Okami's Technology Thread

[Stray Cat]

The more important part of what I was saying is that lots of mutations happen. I'm sure you'll find all sorts of flora and fauna who have individually mutated something that gives them a bigger brain or whatever, but natural selection is the process by which those come into effect (we're at least agreedon this point). You seem to think that mutations are rare or something? That it's lucky to find individuals in a species with them? They happen by chance, but they also happen all the time, so it's not 'luck' that we eventually happened by one that was predisposed to stick. It indeed happened by chance, but it was more or less bound to happen given our circumstances

I never said mutations were rare, I said that most of them are neutral, which is the truth.  The average human mutation rate is estimated to be somewhere between 130-160 per generation.  So no, I'm not saying that they're rare at all.  It's not lucky to find individuals with them either, most individuals do have some.  What I'm saying is that it's chance "which individuals" obtain the mutation that provides benefit and sets the process of evolution in motion.  

 

I can disprove your "bound to happen" theory in one word, Extinction.  The way you're talking, you're making it sound like all organisms are destined to evolve and survive, but that's not the case as history has shown us.  Dinosaurs went extinct, millions of other species went extinct.  It's likely at some point humans will go extinct as well.   Why did these organisms not receive mutations that allowed them survive?  Simple; chance.  Luck didn't favor them, they were unable to adapt to their environment since they didn't (by chance) receive mutations that could help them adapt, and perished because of it.  

[arakura]

First of all, I dont understand why it matters 'which individuals' get the mutation. We're approaching the issue from the perspective of an entire species. Whichever individual got it would be more likely to pass it on etc. Doesnt matter who...

 

As for the second paragraph, I consider that to be a much more compelling argument than the general 'it's chance that we are smart' idea (because we're definitely suited for that sort of thing, as you commented earlier). Depending on how long into the past you looked, you could argue that point, though. Still, what I'd say is that the only chance that we should really be considering is the chance that our precious 'good mutation' doesnt get quashed by some random and unnatural death. I dont think every species is nearly equally equipped to survive. Species that go extinct arent necessarily 'unlucky,' they may just not be suited for the way their environment turned. You talk as if there is always some mutation that will save a species from extinction, but I doubt that's the case. Despite that, I'd settle that it is a decent portion luck as to whether the mutated individual survives, even with its advantage, to pass on its trait, but given enough time another will come with a similar mutation... Still wouldnt count it as a whole lot of luck, just the standard amount that every species carries with it's ancestors. (But again, you could call that a whole lot of luck anyway, couldnt you xD). But still, there's such a thing as being predisposed for a certain kind of adaptation, and I believe that the hominids were predisposed to the right kind of adaptation to lead them to world domination. Though by now I'm mostly just saying things that sound right, you should know. Actual knowledge barrier exceeded.

 

And I guess we could take this back to when you begin to define a human as a human. Because if I recall, there are extinct hominid species like the Neanderthals who we dont directly descend from. So I guess in another sense you could say 'why not the neanderthals, but instead us' and maybe attribute that to luck. Maybe, but saying 'chance' would probably be just filling in the knowledge gaps with the simplest answer (is my impression). I tend to think there's a reason for most events that happen over such a large scale of time and space. an actual reason...

 

This also kind of reminds me of the free will discussion that was had, which devolved into the quesiton of whether or not chance controlls anything in classical physics (I think the answer is no), so if you stuck to classical physics you could say nothing is truly a chance event, it's just  beyond our understanding. Of course there's modern physics to consider, but it's a fun thought.

 

And another cool comment I saw when I was looking some stuff up online was an argument over why we are the only intelligent species. The clear answer is because we'd eradicate any others (same situation with alien-human movie situations, kind of), but someone had this interesting comment where they said that intelligence had a limited effect on advantage in nature, and only niche benefits. I'm kind of half and half on that, but either way it's fun to think that we abused the heck out of the niche advantages (technology, advanced communication, etc - things not normally seen in the natural world) to take over.

 

In sum: I'm kind of vague on what I'm saying, so I'll concede unless you want to agree with me xD

[Stray Cat]

First of all, I dont understand why it matters 'which individuals' get the mutation. We're approaching the issue from the perspective of an entire species. Whichever individual got it would be more likely to pass it on etc. Doesnt matter who...

