Read and learn:
animals.mom.me/ants-female-vs-male-7766.html
Ants unlike apes have division of labor, just like humans.
well I mean, to get to the point where you are able to put something you wrote in a credible scientific publication, surely you’ve studied a good deal of the foundational work on the subject
whatever
i hate it when creds start getting thrown around
y’all can just go ahead and assume that i’m an idiot and you’re better than me
to me it makes no difference
why dontcha keep googling until you get it right
hahaha alright I’ll do more than talk shit
in sum…
reading the mentioning of ants and dawkins in the same page is nice, since ants exemplify the idea of the selfish gene pretty well
an ant’s only purpose in life is to serve the colony because the colony is them
every single one of them is the exact same genetically
except for the males of course, but not because they are something else, but because they are a reduced version of them
they’re fertile, but they hatch from unfertilized eggs
they’re the genetic half of what a worker ant is
they’re referred to as “flying sperm” sometimes, because that’s all they do
they don’t even have jaws for eating
they hatch, fly out, mate, and die
it’s all controlled by the queen
she deliberately withholds sperm from a small fraction of the eggs she lays so that they remain unfertilized
since they are unfertilized, these eggs contain only her gene
so basically, you get to be fertile, but only because you’ll fly out and spread MY gene
anyway, that’s why I say we don’t act at all like ants
we’re not built the same
edit: double post
Alright phoneutria,
I’ll give you 1/2 of the debate.
Ants have division of labor. Apes don’t. Ants do farming, apes don’t, ants build cities, apes don’t etc…
ants don’t have a central command unit
they’re not commanded at all
the queen isn’t giving orders
there’s no ‘obeying’ in an ant colony
they’re born for a precise function, and they perform it until they die
like the cells in a body, without a will of their own
or rather, they each do have a will, that is the will of the whole
to further the queen’s gene, their own gene
there are no depressed ants who wanted to be queens but have to be workers
there’s no stealing in an ant colony, no murder
they are a perfect society because they are a single organism
our societies are anything but that
they’re just extensions of our clans
the further out you go from the circle of your kin, the more exposed you are
no matter what sets of rules we put in place to keep our mass economics flowing
instinct precedes it all
you fear what is not like you
just watch how apprehensive everyone gets when a pack of young black men walk into a store making a ruckus
we act very much like apes
People also fear what doesn’t equate to their sense of reality.
Ghosts are so scary because they are not a part of our sense of reality.
Impossible things defy theory and can frighten a person.
Nice little exposition, I appreciate that.
I wasn’t considering you an idiot, in the least. I just have no regard for publications as such, so just responded to that reference a bit mockingly. Everyone I know from youth virtually has published papers on this or that, Im from that kind of society.
But most of these are of course things like “city planning” and “social sciences”. - Which kind of brings me to a point about ants -
genetically we aren’t like ants, but mimetically, woke society and any kind of anonymous mass ideology for that matter, works like you describe the ant world.
Now granted thats technically only a metaphorical relation, but it does work very much along similar lines. Ideological people are simply incapable of existing if they’re not entirely dependent for the contents of their self-awareness on some central Ideology which could be considered Queen.
I think its a combination. Humans can kill and expel their kin because of ideals.
Look at the Baghdad Gita, to give a grand example, the battle of Kurukshetra, where people wage war against their own.
The god says that this is how it must happen, that this is where the sprit is forged. In so many words.
The 30 year war in Europe is famous for having come between families.
And so new family lineages are established, based on values…
not for nothing that same book introduced the notion of meme
i mean The Selfish Gene, not Bhagavad Gita
Yes.
A meme thus seen is a representation of value that is real but not organic.
Arminius is right. Intelligence is a characteristic of fitness. So the intelligent people should have more children than the stupid ones. The reality of modernity shows the tendency that this ratio becomes reversed, so that relatively soon the stupid have more offspring than the intelligent.
The reasons in this counter-natural development for the reversal are economic and therefore cultural reasons.
Arminius is also right in what he says about the elimination of the natural environment by humans, because humans have - again in modern times - built technical containers in which they can live without a natural environment.
