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

[ryan]

Your knowledge is not a part of the issue here.

The issue is not whether genes have coded information that cellular machinery turns to proteins.

The issue is this:

based on the central contention that genes, as persistent and faithful replicators, must be fundamental (or even exclusive) units of selection

The issue is "units of selection".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection

And it will not be settled here.

I see. This is an interesting topic.

 

[ryan]

I don't know about you but I think objective study and experiment supersedes even strongly held belief. As far as I can tell Gould had a strongly held belief that there is an error in gene centered geneticist's logic.

If there is such an error it will be revealed when experiment demonstrates it doesn't handle result. The study I provided clearly demonstrate gene centered theory handles results for genetic interference being at core of speciation for several species.

Yet you just continue to wave your arms and flail about Gould's unsupported assertion. I also presented the case of Williams selfish gene versus Wynne-Edwards group selection which went oh so badly for Wynne-Edwards. We now have numbers showing what can possibly accounted for by group (Sage Grouse) is less than one in 10,000 while gene attribution is well above 99%. Trace the studies I provided and the truth will be found my son.

But we use groups to help individuals stay alive in so many ways: volunteer fire fighting, volunteer rescue missions, general help, calling the police for others, etc. None of these things are going to help the individual whom is performing them reproduce. Our genes clearly have an altruistic mechanism that helps similar genes reproduce.

We are built individually to do much of what we need to do, but our genes are also components of a larger system that work for all of the genes in the system.

 

[fromderinside]

What has that to do with the price of pie in Peru? Group selection is a formal term. Read your Wynne-Edwards. Then when your belief system is all pumped up come back and I'll happily destroy it for you.

In short form he found some grouse went to boundaries during mating season essentially sacrificing themselves to predators or protecting successful mating by others. Yet, unexpectedly, a consistent fraction of grouse were destined to do this generation after generation (for the group?).

 

[ryan]

What has that to do with the price of pie in Peru? Group selection is a formal term. Read your Wynne-Edwards. Then when your belief system is all pumped up come back and I'll happily destroy it for you.

In short form he found some grouse went to boundaries during mating season essentially sacrificing themselves to predators or protecting successful mating by others. Yet, unexpectedly, a consistent fraction of grouse were destined to do this generation after generation (for the group?).

If it helps the group, then it helps the group. What else is there to discuss?

 

[fromderinside]

What has that to do with the price of pie in Peru? Group selection is a formal term. Read your Wynne-Edwards. Then when your belief system is all pumped up come back and I'll happily destroy it for you.

In short form he found some grouse went to boundaries during mating season essentially sacrificing themselves to predators or protecting successful mating by others. Yet, unexpectedly, a consistent fraction of grouse were destined to do this generation after generation (for the group?).

If it helps the group, then it helps the group. What else is there to discuss?

Uh how is it sustained if it is being effectively bred out? yano genetics and all that.

 

[ryan]

If it helps the group, then it helps the group. What else is there to discuss?

Uh how is it sustained if it is being effectively bred out? yano genetics and all that.

That's not the issue; the issue is that the group may have needed that sporadic altruistic behavior to exist in a certain environment. If that behavior gets bred out, then the population may decrease or cease to exist, but we can't know for sure.

 

[untermensche]

If it helps the group, then it helps the group. What else is there to discuss?

Uh how is it sustained if it is being effectively bred out? yano genetics and all that.

If it is a recessive trait it is not necessarily being bred out.

 

[ryan]

I think I am getting out of this discussion because evolution seems to complicate an already complicated system, namely the Earth.

This can all be reduced to physics and chemistry, so what is the point of trying to dissect very large complex systems until we have supercomputers that will one day explain it for us?

 

[ryan]

Uh how is it sustained if it is being effectively bred out? yano genetics and all that.

If it is a recessive trait it is not necessarily being bred out.

And it also depends on when the bird feels the urge to do this. It won't matter genetically if it generally does this after mating, which is probably why parents are more altruistic towards their kids and not the other way around.

 

[bilby]

I think I am getting out of this discussion because evolution seems to complicate an already complicated system, namely the Earth.

