Bad Internet Science

[charles brough]

This article insensed me because it was all hype. It shows either how far Internet science news sites will go to over-promote their stories and/or what lengths researchers will go to make their negative findings seem like something positive.

 

Human evolution, radically reappraised

 

The hype is that they have found we are still experiencing evolution. This is desired by them and others only because, otherwise, their social theory has no explanation for all the change in human society/culture occuring in the last some 200,000 years! You read it and you get the impression the mystery is solved.

 

But, alas, down at the bottom of the story you read that the evolution they are referring to is some SHRINKAGE of the brain case, slightly smaller teeth and weaker skeletal structure---and slight metabolic changes!

 

Not only is significant further evolution NOT occuring, but it is not even desirable. If it can happen, it proves the point of the Social Darwinists and, hence, the issue of super and inferior races! By genetic selection, Hitler COULD have create a super race!

 

But we are NOT evolving biologically. What has been happening over the tens of thousands of years since we developed language is the non-biological evolution of RELIGIONS. A separate type of natural selection process is occuring with them that slowly eliminates the older and outgrown ones and in that way carries us along with our growing total human cultural heritage.

 

The process has gradually accelerated, but not enough, I fear, to deal with the present ominous state of things . . .

 

charles, HOME PAGE

[freeztar]

But we are NOT evolving biologically.

 

Is this simply a creationist statement, or do you have something to back up such a bold statement?

[InfiniteNow]

Hi CB,

 

I'm not sure I completely follow what you're on about. Can you offer us an "executive summary?"

 

(i.e. You're an engineer who knows ever thread of every bolt on every machine, but you're trying to get an idea across to the CTO and you have to summarize for them quickly from a high level what's happening)

[charles brough]

Is this simply a creationist statement, or do you have something to back up such a bold statement?

 

Good question! For social evolution to be biological, societies would have to have genes and chromosomes. Since they do not, there is no biological evolution. However, evolutionary natural selection must definitely be occurring because human society has undergone immense change with the result we now populate the whole Earth and have advanced an immense cultural heritage. None of that can be attributed to biological evolution because there has been no significant change biologically.

 

What has been happening is that there is a non-biological form of natural selection going on which resembles the biological form but which follows its own processes. We are evolved hunting-gathering group primates evolved to live in small groups. Only because we could use language were we able to build societies and live in huge masses together in cities. We developed immense ideological-religious world view systems that bonded us into these societies. That is their natural, cause and effect function. They start out advanced for the times that they are needed and provide a solid, rigid structure to the society. This allows it to function as a sort of unit in a way not unlike how a group of howler monkeys will go to the edge of their territory and "hurl insults" at the other Howlers in the next territory. This tightens the bond they have and increases solidarity just like what happened with 9/11 and the U.S. "came together" like it had not in a half century, a state that last perhaps two years.

 

But religions grow old and are outgrown. Their bond weakens. Natural selection occurrs and they are all eventually replaced. Look back into world history and there are more dead mainstream religions than living ones! I explain the whole process in my website . . .

 

charles

[freeztar]

Ok, it seems I was confusing what you are talking about (social evolution) with what I thought you were talking about (biological evolution)?

 

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

You are saying that biological evolution is not responsible for the rise and fall of social constructs, but some other natural selection is ocurring (social evolution). Did I get that right?

[charles brough]

Ok, it seems I was confusing what you are talking about (social evolution) with what I thought you were talking about (biological evolution)?

 

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

You are saying that biological evolution is not responsible for the rise and fall of social constructs, but some other natural selection is ocurring (social evolution). Did I get that right?

 

It is hard to communicate when the words used have multiple meanings. :beer: I worked hard to work up a glossary that gives only one functional defintiion for each important term. That keeps me from being confused, but it does not make the process of communication easier. I do not use the term "social constructs." Perhaps YOU would elaborate there. Does the term really have specific meaning or is it perhaps a way to avoid meaning---like "cultural evolution?":evil:

 

If biological evolution has occured within various publics, races and societies had been biological, it would back up the social Darwinists who used to say they could or have created a super race. Timbukto used to be a manficicant center of Islamic civilization in Northwest Africa a few centuries ago. Now it is a destitute region. All these societies rise and fall without any biological reason. The Ancient Egyptians had the most powerful civilization on Earth. Now, they can barely rule their own nation, yet they are the same people. You know all this.

 

The religions that bonded people into those societies were vast ideological systems that were rigid enough to make of them a sort of biology-like organism that could be subjected to natural selection even though they had no genes and chromosomes and, hence no biological evolution taking place. When they were new, all these vast and closed systems of thinking, religions, were advanced for their time and were thus enthusiastically taken up to bring to the people a sense of unity and togetherness. The less fit religious cults were selected out---as Christianity won over a host of competing religions. As the society grows and spread, marginal and primitive societies are pushed to the periferal areas and ultimately die out. When the big new society grows old, its religion is no longer advanced and the whole system weakens. Eventually it, itself, will be replaced by a newer Word view system or religion.

