly than with previous adaptations, as a result of favourable selection for individuals who are predisposed towards certain acclimatory changes?  Please don't get me started on furries.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Pent:

1) We never rendered natural selection irrelevant. It is just as much in operation now as it ever was. Just because we don't see the selective pressures many people associate with this concept, does not mean that variation in a population is not selected against based in inherited traits. And social selection is yet another biological offshoot of natural selection. As Darwin noted, artificial selection is no different than natural selection in mechanism, just in selection pressures.

2) Those other things you're talking about? They're not evolution. Please don't get me started.

Yes they are. Please don get me started. You're a biologist, you own the rights to the term "natural selection" but not "evolution", that's something that happens outside biology. Similar principles - things are tried out and the ones that work well stay. This is how the internal combustion engine evolved, the silicone chip evolved, the teevee and the stereo evolved...

For a smart guy you seem to have a real hard time understanding the idea that evolution is a term used in biology, not a biological term. Go look it up in a dictionary kthanx

[LMNO]

P3nt, you almost make a good point, until it becomes clear that the even though the non-biological term "evolution" may have come first, the vast majority of current usage takes its meaning and context from the incorrectly understood principles of biological evolution.


Also, Kai-- What is your opinion on Elizer's sequences on evolution?  As someone who knows more about it than me, I'd be very interested as to his accuracy.

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Evolution

[P3nT4gR4m]

P3nt, you almost make a good point, until it becomes clear that the even though the non-biological term "evolution" may have come first, the vast majority of current usage takes its meaning and context from the incorrectly understood principles of biological evolution.

I disagree. I think the problem is that most examples of evolution, outside of biology do not necessarily meet the criteria of biological evolution. Non-biologists don't have a problem with this. I can, for instance, quite easily agree with the notion of language evolving and most people (I'd guess) would feel the same way but it seems that, if you happen to be knowledgeable in the field of biology, the fact that it didn't take billions of years to happen makes it impossible.

It's a word, like any other, which can be employed to describe a variety of situations which would otherwise involve whole paragraphs of text but, for some reason that pisses me off no end, every time I or someone like me uses it, the whole thread gets derailed into some lecture on darwin, whom I believe only used the bloody thing once, at the arse end of his book.

[Triple Zero]

Okay, it is quite clear that you do not understand the framework on which you are trying to converse within.

Then please enlighten me?

First of all, --blablablabla

[/quote]

Hey Kai it would be really nice if you could perhaps skip the condescending remarks and explain wtf you're on about right away.

Cause that's the second time in this thread you've done that, let alone the how many times in other threads you've told people that dare to mention the word "evolution" they have no idea what they're talking about without giving even as much as a tiny hint to where they are wrong. At this point, I usually have no idea what's wrong with the original statement either, and I bet many people with me. And you know what? That makes me feel like you're being condescending to me as well, even though I didn't say anything.

Just imagine if I did the same thing every time somebody made a remark about computer algorithms or cryptography or copyright law or internet protocols or whatever subject I generally know more about than most people on this forum. Well, I know I couldn't stand myself, and I wouldn't expect other people to do so either. So instead, I don't flat out tell people they have no idea what they're talking about. Instead I try to guess their level of knowledge and explain why they're wrong, I can write longer or shorter explanations depending on how much time I have, but as soon as I find myself unwilling to expend any more effort than "you obviously have no idea what you're talking about", I keep it to my fucking self, cause I don't want to be that smug asshole with a superiority complex.

P3nt, you almost make a good point, until it becomes clear that the even though the non-biological term "evolution" may have come first, the vast majority of current usage takes its meaning and context from the incorrectly understood principles of biological evolution.

The vast majority of current usage? I'm going to call on that.

There's a shitload of different topics the word "evolution" can be applied to, and according to Kai they're all wrong unless it's biological evolution. Not saying that P3NT's and Capt Utopia's ideas are entirely correct BTW, but all I keep hearing is "evolution doesn't work that way" while what he actually means is "biological evolution doesn't work that way", which is quite an important distinction to make.

Is the vast majority of current usage of the word "evolution" the following?

summarized in one of two ways: 1) Change in gene frequency in a population over time and 2) the selective elimination of individuals and lineages.

No I didn't fucking think so. If somebody talks about evolution it doesn't necessarily always mean somebody is talking about something involving genes.

If we're gonna be like that, I'm going to interpret "evolution" from now on to mean the Astronomical meaning of the word, the evolution of galaxies and stars UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG

One example that may convince you, LMNO: Didn't our ideas about Discordianism on this board EVOLVE over the years? Is that esoteric use of language? Not in my book. Does it have ANYTHING to do with genes or biology? Nope, didn't think so either.

In a similar fashion, "evolution" is a perfectly fine term to use in the context of this thread, which is about information and cultural changes, stuff that mostly happened in the past 100 years, which, as far as I know is WAY too short a timescale for biological evolution [related to humans] to do anything noteworthy, meaning that for the purpose of this discussion our hardware is going to have been the same, and that would for me be about everything there is to say about biological evolution related to this topic, so it would actually make MORE sense to me to interpret any mention of the word as to mean ANYTHING BUT biological evolution.