This can all be reduced to physics and chemistry, so what is the point of trying to dissect very large systems until we have supercomputers that will one day explain it for us?

Everything can be reduced to physics; but we will never have supercomputers that will explain it for us, because physics doesn't work like that. Even "simple" physical systems such as the atmosphere are intractably complex; You can't model the atmosphere sufficiently well to provide a reliable weather forecast more than a few days ahead, no matter how much computing power is available, because the number of external influencing factors is huge. It turns out that to accurately model even such a simple system, you practically need to model the entire observable universe - and to do that to a sufficiently fine resolution takes an entire observable universe to do - and even then only gives you output at the rate of one day per day, so the forecast never arrives before the event being 'forecast'.

The problem for the vastly more complex interactions that we call 'biology' are even worse.

Fortunately, we don't need to do the physics to grasp the chemistry - so you can be an effective organic chemist without knowing any subatomic physics; And we need not do the chemistry to grasp the biology - so you can be an effective evolutionary biologist without knowing any chemistry. That's why the theory of evolution was able to pre-date the discovery of the structure of DNA.

As Kenneth G Wilson showed, it is possible to understand phenomena at large scales without knowing anything about the underlying, smaller scale, phenomena. If this were not true, then science as we know it would be impossible - Newton could never have developed his theory of universal gravitation, without first developing Quantum Field Theory, for example; and QFT would be incomprehensible, because we do not (yet) know what the underlying physics is at scales below that of the Standard Model particles.

Having an understanding of the underlying causes of a behaviour at a given scale is very useful; But it is, fortunately, not necessary in order to develop solid theories that make useful predictions at whatever scale we are interested in. And it is frequently necessary to use simplifying aggregations in order to talk about large scale phenomena at all - If evolutionary biology worked by analysing the wavefunction of every Standard Model particle in the biosphere, then evolutionary biologists would never get anything done at all.

 

[ryan]

I think I am getting out of this discussion because evolution seems to complicate an already complicated system, namely the Earth.

This can all be reduced to physics and chemistry, so what is the point of trying to dissect very large systems until we have supercomputers that will one day explain it for us?

Everything can be reduced to physics; but we will never have supercomputers that will explain it for us, because physics doesn't work like that. Even "simple" physical systems such as the atmosphere are intractably complex; You can't model the atmosphere sufficiently well to provide a reliable weather forecast more than a few days ahead, no matter how much computing power is available, because the number of external influencing factors is huge. It turns out that to accurately model even such a simple system, you practically need to model the entire observable universe - and to do that to a sufficiently fine resolution takes an entire observable universe to do - and even then only gives you output at the rate of one day per day, so the forecast never arrives before the event being 'forecast'.

Yes, but I never said that it has to be an exact explanation.

The reductionist side of me says that there will only ever be vague answers to vaguely understood systems. There may be a 90% chance of rain, but nothing about where the drops will land or where the lightning will strike.

The problem for the vastly more complex interactions that we call 'biology' are even worse.

Fortunately, we don't need to do the physics to grasp the chemistry - so you can be an effective organic chemist without knowing any subatomic physics; And we need not do the chemistry to grasp the biology - so you can be an effective evolutionary biologist without knowing any chemistry. That's why the theory of evolution was able to pre-date the discovery of the structure of DNA.

Sure, large systems that have patterned behaviors can be easily understood. But once you dissect such systems and try to explain the rough edges, they will be as complicated as the parts and interactions they are composed of. This is why dissecting such a system as the biosphere on Earth is never going to be good until it reaches the bottom or at least chemistry.

As Kenneth G Wilson showed, it is possible to understand phenomena at large scales without knowing anything about the underlying, smaller scale, phenomena. If this were not true, then science as we know it would be impossible - Newton could never have developed his theory of universal gravitation, without first developing Quantum Field Theory, for example; and QFT would be incomprehensible, because we do not (yet) know what the underlying physics is at scales below that of the Standard Model particles.

And because of that, everything has been wrong, is wrong and will be wrong until we learn from the very bottom and go up from there.

