(September 7, 2019 at 11:03 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: [quote='John 6IX Breezy' pid='1931298' dateline='1567862037']

There are many, many species of bacteria. Unless you're talking about a strain of bacteria that emits toxins that act specifically against its own species, there's no biological mystery to solve here. Emitting toxins to kill other strains of bacteria is just eliminating the competition and would obviously be selected for if it was more dangerous to other species of bacteria than it's own. .

Yes, toxins against different strains of the same species (E. coli vs E. Coli for example) or closely related species.

Different strains is enough to get ecological competition started. Which strain will be the most reproductively successful? The one that is best at eliminating its competition. It's not more puzzling than coyotes vs. wolves, but it's a little more puzzling than coyotes vs. rabbits.

If one strain of e. coli emits something toxic to other strains of e. coli, and that results in greater reproductive success, the trait will be retained. The genes don't want anything, it's just that genes that confer a reproductive advantage are conserved.

Natural selection is a conservative phenomenon. It doesn't create anything, it acts on what is already present, either culling what is disadvantageous to reproduction or preserving what is advantageous. Mutations are random changes within the limits of what is possible for DNA/RNA and how they affect reproductive success, if at all, determines whether and how natural selection acts on them.

(September 7, 2019 at 10:32 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 8:11 pm)Grandizer Wrote: I keep rereading this comment to try to understand what exactly you're saying about the whole abstract realm bit, but I'm just not getting it, so I'll address the last sentence of this quote and hope this addresses the first sentences.

There's no continuity between your genes and your sister's, but there is some continuity between your genes and your parents' genes, which also happen to be somewhat continuous with your sister's genes.

I won't pretend to know the exact mechanisms that come with kin selection. There are experts instead you can ask about that.

The issue I'm highlighting is one of identity. The genes in my body are different from the genes in your body, even if they are the same sequence, say if we're twins. If I die, my genes do not benefit from your survival in the same way that I as a person do not benefit from your survival. My genes and I will both decompose on the ground.

However, genes are treated as if their identity transcended across all the members of the population in which the sequence exists. This mindset probably stems from population genetics in which the individuals are invisible, and all you have left is a gene pool.

If you and I are twins, and are both named Bob, people still treat us as separate people with separate identities. But now, let's say for the sake of example that codon sequence GGA is now the gene named Bob. If we both have sequence GGA in our genome, it's treated as if Bob exists in both of us simultaneously. Or as if Bob exists somewhere out in the philosophical ether, and merely has its tentacles in us. We're sharing Bob's existence. Kin selection works because if I die to save you, Bob only loses me as a tentacle but continues living in you. Bob didn't die with me, he's still alive and benefited from the altruism.

It's an identity and continuity issue because at the microscopic level genes are treated as transcending across the population, but at the macroscopic level entire genomes are treated as distinct individuals. My genome and I don't continue existing in my twin brother if I die and he survives.

Evolution fundamentally doesn’t know about YOU.   It doesn’t really want to know whether YOUR genes, as in the set of DNAs contained in the physical you, survive, at all.

What it notices is which particular style of genes survive in the gene pool.

Your survival and the survival of your offspring only potentially matter in so far as these might correlate to the survival a particular style of gene you carry, not the very same genes you carry.

Your genes by definition is of the same style as your genes.   So the survival of your genes necessary means the survival of your style of genes.    But the survival of your style of genes doesn’t require the survival of your genes, so long as there are others to carry your style of genes. 

So If you contain a style of gene that causes you to become inclined to help others at your own expense who phenotypically appears to you to resemble you in some important way, and you also have a gene which causes you to be more inclined to notice and be influenced by such phenotypical resemblances as correlating to a higher than normal genetic resemblance to you, then your inclination to help others is selected for not because it makes you more likely to survive, but because it makes the genes similar to that which you carry, more likely to survive.

Remember, evolution when viewed in the long term is fundamentally not about the selection of the fittest individuals to survive.   It is about the selection of the most survivable genes

(September 7, 2019 at 11:03 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(September 7, 2019 at 9:13 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: I'm aware, but, its not the same thing. Fermentation and respiration are part of the organism's metabolism whereas bacteriocins are produced specifically to kill other bacteria. I haven't had the pleasure of producing wine, but I did take an elective course on microbiology.

