If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

Nature doesn't care about making you stronger or smarter.

 

[rms]

Isn't that just semantics? Nature doesn't have intent or vested interests in certain species, but it's an organisms natural reaction to adapt or die?

I really hate the women in the more-physical demands argument big time. All have failed in the Army too.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, it isn't semantics. Adaptation isn't the will or intention of an organism. You adapt - some adaptations work, some don't. Evolution gives no fucks.

 

[rms]

I don't understand your claim that an organism does not intend to adapt.

 

[Einherjar86]

If we suddenly find ourselves in an excessively aquatic environment, our genes do not think "jeez, we should develop gills!" Genetic mutation is, overwhelmingly, random, and mutation is not directly related to the pressure of our environment.

Genes mutate, and some of these mutations are beneficial. Some are not. Organisms that enjoy beneficial mutations survive. Those that don't... don't.

It's a common misconception that evolution immediately reacts to external environments and that organisms are increasingly getting "better." The truth is that evolution has no comprehension of "better"; it's a disinterested process.

 

[rms]

Well I disagree on two aspects. I think humans and to some other extent "smarter" animals redefine or give alternative meanings to the word "adapt."

I don't think anyone denies the molecular level changes, but monkeys using sticks to pick out ants, dolphins trapping animals and bears learning to swim on the bottom of deep streams are adaptations to their environment and are not necessarily biological changes (as far as I know, and I am not a molecular scholar in any sense at all).

Humans can adapt in decades, or less, while older organisms adapt over incredibly long periods of time. Actually surprised you think adapt only has 1 reference to the growing change from single celled organisms -> present day. Humans adapt so quickly as it is. Look at the man-bun. A fear of not getting laid has made a large % of men quickly adapt something that can prolong their genealogical line.

Organisms that enjoy beneficial mutations survive. Those that don't... don't.

Don't think anyone was debating this point.

It's a common misconception that evolution immediately reacts to external environments and that organisms are increasingly getting "better." The truth is that evolution has no comprehension of "better"; it's a disinterested process.

It seems obvious that evolution is not inherently "better" or "worse" and that is a human value judgment, but I think I addressed the first sentence.

 

[Dak]

Genetics, environment, and behaviors interrelate. Epigenetics suggest better than mere "lucky mutations" (not that those cannot/do not also occur), environments regulate "innate" behaviors, and the behavior and environment provide the feedback to the genetics. No, genes don't anthropomorphically go "oh, I need gills". But a switch in the genes related oil production in the skin might switch on. Lung capacity is selected for. Etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well I disagree on two aspects. I think humans and to some other extent "smarter" animals redefine or give alternative meanings to the word "adapt."

I don't think anyone denies the molecular level changes, but monkeys using sticks to pick out ants, dolphins trapping animals and bears learning to swim on the bottom of deep streams are adaptations to their environment and are not necessarily biological changes (as far as I know, and I am not a molecular scholar in any sense at all).

Humans can adapt in decades, or less, while older organisms adapt over incredibly long periods of time. Actually surprised you think adapt only has 1 reference to the growing change from single celled organisms -> present day. Humans adapt so quickly as it is. Look at the man-bun. A fear of not getting laid has made a large % of men quickly adapt something that can prolong their genealogical line.

We may use the word "adapt" to signify a single individual acclimating to new environment conditions; but this isn't the same thing as genetic mutation.

When a human being adapts to a new environment - say, we start wearing heavier clothing in winter - or a monkey uses a stick, or dolphins circle their prey, these behaviors don't have any immediate effect on the genome. They may or may not prove beneficial in the long, and genetic changes will then occur based on whether or not these behaviors work. The behaviors themselves are instinctual (at some level), and are only made possible by prior genetic mutation.

Genetics, environment, and behaviors interrelate. Epigenetics suggest better than mere "lucky mutations" (not that those cannot/do not also occur), environments regulate "innate" behaviors, and the behavior and environment provide the feedback to the genetics. No, genes don't anthropomorphically go "oh, I need gills". But a switch in the genes related oil production in the skin might switch on. Lung capacity is selected for. Etc.

