Human freedom is constrained by the mind's content and physical ability

[untermensche]

Yet you don't even know his objections.

Maybe you read some Gould in the past but you clearly have not read the chapter in which he addresses this matter.

And Gould's politics is something I don't know about. I have never noticed a political slant to anything he has written about specific mechanisms of evolution. Maybe you have an example.

Read the example I gave from chapter eight. nuf sed

Fine, you won't look at it. That's a good way to pretend it isn't there.

I have nothing at stake here.

But like Gould I think the idea of the gene as an agent of change as opposed to merely a bookkeeper of change is unsupportable.

 

[Juma]

I have nothing at stake here.

Yes you do. That you doesnt recognize that you do is rather telling.
Your endorsement of Gould is totally irrational, especially since you are unaböe to succedfully argue for his sake.

But like Gould I think the idea of the gene as an agent of change as opposed to merely a bookkeeper of change is unsupportable.

which only show your failure in applied abstract thinking.

The chromosomes of av individual is bookkeeping of that individuals genes.
But genes are not bookkeepers themselves, they represent nothing but themselves. Genes that result in prospeous phenotypes will be successful even if their expression is very different in different organisms. It is the prosperity that matters, not the avtual phenotypes. That is why living things are so adaptable.

 

[untermensche]

Yes you do. That you doesnt recognize that you do is rather telling.
Your endorsement of Gould is totally irrational, especially since you are unaböe to succedfully argue for his sake.

You've never even read his arguments yet you know they are wrong. I'm not here to give them in detail, only saying they exist and pointing out exactly where they exist. It's up to the individual to decide how persuasive they are. But they must be read to make any kind of judgements. The fact that his critics are not pointing out where he is wrong but rather talking about his politics shows they have never read his arguments.

But like Gould I think the idea of the gene as an agent of change as opposed to merely a bookkeeper of change is unsupportable.

which only show your failure in applied abstract thinking.

The chromosomes of av individual is bookkeeping of that individuals genes.
But genes are not bookkeepers themselves, they represent nothing but themselves. Genes that result in prospeous phenotypes will be successful even if their expression is very different in different organisms. It is the prosperity that matters, not the avtual phenotypes. That is why living things are so adaptable.

You're flailing at ghosts. Read Gould on this. It will be worth your time if you care.

 

[Juma]

You've never even read his arguments yet you know they are wrong. I'm not here to give them in detail, only saying they exist and pointing out exactly where they exist. It's up to the individual to decide how persuasive they are. But they must be read to make any kind of judgements. The fact that his critics are not pointing out where he is wrong but rather talking about his politics shows they have never read his arguments.

But like Gould I think the idea of the gene as an agent of change as opposed to merely a bookkeeper of change is unsupportable.

which only show your failure in applied abstract thinking.

The chromosomes of av individual is bookkeeping of that individuals genes.
But genes are not bookkeepers themselves, they represent nothing but themselves. Genes that result in prospeous phenotypes will be successful even if their expression is very different in different organisms. It is the prosperity that matters, not the avtual phenotypes. That is why living things are so adaptable.

You're flailing at ghosts. Read Gould on this. It will be worth your time if you care.

That you cannot reproduce any of his arguments is telling enough.

A text can be very persuasive without actually containing anything of real value.

 

[untermensche]

That you cannot reproduce any of his arguments is telling enough.

A text can be very persuasive without actually containing anything of real value.

That's not an argument when the text exists.

It is an evasion from finding and reading the text which is better than anything I can produce.

 

[fromderinside]

That you cannot reproduce any of his arguments is telling enough.

A text can be very persuasive without actually containing anything of real value.

That's not an argument when the text exists.

It is an evasion from finding and reading the text which is better than anything I can produce.

So just produce the text from that which you've read. Its not our job to make your point. Take evidence from Gould's chapter eight and force us to deal with it. We'll take texts from Dawkins, Williams, Pinker, Maynard-Smith,Dennett, etc, answering those points and you'll have to deal with them. That's how discussions should go. We each have responsibilities. Our responsibility is not to read Gould and nod our heads , Our responsibilities here are to take what you present and find counter argument which we present.

Not up to it. OK then shut up and read what we've presented and counter them. For instance I presented both sides in a series of articles by the antagonists in New York Literature Review. You've not even acknowledged these articles on either side.

 

[Juma]

That you cannot reproduce any of his arguments is telling enough.

A text can be very persuasive without actually containing anything of real value.

That's not an argument when the text exists.

It is an evasion from finding and reading the text which is better than anything I can produce.

If someone diskuss general relativity or quantum mechanics noone ever request anyone to read what texts einstein or schrödinger wrote, instead the discussion is about the formulas and ideas.

Then why is it that you cannot lift the ideas out of the dense, overgarnished prose of gould? Because there isnt any.