Reference: Madigan, M. T., Martinko, J. M., Bender, K. S., Buckley, D. H., & Stahl, D. A. (2015). Biology of Microorganisms. Boston: Pearson.

There are many, many species of bacteria. Unless you're talking about a strain of bacteria that emits toxins that act specifically against its own species, there's no biological mystery to solve here. Emitting toxins to kill other strains of bacteria is just eliminating the competition and would obviously be selected for if it was more dangerous to other species of bacteria than it's own. .

---

(September 6, 2019 at 11:14 am)Acrobat Wrote: Our of curiosity, how do people in here determine which evolutionary explanation of how features like sacrificing our lives for others developed, is the correct one? We clearly can't repeat the process, and have no video tape of how it all took place?

So what determines whether one explanation is more likely to be true than another? Is it just a matter of cherry picking the one we like the best?

Do you think that if, among several explanations, you pick the one that best fits the available data as most likely to be closest to what's actually true, that it is an example of what most people mean by 'cherry-picking'?

If they’re several explanations of the same available data, how do I decide which one fits better? What exactly does fit mean?

Let’s take Bart historicist explanations of Jesus vs Richard Carriers ahistoricist explanations, how do I decide which explanation fits the data better?

(September 6, 2019 at 10:19 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(September 5, 2019 at 4:33 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: The fundamental criteria is survival of the genes that underlies the trait in the individual undergoing selection somewhere in the gene pool.  I might give my life to save my sister because my sister likely bear most of the same genes as me.   So giving my life ensures genes similar to mine, including the one that encourages me to sacrifice myself for my sister, survive.   

Cute story bro, but we don't have  gene detecting genes, or even sister detecting genes, or even a "sacrifice myself for someone" gene.

You probably have to think a bit harder, about what type of gene and how it's expressed actually looks like? Love/Compassion, and its genetic makeup, is probably a good place to start. I'm willing to sacrifice myself for those i love and care about, even if they don't share my genes. I'd be more willing to risk my life to save my dog, than you, even though we share more in common genetically.

We also seem prone to feel more compassion for the innocent, defenseless, probably as a result the need for such compassion when raising children and babies. A mother more willing to die for the life of her child, than a grown brother. A man more willing to die for woman, than a grown man, etc...

Quote: It is the ability to account for the possibility that the objective of preserving their own direct gene line, which is the fundamental reason why there is instinct to preserve own life, does not necessarily provide the highest possible guaranty for the survival somewhere in the gene pool of genes defining one's own behavior, that facilitate the behavior you mention.

Evolution made it possible for humans to be convinced that the most fundamental objectives of survival, the survival of the genes underlying one's own behavior, is not necessarily best served by the survival of the individual in each circumstances.    It is sometimes best served by facilitating the survival of some perceived to have enough in common with us at the possible expense of our own survival.

No it didn't. We don't have gene detectors, let alone any favorability dependent on such gene detectors. It's not as if my sisters genetic makeup, gives off a distinct scent, that my brain subconsciously detects, and responds in ways favorable to insuring the survival of our mutual genetic makeup.

If I was switched a birth, I would be none the wiser.

Evolution paints in very broad strokes, and quite blindly. The fact that it favors reproduction and survival, is more or less just coincidental, because of the nature of the environment we find ourselves in, rather than the genes themselves. It's only because for most of us,  our primordial tribe is our family, those that share our genetic makeup benefit the most from such elements. Not because we're biological aware of those who share our genetic makeup the most.

Human beings, have a variety of unique features, that are more or less byproducts of evolution, rather than directly selected for, that creates a great deal of divergences, and evolutionarily unintended pathways. Our recognition of our own mortality, appears to be a byproduct of having rational/conscious minds, rather than a feature directly selected for.

I can perceive the significance of losing my mother, not just when I've lost her, but it contemplating her loss as well. I can conceive of being and not being. Contemplate the idea of dying, and even desire death over living as a result.

Our ability to recognize being and not being, is byproduct, but it's also the foundation of our dependency on meaning. Meaning isn't a disguise for survival, anymore so than any other byproduct is, and things that arise from them are. They're emergent elements.

And they produce their own unique set of challenges when it comes to our survival, that are not addressed by our genes. The awareness of death, of not being, needs an awareness of what keeps us planted on the platform, what we call "Meaning". The something to live for, rather than merely just surviving. Without it, our ancient brothers, in that dire world of the past, would probably have chosen collective suicide, when they learned that death was an option.

