Confronting Friends and Family

[Aractus]

That would be significant, howsabout you alert the press the next time a female gives birth to a child without "the other 50%"?

That's just nitpicking a minor error in my wording. The RATE is 50% (ie, you need a male AND a female for reproduction); whether that's done by 100% of the male population or just 1% of the male population is actually irrelevant, so the mere fact that you find an equal number of males and females in most species leads one to the thesis that it's because the optimum number of males, generally, is one male per female.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by the statement "not part of any of its individual components." Care to elaborate on that a little bit? How are you defining "the system" and "components"?

I'm sorry Hovik I didn't realize you wanted a response to this. Language is not a part of an individual, in fact it is pretty much useless within the context of individuality. There are many things about language that are not in clear "design" of language - like figures of speech, double-meanings, implied meanings, etc, and this is also a universal feature of language - even though you can't find it within a dictionary, and if you didn't know about them you wouldn't even expect them to exist in the first place. Language develops "outside of" humans, but is only used by humans. It's not a part of us, but we are a part of it. The rules and if you like "laws" of human interaction necessarily give rise to language - but language develops as its own entity quite seperate from the humans that are a part of it.

Really? By what evidence? It's a pretty sound theory. Species who reproduce asexually are very vulnerable to parasites and even slight changes in the environmwent, and there's plenty of evidence for that.

It is in fact not possible for asexual reproduction to be as fragile as you imagine it, because before life had sexual reproduction at all, asexual reproduction is all it had. Life was not only able to survive without sexual reproduction, it was able to evolve it and utilize it at the right time.

Bdelloid rotifers, not a single male has ever been found and they hasve abandoned sexual reproduction altogether. Species that produce sexually don't do it because they "can't survive without it", they do it because they derive some benefit from it. Sexual reproduction has costs, and therefore it has to provide enough benefits to pay for the cost. Sexual reproduction shuffles the DNA.

H. J. Muller, known for "discovering" irreducible complexity as a feature of evolution, and through his work in studying "lethal mutations" he concluded that most mutations are bad, and asexual beings don't have a mechanism to remove them and are thus irreversible. One problem with this argument is the fact that sexual organisms carry an entire set of unused genetic material - a duplicate - yet don't use it; but it's passed on to their offspring along with the genes that it does use! Why is it that it carries the second version of every gene that it doesn't use, and passes them on to its offspring? Shouldn't it, logically, only pass on the genes it is successfully utilizing, and that it has successfully tested?

The Darwinist view is that the thing upon which evolution operates is DNA. Natural selection, as we know, doesn't operate upon DNA, it utilizes creatures.

What "system"? The law of physics?

Ultimately, yes.

In a multiverse, many possible universes would be produced, so it very likely to produce one that supports carbon-based life.

Even if an universe that supports carbon-based life is only 0.00001% likely (and it has been shown that such a universe is much more likely thsn that) a billion universes in a multiverse (and if we had multiverse, we'd have far more universes than that) would very likely produce roughly one thousand life-supporting universes.

But you're still left with the fact that you have something that specifically "allows" for life to exist. Whether it's the universe we know, or this mythical multiverse, it doesn't change the fact that it is specifically designed to enable life. Are you trying to say that a multiverse self-created from gravity alone - this "one and only" multiverse is necessarily going to produce life-enabling universes? How is that more likely than a multiverse that produces barren universes? If your mythical multiverse exists then it simply means that it was specifically designed for life.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's just nitpicking a minor error in my wording. The RATE is 50% (ie, you need a male AND a female for reproduction); whether that's done by 100% of the male population or just 1% of the male population is actually irrelevant, so the mere fact that you find an equal number of males and females in most species leads one to the thesis that it's because the optimum number of males, generally, is one male per female.