 

As for the second paragraph, I consider that to be a much more compelling argument than the general 'it's chance that we are smart' idea (because we're definitely suited for that sort of thing, as you commented earlier). Depending on how long into the past you looked, you could argue that point, though. Still, what I'd say is that the only chance that we should really be considering is the chance that our precious 'good mutation' doesnt get quashed by some random and unnatural death. I dont think every species is nearly equally equipped to survive. Species that go extinct arent necessarily 'unlucky,' they may just not be suited for the way their environment turned. You talk as if there is always some mutation that will save a species from extinction, but I doubt that's the case. Despite that, I'd settle that it is a decent portion luck as to whether the mutated individual survives, even with its advantage, to pass on its trait, but given enough time another will come with a similar mutation... Still wouldnt count it as a whole lot of luck, just the standard amount that every species carries with it's ancestors. (But again, you could call that a whole lot of luck anyway, couldnt you xD). But still, there's such a thing as being predisposed for a certain kind of adaptation, and I believe that the hominids were predisposed to the right kind of adaptation to lead them to world domination. Though by now I'm mostly just saying things that sound right, you should know. Actual knowledge barrier exceeded.

 

And I guess we could take this back to when you begin to define a human as a human. Because if I recall, there are extinct hominid species like the Neanderthals who we dont directly descend from. So I guess in another sense you could say 'why not the neanderthals, but instead us' and maybe attribute that to luck. Maybe, but saying 'chance' would probably be just filling in the knowledge gaps with the simplest answer (is my impression). I tend to think there's a reason for most events that happen over such a large scale of time and space. an actual reason...

 

This also kind of reminds me of the free will discussion that was had, which devolved into the quesiton of whether or not chance controlls anything in classical physics (I think the answer is no), so if you stuck to classical physics you could say nothing is truly a chance event, it's just  beyond our understanding. Of course there's modern physics to consider, but it's a fun thought.

 

And another cool comment I saw when I was looking some stuff up online was an argument over why we are the only intelligent species. The clear answer is because we'd eradicate any others (same situation with alien-human movie situations, kind of), but someone had this interesting comment where they said that intelligence had a limited effect on advantage in nature, and only niche benefits. I'm kind of half and half on that, but either way it's fun to think that we abused the heck out of the niche advantages (technology, advanced communication, etc - things not normally seen in the natural world) to take over.

[arakura]

I'll make a better comment when I'm done focusing on hw, but honestly if feel like we arent even arguing anymore. You're saying I'm ignoring the bigger issue while at the same time you seem to just walk over the things I say are the bigger issue. Guess what, we both have different opinions on what we think is right so of course we are going to argue them. *grumpy comment* (and yes I know assume you'll get done reading this and think my argument is still dumb, and the plot drags on)

 

I remember why I used to not argue with people on the internet and still dont in real life, haha. Will edit this in the future when I can read more than a sentence or two without squiggly eyes.

 

But I'd be interested in what you think 'chance' is. Can you explain why it exists or that it even does?

 

-------------------------------------

 

Also, you keep acting as though mutations are like a giant cancerous tumor on the organism.  They're not usually (yes many diseases are due to genetic error) but most mutations just do absolutely nothing because it's in an unused (or what we consider unused) piece of DNA.   Also, there's a near infinite amount of possibilities in the genetic code that could arise due to mutations (after all there's less than a 2% difference in our DNA and Chimps and look at the differences that creates).

It's just easier to pretend they are when I talk so that I dont clutter everything with definitions. I was assuming we both knew that they werent. If my treatment of them in that regard made my statements wrong, you should tell me how.

 

 

As for predisposition to adaptations...no.....just no.   Try looking at these:

http://evolution.ber...C1aRandom.shtml

http://evolution.ber.../article/evo_32

 

Though by now I'm mostly just saying things that sound right, you should know. Actual knowledge barrier exceeded.

Thanks for the info, but you dont need to overstate the fact. I already granted you that I wasnt sure about it.

