I was thinking depth perception comes from focusing on a object with both eyes... two eyes produce two images that get "produced," (not with cakewalk,) into a single image with depth. Predators tend to have their eyes pointed in the same direction so they can catch the prey more easily. It's funny how we can talk about this as if there is some intelligence behind it, when we're imagining that it's all a matter of selection.

Yea, I guess I'm doing the questionable thing of talking about a culture as if it's a single living thing that reinforces its identity within itself through sanctions. Like: we cripple criminals, if we don't kill them. What are we trying to select out?

They say german shepherds are more aggressive than wolves because they've been bred for aggression. I've wondered if there are cultures that basically breed for aggression... or did in the past. So, just like a human with no fur who moves to Siberia, maybe I have to find someway to cope with having been bred for aggression when I don't need it. The contents of the local art museum might be the outcome? Or the latest violent movie?

But each eye has to have roughly the same input in order to produce the optimal three dimensional image. The point I was making was in regard to a single abnormality that could cause issues with depth perception as a whole. That there would be any intelligence behind it, the thing is, you never know. Key criticisms of natural selection, evolution, and the like are numerous. One of the few that I can agree with are that evolution by itself is not fully demonstrable. Simply, the theory of evolution is just a theory until another discovery approves or denies it. Not that it is completely disproven, only that the whole issue itself deserves more consideration. But there are a lot more interesting and complex arguments as well, like irreducible complexity and even violations of fundamental principles in the second law of thermodynamics. So essentially, intelligence or not, it’s there and dang it it is complex as heck.

On a hilarious side note, have you seen the Magaritaville episode on South Park? In the episode, everybody is spending frivolously as always, but the economy hits a snag and all of a sudden, everybody’s money is gone and the economy is in shambles. Stan’s dad leads this odd cult that basically attributes personhood to the economy by saying “you have angered the economy by spending wildly!!! This is the wrath you have incurred!” LOL! The crux of the story is that the economy is a composite of the population rather than a thing in itself. So beware of Stan’s dad and don’t buy the Margaritaville. I’m not quite sure what you are stating with crippling criminals and killing them though, you may have to elaborate more on that.

That some cultures breed for aggressive traits, I’m sure there are many. Assertiveness is usually something that many cultures consider a positive attribute. Unfortunately, that has been the source of some of the most divisive parts of civilization for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Take Phrenology for example. Phrenology is essentially measuring the size and shape of the brain in order to determine if particular personality traits and other factors are inherent in, say, the aggressive nature of given populations. It was actually all the rage back in the past twentieth century, as well as the ninetieth and earlier centuries. It was the cornerstone of scientific racism which spread from racial distinctions in the U.S. to the mass genocide of millions of innocent Jews, Gypsies, etc. during World War II.

As to aggression and me, I play a good game of Halo. Nothing more satiating than killing a dozen people without doing the job in real life. LOL! Just kidding. But on violence and museums… please for the love of god don’t do it. There is a word for that… we call it modern art. Please please PLEASE don’t contribute to the mangled framework we now call modern art. I can barely make out the colors they use now, let alone what artists think people could interpret from it.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs
"With prudence the philosopher approves or blames. If errors triumph, he departs and waits"- Pythagoras (F.13 GVP 174)

The idea of natural selection permeates my thoughts to the point that I'd have to try to see things differently. Yet, I grew up in a rigid Christian framework. I think I'm like the little Irish lady who when asked if there are fairies, says.. of course not... but they're there. Could you explain irreducible complexity and violations of the second law of thermodynamics?
That's so human. I used to work with old computers... they caused me to become superstitious. To this day, I jokingly caution people not to say mean things about a computer when they're standing right in front of it. There's an irrational me down inside that's not joking. I hope Butters didn't buy into the mania. Did you see the one where Butters killed a bunch of people while tap dancing?


Ah yes... brain size. As I recall, other parts were also stastically analyzed for size. Crazy people.