Right, you -need- a male and a female, which means that 100% of the gender pie is engaged in reproduction, not 50%. I think what you're trying to circle around is reproductive reduction endemic to this strategy (especially considering the "cost" tack). Not that only half of your species is reproducing, but that you get half as many offspring (at least in general terms without referencing any actual population...this isn't a rule..sexual reproduction has it's advantages). Perhaps it's time to remind you that the reproductive cycle as seen from the viewpoint of natural selection doesn't give two shits about how many organisms are -born-, but how many complete the cycle (reaching sexual maturity and successfully reproducing). Those "robust genes" that you don't feel warrant the cost of sexual reproduction (whatever you think that is...but more on that in a minute....) go a hell of a long way in that regard.

What exactly -is- the cost anyway? All sexually reproducing organisms on this rock share a common single-celled eukaryotic ancestor. That makes sexual reproduction one of the oldest, longest running, and most successful strategies in the entirety of taxa...right behind having cell walls.....and metabolism, and right alongside all complex cells and most multi-cellular strategies. A dry appraisal of the situation on the ground (a situation which has persisted since the Proterozoic) would lead an interested observer to wonder what this is all about, what cost, it doesn't appear that sexual reproduction has costed life anything...quite the opposite.

But why might that be? Ah yes, "robust genes". Despite your opinion that robust genes don't warrant the non-existent cost of sexual reproduction, they are the only metric that anything can possibly be judged by with regards to reproduction -which is nothing more than a strategy to perpetuate genetic information-. All hypothesis with regards to the origin of sexual reproduction revolve around eukaryota. No benefit other than "robust genes" need be conferred to eukaryotic organisms to understand why sexual reproduction "stuck". However, whether or not the strategy is successful once it is established has little to say with regards to how it came to be established. How this particular strategy came to be is beyond our ability to empirically explain (what you offered as a theory was a joke...there is no such theory).

the 50/50 ratio has nothing to do with what is the "optimal" ratio of males to females, a cursory glance at fishers principle will disabuse you of this poor choice in wording. Speaking of which, might it be that you make poor choices with regards to wording and examples because you lack an acceptable level of knowledge on the subject to draw a conclusion from? Just tossing that out there.

[Annik]

You are going to be linguist-slapped later today, haha.

[Kirbmarc]

Why is it that it carries the second version of every gene that it doesn't use, and passes them on to its offspring? Shouldn't it, logically, only pass on the genes it is successfully utilizing, and that it has successfully tested?

Why? If some genes are not expressed, they are not detrimental to survival and reproduction. The're useless (most of the time) but they're not dangerous. Why shouldn't they be passed through generations? Remember evolution isn't designed to obtain the perfect genetic makeup (if such a thing existed).

Moreover, if the first version of a gene can't be expressed, there's always a second one. Which could be an advantage in limiting the effect of a lethal mutation. The offsprings of a parent who carries a defective gene and of a parent who doesn't still have chances of survival.

(Rhythm also explained why the evidence points towards robust genes as a reason for the development of sexual reproduction).

It is in fact not possible for asexual reproduction to be as fragile as you imagine it, because before life had sexual reproduction at all, asexual reproduction is all it had.

One word: parasites. When they appeared, they made asexual reproduction more fragile than it was before. Not to mention the fact the original sexual reproduction was confined to very specific ecological niches.

Are you trying to say that a multiverse self-created from gravity alone

Universes aren't created "from gravity alone".

But you're still left with the fact that you have something that specifically "allows" for life to exist

Your argument is the same that what a sentient puddle could think: that the terrain is shaped in order to accommodate for its existance. It's the other way around: the puddle is made by water which accommodates to the terrain.

Moreover, what "allows" for life to exist is simply the possibility that this universe exists. As I told you, with different rules we would have different results. It's not that the universe is tailored for life; life is tailored for the universe.

The water in a fish bowl adapts to the bowl, not the other way around.

[Hovik]

I'm sorry Hovik I didn't realize you wanted a response to this. Language is not a part of an individual, in fact it is pretty much useless within the context of individuality. There are many things about language that are not in clear "design" of language - like figures of speech, double-meanings, implied meanings, etc, and this is also a universal feature of language - even though you can't find it within a dictionary, and if you didn't know about them you wouldn't even expect them to exist in the first place. Language develops "outside of" humans, but is only used by humans. It's not a part of us, but we are a part of it. The rules and if you like "laws" of human interaction necessarily give rise to language - but language develops as its own entity quite seperate from the humans that are a part of it.