 

 

So... I guess I'm mostly convinced of your argument, but I'm really not in the mood for this. So I'm going to stop, in the future I might find it in me to reread the argument and see what it even meant (I cant think very straight right now ~.~). What holds me back is that you say that the occurance of the mutation is just chance. But I would say that the occurrence of the (a, whatever) mutation is bound to happen, and that the environment supports certain mutations in a non-chance based manner. The only chance is whether or not the mutation occurs (which in my opinion, it will over a long period of time) and whether or not the gifted individual doesnt get gimped and die before he/she/it can pass it on. It's not that a species didnt get the beneficial trait, but that they were a victim of chance and lost the individual carrying it. So i guess it does come down to chance, but not in the way I think you're saying...

 

my mind is a bit fried right now, so... take me as seriously as you want, whatever~

But anyway, the question of what chance truly is is more compelling to me right now, because defining these slippery terms is fun and important (yay cop-outs).

 

Sorry if I seem like I got countered and then rage-quit. It's only kind of like that, I will say you pretty much defended your point.

*is too tired to try to make any more sense or be any more diplomatic* sorry bro

well played, mostly, probably

 

I'm probs a dumdum, I hope you dont judge me too hard. Though it's good form to always give the other side a shot as well

[Kaguya]

I'd like to add to these comments that if you're actually living for the sake of living, then I'm sure it doesnt feel as empty as you imagine it would while sitting at your computer in comfort. It's a perspective issue. And Okami, if you read more of my posts, you will realize that I was making a joke with the 'we should all go live in the woods' but that my stance is a little more complex than my joking response to you was. I dont know why Kaguya didnt move my other one in here.

I moved Okami's post, which came with your post quoted- since the thread is about discussing about an idea of his, I figured I'd leave his reply as the first one- which is only possible if his post was the first, chronologically. Since he quoted your post anyway, I didn't feel the need to move it. Hey, it's double exposure for your reply~

[krill]

just to throw my hat in to the ring a bit here i dont think you can quantify value of life = tech level. its a ludicrous claim. no matter how far back you look at records of humanity there has always been people who love, lust,care for, and find inherint value in one another. and that seems to me to be the factor in continued existence of the species more then any other after all as japan is showing currently no mating leads to cultures dying. if humans lose the will to mate the species dies no matter how good tech is you need reproduction to keep the species going and before you use the "we can grow new people in a lab" argument while this is certainly possible after a point things will happen for example a solar emp burst , or a delta ray burst from out in space just within range to wipe out your tech. this cant be stopped scientists have stated its not a matter of if but a matter of when . and when that happens farming humanity in a lab becomes an impossibility . 

 

TL;DR: sex is more important to a species then technology when you think about it. playing video games and watching anime is great and fun but all the 2d in the world wont produce you children.

[Stray Cat]

I'll make a better comment when I'm done focusing on hw, but honestly if feel like we arent even arguing anymore. You're saying I'm ignoring the bigger issue while at the same time you seem to just walk over the things I say are the bigger issue. Guess what, we both have different opinions on what we think is right so of course we are going to argue them. *grumpy comment* (and yes I know assume you'll get done reading this and think my argument is still dumb, and the plot drags on)

 

I remember why I used to not argue with people on the internet and still dont in real life, haha. Will edit this in the future when I can read more than a sentence or two without squiggly eyes.

 

But I'd be interested in what you think 'chance' is. Can you explain why it exists or that it even does?

"In evolutionary biology, a "chance" event is simply an event which is not caused by the organism itself, and which we could not have been predicted, which affects the organism's survival (e.g. a natural disaster) or its genetic information (e.g. a mutation)."   As for the why, you're going way too philosophical for me on that.  

 

Here's is a very simple article explaining things (mutations are chance, natural selection is not): http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/kprestwi/intro/intro_notes/intro_25_evolution&Chance.pdf

 

Here's an article debating what we are discussing right now: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ptb/6959004.0002.003/--evolutionary-chance-mutation-a-defense-of-the-modern?rgn=main;view=fulltext

[arakura]

I moved Okami's post, which came with your post quoted- since the thread is about discussing about an idea of his, I figured I'd leave his reply as the first one- which is only possible if his post was the first, chronologically. Since he quoted your post anyway, I didn't feel the need to move it. Hey, it's double exposure for your reply~