It's why we recognize that if our friends feel irresolvabley hopeless, or see life as irresolvabley meaningless, that we should probably get them some help before they jump off the platform. Creature unaware of the concept of the death, will just go on living, no dog will line up to be euthanized.

Your profoundly obtuse wit is charming.   But no one so profoundly obtuse is going to be my bro, bro.

We absolutely have many gene detecting genes, bro.   That’s why you, hopefully, instinctively don’t feel too strong of an natural urge to fuck monkeys or donkeys when looking at their genitals.   Another example is despite cultural influences, it appears members of all cultures instinctively and universally privilege certain specific phenotypical traits in forming assessments of perspective mates because these traits statistically correlated to less genetically based congenital issues, or negatively correlated to gene which reduce fertility.

Do we have genes for a built in remote gene sequencing machines?  No.  But don’t be obtuse.  We have all sorts of genes that drive instinctive behavioral tendencies which serves to condition us to behave according to specific phenotypical expressions in those whom we interact with, phenotypical expressions which are correlated to statistically advantageous genotypes. 

In other words, gene that detect other genes through traits correlated to those other genes, much in the same way lie detectors detect lies through elevated blood pressures correlated to lies.  We do have gene detectors built in.

(September 7, 2019 at 12:41 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: We absolutely have many gene detecting genes, bro.   That’s why you, hopefully, instinctively don’t feel too strong of an urge to fuck monkeys or donkeys when looking at their genitals, and that’s why, despite cultural influences,

That’s cuz they’re ugly, a sexy giraffe on the other hand......

You also forget that people would sleep with sex dolls, and sexy androids, etc, or at least not fail to be aroused by them. i guess their gene detectors are broken?

(September 7, 2019 at 12:56 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(September 7, 2019 at 12:41 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: We absolutely have many gene detecting genes, bro.   That’s why you, hopefully, instinctively don’t feel too strong of an urge to fuck monkeys or donkeys when looking at their genitals, and that’s why, despite cultural influences,

That’s cuz they’re ugly, a sexy giraffe on the other hand......

You also forget that people would sleep with sex dolls, and sexy androids, etc, or at least not fail to be aroused by them. i guess their gene detectors are broken?

that’s Because when the gene detector was evolving, there wasn’t yet sex dolls, so just like you might fool a lie detector with a device that sends in artificially programmed fake biometric signals, you can build a sex doll to fool gene detector.

Come on, are you really that obtuse?

(September 7, 2019 at 12:20 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Your genes by definition is of the same style as your genes.   So the survival of your genes necessary means the survival of your style of genes.    But the survival of your style of genes doesn’t require the survival of your genes, so long as there are others to carry your style of genes. 

So If you contain a style of gene that causes you to become inclined to help others at your own expense who phenotypically appears to you to resemble you in some important way, and you also have a gene which causes you to be more inclined to notice and be influenced by such phenotypical resemblances as correlating to a higher than normal genetic resemblance to you, then your inclination to help others is selected for not because it makes you more likely to survive, but because it makes the genes similar to that which you carry, more likely to survive.

(Disclaimer: long and possibly sloppy comment cause I'm doing something else)

The "style of genes" is what I meant by the ethereal Bob gene, so I partly agree. But when talking about "styles of genes" it become important to distinguish the observer from the observation. Talking about styles of genes make sense only in our minds, because our brains are able to extract information and classify things by types, classes, etc. We can look at my Nissan Versa and your Toyota Corolla and identify that they belong to the same style of car, despite them being separate cars. We can even look at Robins and Flamingos, despite their differences, and put them under the classification of birds.

But these classes and styles take form in our minds only; we can manipulate them there as variables and objects. Talking of such things stops making sense when we remove ourselves from the equation. Thus why I said it only makes sense if "styles of genes" or Bob exists in some kind of ethereal realm. What I'm trying to communicate by ethereal realm is the platonic idea that concepts in the mind, such as a circle, are accounted for in their perfect form in some ethereal realm (McConnell, 2010). In other words that styles of genes are a real thing out there in the universe that can be selected for in its entirety, despite the individual manifestations of that style being lost.