BTW is cultural evolution also an uncommon use of the word? How about linguistic evolution?

I disagree. I think the problem is that most examples of evolution, outside of biology do not necessarily meet the criteria of biological evolution. Non-biologists don't have a problem with this. I can, for instance, quite easily agree with the notion of language evolving and most people (I'd guess) would feel the same way but it seems that, if you happen to be knowledgeable in the field of biology, the fact that it didn't take billions of years to happen makes it impossible.

It's a word, like any other, which can be employed to describe a variety of situations which would otherwise involve whole paragraphs of text but, for some reason that pisses me off no end, every time I or someone like me uses it, the whole thread gets derailed into some lecture on darwin, whom I believe only used the bloody thing once, at the arse end of his book.

This. P3NT said it in much less words than I did.

Besides, haven't biologists a whole bunch of much more specific words to describe these processes anyway? Maybe they should just stop using the word "evolution" altogether, since its meaning is so unique and special that it applies to nothing else.

[Captain Utopia]

To be fair - I specifically was of the contention that we might be able to see actual human evolution on a smaller timescale.  Please don't get me started on the Habsburgs!   

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

There are days the collective intelligence of this board makes me feel like a complete moron. In a good way.

THIS!

[P3nT4gR4m]

Let me explain my take on the kind of "evolution" I was talking about when I used the word, because this thread was in danger of becoming interesting to me, until the biology lesson started.

Evolution to me is "development" so I'll use that from here in, in the hope that no more sacred cows are slaughtered (trip - I'm not talking about software development so stay off my back mmkay?) So human beings "developed" from apes or whatever the hell it was and we find ourselves in a position where we got these brain things that are capable of X-ammount of shit. How this developed, up until the birth of technology, was something to do with nature but, since we've begun using technology and the technology, in turn, has been developed, as an extension of our own capabilities the average human being has developed into something more than it was before the tech thing happened.

I understand fully that, if you were to remove all this technology we'd still be, essentially, the same bald monkeys we used to be but, until such a time as that happens, our pace of development is ever increasing.

Right around now (2011ad) we're getting to the point where the biological stuff is already being altered, augmented and even replaced and, over the coming decades, if you want to take the pace of technological advancement as a yardstick, these changes look likely to increase both in frequency and effect, with integration on an increasingly minute level. What I mean by this is that, pretty soon, we'll be using nanotechnology and reverse engineered DNA shenanigans to change the very nature of our physical machinery. Human development is approaching a stage where, instead of things happening the way they did during the monkeys-people phase, sorta haphazardly and slowly, the changes will be made based on choices and by design.

My original point was that we don't have to wait until our biology catches up with our technology, since a subset of our technology will be capable of implementing those changes for us. OP: "Are we discovering more than we can process?" Answer: "No, because one of the things we are discovering is how to increase our capacity to process"

[LMNO]

If you were going to go down the Transhumanist path, why didn't you just say so?

[AFK]

I think our capacity to process has always been in step with the technology of the day, and also linked to the overall size and diversity of the population. I'm not sure this is something we are just now discovering, I think it has always happened.  As we learn new stuff, and learn to do new stuff, it gets absorbed and incorporated into the human population. 

I still think, even on an individual level, your average joe was probably just as bewildered by all of the cool technology, gadgets, and new scientific knowledge of the day as we are today. 

[P3nT4gR4m]

If you were going to go down the Transhumanist path, why didn't you just say so?

We're all going down the transhumanist path, we just haven't got to the weird stage yet but it's in the post.

Consider this - could you process the amount you're already processing if it wasn't for technology? With the net, you're tied in to information that no longer requires you to walk down to the library. With your smartphone or outlook calendar you're capable of managing appointments and contacts on a level that would require a half ton of filofax. As the tech gets smaller and the interface more streamlined there comes that "icky" part which the transhumanists masturbate to, where they drill a little hole in your head and plug some kind of machine in there but, in my opinion, this distinction is artifical, created by our own squeamishness. In reality the leap from paper to digital to a chip in your head is simply progress.

[LMNO]

Which definition of "process" are you using again?

I'm asking honestly, because my answer depends on what you're really asking.

[Adios]

I think our capacity to process has always been in step with the technology of the day, and also linked to the overall size and diversity of the population. I'm not sure this is something we are just now discovering, I think it has always happened.  As we learn new stuff, and learn to do new stuff, it gets absorbed and incorporated into the human population.  

I still think, even on an individual level, your average joe was probably just as bewildered by all of the cool technology, gadgets, and new scientific knowledge of the day as we are today.  

Except a rock and a stick didn't come with a 3 volume instruction manual.

One day I will post the directions on how to turn off the seat belt dinger in my Jeep. You won't believe it.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Which definition of "process" are you using again?

I'm asking honestly, because my answer depends on what you're really asking.

Take on board, assimilate, make use of kinda thing?