Having an understanding of the underlying causes of a behaviour at a given scale is very useful; But it is, fortunately, not necessary in order to develop solid theories that make useful predictions at whatever scale we are interested in. And it is frequently necessary to use simplifying aggregations in order to talk about large scale phenomena at all - If evolutionary biology worked by analysing the wavefunction of every Standard Model particle in the biosphere, then evolutionary biologists would never get anything done at all.

They have very sporadic success that is only temporary. I am not in that field, so that is why I am not even going to try.

 

[bilby]

...]

And because of that, everything has been wrong, is wrong and will be wrong until we learn from the very bottom and go up from there forever.

FTFY.

This is not a temporary state of affairs; it is a fundamental characteristic of the universe. We have always been, and will always be, wrong.

But as science refines its theories, we become less and less wrong, and we are wrong about fewer and fewer things.

Right now, the physics of everything above the scale of quarks, and below the scale of galaxies, is right to within our ability to measure - in the order of parts in 10²⁰ or better. Inorganic Chemistry is likewise pretty well understood. Organic chemistry has a few gaps, getting larger as you get into the biochemical realm - protein folding is still something of a challenge, for example. Biology is very woolly indeed, and sociology, psychology, economics etc. are barely understood at all (despite what sociologists, psychologists, and economists might tell you). It's all based on completely understood physics; but that is simply not a viable way to approach it. It will never be possible to predict the effect of a rise in Minimum Wage by reference to the quantum states of the particles that make up the people and goods that comprise the world economy. To even consider such an approach is ridiculous; it is not only so difficult as to challenge the word 'impossible'; but it is, as Ken Wilson explained, completely unnecessary. To attempt that approach would be like shifting a pile of sand one grain at a time, while ignoring the handy shovel and wheelbarrow.

 

[rousseau]

If even a self-aware, aught-seventy-five year old with lots of paper can get enmeshed in a circular argument with no clear purpose, then I must be doing something either wrong or right.

 

[rousseau]

I think I am getting out of this discussion because evolution seems to complicate an already complicated system, namely the Earth.

This can all be reduced to physics and chemistry, so what is the point of trying to dissect very large systems until we have supercomputers that will one day explain it for us?

Everything can be reduced to physics; but we will never have supercomputers that will explain it for us, because physics doesn't work like that. Even "simple" physical systems such as the atmosphere are intractably complex; You can't model the atmosphere sufficiently well to provide a reliable weather forecast more than a few days ahead, no matter how much computing power is available, because the number of external influencing factors is huge. It turns out that to accurately model even such a simple system, you practically need to model the entire observable universe - and to do that to a sufficiently fine resolution takes an entire observable universe to do - and even then only gives you output at the rate of one day per day, so the forecast never arrives before the event being 'forecast'.

The problem for the vastly more complex interactions that we call 'biology' are even worse.

Fortunately, we don't need to do the physics to grasp the chemistry - so you can be an effective organic chemist without knowing any subatomic physics; And we need not do the chemistry to grasp the biology - so you can be an effective evolutionary biologist without knowing any chemistry. That's why the theory of evolution was able to pre-date the discovery of the structure of DNA.

As Kenneth G Wilson showed, it is possible to understand phenomena at large scales without knowing anything about the underlying, smaller scale, phenomena. If this were not true, then science as we know it would be impossible - Newton could never have developed his theory of universal gravitation, without first developing Quantum Field Theory, for example; and QFT would be incomprehensible, because we do not (yet) know what the underlying physics is at scales below that of the Standard Model particles.

Having an understanding of the underlying causes of a behaviour at a given scale is very useful; But it is, fortunately, not necessary in order to develop solid theories that make useful predictions at whatever scale we are interested in. And it is frequently necessary to use simplifying aggregations in order to talk about large scale phenomena at all - If evolutionary biology worked by analysing the wavefunction of every Standard Model particle in the biosphere, then evolutionary biologists would never get anything done at all.

One of the more humbling things I've experienced as I've aged is the realization that there is a lot humans collectively don't know and can't fix.

Although, as an aside, as an individual I feel like I know much that is not collectively known or verified.. so to some degree 'proof' of a phenomena is the difficulty.

 

[ryan]

...]

And because of that, everything has been wrong, is wrong and will be wrong until we learn from the very bottom and go up from there forever.

FTFY.