*rolls up sleeves*

This might be a good time to inform you that I'm a linguist, and I have quite a few problems with... well, basically everything you just wrote.

Language is a system that arises out of interaction between individuals within a cultural group, first of all.

Secondly, things like figures of speech, double meanings, implied meanings and the like fall under an entire sub-field within linguistics called pragmatics. I suggest you read into it. Pragmatics has quite a lot of literature about these phenomena, and all of them are pretty well understood. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that these phenomena are not clear in the design of language. Taking the example of figures of speech, are you referring to the fact that the meaning of a figure of speech isn't extant in its structure and semantics? The meaning of a figure of speech is found in what's called a conversational implicature, basically what is meant by a speaker's utterance and not what is explicitly stated. Implicature is very well documented. I suggest you specifically look into the work of Paul Grice and conversational maxims.

Now, to address your assertion that language develops outside of humans... I'm not really sure what that even means. Language develops when humans interact. It can't not. In an environment where language does not exist between two regularly interacting groups, language will develop. It is very much a part of us. There are no laws or rules to human interaction, but there are consistent and somewhat predictable patterns of interaction. Language most certainly does not develop as its own entity apart from humans. That doesn't even make sense.

[Aractus]

Now, to address your assertion that language develops outside of humans... I'm not really sure what that even means. Language develops when humans interact. It can't not. In an environment where language does not exist between two regularly interacting groups, language will develop. It is very much a part of us. There are no laws or rules to human interaction, but there are consistent and somewhat predictable patterns of interaction. Language most certainly does not develop as its own entity apart from humans. That doesn't even make sense.

I'll address this point first. If you didn't have humans at all as a species - but you had some other species as intelligent as we are with the same 5 senses we have, language would still develop in exactly the same way. Thus it's not truly "derived from humans", it can be created by any population which meets the correct criteria. And you would expect the same language itself to develop (not literally of course, but expressively).

The very fact that we've successfully taught American Sign Language to gorillas pretty much proves the preceding point.

I apply the same question to other things in physics. Do the laws of chemistry depend on the laws of quantum mechanics (to assume QM is correct for the purpose of this argument); or could we still get the laws of chemistry from some other micro-structure of the universe?

Language is just a great example of something that shares pretty much nothing in common with the underlying DNA that makes us "human".

Language is a system that arises out of interaction between individuals within a cultural group, first of all.

Agreed.

Secondly, things like figures of speech, double meanings, implied meanings and the like fall under an entire sub-field within linguistics called pragmatics. I suggest you read into it. Pragmatics has quite a lot of literature about these phenomena, and all of them are pretty well understood. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that these phenomena are not clear in the design of language. Taking the example of figures of speech, are you referring to the fact that the meaning of a figure of speech isn't extant in its structure and semantics? The meaning of a figure of speech is found in what's called a conversational implicature, basically what is meant by a speaker's utterance and not what is explicitly stated. Implicature is very well documented. I suggest you specifically look into the work of Paul Grice and conversational maxims.

I look at it as any other theory of physics. All I mean is that if we didn't know about pragmatics we would have no way to predict their existence, because no one has come up with a theory of physics that makes it implicit. Like the fact that before we knew what fractals were we were unable to have a theory that predicts them, even though we could see and appreciate them.

---

Why? If some genes are not expressed, they are not detrimental to survival and reproduction.

But of course they are. Why are two parents with brown eyes able to produce a child with blue eyes? If their genes have the "evolutionary advantage", how come the blue-eye gene is simply not passed on genetically to their children? That would make more evolutionary sense.

---

Right, you -need- a male and a female, which means that 100% of the gender pie is engaged in reproduction, not 50%.

