At 2006-08-07 17:32:10 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Certainly not. Perhaps you're thinking of speciation (whereby an
> isolated population of a single species evolves differently from
> the rest, and thus becomes a new species).
The key being that the (reproductively) isolated population ha
At 2006-08-07 14:54:18 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> maybe i am wrongbut i was always under the impression that
> significant natural evolution requires small isolated communities /
> populations of the said organism, where the isolation is at least a
> period of measurement in terms of c
maybe i am wrongbut i was always
under the impression that significant natural evolution requires
small isolated communities / populations
of the said organism, where the isolation is at least a period
of measurement in terms of centuries
rather than years... (in the case of larger organisms
On Mon August 7 2006 1:54 pm, ashok wrote:
> i dont think we are evolvingas a species we are probably in the
> downward slope of the sine wave
Problem is - we don't have too much of a choice. We cannot stop evolution that
we do not know about. Humans tweak what we can see and detect genetical
i dont think we are evolvingas a
species we are probably in the downward slope of the sine wave
the real evolution in my opinion, is
happening in the world of microbes
we have become too ungainly and populous
to genuinely evolve in any direction other than following
the herd
[E
a. The human mind trumps all other known mechanisms as a means of
survival. This is why human beings are the dominant life form
on this
planet.
Koerner[0]:
Rich social darwinists take wealth as the best indication of fitness
to survive, academic social darwinists take intellectual a
On Sat August 5 2006 7:27 pm, Ashish Gulhati wrote:
> Heh, in a similar vein, if I said what I really think, I'd say your
> thinking is
> straight-jacketed, hidebound, and ignores what is blatantly obvious.
> Sorry. :-)
It is quite alright to say that. At least you are being honest and you may
On 06-Aug-06, at 1:36 AM, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote:
At 12:17 05/08/2006, Ashish Gulhati wrote:
The existence of diseases or viruses for which there is currently
no defense
doesn't contradict this.
in fact, it fully supports the argument: after all, the defence
against new diseases has ty
At 12:17 05/08/2006, Ashish Gulhati wrote:
The existence of diseases or viruses for which there is currently no defense
doesn't contradict this.
in fact, it fully supports the argument: after all, the defence against new
diseases has typically not been solved in the recent past by biological
On 8/5/06, Ashish Gulhati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As far as I can make out from some quick browsing around, "memetics" is
a set of far-too-literal-minded attempts to map ideas from genetics
to culture
and ideas, which seem to ignore human reasoning abilities completely.
Human reasoning is on
On 05-Aug-06, at 3:22 PM, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
By reading the right books, I suppose you are talking about the
book "The Selfish Meme" by Kate Distin ;-).
As far as I can make out from some quick browsing around, "memetics" is
a set of far-too-literal-minded attempts to map ideas from genetics
Hi Vinayak
By reading the right books, I suppose you are talking about the
book "The Selfish Meme" by Kate Distin ;-).
Haven't read it. Might, when I get a chance.
Wasn't one of the ones I was thinking about.
Serendipitously, I just finished
reading the book. Even in the book the author arg
On 8/5/06, Ashish Gulhati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Genetic evolution is pretty much irrelevant for human beings.
Cultural and memetic evolution is what's relevant in humans.
Could it be that our short attention spans makes genetic evolution
appear irrelevant because it happens over thousands
On 8/5/06, Ashish Gulhati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would not agree with this without serious evidence. We just don't
> know that's
> all.
It's very simple: reading the right books conveys a much greater
survival
benefit to a human being than does pretty much anything biological. As
does acce
On 05-Aug-06, at 2:38 PM, sastry wrote:
If I said what I really think - I would say that you are bullshitting.
Just out of curiosity, would you say Freeman Dyson is also bullshitting?
Or is it just me? (Even though FD has said exactly the same thing I'm
saying).
Cheers
#!
On 05-Aug-06, at 2:38 PM, sastry wrote:
I am willing to take the discussion further - but my disagreeing
with you
entirely has become "ad hominem" to you.
Your making assumptions about "what I think I know" is certainly ad
hominem.
Since you bring up the word ad
hominem - I beg to di
On 05-Aug-06, at 2:29 PM, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
It's very simple: reading the right books conveys a much greater
survival benefit to a human being than does pretty much anything
biological. As does access to good medical care.
Evolution is about survival of a population, not an individual.
T
On Sat August 5 2006 6:58 pm, Ashish Gulhati wrote:
> > Sorry. What you think is wrong because you have simplified the
> > problem to fit
> > what you think you know rather than what is actually known
>
> Really, I could say similar things about your viewpoint, but argument
> ad hominem
> is no
On 05/08/06 13:45 +0100, Ashish Gulhati wrote:
>
> On 05-Aug-06, at 10:29 AM, sastry wrote:
>
> >Would not agree with this without serious evidence. We just don't
> >know that's
> >all.
>
> It's very simple: reading the right books conveys a much greater
> survival benefit to a human being t
On 05-Aug-06, at 2:09 PM, sastry wrote:
With respect and without intending to hurt I would classify this as
a very
naive, very short term view.
And, I notice, without assigning any reason either.