This is not a temporary state of affairs; it is a fundamental characteristic of the universe. We have always been, and will always be, wrong.

But as science refines its theories, we become less and less wrong, and we are wrong about fewer and fewer things.

Right now, the physics of everything above the scale of quarks, and below the scale of galaxies, is right to within our ability to measure - in the order of parts in 10²⁰ or better. Inorganic Chemistry is likewise pretty well understood. Organic chemistry has a few gaps, getting larger as you get into the biochemical realm - protein folding is still something of a challenge, for example. Biology is very woolly indeed, and sociology, psychology, economics etc. are barely understood at all (despite what sociologists, psychologists, and economists might tell you). It's all based on completely understood physics; but that is simply not a viable way to approach it. It will never be possible to predict the effect of a rise in Minimum Wage by reference to the quantum states of the particles that make up the people and goods that comprise the world economy. To even consider such an approach is ridiculous; it is not only so difficult as to challenge the word 'impossible'; but it is, as Ken Wilson explained, completely unnecessary. To attempt that approach would be like shifting a pile of sand one grain at a time, while ignoring the handy shovel and wheelbarrow.

I don't think you are getting my point.

 

[bilby]

FTFY.

This is not a temporary state of affairs; it is a fundamental characteristic of the universe. We have always been, and will always be, wrong.

But as science refines its theories, we become less and less wrong, and we are wrong about fewer and fewer things.

Right now, the physics of everything above the scale of quarks, and below the scale of galaxies, is right to within our ability to measure - in the order of parts in 10²⁰ or better. Inorganic Chemistry is likewise pretty well understood. Organic chemistry has a few gaps, getting larger as you get into the biochemical realm - protein folding is still something of a challenge, for example. Biology is very woolly indeed, and sociology, psychology, economics etc. are barely understood at all (despite what sociologists, psychologists, and economists might tell you). It's all based on completely understood physics; but that is simply not a viable way to approach it. It will never be possible to predict the effect of a rise in Minimum Wage by reference to the quantum states of the particles that make up the people and goods that comprise the world economy. To even consider such an approach is ridiculous; it is not only so difficult as to challenge the word 'impossible'; but it is, as Ken Wilson explained, completely unnecessary. To attempt that approach would be like shifting a pile of sand one grain at a time, while ignoring the handy shovel and wheelbarrow.

I don't think you are getting my point.

Then we are in agreement. Because I also don't think you are getting my point.

 

[untermensche]

I don't know about you but I think objective study and experiment supersedes even strongly held belief.

Of course.

But if things are in their essence illogical assumptions then all the data in the world will not make them logical.

And conclusions drawn from that data will not make them logical.

What needs to be demonstrated a priori is a logic that gives agency to a gene.

Then the expression of that agency might be discovered.

As far as I can tell Gould had a strongly held belief that there is an error in gene centered geneticist's logic.

Because you refuse with all your might to read him on this.

It is not a belief. It is an unavoidable logic.

Gould didn't care how far up or down the working unit of selection was. He had no prejudice against genes. He knew their importance.

He just didn't have a fetish and was able to move his gaze to other things.

 

[fromderinside]

Of course.

But if things are in their essence illogical assumptions then all the data in the world will not make them logical.

And conclusions drawn from that data will not make them logical.

What needs to be demonstrated a priori is a logic that gives agency to a gene.

Then the expression of that agency might be discovered.

As far as I can tell Gould had a strongly held belief that there is an error in gene centered geneticist's logic.

Because you refuse with all your might to read him on this.

It is not a belief. It is an unavoidable logic.

Gould didn't care how far up or down the working unit of selection was. He had no prejudice against genes. He knew their importance.

He just didn't have a fetish and was able to move his gaze to other things.

I've read him as dense as he writes. Took what he wrote and compared it with other theory and against sea of results. Came back to such as the paper I provided and the demolition of Wynne-Edwards (crucial for individual and group agency) by data. No agency not required. All that's necessary are existence and chance (put the gene in the right place receive the right changes by whatever means) and wallah phenotype behaves or fails.

Think of it this way. Protons at CERN behave as are their nature under conditions they are in. They don't cause existence of Higgs boson to appear.