 

This is why we have had religions as long as we have had language and society. There is no other reason. A new mainstream society creates a society geared to progress and ultimately outgrow its own ideology. All life has the seeds within of its own destruction. Life is just postponed death.

 

charles

[freeztar]

It is hard to communicate when the words used have multiple meanings. :beer: I worked hard to work up a glossary that gives only one functional defintiion for each important term. That keeps me from being confused, but it does not make the process of communication easier. I do not use the term "social constructs." Perhaps YOU would elaborate there. Does the term really have specific meaning or is it perhaps a way to avoid meaning---like "cultural evolution?":evil:

 

Here's a wiki article on Social Constructionism that should help answer your question.

Social constructionism or social constructivism is a sociological theory of knowledge that considers how social phenomena develop in particular social contexts. Within constructionist thought, a social construction (social construct) is a concept or practice which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it, but in reality is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society.

[freeztar]

Let's get to the heart of the matter:

 

This article insensed me because it was all hype. It shows either how far Internet science news sites will go to over-promote their stories and/or what lengths researchers will go to make their negative findings seem like something positive.

 

mailto:?Body=http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/070326_evolution.htm

 

The hype is that they have found we are still experiencing evolution. This is desired by them and others only because, otherwise, their social theory has no explanation for all the change in human society/culture occuring in the last some 200,000 years! You read it and you get the impression the mystery is solved.

 

What is their 'social theory'? I gathered that the article was suggesting that biological evolution is continuing and is in fact accelerating.

I do believe that biological evolution is still occurring, but I would have to read the studies to be convinced that it has been accelerating. Although if you look at the trends in our recent history, it certainly seems like things are speeding up. I believe that most of this speeding up is from technological advances, working much like an inverted pyramid.

But, alas, down at the bottom of the story you read that the evolution they are referring to is some SHRINKAGE of the brain case, slightly smaller teeth and weaker skeletal structure---and slight metabolic changes!

 

Evolution does not need to be "positive" (ie good) change, it is adaptability.

 

Not only is significant further evolution NOT occuring, but it is not even desirable. If it can happen, it proves the point of the Social Darwinists and, hence, the issue of super and inferior races! By genetic selection, Hitler COULD have create a super race!

 

I do not see the correlation you are making.

But we are NOT evolving biologically. What has been happening over the tens of thousands of years since we developed language is the non-biological evolution of RELIGIONS. A separate type of natural selection process is occuring with them that slowly eliminates the older and outgrown ones and in that way carries us along with our growing total human cultural heritage.

 

I would argue that religions are a bit off topic, but it's hard to make that point since you started this thread. So I must ask you, what is the correlation between a new study on biological evolution of humans, bad science, and the evolution (or lack thereof) of religion?

 

The process has gradually accelerated, but not enough, I fear, to deal with the present ominous state of things . . .

 

charles, HOME PAGE

 

So you are saying that an evolution in religion would end the "present ominous state of things"? If so, I agree that it would certainly help to ameliorate certain tragedies in the world. Fortunately, societal ®evolutions tend to occur dramatically and in much less time than biological ones.

[InfiniteNow]

All these societies rise and fall without any biological reason.

I am not so sure on this above sentence. Although it was one among many in a greater context, to suggest that biology plays no role seems inaccurate and extreme. Removing nature from nurture is an attempt to describe a coin by only one side, even if that "nurture" is an overall social aggregate.

 

 

Society is made of people, and people are made from biology... or, at least the things about which bio is a study.

[Tormod]

I think the final sentence in the article linked to in the first post pretty much sums things up:

 

What ever the implications of the recent findings, McKee added, they highlight a ubiquitous point about evolution: "every species is a transitional species."

 

Human beings evolve, but evolution is a long-term process and in humans it does not necessarily translate to cultural traits. It is however obvious that humans, for example, have adapted to the climate they live in (like the loss of pigment in Scandinavian peoples). This is also evolution.

[CraigD]

Whenever I read anything associated with the work of Gregory Cochran, I’m on alert. Cochran has a reputation for sound, hardworking microbiology, keen speculative insights, and a shameless grandstand involving taking his speculations well beyond what his science can support. Though he scrupulously careful to note when he’s speculating vs. reporting well-controlled research, I think he’s aware of the tendancy of the popular and even the specialized presses to sensationalize his speculations into “radical breakthrough finding”, and plays on this to gain publicity and financial support for himself and his department and university.

