Post by Bob's BoyfriendPost by ImmortalistPost by Bob's BoyfriendPost by ImmortalistPost by Bob's BoyfriendPost by ImmortalistPost by Nico Kadel-GarciaPost by ImmortalistYou should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about before
you
step
in
You should rent a clue.
Do you understand the person's position that I said that to? And of
course
you
thought I was talking to you? Who are you and why get aroused about
what
I
said
to him?
Post by Nico Kadel-GarciaPost by ImmortalistSince the animals are not living out their full life spans in
exceptionally
Post by Immortalisthazardous environments, any mutations that could lead to
diseases, if
they
lived
Post by Immortalistout their entire life span in order for them to be expressed, may
not
be
selected
Post by Immortalistout. Therefore when the environment changes and the animals live
out
their
entire
Post by Immortalistlifespans then these disease may happen more often than in
species
that
live out
Post by Immortalisttheir entire lifspans without predation.
The idea that "their full life span" is infinite is ridiculous.
Which part of the statement did you take as meaning "infinite" or
what do
you
mean by this?
Post by Nico Kadel-GarciaLonger than
their current average life span, sure. But evenutally complex
organic
systems break down, due to factors like cancer, even without the
telomeric
limitations of DNA being replicated.
When I asserted that, if the individuals are killed by predation
before
they
would have normally died then mutations,
Predation? I'm noticing that there is a particular leaning towards
paranoia in several threads. Which humans are being preyed upon and by
whom?
During the ancient past, particularly in the Pleistocene period the homo group
(Australopithecus) was preyed upon by predators in Africa. But during much of
civilization the actual life span was about 25 to 45 years but the biological
life span was much longer. So not only predators but barbaric cultural
realities
sustained the influx of senilicidical traits.
There is nothing that I can find in the post that you responded to above
that concened itself with earlier hominid species. In fact, the
statement above was "longer than their current life span".
My question was and which went unanswered (and I'll be more time
specific) which humans of today are being preyed upon and by what or
whom?
I would ask you to try making another thread if you want to change the topic that
much. I was responding to the "traits that can creep into the genome" theory and
explained my position on that.
It isn't another topic. It is a question based on an assertion in the
premise above.
When you entered me and Tim's conversation the subject was already shifted to the
effects of ancient enviroments upon trait creep into the genome. You tried to
change the subject to the present. We could change to the present if I can see
the relevence to the "genetic dust bin theory" we were debating.
Post by Bob's BoyfriendPost by ImmortalistPost by Bob's BoyfriendPost by ImmortalistPost by Bob's BoyfriendI'm curious how people who tend to view themselves as rational and
intelligent view themselves as possible, probable and then likely
victims of such predation.
Rational people would generally believe it highly unlikely that most
people
could
be forced back into such barbarism but they are not ignorant enough to insist
that they couldn't be as your propositions seems to indicate you believe
to
be
the case.
And I'm asking that we test the rationality of this premise. What do you
consider is the degree to which it "could" be this way?
Well the degree noticed between rich and poor countries?
That's vague. Again, I must ask to what degree (a scale of 1 to 100
seems fair and reasonable) and by whom (an individual or a particular
group or other species)?
The degree currently would be higher or lower depending on the criterion or
standard of judgement. We haven't agreed to one yet. If you are asking me to post
a specific number what is the standard for judgeing such things;
The Problem of the Criterion
A general argument against the invocation of any standard for knowledge has come
to be known as "the problem of the criterion." As we have just seen, there have
been disputes about standards of knowledge. Some are about particular kinds of
arguments that provide evidence for knowledge claims. As we will see shortly,
others are about the degree of evidential support or reliability required for
knowledge. The Pyrrhonian skeptics used an argument designed to instill doubt
that any such standard can be established.
Suppose there is a dispute about a standard of knowledge. If the dispute is to be
settled rationally, there must be some means for settling it. It would do no good
of each side simply to assert its position without argument. So how would a
standard of knowledge (or "criterion of truth," in the language of the Stoics) be
defended? It could only be defended by reference to some standard or other. If
the standard under dispute is invoked, then the question has been begged. If
another standard is appealed to, the question arises again, to be answered either
by circular reasoning or by appeal to yet another standard. So either the process
of invoking standards does not terminate, or it ends in circular reasoning, and
in neither case would the dispute be settled rationally.
Lehrer takes on the problem of criterion in the guise of the question whether he
can justify his acceptance of his own theory of justification. He rejects the
appeal to a higher-order theory of justification as well as dogmatic acceptance
of the theory (p. 228). This leaves only circularity, or a "loop" of
justification. Lehrer defends the loop of justification as being virtuous.
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi102/tkch9.htm
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi102/lecmenu.htm
Post by Bob's BoyfriendPost by ImmortalistPost by Bob's BoyfriendPost by ImmortalistPost by Bob's BoyfriendPost by Immortalistthat would influence or be expressed
during that later time, could slip into their genomes with nearly no
selective
pressure against or for those mutations. By saying that I did not
necessarily
eliminate or promote the possibility that factors like cancer could
still
happen
or not. There is no contradiction here because it is based upon a
contingency
which asserts neither possibility to propose the thesis that mutations
can
creep
in because of predation shortening lifespans. This theory of
senilicidical
traits
is 30 years old anyways.