Even epigenetics is random, ultimately.

Epigenetic factors are influenced by stimuli from an environment, but they are not constant and they only continue if they work. Genetic expression still depends on what those genes are. The relationship between the genome and the epigenome is still pretty controversial, but the evidence is there. I'm only resistant to the idea that this somehow means that evolution directs itself. Too often we invoke evolution as a conscious, forward-looking system, but it's more accurate to conceive of evolution as a nonlinear intelligence that doesn't improve itself, it just moves.

Survival isn't a goal, it just is.

 

[rms]

We may use the word "adapt" to signify a single individual acclimating to new environment conditions; but this isn't the same thing as genetic mutation.

When a human being adapts to a new environment - say, we start wearing heavier clothing in winter - or a monkey uses a stick, or dolphins circle their prey, these behaviors don't have any immediate effect on the genome. They may or may not prove beneficial in the long, and genetic changes will then occur based on whether or not these behaviors work. The behaviors themselves are instinctual (at some level), and are only made possible by prior genetic mutation.

Ein, I don't think anyone has associated adaptation with genetic mutation. In fact, I think only you did!

 

[Einherjar86]

The entire context of this discussion resulted from a comment Jimmy made on evolution and adaptation. Granted, this was a half-serious remark; but it set the precedent for taking adaptation to mean genetic mutation in the evolutionary sense. I responded specifically to your more colloquial use of it in order to more adequately address your question of intention.

Organisms don't intend to adapt in an evolutionary sense. All this happens over very long periods of time and at molecular levels.

My original comment about nature was intended as a playful rebuke of Jimmy's mostly (I think) comedic explanation of difference between the sexes. I just figured I'd make a comment on the role of capital-N "Nature," which you chose to question. I assumed we were still speaking evolutionarily.

 

[rms]

I really think you're reaching on Jimmy's comment, but don't really feel like going in circles about something we agree on. Just don't get where you made the jump that someone was saying genetic mutation is instantaneous or "sudden"

 

[Einherjar86]

I juuuuuuust explained it.

I responded specifically to your more colloquial use of it in order to more adequately address your question of intention.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Yea Nature was the wrong word to use anyway but um yea I was just being a silly boy. And I think I meant it in a more social evolutionary kinda way? idk

 

[Einherjar86]

I think so too. To be honest, it was directed at you, so I expected an uncouth jibe or assholish remark, and then we'd call it a night.

 

[rms]

https://medium.com/@alicengrey/i-m-suspicious-of-male-feminists-and-you-should-be-too-441055a2e614

 

[CiG]

Ugh, what a cringe-worthy post.

First comment on the page, we are never going to win this war if we keep acting as if men are innocent until proven, by a very high standard, “guilty.”

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I love the patriarchy. I've masturbated 6 times this weekend which I think is tied for a record. I feel a little too exhausted to break that record but I might just before I go to bed. Long live the porn industry.

 

[CiG]

If women are doing the same work for less money, why aren't companies full of women? Why aren't employers going out actively seeking women?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

fwiw I think the point that she made regarding women not getting paid as much due to a general system of encouraging them to be more submissive/not ask for raises as aggressively/etc is probably valid, even though it reflects more on broadly than any conspiracy by male business owners to keep women down. I think it's even more pronounced in China where factory work is dominated by women, where they can more easily pressure women to do more work for less money.

 

[CiG]

fwiw I think the point that she made regarding women not getting paid as much due to a general system of encouraging them to be more submissive/not ask for raises as aggressively/etc is probably valid, even though it reflects more on broadly than any conspiracy by male business owners to keep women down. I think it's even more pronounced in China where factory work is dominated by women, where they can more easily pressure women to do more work for less money.

Sounds ridiculous to me, to compare China to our workplaces.
Who is encouraging women to not aggressively pursue raises or furthering their careers? This just seems like sexist speculation.