human sexual selection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#.22Selfish.22_genes

The bold part is wrong. It’s not a matter of indifference.

If construction were analogous with evolution, it would be rather be like the former. It’s about the genetic code, not the material in which it manifests.

You seem to be parroting something you read without doing your own thinking. Gene-codes cannot survive unless organisms first survive long enough to reproduce.

Sauw-

You are incorrect. You cannot reduce the essence of the evolutionary process nor the mechanism of selection to one element of that process. The idea of evolution is incomplete without the likewise idea of that which evolves. Just like the idea of construction is incomplete without the notion of the constructed. Is a machine only its most basic parts? Or is it more, is it all of the parts which are necessary for its functioning? Does its essence not also rest in its higher comprehensive form and the rules of the game that determine its existence, even its coming into existence?

Bottom line, evolution is the notion of consecutive change over time, a continuity of forms. Evolution means that no one form can be fully separated from the lineage of its predecessors. Selection is the notion of the relationship between the organism and its environment, contingent upon the fact that organisms survive to reproduce only when they (sufficiently) successfully navigate the rules of this environment. Genes are part of the process that creates and sustains these organisms. They are not where this process originates, they are not where it terminates, they are not the ‘end’ of this process, nor even a end.

Have you been reading Dawkins? It does seem that perhaps Dawkins has gotten you confused, you wouldn’t be the first…

Indeed.

Evolution is not some ontological category or Object or prior existent… it is just a word we use to grasp the notion of continuous change. That change, that innumerably complex and intricate process has many mutually dependent parts. It is irrational to (attempt to) reduce the entire process to a single element of that process…

“the survival of organisms is only of value as a means to the survival of gene-codes” ← this reveals flawed thinking, and one reason why I suspect you have been getting drunk on too much Dawkins. There are no “ends” or “value” inherent in the process itself. It is purely natural, impersonal, mechanism…

I agree. I like your point that evolution works in a nexus.

To Sauwelios: please don’t let your head explode just because others have ideas and pov’s that differ from the ones you parrot from your favorite cracked, neonazi, or rightwing authors.

No, you just don’t understand. What follows are three (3) different statements:

  • “Evolutionary advantage is survival advantage.”
  • “Survival advantage is evolutionary advantage.”
  • “Evolutionary advantage = survival advantage.”
  • “Survival advantage = evolutionary advantage.”

And yes, I know that they are four statements…

What I mean is that, though the “blueprints” must be written on “paper”, it does not matter which particular “piece of paper”.

Evolution is the evolution of populations. This implies that a population is regarded as a unified whole that persists through time. However, what we’re really doing is not looking at the “evolution” of a “population”, but looking at which genes (“blueprints”) are carried by the “population” at any particular time and then comparing different times in the life of that “population” (really as many populations as there are such different times). Then we see that some genes survive past a certain point whereas others die out at that point.

There are “ends” and “value”, though no ends or value. Note the quotation marks. The “selfishness” of genes is a metaphor, as I’ve been trying to make clear from the start.

Even as a metaphor, it doesn’t work. As for personification, that would be another story.

And none of them are different, now, are they?

It does.

A personification is a metaphor.

Wrong. They are, as I said, three different statements.

  • “An animal is a cow.”
  • “A cow is an animal.”
  • “An animal = a cow.”
  • “A cow = an animal.”

No it doesn’t. You would have to consider a gene to be selfish in the light of a figurative comparison which has nothing to do with the gene itself.

Since when? Since you just decided it was just because . . . . You need to look up these terms.

It doesn’t matter anyway. If that’s what you want to think, knock yourself out.

Doesn’t that go for all metaphors?..

[size=95]attribution of personal qualities; especially : representation of a thing or abstraction as a person or by the human form
[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personification][/size]

This is the sense of “personification” that we’re talking about here.

Now a meta-phor is a carrying-over of certain qualities from one concept onto some other concept. A personification, then, is a meta-phor of personal qualities from the concept “person” to another concept—for instance, the concept “gene”…

It does matter. When you understand this, you can finally understand this earlier post of mine: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2188987#p2188987.

Ok so being able to learn from mistakes and be smarter and hence able to think forward about things confers no survival advantages. That’s a pretty moronic idea.
[/quote]
It may or may not confer survival advantages; it may even confer survival disadvantages. As long as its reproductive advantages are greater than the reproductive disadvantages springing from such survival disadvantages, however, it’s still evolutionarily advantageous.

I repeat: check out The Mating Mind (if this seriously interests you).
[/quote]

[/QUOTE]
It is for gods sake this is just you trying to exhort something is true despite how ridiculous it is. You’re not doing a very good job of selling this book no offence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ … telligence

Might be disadvantageous in fish yeah ok.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ … telligence

These suggest many diverse reasons why human intelligence was sexually and environmentally selected. Its obvious that improvements in technology may well support the development of larger brains it isn’t a closed off system evolution is an iterative feed back loop.

This seems to be a heated debate, so please try not to insult the person’s beliefs and stick to the discussion at hand - thanks guys.

Magsj when did you start moderating the psychology forum…? I remember (Carleas?) or whoever used to do it not getting quite so bent out of shape over disagreements… one reason I preferred the psych to the phil forum…

Anyways, it is obvious that every human trait is selected, over time, either for or against. That is what selection means, no trait or aspect of the organisms exists independently or in a vacuum. Over time, everything is honed and fine-tuned to where it “needs” to be, that is to say, in such a way that it is the product of that long period of survivability dictated by the relationship between the organisms in question (the individuals personifying “the species”) and its environment. Intelligence, brain size or whatever is certainly no exception.

I, for one, find intelligence to be the most sexually attractive traits there is in the opposite sex… that has to say something about human sexual selection (or maybe only about me?) :laughing: :stuck_out_tongue: :laughing:

(and Sauw, it is still wrong to reify the species over the individual… the species is just an abstraction and does not exist absent the individual generation… the species is not “alive” any more than a DNA nucleotide sequence chain ATAGGACCA, or whatever, is alive. That we classify individuals into species groups does not bear upon what is actually going on in nature, in the diveristy of the biosphere of living organisms… selection takes place on the individual level, and genes propogate over time (their forms), but this does not mean that these forms are “primary” or more important than the individual; it just means that the individual is a product, in part, of the individual who preceded him. I think this focus on species over individual comes from reading too much Dawkins, but thats just me…)

…since November 2009 TTG - I am (once again) responding to a report raised by a poster in regard to a reply to their post, where they felt that they were being personally attacked and not their views on the topic, which is an understandable gripe to have, no?

A mod’s gotta do their job, after-all :handgestures-salute: