Is This A valid Amendment to Darwin's Theory?

[Myth Healer]

Public schools in the US are in an endless territorial struggle between Creationism and that of Intelligent Design. Is there a way to get past this conflict and onto a more functional resolution? I wish to go beyond the contemporary controversy of "intelligent design" and "Evolution" serving a greater purpose.

The marked difference between the 'tools' of Christianity and the 'tools' of science must be understood before we proceed with the amendment. Christianity has a trend of resistance to modifying its teachings contained in the Holy Bible and for this reason, attempts at arguing for modification and/or Bible rejection usually stop at the church doorway. Although, science is founded upon the basis that If enough evidence is offered to modify contemporary conclusions, modifications can be made to the syntax of that popular scientific belief. Darwin's natural selection is within a scientific field of study, Naturalism, making it amendable when new facts suggest a change to be made.

I will provide symbolic logic for clarity.

I will begin with two sets of knowns, (A, B), (D, E) each set will be summarized independently as follows:

A + B = C
AND
D + E = F

The two final conclusions (C, F above ) will be summed down to yet an additional conclusion symbolized the following way.

C+F=G

G is representative of the Amendment to Darwin's theory of Natural Selection.

Beginning with the form A+B=C
A = Persons having suffered frontal lobe damage -- in every case where the majority of the frontal lobe is destroyed -- are mentally 'blind' to self control in areas of ethical restraint. They become antisocial, liars, unfair, cheating. They also have no conscious awareness that this is taking place. (source ????) Persons with this injury are like certain individuals suffering from the anti social personality disorder. They are less value to society than those who are ethical (that's why they get locked up!).

B = Prior to the injury the individual had no reported problems with extreme antisocial behavior. (source ???)

A + B = C
A + B =
C = The main function of the frontal lobe is to provide storage space for socially functional (ethical) cognitive templates, later to be accessed for self convictions when wrong has been committed against another human being. (source ???)

Next we will merge the constants-
D + E = F

D = The most significant distinguishing factor that separates the BEHAVIORAL characteristics between animals and mankind is vocabulary size (body language may be included in vocabulary size). (source ???)

E = The most significant biological physical property that impacts the behavior of the human (as opposed to the animal) is BRAIN SIZE, SPECIFICALLY THE FRONTAL LOBE REGION! (source ???)


Merging the two into their natural conclusion-
D+E=F
D+E=
F = The environment of communication evolved out of necessary survival needs. The frontal lobe was evolutions latest achievement. (source ???)

The final combination of the form...

C+F=G

I will give the conclusions C, F in their entirety followed by their merger.

C = The main function of the frontal lobe is to provide storage space for socially functional (ethical) cognitive templates, later to be accessed for self convictions when wrong has been committed against another human being. (source ???)

F = The environment of communication evolved out of necessary survival needs. The frontal lobe was evolutions latest achievement. (source ???)

C+F=G

C+F
G=The main function of the frontal lobe is to provide storage space for socially functional ethics. The environment of communication evolved out of necessary survival needs. The frontal lobe was evolutions latest achievement. (source ???)

Antitheses of the conclusion-
Persons who lie are not the fittest, but the unfit. They are neither fit for marriage or mating, they are additionally not fit to lead. The true alpha in the human population is an honest man or woman. (source ???)


The above G, and Antitheses should be added into all biology books, psychology books, evolution books. What effect would this scientific amendment to Darwin's theory have on the US? Would the world, as a whole, be better off if this were the way evolution had been taught? (source ???)

Myth Healerjavascript:emoticon(':-k')
Think

[Myth Healer]

Approaching the issue from a different direction...


question...
If language is a secondary result of evolutionary influences, how does one go about the process of identifying the superior alpha? What criteria must be adopted to aid in the identification of this individual?

hint-
What evolutionary variables (among the human species) does mankind have the power to manipulate? If a person was to intentionally manipulate this variable, how would you quantify evolution and/or de evolution?




Myth Healer --> --> --> --> --> -->

[ST88]

question...
If language is a secondary result of evolutionary influences, how does one go about the process of identifying the superior alpha? What criteria must be adopted to aid in the identification of this individual?

In terms of language, you would have to do a study after the fact. I don't think we know of an absolute criteria of language that applies to procreation. Such a study (such as the one that quantified the "result" of different date scenarios and calculated the cost-benefit ratio of various situations [which I can't find a link to]) would be groundbreaking and would possibly be self-defeating -- as the information got out to either gender that a winning strategy is available for the procreative act, countermeasures could be taken. For this and other reasons, it would have to be done after the outcomes were assured.

But I think your idea of there being an "individual" with absolute procreational language skills is misguided. When we speak of behaviors that increase the chances for procreational survival, we speak of tendencies, not of absolutes. If one individual is successful 60% of the time, and another is successful 40% of the time, we would expect that the 60 has a better chance of passing on genes than the 40. But this is only because there are a great number of generations of 60s and 40s that have their tendencies exploited by natural selection. It might even be that the 60s will make up 60% of the population and the 40s will make up 40% because of interrelations and the dynamics of the environment, over which their genes have no control.

What evolutionary variables (among the human species) does mankind have the power to manipulate? If a person was to intentionally manipulate this variable, how would you quantify evolution and/or de evolution?

At this moment in human history, we have the ability to choose mates based on qualities other than those that will perpetuate a particular trait. I prefer brunettes. My son may prefer blondes. Maybe I prefer mating partners who only have four toes. Is this preference a genetic trait? Likely not. These preferences are largely behavioral, and where they aren't, they likely no longer apply in a modern societal context (i.e., they apply in evolutionarily unexpected ways). To answer your question, we already manipulate variables like these without even thinking of an "evolutional imperative".

The fashion industry has tried to manipulate at least one of these variables, trying to make it more likely that those women who are self-conscious about the way they look will get married and have children. But this is likely not self-sustaining. That is, the industry will have to keep pounding their idea that women should not be satisfied with the way they look in order to keep that trait going.

[Myth Healer]

What I was getting at with those questions was to emphasize the role language plays in the evolutionary process.

There is a micro evolution that takes place in the human species independent of the sex act (DNA X-fer). Micro evolution may have a far greater impact upon human behavior, beyond what has been attributed to DNA (thanks to the Darwinian canon). Micro evolution is the evolution of the 'software' within the biological machine. Unlike the evolution of DNA, a process that will go on unnoticed within a person's life time, humans have the option of manipulating their own (or some other's) micro evolution. Each time you learn both the meaning and correct application of a new vocabulary word you influence this secondary micro-evolutionary process. The science of memes, or memetics deals with the evolution of ideas, thought and language. These patterns of ideas (Plato would have called them "the forms") are passed down from generation to generation through the vector of the spoken word, text, and more recently film, radio, and any recorded media where ideas are stored for later usage.



Returning back to the original topic-
The Constitution of the US is nothing without the Amendments. I see the Darwinian canon to be in the same condition as the US Constitution before the amendments were added. If not an amendment to Darwin's theory, what micro evolutionary process should we promote within the human species that would create as great a positive change with such little effort (the butterfly effect)?



Myth Healer --> --> --> --> --> -->

[Chimp]

What evolutionary variables (among the human species) does mankind have the power to manipulate? If a person was to intentionally manipulate this variable, how would you quantify evolution and/or de evolution?

There is a distinction between learned traits (eg. the accumulated knowledge
of mankind) and inherited traits (left-handedness and migraines ...thanks
mum ).

I may be misinterpreting your endeavour, but it seems like you are trying
to shoe-horn psychological traits/behaviour into a biological framework.

While the whole concept of learned behaviour being an agent of change
for mankind is interesting, it has no bearing on TOE. It is outside the
scope of TOE for the simple reason that TOE deals with genetics and
inheritance.

[Myth Healer]

Chimp-
"..There is a distinction between learned traits...and inherited traits..."

Myth Healer-
Yes, I agree.

Chimp-
"...While the whole concept of learned behavior being an agent of change
for mankind is interesting, it has no bearing on TOE. It is outside the
scope of TOE for the simple reason that TOE deals with genetics and
inheritance..."

Myth Healer-
I believe that perspective is slowly changing. I was exposed to the ideas of memetics prior to my exposure to Darwin's theories. This "backwards" exposure (relative to the majority) may have had an influence upon how I understand evolution. You need to expose yourself to the ideas of memetics before you get too set in your opinion. The following links should help.

...a brief overview...
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMES.html

...a more extensive look at memes...
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Cultural/Memetics/


Myth Healer --> --> --> --> --> -->
[/url]

[ST88]

...a brief overview...
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMES.html

...a more extensive look at memes...
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Cultural/Memetics/

I'm not sure this clears things up. A cultural meme could be manipulated and destroyed by lies and the lying liars who tell them. However, this is also true for truth tellers. And none of this applies to biology. The particular Darwinian concept you are trying to amend does not involve the transfer of information, which is borderline Lamarckian.

Now, it is possible to that certain human lineages could be affected by lies, such as the recruitment of suicide bombers (they are required to be virgins) and the idea of being fruitful and multiplying, for example. These sorts of lies do not have exclusively negative consequences. All societies employ lies as a means to generate a national mythos, whether intentionally or unintentionally. And these tend to make the societies more cohesive, not less.

[Myth Healer]

I will leave the links so that others will have a chance to take a look at them.

...a brief overview...
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMES.html

...a more extensive look at memes...
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Cultural/Memetics/

ST88
I'm not sure this clears things up. A cultural meme could be manipulated and destroyed by lies and the lying liars who tell them. However, this is also true for truth tellers. And none of this applies to biology.