Humans can live without a natural environment, because the humans’ artificial environment can replace the natural one.
no that is resoundingly wrong
quality vs quantity are two evolutionary strategies
obviously the ones investing in quantity will have more offspring
that does not necessarily mean that they are better or worse
better or worse in this scenario are human value judgments
also, how does the manipulation of the environment
invalidate darwin’s selection principle?
No, Phoneutria.
You do not respond at all to what I said!
Also, I am not saying that the artificial environment invalidates Darwin’s selection principle, but I am saying that the artificial (man-made) environment can replace the natural environment. I said this several times in my post.
The Darwinistoc princle is neither true or false, it is based both on natural and Freudian economy with political contextual determinancy in it’s background. The prowess of the ruling intelligentsia will excercise it’s power in according fed back channels, and it is known that Darwin was no exception when he invalidated Kammerer’s experiment without knowing the results of his final findings.
Or another way of looking at it :
Both. genetic and memetic traits developments interplay, to assure survival. In a backtrAcking study , it would be difficult to ascertain ,that could be discern. to be more instrumental in gaining advantage more, brain or brawn.
If intelligence is compensatory to genetic adaptation, in the process of untangling the two modal operations, then a clearer picture would emerge.
Perhaps genetic advantige will include intelligence in it’s progressive development, so as to be unravelable at some point, as to invalidate Darain s anti- Kammarer bias, at a certain point, a point that includes only phisiological traits to be pervy to Darwin’s alleged interference with Kammerer’s. Onclusions. then it becomes all too clear, thAt Darwin’s conclusions may have been all too premature.
Cite:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetic_algorithm
Nore" wrote this at night and must be edited hopefully in the morning.
yes I did
i am telling you that you are looking wrong
[/quote]
nominated for capt. obvious awards 2021
Humans are quite unfit from an evolutionary point of view, because the only fitness feature they have is their brain and therefore their intelligence.
Except their brain, humans do not have a single organ or anything else that can really be understood as „fit“. Only their brain is fit.
From a purely natural-evolutionary point of view:
- The hands of the humans are atrophied (they can’t use them to move fast on trees like apes).
- The feet of the humans are also atrophied (here the same applies as with the hands).
- The internal organs of the humans are atrophied (especially the gut - the only exception is the brain, which has just evolved greatly at the expense of the gut).
- The sensory organs of humans are not particularly well developed either (even the eyes are atrophied from a purely natural-evolutionary point of view).
This allows only one conclusion: The humans possess only one organ, which corresponds to the requirements of the fitness: the brain, culturally said: the intelligence.
So it can be also only the intelligence which has let the human being survive.
Herbert Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” in 1864 in his Principles of Biology and introduced it into the discussion about Darwin’s book on the origin of species:
“If … individuals of a species … must necessarily diverge in innumerable directions and degrees, … then also among all individuals some must always be less exposed than others to the danger that their equilibrium will be completely destroyed by a special acting force … The necessary consequence will be that those individuals whose functions deviate most from the equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces must perish, while on the other hand those will survive whose functions come closest to the equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces.”" This survival of the fittest also results in the multiplication of the fittest. …" “This survival of the fittest … is the same thing that Mr. Darwin called natural selection …” The term “natural selection” is sometimes used in scientific terminology. - Herbert Spencer 1862–1896: A System of Synthetic Philosophy. The Principles of Biology. Vol. I, § 164, 1864. The view sometimes held in the literature on the history of science, that Spencer coined the “survival of the fittest” already in 1851 in his “Social Statics” or in 1852 in his “Theory of Population”, is not correct in this form. However, Spencer’s concept did not represent the “survival of the fittest” in a socio-political sense. He introduced the term “survival of the fittest” only in 1864 as described above in the “Principles of Biology” into the discussion about Darwin’s book of the “Origin of Species”.
That’s right.
Humans have only one possibility to prove themselves in nature, i.e. to survive: they have to use their brain - their intelligence. That is the only thing that can make them fit. And that is what it has done in the course of evolution.
One could also say with the anthropologist Arnold Gehlen that the human being is a “deficient being” in contrast to the instinctive animal. That is why the human is forced to develop culture again and again. The human being must use his intelligence. Otherwise he is lost and will say goodbye to evolution. He can survive only if he uses his brain - his intelligence.
What the human being can do with his intelligence, Arminius and you have described impressively.
[tab]I have read this thread. Others apparently have not.[/tab]