I think the only way around it is to get rid of the idea of "kin" selection and relatedness entirely and focus exclusively on the genes that are causing altruism. In other words, altruism works only if Bob is directly responsible for the altruistic behavior, and it is benefiting other Bob genes that are likewise directly responsible for altruistic behavior, creating a loop. It has nothing to do with relatedness or styles, and everything to do with the mechanisms of replication and behavior. If Jerry is a likewise altruism-causing gene, then Bob and Jerry are going to mutually benefit each other and increase their frequency in the gene pool regardless of relatedness. Its also worth noting that only Bob and Jerry directly benefit from this interaction, not the organism or any of the other genes in the organism. All other genes are only passengers in the ship that Bob and Jerry are steering and can get kicked out at any point.

Reference:  McConnell, Daniel. (2010). Philosophical and theoretical foundations of psychology (2nd. ed.). Florida: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company

(September 7, 2019 at 12:59 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(September 7, 2019 at 12:56 pm)Acrobat Wrote: That’s cuz they’re ugly, a sexy giraffe on the other hand......

You also forget that people would sleep with sex dolls, and sexy androids, etc, or at least not fail to be aroused by them. i guess their gene detectors are broken?

that’s Because when the gene detector was evolving, there wasn’t yet sex dolls, so just like you might fool a lie detector with a device that sends in artificially programmed fake biometric signals, you can build a sex doll to fool gene detector.

Come on, are you really that obtuse?

Sex dolls aren’t doing any type of fooling, people recognize them for what they are.

They understand that they’re attracted or aroused by things that look a certain way, and sex dolls fit that description. They can also recognize that the things they are aroused and attracted to, are the result of a variety of biological, and environmental factors that shape our sexual desires.

(September 7, 2019 at 1:13 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(September 7, 2019 at 12:20 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Your genes by definition is of the same style as your genes.   So the survival of your genes necessary means the survival of your style of genes.    But the survival of your style of genes doesn’t require the survival of your genes, so long as there are others to carry your style of genes. 

So If you contain a style of gene that causes you to become inclined to help others at your own expense who phenotypically appears to you to resemble you in some important way, and you also have a gene which causes you to be more inclined to notice and be influenced by such phenotypical resemblances as correlating to a higher than normal genetic resemblance to you, then your inclination to help others is selected for not because it makes you more likely to survive, but because it makes the genes similar to that which you carry, more likely to survive.

(Disclaimer: long and possibly sloppy comment cause I'm doing something else)

The "style of genes" is what I meant by the ethereal Bob gene, so I partly agree. But when talking about "styles of genes" it become important to distinguish the observer from the observation. Talking about styles of genes make sense only in our minds, because our brains are able to extract information and classify things by types, classes, etc. We can look at my Nissan Versa and your Toyota Corolla and identify that they belong to the same style of car, despite them being separate cars. We can even look at Robins and Flamingos, despite their differences, and put them under the classification of birds.

But these classes and styles take form in our minds only; we can manipulate them there as variables and objects. Talking of such things stops making sense when we remove ourselves from the equation. Thus why I said it only makes sense if "styles of genes" or Bob exists in some kind of ethereal realm. What I'm trying to communicate by ethereal realm is the platonic idea that concepts in the mind, such as a circle, are accounted for in their perfect form in some ethereal realm (McConnell, 2010). In other words that styles of genes are a real thing out there in the universe that can be selected for in its entirety, despite the individual manifestations of that style being lost.

I think the only way around it is to get rid of the idea of "kin" selection and relatedness entirely and focus exclusively on the genes that are causing altruism. In other words, altruism works only if Bob is directly responsible for the altruistic behavior, and it is benefiting other Bob genes that are likewise directly responsible for altruistic behavior. It has nothing to do with relatedness or styles, and everything to do with the mechanisms of replication and behavior. If Jerry is a likewise altruism-causing gene, then Bob and Jerry are going to mutually benefit each other and increase their frequency in the gene pool regardless of relatedness. Its also worth noting that only Bob and Jerry directly benefit from this interaction, not the organism or any of the other genes in the organism. All other genes are only passengers in the ship that Bob and Jerry are steering and can get kicked out at any point.

Reference:  McConnell, Daniel. (2010). Philosophical and theoretical foundations of psychology (2nd. ed.). Florida: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company

No, the style as meant here for the gene is extremely concrete, and doesn’t care about the observer or the mind.

The style refers to a collection of very similar genes amongst a population which strongly tends to manifest the same phenotypical trait.  Think of it as a collection of shirts of same color, cut and ornamentation to the one on your back, but not THE shirt on your back.