 

Perhaps his most famous such stunt involved his “gay germ” hypothesis, in which he suggest (but doesn’t experimentally substantiate) that homosexuality is caused by one or more disease pathogens. With this, he garnered weeks of international news headlines, and incensed gays, gay-friendly, and anti-gay straights – without so much as searching for one pathogenic gene or affected host gene in the lab.

 

The World Science article linked to in post #1 seems a prime, if milder and better substantiated, example of this sort of hyped reporting. At its core, it’s reporting Cochran’s assertion of what the large majority of micro and evolutionary biologists have long believed – that the evolution of nearly all present-day species, H. Sapiens S. not exempted, is ongoing – a very un-radical claim. It then compares Cochran’s claim to the common belief among non-biologists that “human evolution froze 200,000 years ago”, implies that most biologists believe this, and makes the claim seem radical and revolutionary.

 

To the article’s credit, it summarized the evidence and analysis supporting the ongoing human evolution theory – for example, decreased brain and body size, increased frontal cranial size, metabolic and digestive adaptations to modern diet.

 

The virtue of the article’s “hyping” of this theory are debatable. To me, it smack of distortion and lack of journalistic integrity. To the articles editors, it likely smack of good “hook”, and the prospect of selling more adds and making their publication more money. To Cochran, it’s more publicity for him and his department, which potentially equals more research money, possibly at the expense of his reputation as a “serious” researcher. While science is, in the ideal, objective, the practice of it is clearly a highly subjective “game”, to which most of us are spectators.

 

To charles brough, who was incensed by the article, I’d council taking a calming breath, shrugging off his outrage, and considering the larger picture of science, the press, and the public. Speaking from personal experience (which I suspect we all share), I firmly believe we’re rarely at our best as rational being when we’re incensed.

[charles brough]

Let's get to the heart of the matter:Evolution does not need to be "positive" (ie good) change, it is adaptability.

 

Of course, but aren't you saying that biological evolution is causing human progress? My point is that it has had nothing significant to do with human progress in the last 100,000 years plus. My point is that the progress we have made (cultural heritage and population growth) is due to a natural selection-like process going on between the world-view systems that bind us into societies. The science news article this thread is based on emphasized biological evolution and, so, inferred it had significance which could only be in explaining human progress because of the way it was trumpeted.

 

 

So you are saying that an evolution in religion would end the "present ominous state of things"? If so, I agree that it would certainly help to ameliorate certain tragedies in the world. Fortunately, societal ®evolutions tend to occur dramatically and in much less time than biological ones.

 

Yes, a new world-view system would end the present ominous state of things and (as you say) in dramatically less time (by millions of years)!

[charles brough]

To charles brough, who was incensed by the article, I’d council taking a calming breath, shrugging off his outrage, and considering the larger picture of science, the press, and the public. Speaking from personal experience (which I suspect we all share), I firmly believe we’re rarely at our best as rational being when we’re incensed.

 

Being incensed, does not mean one ceases to be rational! I should hope that all of us take things seriously but at the same time are logical about it and have good emotional control. I sure do! I do not confuse the two. I think some people that rant against things can be very irrational. I see it in the religion forums on both sides of issues but people are different.

 

Actually, anyway, I did exaggerate! :) I've been a journalist myself.

[Freddy]

I do not have any problem with the article, because it is not research. Until one reads the published research study behind the article it is difficult to praise or criticize it. That is why research studies are published, subjected to peer review, and further research is conducted that either supports or counters the initial research. If you are going to discount the research please point out other research/evidence that counters it.

[CraigD]

Of course, but aren't you saying that biological evolution is causing human progress?

In the sense that literacy causes reading, yes. In order for modern human culture to exist, is necessary that human beings be physically and mentally capable of language and other behaviors by which human culture is characterized. To my knowledge there’s not sound biological evidence than evolution requires human-like culture to appear. In practically every objective biological sense, human beings are far from the most evolved present-day organism – our genomes are not unusually large, and the evident history of its evolution not unusually varied or constant. Objectively, human culture, which contains many traits not found in any other existing species, appears to be possible due to evolutionary chance and coincidence, not any sort innate design.

My point is that it has had nothing significant to do with human progress in the last 100,000 years plus.

This is a sensible and very common opinion. It is not, however, one shared by many present-day biologists, and is contradicted by the research data and analysis described in the linked-to article. Its point is that biological evolution in humans has had much of significance to do with human culture.

 

Note that I intentionally avoid the term “progress”, preferring a more neutral “culture”, because, from an objective perspective, it’s unclear that changes in human culture are well-characterized as “going forward”. Although I personally believe that they are – that, despite numerous regresses, human culture tends to “move forward” toward “more and better” activities, this is a highly personal and subjective opinion, and not one I can supported with rigorous science.