Modern.. postmodern... yea. I paint fake icons. Lately I've been painting people I know. My next big trick is to paint each of my grandparents... like one grandfather painted houses, so he'll be in overhauls with his favorite paintbrush (which hangs on a nail in my studio.) For some reason this sounds a little creepy now that I write about it. I don't know how I'd do with video games. That strand of irrationality I have leads me to empathize with everything. I'd have to be starving to kill. Although I'm sure bootcamp would shape me up.

Honestly, that should be the correct way to look at things in general, let alone science. The funny thing behind the strain between evolution and intelligent design is that it is not as cut and dry as many people may think. Where an evolutionist may say that the absence of a definite origin (perhaps God) does not disprove the existence of a thing, a theist may say that the existence of a thing is evidence of the maker of that thing. Like Donald Rumsfeld said, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. LOL! But the wonderful thing is that the finite parts are somewhat looked over when the discussion is started. Seriously, what about the finite parts that make up the whole? There are numerous intermediates in the evolutionary process that improve on the previous design, yet the fact that we observe a progression means there is probably some ontological chain going back to the beginning (where the big abstract issue resides). Its like this metaphysics joke;

Alan: Atlas holds the world on his shoulders. But what holds Atlas up?
Bob: A giant turtle
Alan: But what holds that turtle up?
Bob: Another turtle.
Alan: But what holds that turtle up?
Bob: My friend, its turtles all the way down.

LOL! So don’t dismiss the existence of fairies, because there is bound to be a turtle under all of us. Wait, that doesn’t make any sense at all.

On the irreducible complexity principle and the second law of thermodynamics as applied to evolution, chances are you have already heard of them, just not in that way. In the case of irreducible complexity, there are some cellular functions that that we direly need to keep the whole package going, like blood clotting and stuff like that. The question could then be asked how on earth a little piece of the bigger puzzle like blood clotting can be created via the process of evolution/natural selection? Its actually a very interesting debate. In the case of the second law of thermodynamics, the argument essentially is that things do not organize in random occurrence, but become more disorganized. Its entropy applied to biology. The jumble that is the evolutionary process is, as some would point out, encapsulated in a closed system (life boat earth), which essentially means that the chances for disorder exponentially increases. But we get energy from the sun and stuff like that so it’s not really a closed system. Interesting stuff.


On that note, you might like this; LOL! The joke is completely universal… I have yet to encounter someone who has not imagined the same thing. On the Butters dance, I nearly died laughing when I heard the song he danced to. LOL!

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs
"With prudence the philosopher approves or blames. If errors triumph, he departs and waits"- Pythagoras (F.13 GVP 174)

While I believe that technological advancement has changed the course of our natural selection(especially the advancement of travel, causing dramatic genetic drift), everything I know about genes tells me they don't work in a "on" and "off" way.

---------- Post added 11-17-2009 at 11:38 AM ----------

Last I heard about it, it was because we originated in a hot area(Africa, as far as I'm aware). Fur was a disadvantage for us to cool down. Unlike animals who cool themselves down by breathing on their tounge(cooling the blood cells therein' which circulate through the rest of the body), we developed the sweat mechanism. Lacking fur and obtaining a superior biological cooling system, we could chase down prey for much longer periods of time without overheating.

Speaking about how we once had hair and now we don’t, another important thing to consider is the fact that there is a huge difference in our conception of “evolution” and genuine Darwinian evolution . I notice(not in this thread but in a majority of other evolution themed threads) how people link a certain need to a characteristic and apply evolution in that way. Even Darwin had a problem with that.

