what would you say is robert wright's underlying argument is about evolutionary psychology, natural selection and the role our genes play in all this?
135748
That our ethics and morals, the rules we live by in our societies, have developed specifically because they increase our survival and the survival of our children.  Those that act in a "moral" way-that do not kill others, that stay with the family to protect it, that aid others and make close freindships, are more likely to have the genes passed on, and that at least some of this attitude is genetic to begin with, so "moral" genes become predominant over time- Moral itself almost being defined as that which aids in survival of the society as a whole.
108709
If you are part of nature, then is it meddling?  Richard Dawkins wrote a book called The Selfish Gene where he discussed the concept of memes as opposed to genes.  Memes are ideas - like irrigation, the wheel, etc. - that were devised by man and changed the planet.  Man's concept of the wheel - which made roads happen of course - resulted from nature just as forests resulted from it.  To go into the concept of "right" you need to ask about values and then you are confronted with a range of preferences which is never so simple as right and wrong.  Your range of preferences may differ from mine, and there needs to be accomodation of individual rights vs. public good, and that's a whole other discussion.
109139
Great stuff going on right now having to do with developmental genes (like Hox genes).  You may know this as "Evo Devo" or evolutionary developmental biology.\n\nCheck out the book "Endless Forms Most Beautiful," by Sean Carroll.  He also gives ideas for research and new fields, lots of peer-reviewed papers.\n\nI just read it this Fall, it was great.
37425
There's a new quasi-scientific theory being bandied about called "memetics."  Although the idea is still in its infancy, it has some interesting potential.  The idea stems from the notion of evolution from a gene's perspective--that an individual gene has no "concern" for the organism that propagates it; rather, if it happens to flourish it will become abundant.  If, by chance, it should convey an advantage to its host such that its host becomes more prosperous and abundant, then so much the better; but that isn't expressly a requirement.  The notion emerges to help explain things like viruses, and genes that are advantageous in a the heterozygous creature but detrimental to the homozygous creature (like the gene for sickle cell anemia--the disease results from being homozygous--that is, havving two copies--of the gene, while being heterozygous--having one copy--can convey a resistance to malaria).\n\nThat much we know.  But when looking from this reductionist perspective, we find that there are three essential elements to evolution: replication with retention of traits, variation, and selection.  With those three factors combined, any system will necessarily result in an evolutionary pattern.\n\nHere's where the idea of memes come in.  Memes are behaviors or behavioral patterns that can be copied by one person from another.  From the memetics standpoint, this tendency to instinctively copy behaviors is THE defining trait of the human.  As babies, we copy facial expressions and phonemes (phonemes are the building blocks of sound in a given language), we copy grammar, we copy tool making and usage, etc.  Synchronized/choreographed dance is a good example of a behavior unique to humans existing in all cultures and centered around mimicry.  At any rate, these behaviors that we might copy--be they languages, tool, stereotyped motions, religion, philosophy, whatever--are collectively called memes.\n\nWhile there hasn't yet been a rigorously scientific theory developed, there are certain elements that many biologists can agree upon.  Human evolution is dominated by a form of meme-gene co-evolutionary process.  The core idea that reults is this: while a meme might be detrimental to an individual, and hence reduce the chances of an individual progenating and passing genes to a next generation, if can simultaneously be beneficial to a group that propagates that meme.  Hence, it will be evolutionarily favored.\n\nAs an example, let's look at self-sacrifice in a battle.  An individual who sacrifices his life for a "greater good" will reduce his own chances of reproducing.  At first glance, we should regard this as evolutionarily detrimental, and hence, something that should be eliminated by evolution.  But in the broader perspective, a nation or culture that places a premium on courage and the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the greater good will thrive in an armed conflict, since the people will work better as a unified and courageous fighting force.  The benefits to the community as a whole are evolutionarily out-weighed by the few losses of those who sacrifice their lives--hence, the community sharing and promoting that meme thrives.  Those who are evolutionarily best suited to adopt, promote, and maintain memes become some of the most prosperous in a society unified by memes.  Things like IQ would correlate well with the ability to adapt memes.  In the long run, the genepool would select towards the ability to acquire and propagate useful memes, or even to innovate new memes.\n\nThe lesson of the last several thousand years has been that those with the best memes win.  Those memes include things like math and science as well as religion.  Becoming religious would carry a small risk of finding yourself in a position to be sacrificed in the name of your God or gods, but it would carry the certain benefit of having the protection of the entire religious community.  During the Da
45021
A friend of mine has been trying to explain rational behavior in terms of evolution and such.  I think you might be interested in reading it.