Why make a straw man argument? I'm not making up my own argument on this matter, I'm using what is well understood and largely agreed upon. Only 50% of the population can bare children and give birth, thus no matter what the males do, their raw reproduction remains 50% of the asexuals. Asexual reproduction - every creature in the species is capable of reproducing. You can make arguments as to survivability rates, etc, but the fact remains that an sexual reproduction has the cost to the species of a 50% reduction in the rate of reproduction. We know some species literally produce thousands of offspring to give them the "best chance" of survival.

Perhaps it's time to remind you that the reproductive cycle as seen from the viewpoint of natural selection doesn't give two shits about how many organisms are -born-, but how many complete the cycle (reaching sexual maturity and successfully reproducing).

Oh really??

Those "robust genes" that you don't feel warrant the cost of sexual reproduction (whatever you think that is...but more on that in a minute....) go a hell of a long way in that regard.

Let me put it this way then. No one has successfully demonstrated that robust genes cover the full cost of the price of sexual reproduction. It may go some way, it may go a long way, but it can't cover the cost - let alone end up into benefit on its own.

What exactly -is- the cost anyway? All sexually reproducing organisms on this rock share a common single-celled eukaryotic ancestor.

So bdelloid rotifers share this ancestor too, but haven't used sexual reproduction for 80 million years. Doesn't that mean that sexual reproduction can be beneficial, but that it isn't always beneficial? The idea of a creature "loosing something of great benefit" is nonsensical to evolution. It could only loose it if it wasn't beneficial.

Sexual reproduction has benefits, obviously, but it also has a cost that comes along with it. Something you've failed to recognize, even with clear scientific observable evidence!

[Kirbmarc]

But of course they are. Why are two parents with brown eyes able to produce a child with blue eyes? If their genes have the "evolutionary advantage", how come the blue-eye gene is simply not passed on genetically to their children? That would make more evolutionary sense.

There is no evidence of a disadvantage or an advantage in having blue or brown eyes. Both blue-eyed and brown eyed individuals have children and their children are likely to reach sexual maturity and have other children.

Moreover, the fact that "evolutionary neutral" genes are still passed is evidence against design in evolution. Natural selection only weeds out genes whose expression lead to either premature death or a smaller number of offsprings. Every other gene is still passed.

You also have to take into account sexual selection. If blue-eyed people are not rejected as mates, they will have offsprings. Statistics show that blue-eyed people aren't usually rejected as possible mates, so the "blue eyes" genes aren't a disavantage.

You can make arguments as to survivability rates, etc, but the fact remains that an sexual reproduction has the cost to the species of a 50% reduction in the rate of reproduction. We know some species literally produce thousands of offspring to give them the "best chance" of survival.

If for some reason the survivability rate of individuals who carry a certain gene is zero (for example a parasite or a change in the environment) while the survivability of individuals who don't carry it is more than zero, reproduction rates don't matter anymore, what matters is genetic diversity.

Asexual reproduction doesn't allow for genetic variability. One parasite can easily end an asexual species in a very brief time (geologically speaking).

No one has successfully demonstrated that robust genes cover the full cost of the price of sexual reproduction. It may go some way, it may go a long way, but it can't cover the cost - let alone end up into benefit on its own.

In 1975, George C.Williams showed that there are species capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction. They reproduce sexually when the environment is changing, and asexually when it isn't.

This shows that there are situations when sexual reproduction is highly beneficial, and others when it isn't. Most species which reproduces sexually live in environments which change quickly and frequently and are extremely rich in parasites, and therefore gives a huge advantage to sexual reproduction.

So bdelloid rotifers share this ancestor too, but haven't used sexual reproduction for 80 million years. Doesn't that mean that sexual reproduction can be beneficial, but that it isn't always beneficial?

Of course. Nothing is always beneficial, or always detrimental. It depends on the ecological context (environment, predators, parasites, sexual selection...)

Bdelloid rotifers, however, are also able to incorporate foreign DNA from their food, increasing genetic diversity in their species through means other than sexual reproduction. This means that genetic diversity is a clear advantage, no matter how you achieve it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why make a straw man argument? I'm not making up my own argument on this matter, I'm using what is well understood and largely agreed upon.

Sorry for suggesting that you might mean something slightly more informed.

