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]

Originally Posted by charles brough

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]

Originally Posted by freeztar

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

It is hard to communicate when the words used have multiple meanings. 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?"

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]

Originally Posted by charles brough

It is hard to communicate when the words used have multiple meanings. 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?"

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

Originally Posted by wiki

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:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (r)evolutions tend to occur dramatically and in much less time than biological ones.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by charles brough

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:

Originally Posted by Article

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.