Don't Darwinian purists find this heresy? Isn't the result of the Baldwin effect a form of guiding of evolutionary development which are seen as heresy in some circles, even if there is evidence for it?
@richardhutnik Nope. The Baldwin Effect doesn't contradict the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, the current model at the core of biology, which ties together evolution by natural selection, genetics, and DNA/RNA/proteins in cell biology. Many "Darwinians" argue that Homo sapiens occupied the "cognitive niche" wherein mates became sexually selected for based on their ease of use of symbols and other publically advantageous cultural tools. Genes of the smartest got passed on and had smarter kids.
@ClearCritic Life is a chance to "bend" your genes. What I mean by that is that one can be born from parents who grew up in poor environments and have low IQ's and still grow up to have a high IQ and better living standards, and then THAT success is stored in the germline to perhaps be passed on to potential offspring for the next generation to do the same etc.etc. . That is what the baldwin effect implies; one has a chance to divert heredity.
What you are saying sounds Lamarckian to me. Culturally acquired ontogenic adaptations (meme learning) cannot change the genetic make-up of the individual - which codes for protein production and the organism's physical unfolding (with regard to the brain, neuron count and myelination for example). Whoever's brain is the "stickiest" for publicly discernible, culturally advantageous good tricks, would have been the likeliest to reproduce
...because they would inevitably acquire the most resources and be selected for by mates. I agree with the spirit of what you're saying though. People are mostly blank slates, and with training and dedication, almost any Homo sapien can do anything another Homo sapien is capable of doing. The Baldwin Effect was most relevant when Homo sapiens made the quantum leap to acquiring language. Now, genetics and IQ don't really go together as much as training and IQ go together, for anyone.
@ClearCritic You are absolutely right. My main concern was the "genes of the smartest got passed on and had smarter kids" line, but now I understand the spirit of what you are saying. I am reading a book about the computation theory of mind. Very interesting stuff. We are all basically robots programmable via memetic evolution (we mimic behavioral patterns of other people).
I think that's the nail hit on the head when you said they don't want to know the facts about evolution by natural selection. They have already declared evolution anathema, therefore there is no need to look any further at it. It's a pity.
Don't Darwinian purists find this heresy? Isn't the result of the Baldwin effect a form of guiding of evolutionary development which are seen as heresy in some circles, even if there is evidence for it?
richardhutnik 6 months ago
@richardhutnik Nope. The Baldwin Effect doesn't contradict the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, the current model at the core of biology, which ties together evolution by natural selection, genetics, and DNA/RNA/proteins in cell biology. Many "Darwinians" argue that Homo sapiens occupied the "cognitive niche" wherein mates became sexually selected for based on their ease of use of symbols and other publically advantageous cultural tools. Genes of the smartest got passed on and had smarter kids.
ClearCritic 6 months ago
@ClearCritic Life is a chance to "bend" your genes. What I mean by that is that one can be born from parents who grew up in poor environments and have low IQ's and still grow up to have a high IQ and better living standards, and then THAT success is stored in the germline to perhaps be passed on to potential offspring for the next generation to do the same etc.etc. . That is what the baldwin effect implies; one has a chance to divert heredity.
iobroful 4 months ago
@iobroful
What you are saying sounds Lamarckian to me. Culturally acquired ontogenic adaptations (meme learning) cannot change the genetic make-up of the individual - which codes for protein production and the organism's physical unfolding (with regard to the brain, neuron count and myelination for example). Whoever's brain is the "stickiest" for publicly discernible, culturally advantageous good tricks, would have been the likeliest to reproduce
ClearCritic 4 months ago
@iobroful
...because they would inevitably acquire the most resources and be selected for by mates. I agree with the spirit of what you're saying though. People are mostly blank slates, and with training and dedication, almost any Homo sapien can do anything another Homo sapien is capable of doing. The Baldwin Effect was most relevant when Homo sapiens made the quantum leap to acquiring language. Now, genetics and IQ don't really go together as much as training and IQ go together, for anyone.
ClearCritic 4 months ago
@ClearCritic You are absolutely right. My main concern was the "genes of the smartest got passed on and had smarter kids" line, but now I understand the spirit of what you are saying. I am reading a book about the computation theory of mind. Very interesting stuff. We are all basically robots programmable via memetic evolution (we mimic behavioral patterns of other people).
iobroful 4 months ago 3
I think that's the nail hit on the head when you said they don't want to know the facts about evolution by natural selection. They have already declared evolution anathema, therefore there is no need to look any further at it. It's a pity.
MikeOfKorea 1 year ago 2
very deep,alot of good stuff.
smashbeans 1 year ago