I think a vast majority of people (including me) confuse a flawed version of evolutionary theory with the more practical application by Darwin. Hilariously enough, Darwin does not even use the term “evolution” in the majority of his books, but rather “modification with descent.” I believe that most people confuse Lamarck with Darwin.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck posited that evolution tied directly with the necessity of a given animal for a certain need. Honestly, I think Darwin did the same thing at some points, but there are a wide range of differences between the two though. Essentially what Lamarck would say is that an animal would accumulate a certain attribute, say extended canines (your pointy teeth… which interestingly some of us have and some of us don’t), in order to efficiently tear meat from the bones of their prey. Those attributes would then be passed to their progeny and so on and so on. So basically, your genetic variation is gained over a period of generations by the immediate need for long teeth sharp teeth in this case. Why is it wrong to assume this? In the case of us hairless monkeys, why wouldn’t people who live in frigid climates automatically grow thicker hair or why people in hot hot hot climates have any hair at all, let alone some having light toned skin? Because we needed x in order to do y is Lamarckian.

Darwin knew there was something amiss with that whole notion. In the case of Darwin, evolution came in series of mutations which benefited the possessor causing them to live compared to the others… hence the term “natural selection.” So take a whole group of five foot long rats for example. Say in a certain group, a pairing of the five foot rats yielded a three foot long rat. At a certain time, that three foot rat would not have had the attributes necessary to protect itself compared to other predators and stuff like that. But after a few thousand years, food becomes scarce. The scarcity of food causes a majority of rats to die because they need more energy to survive. But not the three foot long rat, which requires less energy(food) compared to the larger rats, and let’s say has the ability to find food in narrower corridors of a certain ravine the rats dwell in. Over time, the mating takes place and the three foot rat becomes the dominant characteristic. Do that hundreds and thousands of times over and bam… mickey mouse.

Persona, one thing I would ask you is how traveling causes genetic drift? Genetic drift occurs in a higher frequency in a smaller, more isolated population as a result of the dramatic change in allele frequencies. It’s almost as though you are applying Lamarckian theory to the opposite effect of genetic drift to point out a genetic systemic process that occurs regardless of the situation. But then again, my knowledge is extremely limited in this area (well.. all of biology, genetics, etc.), so its all hypothetical and its great to discuss the subject with fellow members.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs
"With prudence the philosopher approves or blames. If errors triumph, he departs and waits"- Pythagoras (F.13 GVP 174)

An interesting point could be that plastic surgery including dental work, is influencing our constructive evolution, those who wear braces have offspring who have straighter teeth and smaller noses etc.
Has this been proven anywhere?

That’s probably a more Lamarckian perspective on evolution. Again, we do not evolve to meet the needs of our environments, we evolve as a matter of natural selection, that a given (random) mutation becomes a preferential asset and subsequently dominant in later generations.

However, you do have a point though. Say you have people who are born with six fingers who now, thanks to medical advances, have those extra fingers removed in order to fit the normative model. In a base sort of way, not many people would want to mate with a person with six fingers, so the persons genetic line would die off. I suppose that would be an aesthetic selection rather than natural selection if you think about it, but the concept is fundamentally the same. Anyway, because that sixth finger is removed, they are more likely to attract a mate and continue their genetic line. The six finger issue still resides in their genetic code, but the immediate term of selection is bypassed altogether. In this way, you could look at it as though modern medical advancements are increasing the possibilities of genetic diversification.

On straighter teeth and smaller noses, I don’t know if the two traits are correlated.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs
"With prudence the philosopher approves or blames. If errors triumph, he departs and waits"- Pythagoras (F.13 GVP 174)

But aren't more people pretty today?
Put the term 'Beautiful people' in some kind of placement.

since i dont know how to multiquote (cant see videos) i will comment on certain points.

first, i can verify you can have depth perception with one eye, since after my first surgery i had the most amazing and spectacular depth perception like i never had before in my life with two eyes and glasses on top.

secondly, if we keep cutting off one of our fingers how do the genes know that happened to be able to eliminate it in later models? wouldnt it be better to tie everyone's pinky in a splint for a number of generations so it couldnt do anything, and then the genes would recognize it wasnt being used and stop making them?

third, i happen to like kinky crooked and missing teeth...i often chose my mates on that basis. crooked noses is pretty cool too, but not necessary.

and last of all, i dont know why we dont have fur or if we ever did, but i think we would look a helluva lot better with it than without!

__________________
"The idea is to die young as late as possible."....Ashley Montagu