Peez:
I think you make a lot of irrational conclusions.
Pitty you cannot point one out.
It is not bait and switch.
It sure looks like one. You start by talking about an alleged pattern in the evolution of the human visual "system" (the bait), and then sneak in the evolution of the human cognitive "system" (the switch).
It is trying to put this subject into some kind of coherent order.
I am all for that.
A system is a character, one particular form of a system is a trait.
You even seem to understand this.
I understand what these terms can mean, and how biologists use them. You do not seem to be clear on any definition, and seem quite reluctant to explain how you define them.
You provided some high school definitions of both.
Actually I quoted a college level text book, you can look it up if you like.
To compare an end trait...
Oh goody, another new term introduced. Perhaps you can tell us how an "end trait" compares to an "external" one or a "superficial" one.
...like height to the cognitive system, or to any system, is irrational.
...and yet you are comparing them, unless perhaps you have a special definition of "compare" as well.
And it is not because systems don't evolve. It is because systems evolve in a different manner than visible traits. Systems are delicate and interconnected. While something like skin color, an end trait, can easily be changed with no apparent effect. The animal will not die because it's skin is a different color than the parents. But if it's cognitive system was altered in some way, which means an alteration to the brain, then the animal would likely not survive and reproduce.
I don't even know where to start to address the ignorance of biology here. Suffice to say you are making claims for which you have no evidence.
I guess that "end trait" is the new favourite. Instead of making up vague term after vague term, it would be helpful if you just explained yourself.
a mere consequence of the length of bone in the skeletal system.
lol
While the skeletal system is of course a system.
You still have refused to explain what you mean by "system". If the definition that I shared is so bad, why not present a better one? Argument by semantics is another creationist ploy, by the way.
Anyhow, yes a skeletal system is a system. So is a bacterial cell.
Here is a picture to illustrate:
View attachment 7913
On the left is what is thought to be a 2 million year old human ancestor and on the right a modern human. The configuration of bones is identical. The ancient fossil is missing the distal phalanges on it's fingers but the flatness of the distal middle phalanges indicates they were there in the animal. They were lost in excavation.
The reason the configuration of bones has not changed in 2 million years is because the hand represents a functional system. While the size of the hand is merely an end trait, a mere consequence of the size of all constituent bones.
...and the human cognitive "system" is also a system, and so has not evolved substantially in the past two million years. Right?
I don't know how much our vision has evolved in the past few million years..
So you will argue from ignorance, fine.
lol! I am ignorant about a great many things. The difference is that I am aware of this ignorance, and acknowledge it. This is not a weakness.
...Suggesting that because (supposedly) our vision has not evolved "much" in "millions of years" is evidence that it could not evolve "much" in "millions of years" is one that creationists make from time to time...
And the ignorance arrives on cue.
That is certainly much easier than actually addressing my point.
However, the have very good reasons to think that our cognitive "system" has indeed evolved "much" in "millions of years".
What evidence is that?
Seriously? You would like evidence that our cognitive system has evolved "much" in the past few million years, in the context of an argument that it could not possibly have evolved subtle differences in the past few tens of thousands of years? Wow. Are you sure that you are not a creationist? Well, three million years ago our ancestors were similar to
Australopithecus afarensis (do you need evidence for that?), with a cranial capacity of about 450 ml: less than one third the mean for modern humans, give or take a little (let me know if you need evidence for that). That seems to me pretty good evidence that our cognition has evolved "much" since then. Yes, I know that brain size is not cognition, but it is certainly related. The relationship between the size of the brain overall, and the size of specific parts of the brain, with "intelligence" is complex, but there is no doubt that these sizes matter (even if size is only an "end trait", whatever that is).
Referring to your later text, I certainly do not think that our brains have evolved radically new forms. Note that I have been keeping "much" in scare quotes, I realize how your vague claims can be problematic. The context here is a discussion about the evolution of "racial differences". I don't see anyone arguing that "blacks" have radically different cognitive "systems" than "whites". The question is whether or not certain aspects of intellectual ability could have evolved differently in different groups of humans over the past few tens of thousands of years (feel free to correct me about the time-frame as this has not been defined here as far as I know). Your attempt to re-frame this in terms of changes in "kind" are no more than misdirection.
I would certainly argue that my cognitive "system" is different in some ways from the cognitive "systems" of my parents, suggesting that cognitive "systems" can change.
Different in nature? You can do things with your cognitive system they can not?
Oh goody, another new term. I did not state or suggest or imply anything about being different in "nature". Note that people who have suggested that there are "genetic" differences among human "races" are not (in general, there might be exceptions that I do not know about) suggesting that these are differences in "nature". They are suggesting that the alleged races differ in "intelligence". Any racist material that I have come across has argued that certain races are just not quite as good at others in doing certain tasks.
Some children can run faster than their parents. Are you suggesting they are using a different kind of muscular skeletal system?
Some racists suggest that "blacks" are not as "intelligent" as "whites". Are they suggesting that these "races" are using a different kind of central nervous system? You are making no sense.
Besides the distinction between end trait and system...
Neither of which you have defined.
...there is the distinction between kind of system and variation of the same system.
Goody, another new term. I don't suppose that you are going to explain what you mean by "kind" here, are you? Your track record is not good so far. ("Kind" and "variation of the same system", are you sure you are not a creationist?)
Your cognitive system is a variation of the human cognitive system. It is not some new system. It is the same system most other humans have.
So you are saying that we can have evolution within kinds, is that right?
I am a modern evolutionary biologist
Not in a million years would I have guessed.
Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Why, exactly? Would it make my arguments any better or worse? I'll tell you what: if you really think that it is important then you list your publications on evolutionary biology, then I will list mine. If you don't think that it is important, then why bring it up?
Peez