 

[Juma]

Another blemish on Goulds reputation: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/asset?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071.PDF

 

[untermensche]

That's not an argument when the text exists.

It is an evasion from finding and reading the text which is better than anything I can produce.

So just produce the text from that which you've read. Its not our job to make your point. Take evidence from Gould's chapter eight and force us to deal with it. We'll take texts from Dawkins, Williams, Pinker, Maynard-Smith,Dennett, etc, answering those points and you'll have to deal with them. That's how discussions should go. We each have responsibilities. Our responsibility is not to read Gould and nod our heads , Our responsibilities here are to take what you present and find counter argument which we present.

Not up to it. OK then shut up and read what we've presented and counter them. For instance I presented both sides in a series of articles by the antagonists in New York Literature Review. You've not even acknowledged these articles on either side.

I had already resolved that since one gene could cause the failure of an individual that the individual could not be the source of evolutionary change.

First of all I don't see the logic. If a gene is causing a detrimental effect then it is lessening evolutionary success.

If it were driving evolutionary success all it could do would be to put itself out of existence.

This is why you have to read Gould.

The first 15 pages of the chapter he delves into the idea of the "individual". I don't think you are using the term the way Gould does. He goes to great length to demonstrate the individuality of species.

I read the first exchange between Gould and Pinker from the 97 NY Review of Books. Gould and others wipe the floor with Pinkers ideas about spandrels.

 

[Juma]

. If a gene is causing a detrimental effect then it is lessening evolutionary success.

If it were driving evolutionary success all it could do would be to put itself out of existence.
.

There is nothing such as "evolutionary success". The evolution has no goals.
Even the extinction of all living things doesnt mean that evolution failed.

 

[Juma]

The first 15 pages of the chapter he delves into the idea of the "individual". I don't think you are using the term the way Gould does. He goes to great length to demonstrate the individuality of species.
.

And fails to say anything but the obvious. (Yes i have read that miserable text.)

 

[untermensche]

The first 15 pages of the chapter he delves into the idea of the "individual". I don't think you are using the term the way Gould does. He goes to great length to demonstrate the individuality of species.
.

And fails to say anything but the obvious. (Yes i have read that miserable text.)

Give me one argument he uses to support the idea that species should be considered an "individual" in evolution.

 

[untermensche]

. If a gene is causing a detrimental effect then it is lessening evolutionary success.

If it were driving evolutionary success all it could do would be to put itself out of existence.
.

There is nothing such as "evolutionary success". The evolution has no goals.
Even the extinction of all living things doesnt mean that evolution failed.

Evolutionary success is defined as reproducing and passing on part of your genome.

 

[Juma]

There is nothing such as "evolutionary success". The evolution has no goals.
Even the extinction of all living things doesnt mean that evolution failed.

Evolutionary success is defined as reproducing and passing on part of your genome.

That is per indidividual. Not per gene.

 

[untermensche]

Evolutionary success is defined as reproducing and passing on part of your genome.

That is per indidividual. Not per gene.

The only way for a gene to continue if if the individual organism reproduces.

A gene has no agency and can do nothing but passively be copied.

 

[Juma]

That is per indidividual. Not per gene.

The only way for a gene to continue if if the individual organism reproduces.

A gene has no agency and can do nothing but passively be copied.

Yes? What is your point? That a cause must be actively acting agent?

 

[untermensche]

The only way for a gene to continue if if the individual organism reproduces.

A gene has no agency and can do nothing but passively be copied.

Yes? What is your point? That a cause must be actively acting agent?

That a cause must cause something.

The gene is acted upon in the various ways it can mutate. It is acted upon in transcription and translation.

It causes nothing. It isn't the cause it remains in the genome. It can't be an agent of any kind.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes? What is your point? That a cause must be actively acting agent?

That a cause must cause something.

The gene is acted upon in the various ways it can mutate. It is acted upon in transcription and translation.

It causes nothing. It isn't the cause it remains in the genome. It can't be an agent of any kind.

-nm

 

[Juma]

Yes? What is your point? That a cause must be actively acting agent?

That a cause must cause something.

The gene is acted upon in the various ways it can mutate. It is acted upon in transcription and translation.

It causes nothing. It isn't the cause it remains in the genome. It can't be an agent of any kind.

genes -> evolution
No genes -> no evolution.

How is that for causing something.

 

[ryan]

Yes? What is your point? That a cause must be actively acting agent?

That a cause must cause something.

The gene is acted upon in the various ways it can mutate. It is acted upon in transcription and translation.

It causes nothing. It isn't the cause it remains in the genome. It can't be an agent of any kind.

Of course genes have causal effects on the organism even though it is mostly a one-way,

"Gene expression is the process by which the information encoded in a gene is used to direct the assembly of a protein molecule. The cell reads the sequence of the gene in groups of three bases. Each group of three bases (codon) corresponds to one of 20 different amino acids used to build the protein"

from https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/glossary=geneexpression .