194029
Where is the genetic revolution headed? Without question, it contains great potential for good in the form of better drugs, better medical care, and improved understanding of how living things work. But there is another side to the revolution.\n\n“We want perfect babies,” says Jeremy Rifkin. “We want perfect plants and animals. We want a better economy. There’s no evil intent here. The road to the Brave New World is paved with good intentions.\n\n“Step-by-step, we are deciding to engineer parts of the genetic code of living things. Two important questions emerge: If we’re going to engineer the genetic code, what criteria does this society establish for determining good and bad, useful and dysfunctional genes? And I would like to know whether there is an institution anyone here would trust with the ultimate authority to decide the genetic blueprints for a living thing?”\n\nThese are questions that deserve answers. Who is better equipped than the Creator of DNA to determine what is a good or a bad gene? He is the one who knows the innermost workings of the genetic code, as is shown by David at Psalm 139:13-16: “You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, as my soul is very well aware. My bones were not hidden from you when I was made in secret, when I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them.” Would you not prefer to trust Him with the ultimate authority to decide the genetic blueprints for all living things?\n\nFor more info visit http://watchtower.org
131196
NatBoCheck: Well for starters even creationists believe in microevolution, but then you probably don't know what that is.\n\nGive me a few mins...\n\n"The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve."\n\n"The mechanisms of evolution are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination and gene flow."\n\nMutation\n\nThe cellular machinery that copies DNA sometimes makes mistakes. These mistakes alter the sequence of a gene. This is called a mutation. There are many kinds of mutations. A point mutation is a mutation in which one "letter" of the genetic code is changed to another. Lengths of DNA can also be deleted or inserted in a gene; these are also mutations. Finally, genes or parts of genes can become inverted or duplicated. Typical rates of mutation are between 10-10 and 10-12 mutations per base pair of DNA per generation. \n\nNatural Selection\n\nSome types of organisms within a population leave more offspring than others. Over time, the frequency of the more prolific type will increase. The difference in reproductive capability is called natural selection. Natural selection is the only mechanism of adaptive evolution; it is defined as differential reproductive success of pre- existing classes of genetic variants in the gene pool.\n\nThe most common action of natural selection is to remove unfit variants as they arise via mutation. [natural selection: differential reproductive success of genotypes] In other words, natural selection usually prevents new alleles from increasing in frequency. This led a famous evolutionist, George Williams, to say "Evolution proceeds in spite of natural selection."\n\nNatural selection can maintain or deplete genetic variation depending on how it acts.\n\nGenetic Drift\n\nAllele frequencies can change due to chance alone. This is called genetic drift. Drift is a binomial sampling error of the gene pool. What this means is, the alleles that form the next generation's gene pool are a sample of the alleles from the current generation. When sampled from a population, the frequency of alleles differs slightly due to chance alone.\n\nAlleles can increase or decrease in frequency due to drift. The average expected change in allele frequency is zero, since increasing or decreasing in frequency is equally probable. A small percentage of alleles may continually change frequency in a single direction for several generations just as flipping a fair coin may, on occasion, result in a string of heads or tails. A very few new mutant alleles can drift to fixation in this manner.\n\nRecombination\n\nEach chromosome in our sperm or egg cells is a mixture of genes from our mother and our father. Recombination can be thought of as gene shuffling. Most organisms have linear chromosomes and their genes lie at specific location (loci) along them. Bacteria have circular chromosomes. In most sexually reproducing organisms, there are two of each chromosome type in every cell. For instance in humans, every chromosome is paired, one inherited from the mother, the other inherited from the father. When an organism produces gametes, the gametes end up with only one of each chromosome per cell. Haploid gametes are produced from diploid cells by a process called meiosis.\n\nIn meiosis, homologous chromosomes line up. The DNA of the chromosome is broken on both chromosomes in several places and rejoined with the other strand. Later, the two homologous chromosomes are split into two separate cells that divide and become gametes. But, because of recombination, both of the chromosomes are a mix of alleles from the mother and father.\n\nRecombination creates new combinations of alleles. Alleles that arose at different times and different places can be brought together. Recombination can occur not only between genes, but within genes as well. Recombination within a gene can fo