Only 50% of the population can bare children and give birth, thus no matter what the males do,

Oh I think it just might matter "what the males do"...or "who"

their raw reproduction remains 50% of the asexuals. Asexual reproduction - every creature in the species is capable of reproducing.

Every creature in sexually reproducing species (outliers aside) is also capable of reproduction. Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the reductive nature of sexual reproduction actually entails.

You can make arguments as to survivability rates, etc, but the fact remains that an sexual reproduction has the cost to the species of a 50% reduction in the rate of reproduction.

Ah, so this is the supposed cost, the 2 for 1? Looks to be pretty profitable, and not very costly.

We know some species literally produce thousands of offspring to give them the "best chance" of survival.

Many of those species reproducing sexually, in fact, yes.

Oh really??

Yes, really. How might ns or evolution "do work" on organisms that do not complete the reproductive cycle?

Let me put it this way then. No one has successfully demonstrated that robust genes cover the full cost of the price of sexual reproduction. It may go some way, it may go a long way, but it can't cover the cost - let alone end up into benefit on its own.

The history of life on this rock begs to differ.

So bdelloid rotifers share this ancestor too, but haven't used sexual reproduction for 80 million years. Doesn't that mean that sexual reproduction can be beneficial, but that it isn't always beneficial?

Sure. I can imagine plenty of scenarios in which sexual reproduction would be a detriment. Unfortunately, no one actually gives a shit what either of us can imagine, especially when compared to what happened, eh?

The idea of a creature "loosing something of great benefit" is nonsensical to evolution. It could only loose it if it wasn't beneficial.

You can lose anything so long as it doesn't kill you. Emu's and Ostriches had ancestors that could fly. This isn't some sort of floor setting procedure whereby you go up a "level" and then remain at that point or "higher".

Sexual reproduction has benefits, obviously, but it also has a cost that comes along with it. Something you've failed to recognize, even with clear scientific observable evidence!

That cost being nonexistent, as a clear gain, judging by the longevity, preponderance, and rampant success of sexually reproducing species.

[Hovik]

I'll address this point first. If you didn't have humans at all as a species - but you had some other species as intelligent as we are with the same 5 senses we have, language would still develop in exactly the same way. Thus it's not truly "derived from humans", it can be created by any population which meets the correct criteria. And you would expect the same language itself to develop (not literally of course, but expressively).

It wouldn't be identifiable as language in the same way we think of language because our language is specific to our species. The language (if it can be called that) of another species wouldn't be in any way recognizable.

The very fact that we've successfully taught American Sign Language to gorillas pretty much proves the preceding point.

We have not taught ASL to gorillas. We have taught a different type of sign to orangutangs and gorillas that is much less complex grammatically and lexically than natural language. It definitely does not meet the criteria that formally define language; therefore, what they've learned is not language.

I apply the same question to other things in physics. Do the laws of chemistry depend on the laws of quantum mechanics (to assume QM is correct for the purpose of this argument); or could we still get the laws of chemistry from some other micro-structure of the universe?

Linguistics is not physics. I'm not sure what relevance your analogy has to language. Care to elaborate further?

Language is just a great example of something that shares pretty much nothing in common with the underlying DNA that makes us "human".

That's entirely wrong. First of all, language is dependent on genes. We know what gene is responsible for language. Secondly, the DNA that makes us human shapes our phenotypic characteristics upon which our psychology is contingent. Beyond that, language as we use it develops through cultural interaction, something that is unique to human experience.

I look at it as any other theory of physics. All I mean is that if we didn't know about pragmatics we would have no way to predict their existence, because no one has come up with a theory of physics that makes it implicit. Like the fact that before we knew what fractals were we were unable to have a theory that predicts them, even though we could see and appreciate them.

Again, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Pragmatics is observable in looking at natural language in the context of usage. Pragmatic concepts are derived from empirical observation.

[Creed of Heresy]

I actually had a mind to study linguistics a couple years ago. Architecture, linguistics, and culinary arts. I've kind of had to narrow it down to just culinary arts.

Still at least someone here is a linguist.