Sorry. What you think is wrong because you have simplified the
problem to fit
what you think
On Sat August 5 2006 6:15 pm, Ashish Gulhati wrote:
> On 05-Aug-06, at 10:29 AM, sastry wrote:
> It's very simple: reading the right books conveys a much greater
> survival
> benefit to a human being than does pretty much anything biological. As
> does access to good medical care.
With respect an
On 05-Aug-06, at 1:45 PM, Ashish Gulhati wrote:
My point is not that biological evolution has ceased in humans, but
that cultural / memetic evolution is more relevant to the survival of
human individuals (and cultures) than is anything biological.
Freeman Dyson expresses much the same view in
On 05-Aug-06, at 10:29 AM, sastry wrote:
Would not agree with this without serious evidence. We just don't
know that's
all.
It's very simple: reading the right books conveys a much greater
survival
benefit to a human being than does pretty much anything biological. As
does access to good
On Sat August 5 2006 1:40 pm, Ashish Gulhati wrote:
> Genetic evolution is pretty much irrelevant for human beings.
Would not agree with this without serious evidence. We just don't know that's
all.
The high incidence of diabetes and early heart deaths among Indians may well
be an indicator of
Genetic evolution is pretty much irrelevant for human beings.
Cultural and memetic evolution is what's relevant in humans.
This is happening, though much too slowly. (e.g. humans keep
making the same mistakes repeatedly, such as collectivism).
Through intellectual evolution, we can, at high spee
At 2006-08-05 10:50:05 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> (thalidomide resulted in an unsuccessful mutation, for example).
I don't think it's been conclusively established that thalidomide acts
as a mutagen. Even if it did, what is this meant to be an example of?
> See changes in average heights
Devdas Bhagat wrote: [ on 10:50 AM 8/5/2006 ]
Humans still have evolutionary pressures caused by drugs, war and
ecological changes. Pollution is one of those pressures, medicines are
another (thalidomide resulted in an unsuccessful mutation, for example).
Evolutionary pressures exist. However,
On 05/08/06 09:21 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: [ on 08:19 AM 8/5/2006 ]
>
> >> Humans are evolving.
> >
> >Where are the selection pressures?
>
> Exactly. Counter to Devdas' thesis, I would imagine that evolution in
> humans has been kept at bay by medical science (wh
Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: [ on 08:19 AM 8/5/2006 ]
> Humans are evolving.
Where are the selection pressures?
Exactly. Counter to Devdas' thesis, I would imagine that evolution in
humans has been kept at bay by medical science (which is a sidetrack
from the original article, but still)
Udha
At 2006-08-05 03:07:16 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Humans are evolving.
Where are the selection pressures?
-- ams
On 04/08/06 14:15 -0700, Thaths wrote:
> On 8/4/06, Devdas Bhagat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Why should we be any different from other organisms on earth?
>
> Because we have, more than any other organism, single-handedly wiped
> out several species from the planet? Because we are measurably an
On 8/4/06, Devdas Bhagat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why should we be any different from other organisms on earth?
Because we have, more than any other organism, single-handedly wiped
out several species from the planet? Because we are measurably and
dramatically altering the environment of the
On 04/08/06 12:23 -0700, Radhika, Y. wrote:
> that's an interesting perspective Pavithra, positing man as participant in
> evolution rather than somehow being outside it all. i think when we make
> decisions we have to give humans a different status-not of being know it
> alls either, but of being
that's an interesting perspective Pavithra, positing man as participant in evolution rather than somehow being outside it all. i think when we make decisions we have to give humans a different status-not of being know it alls either, but of being stewards. I do agree that life has a larger design t
Something ate my lines. It should have been "An evolutionary biologist will tell you that the gases we label 'noxious', once filled the atmosphere, and today's benign (?) oceans were rather like the vats of oil awaiting us in Hell."
P
Udhay
I work with a wildlife conservation non-profit in Mysore, and this is exactly how all my mornings start off. Each day research throws up ever more horrible facts, each day the government tramples over environmental and human concerns, each day my own footprint on the planet grows larger.
Fro
On 8/4/06, ashok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did hear that the Alang ship breaking yard was being put out of business,
by competition from Bangaldesh?
See? And people claim that Free Market capitalism is heartless and
does not care about the environment! Someone should get in touch with
th
I did hear that the Alang ship breaking
yard was being put out of business, by competition
from Bangaldesh?
Radhika, Y. wrote on 08/04/2006 03:20:57 PM:
> i keep thinking of those horrendous toxic ships that pass through
> ocean water, then land on Alang, and then damage life on land as well
i keep thinking of those horrendous toxic ships that pass through
ocean water, then land on Alang, and then damage life on land as well
as water! Those ship breakers at Alang need to be given an economic
alternative that would make their current profession less
alternative...
2006/8/4, Udhay Shan
Very depressing, and fills me with an inchoate anger. What is to be done?
Udhay
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-me-ocean30jul30,0,6670018,full.story
PART ONE
ALTERED OCEANS
A Primeval Tide of Toxins
Runoff from modern life is feeding an explosion
of primitive organisms. This 'rise
40 matches
Mail list logo