455055
First, kudos to you for being so open minded.\n\nI haven't read the Nat'l Geo article yet ... but I have it, and am anxious to read it.  Say what you will, the photos are breathtaking (but that's nothing new with Nat'l Geo).  And I have read several Dawkins books, but not that one. \n\nBut without hearing your specific counter-arguments, I don't know how to address them, or why you find the evidence to be "not of such high quality."  The evidence is actually *exceedingly* strong ... and most scientists accept it.\n\nI highly recommend two books in the "Beginners" series.  Specifically, "DNA for Beginners" and "Darwin for Beginners".   Don't be fooled by the cartoon format of these books ... they are excellent introductions to the science.\n\nBut if I can try and guess your point ... if the evidence of genetic linkage with *prehistoric* species is not of "high quality", it's because the DNA molecule (the source of all genetic material for all life on this planet) breaks down rather quickly.  Even a few hundred years is enough to start breaking down the DNA in the remains of animals.  And fossils rarely contain any genetic material.  However, this is not always true.  Occasionally, bone tissue can remain in fossils, and some DNA can be extracted (as we have done with Neanderthal, for example).  But overall, recovering genetic material from prehistoric animals is difficult.\n\nHowever, the genetic links can be reconstructed quite well by examining genetic similarities between living descendants of that prehistoric species.  If living species A, B, and C all have specific genes in common (code for the same protein, same location in the chromosomes, almost identical amino-acid structure), then this tells us that their common ancestor X had these genes.  If there is a fouth species D that has some, but not all the genes shared by A, B, and C ... then this indicates that there is a common ancestor Y that is further back that is the ancestor of all four living species.\n\nFuthermore, there is the concept of the 'molecular clock'.  This is the known rate at which transcription errors (basically 'typos') occur in DNA as it gets passed from generation to generation.  So the number of minor 'typos' found in the DNA of A, B, and C gives us a strong indication of how long ago their common ancestor X lived.  (For more info. see source.)\n\nI hope that helps.  It's hard to be more specific without knowing what your specific objections are.
112250
Darwin's theory of natural selection is that 1) More individuals are born than can survive 2) Variation in the population (due to mutations) makes it so some individuals are more fit than others 3) This (phenotypic) variation is (genetically) inheritable 4) The individual survives to pass their genes onto the next generation. Lamarck's idea of use and disuse simply says that acquired characteristics (phenotypic) over the course of a lifetime are then passed on to offspring (genetic). For example, giraffe's long necks are caused by the constant stretching for food higher in the tree, and every generation therefore would see the neck getting slightly longer.
517035
One piece of advice: Try asking more directional questions rather than a title question.\nTheory of natural selection is a model for explaining the mutational changes that species go through in nature by the pass of time. Even Darwin had to go through guess work when he had to talk about the origin of species.\nThe strongest evidence nowadays about the same ancestory you asked for is the DNA. well if you analyze the DNA of the magpie the crow, human and a bacteria together they are roughly all the same let's say at least 90% of it are alike. So one can deduce that maybe one day they were all oroginated from a single molecule as a start but went through different mutations to form different kinds of species in time
84900
i havent heard that example, but its possible. that would possibly fall into the category of microevolution...like when birds beaks get bigger or smaller to crack different nuts. its still a bird, with slightly different attributes. that would be an example of artificial rather than natural selection though, since it would be people choosing what they think is attractive, rather than nature killing off people who were less well equipped to deal with the environment.