Myth Healer-
Seems like you are trying to "shoehorn" the definition of Evolution into the field of biology. The connotation of "shoe horn" suggests a restriction on some ideology that should be given more room to "breathe." I, on the other hand, am adding memetics. When you place arbitrary restrictions on evolution, where is the science in that? It begins to take on a religious dogma. Who wrote the protocol for science, restricting science to ONLY consider the field of biology? To what degree are you "shoe horning" science, restricting it to the narrow field of biology?

ST88
The particular Darwinian concept you are trying to amend does not involve the transfer of information, which is borderline Lamarckian. [correction and/or FYI: DNA is information!]

Myth Healer-
You keep using the name "Lamarckian" and have never once explained why you use it? I did a bit of reading. Lamarck is the first person to both: use the words Biology, Zoology, and was among the first to believe in the concepts of evolution. I will consider it a compliment. Here is the link I was looking at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarck

ST88-
Now, it is possible to that certain human lineages could be affected by lies, such as the recruitment of suicide bombers (they are required to be virgins) and the idea of being fruitful and multiplying, for example. These sorts of lies do not have exclusively negative consequences. All societies employ lies as a means to generate a national mythos, whether intentionally or unintentionally. And these tend to make the societies more cohesive, not less.

Myth Healer-
To reason value out of a "suicide bomber" is illogical. You knock down my well researched amendment to Darwin's theory and promote the evolutionary benefits of "suicide bombing" as its replacement? The thing that amazes me about how the Darwinian theory is applied (you're not alone in this) is the bold faced condoning of antisocial behaviors. This type of logic you've presented, juxtaposed to phrases like: "morally neutral." You sure make an atheist wonder if the Christians were right about the Satan/Darwin connection.



Myth Healer --> --> --> --> --> -->

[ST88]

ST88
I'm not sure this clears things up. A cultural meme could be manipulated and destroyed by lies and the lying liars who tell them. However, this is also true for truth tellers. And none of this applies to biology.

Myth Healer-
Seems like you are trying to "shoehorn" the definition of Evolution into the field of biology, only. I, on the other hand, am allowing the definition a bit more room to breathe. The concept of change over time is the basic idea, don't you at least agree with this? Why must it only deal with biology? When you place restrictions on evolution, where is the science in that? It begins to take on a religious dogma. My use of the word canon was appropriate.

Whoa now. You're the one who brought biology into this by stating that this should be an amendment to Darwinism. The idea you speak of has a label, and you just stated it: Mimetics. There is no reason to go into Darwinism.

Let my clarify. I do not say that your ideas do not have merit. I am saying that your decision to place those ideas into a biological framework is scientifically inaccurate.

ST88
The particular Darwinian concept you are trying to amend does not involve the transfer of information, which is borderline Lamarckian.

Myth Healer-
You keep using the name "Lamarckian" and have never once explained why you use it? I did a bit of reading. Lamarck is the first person to both: use the words Biology, Zoology, and was among the first to believe in the concepts of evolution. I will consider it a compliment. Here is the link I was looking at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarck

Just to enlighten -- Lamarckian inheritance, posited first by Lamarck, states that as individual organisms change throughout their lifetime, these changes get passed on to offspring. We now know this to be false because the process is genetic. An organism can change all it likes, but unless the genetic information changes, the offspring will not change. To illustrate this process bluntly, someone who loses an arm will not pass the armless trait to his offspring.

Memetics works in a quasi-Lamarckian way because when one interpreter changes pieces of information in a meme, these changes get passed on to the next interpreter. However, this is not a biological process.

ST88-
Now, it is possible to that certain human lineages could be affected by lies, such as the recruitment of suicide bombers (they are required to be virgins) and the idea of being fruitful and multiplying, for example. These sorts of lies do not have exclusively negative consequences. All societies employ lies as a means to generate a national mythos, whether intentionally or unintentionally. And these tend to make the societies more cohesive, not less.

Myth Healer-
This entire string began with four given premises that were followed by a conclusion. I was using logic. My point was well founded, well constructed. I can't say the same for the logic that evolutionary thinkers are always propagating. To reason value out of a "suicide bomber" is illogical. You knock down my well researched amendment to Darwin's theory and offer this in its place? Can you honestly feel confident in the argument you've chosen? It is typical of the Darwinian canon, emense speculation.

"In its place?" My comments were a reaction to your ideas. I'm not exchanging one thing for another, I'm just going with where the conversation leads.

It must be nice living in a world where things that you don't agree with don't exist. I was trying to show that language has an effect on biology in a certain specific way. Don't think I don't appreciate all the research you've done. Lots of scientific papers get rejected for publication because of flawed conclusions despite the validity of the research.

And yes, I agree, your premise amounts to immense speculation.

[Myth Healer]

NOTE-

You might want to update (EDIT) your post UP THERE ^^^^^^.. I made a few changes to mine. Some of the things you quoted don't exist anymore.


Myth Healer --> --> --> --> --> -->

[Chimp]

NOTE-

You might want to update (EDIT) your post UP THERE ^^^^^^.. I made a few changes to mine. Some of the things you quoted don't exist anymore.

Kind of bad form...