My point is that the progress we have made (cultural heritage and population growth) is due to a natural selection-like process going on between the world-view systems that bind us into societies. The science news article this thread is based on emphasized biological evolution and, so, inferred it had significance which could only be in explaining human progress because of the way it was trumpeted.

I’m unsure what is intended by this last sentence, but believe Charles is stating that he believe the article explained human culture as a purely biological (or, more properly, zoological) phenomena. That was not the impression I drew from it. Rather, I believe it emphasized the belief of evolutionary biologists such as Gregory Cochran that the rate of human evolution in the past few tens of thousands of years, in which such behaviors as language (and essentially all recognizable human culture) have appeared, is greater than during the period between about 2,000,000 and 200,000 years ago, in which “anatomically modern” human beings appeared. Language is generally believed to have appeared about 40,000 years ago, at about the same time as representational drawing (eg: “cave art”), written symbolic language about 4,000 years ago. Although the most obvious features of this continued evolution appears to more subtle in terms of external appearance, involving rather less obvious traits as digestive anatomy, metabolism, brain and sensory organ development, and other minor traits such as reduced jaw and tooth size and strength, biologists and anthropologists such as Cochran contend, and believe evidence supports the contention, that both subtle and gross physical evolution is occurring. (sources: Origin of language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; History of writing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

This claim absolutely contradicts Charles’s that

But we are NOT evolving biologically. What has been happening over the tens of thousands of years since we developed language is the non-biological evolution of RELIGIONS.

Mainstream evolutionary biological consensus, including that of its moderately radical wings represented by folk such as Cochran, does not deny that religion and other social phenomena play major rolls in determining human culture, but does deny the claim that human beings have not evolved biologically in the pasts few tens of thousands of years.

 

The impact of culture on natural selection – what some wags have termed “un-natural selection” – is complex. It seems clear that certain genetic traits – ones deemed “beautiful” by a culture – have been selected through intentional, cognitively based actions of individuals, often on very brief time scales. Although some examples of this are grim – for example, the tendency of groups of humans to wipe out individuals and less powerful groups possessing genes expressing superficial but recognizable traits such as skin color and facial features – others are ribaldry amusing. Anthropologists such as Desmond Morris, for example, note that rather than “the thinking ape” (Homo sapiens), a more apt name for the human species might be “the sexy ape”. Human genitalia (penises and vaginas) and secondary gender characteristics (breasts, narrower or wider hips, etc.) are larger and more pronounced in humans than in the other great apes (Hominidae). The sexy ape hypothesis holds that this trait was selected for by intentional, cognitive choices made by individual humans base on what can only be called esthetic standards, and as a result, though genetically the same species, we are now a “prettier” (by a subjective, cultural standard) species than tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago. As cultural standards of beauty include not only physical, but intellectual, traits, this process may have also significantly selected for intelligence, making us “the smart, sexy ape”.

[charles brough]

CraigD: Please understand that in the social sciences, such as with anthropology, I do not always accept the concensus because I see a lot of subjective influence on the social sciences. They are not like the other sciences. I am concerned about what the data shows; and I have read very different information than you have about when language began. What I have encountered is more than 100,000 years ago. ( If you do happen to know your source, I would appreciate it.)

 

Anyway, I detected some misunderstanding or confusion. Of course we are the product of millions of years of evolution. What I intended to make it clear, hopefully, was that FURTHER evolution since perhaps 150,000 years ago has not been the CAUSE of the growth of our numbers and cultural heritage here on Earth. Smaller braincase, frame and metabolic differences do not account for the rise and fall of civilizations and our course until now.

 

Of course, if language/speech could not develop until 40,000 years ago, then the progress achieved SINCE then would not be caused by further biological evolution. Actually, however, I find it really hard to believe that language and religion had evolved all at the same time 40,000 years ago and right then produced the magnificant cave art culture. I think once language/speech developed, the evolving of religion must have taken a good many tens of thousands of years more.

 

charles, HOME PAGE

[InfiniteNow]

I have read very different information than you have about when language began. What I have encountered is more than 100,000 years ago.

I'd suggest language was the first thing to evolve, and it was electromagnetic, then chemical. So, first quarks, the atoms, then molecules, the single celled organisms. It was all language.

 

Then, there was a new medium, sound. Marine organisms by squeezing and expanding pieces of their soma created pressure waves of specific frequency which travelled through the oceanic medium. Then, the first salamandor or frog came out of the water and croaked.

 

Language came long before humans, and to suggest otherwise implies a poor definition of language.

 

 

;)