606930
the things you say (or the article said) seem to be true about evolution because the hypothesis is so plastic...however, it is falsifiable and it has been falsified; it has made numerous predictions that have failed miserably\n\nnatural selection is real, it happens\n\nnatural selection does not help evolution\n\nthe reason being that information must first exist to select from\n\nnatural selection can explain the survival and extinction of organisms...but it can not explain the original arrival\n\nfor evolution to be true you need a net gain of highly specific complex information (which first of all has never, at least not in our experience or observation to date, been the result of random processes; it has, in all of our observation thus far, always and only been the result of intelligent mind -- sa information science) however natural selection always results in a loss of information...some info is selected (kept), and some info is neglected (lost)\n\nbut first you gotta have all that info to select from\n\nand you better start out with a lot of it if you're going to be selecting some and neglecting some every generation\n\nwhich still leaves the real problem...where did all that info (that natural selection selects from) come from in the first place
207741
Granted "survival of the fittest" is a poor way to characterize natural selection. For one reason it's a bit circular in logic. It is also important to point out that what natural selection maximizes (optimizes really) is numbers of babies, not survival of the individual. Genes that lead to traits in individuals that cause them to have more offspring than individuals without those genes are more common in the next generation (=evolution). The logic of this, as you can see, is unassailable. So while being able to survive means you can live to have more children, it's really about having the children, not survival per se.\n\nAs to your other point (about individuals dying), as I said the individual doesn't matter for evolution, only how many offspring are produced (including their quality and when they are produced). So there is no inherent benefit to living longer unless it allows you to produce more offspring. In fact evolutionary theory has explained why we age and it is something of an inevitable fact of life unfortunately. Different organisms have different average longevities that have evolved based on that particular species' schedule of reproduction and mortality, but all organisms (sexual organisms) will inevitably age and die. The explanation for the evolution of ageing is a very elegant one and not hard to understand, but I won't go into it here. If you search the web using the terms "evolution senescence" you should find it if you are interested.
650308
Evolutionists argue that life of all forms evolved from primitive to more complex forms in response to the environment.\n\nIntelligent designers argue that none of this evolution stuff would work without a higher intelligence (read God) to get it all going in the first place.  Generally seen as another attempt to inject fundamentalism into the government so we can enjoy the same kind of life as our muslim brothers.......\n\nDisclaimer:  None of the above was researched anywhere on the web.  100% original Steve
380460
Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist who achieved lasting fame by producing considerable evidence that species originated through evolutionary change, at the same time proposing the scientific theory that natural selection is the mechanism by which such change occurs. This theory is now considered a cornerstone of biology, and has significantly affected other disciplines such as philosophy, psychology and anthropology.\n\nDarwin developed an interest in natural history while studying first medicine, then theology, at university. Darwin's observations on his five-year voyage on the Beagle brought him eminence as a geologist and fame as a popular author. His biological finds led him to study the transmutation of species and in 1838 he conceived his theory of natural selection. Fully aware that others had been severely punished for such "heretical" ideas, he confided only in his closest friends and continued his research to meet anticipated objections. However, in 1858 the information that Alfred Russel Wallace had developed a similar theory forced an early joint publication of the theory.\n\nHis 1859 book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (usually abbreviated to The Origin of Species) established evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature. He continued his research and wrote a series of books on plants and animals, including humankind, notably The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.\n\nIn recognition of Darwin's pre-eminence, he was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to John Herschel and Isaac Newton.\n\nYou could get more information from the link below...
104591
No, the psychological phenomena are also in accordance with Darwin's theory. The theory of natural selection states that the fit variety shall survive, and the unfit shall become extinct.  Thus, only the psychologically compatible will be able to survive, and the psychologicaly distracted will be removed.  This is what happens.. the mentally ill don't develop enough in society, and are eliminated.  The result is a psychologically more compatible species of homo sapiens.
492079
It is E\n\nThe reason: \na) Reproductive variations lead to the "better producer" making more offspring and thus leading to more chances for their offspring to reproduce.  For this one, think of gorillas...the dominant Male (silverback) will mate with the females so it is his offspring who carry the genetics into the next generation, and the other males in the group dont pass on their genes. \n\nb) There has to be some offspring that simply don't survive...this is the whole "don't interfere and let nature take its course" thing.  This means that after the "unhealthy" individuals die, the rest (on average) will be better suited to their environment.  Think of it like this... a  human family has three babies but one of them dies; the one that died may have had a defect that shouldn't have been passed on.  Since the parents had two other babies, they have replaced themselves in the population so there will not be a net loss of population when they eventually die. \n\nc) There has to be variations in the genetics of the offspring.  This is due to the fact that for us to become better suited to our environment, there has to be a change in our genetics to produce that change.  If we were exactly like our parents, no changes could occur.\n\nd) Inheritance is hugely important.  Think about it like this: If a beneficial change develops (such as opposable thumbs), what good would it be if it couldnt be passed on to the next generation?  There must be a mechanism to pass the benefit on.  \n\ne) Even though there have been many catastrophic events that have allowed for natural selection, it is not required.  A large eruption may cause the animals who can eat more diverse variety of plants to do better than ones that can't but they may be able to out-compete the other animals anyway.