From: c718678@showme.missouri.edu Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 9:21 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) Are you calling me the devil, Jeff?:) Later, Eva @@@(* > *)@@@ On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 BIOHZD@aol.com wrote: > Chris, > > You write: > > I think that there is very little ground > for assuming that they [aborigines] would all think the same way. > > >>>>Just to play devil's advocate, check out the references to a collective > conciousness among the aborigines - BP 158 and 160. > > Jeff Barber > Biohazard Games *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: BIOHZD@aol.com Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 8:50 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) Chris, You write: I think that there is very little ground for assuming that they [aborigines] would all think the same way. >>>>Just to play devil's advocate, check out the references to a collective conciousness among the aborigines - BP 158 and 160. Jeff Barber Biohazard Games *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Chris Sakal [csakal@erols.com] Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 6:31 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) At 03:26 PM 2/15/99 -0600, you wrote: >I never said that behavior was a straight function of genetics; in fact I >spent several sentences talking about learning and environmental >influence, which would be extremely similar for all aborigines. Again, we're back to the identical twin analogy. They may be raised by the same family in the same place and treated the same, but there will always be innumerable small differences in their experiences and they may well become VERY different people. Abos wouldn't even have that much similarity in their upbringing, I think that there is very little ground for assuming that they would all think the same way. Chris Sakal csakal@erols.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: c718678@showme.missouri.edu Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 3:48 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) Enlightened self-interest isn't the same as acting purely for the benefit of another species. And a group of individuals' behaviors doesn't necessarily consitute an evolutionary trait. If a group of individuals of species A spends their energy for the sole purpose of helping or hurting species B, then it might be nice for species B, but the characteristic behavior of the group from species A won't be passed on because they will have spent their energy on species B instead of on surviving and reproducing. A group like group A might come along every now and then, and might happen to survive for a little while, but unless their actions turn out to be fruitful for themselves, they will die out. Natural selection no longer works on humans except to eliminate genetic diseases that kill people before the age of reproduction, and maybe to select for people that are highly potent or resistant to spermicide or something. In a controlled, man-created environment, evolution could still take place (your eugenics), but humans have generally removed themselves from the selection process otherwise. Later, Eva @@@(* > *)@@@ On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Archangel Gabriel wrote: > > >There is none. If a creature displayed such a quality, it would proove > > that the creature wasn't a product of evoltuion, which is what I just > >said in that email. This was one of Darwin's own falsifiable tests that > >could > >potentially disproove evolution, for obvious reasons. > > I disagree completely. Evolution is a phenomenon, not an attribute. Humans > can (and do) create environmental pressures that alter the evolution of > other creatures. There's no reason we could not do so deliberately with the > purpose of generating a creature of specific abilities. It's eugenics, and > it's probably the earliest efforts we will make in wholesale genetic > engineering. It is possible for us to alter environmental pressures in a > way that cooperation is selected for, resulting (eventually) in such a > being. I recognize that the natural tendency is to disqualify this as > evolution, but the point is this: environmental pressures can exist that > will select for cooperation, especially if intelligence is already present > in a species. Enlightened self-interest is not precluded by evolution. > > If you want to argue that our awareness of the pressures means it is > behavioral science, not evolution, that's a different issue. I happen to > believe that evolution encompasses all species adaptation, physical and > psychological. Darwin's paper be damned. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: c718678@showme.missouri.edu Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 3:38 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) Altruism within a family line is completely different from altruism between species. There's no way that nature could select for a trait that's purely altruistic, or purely harmful, to another species. Organisms often work together, sometimes in ways that seems beneficial only to one, but if you look deeper they behavior will benefit noth or it will die out eventually. You're looking at causes as effects and vice versa. We know the aborigines didn't evolve. I'm saying that even a species that wasn't initially created by evolution would evolve over time if it had variation in the species, proper reproduction, and hostile forces. Since the aborigines haven't evolved, we can conclude that one or more of those conditions is lacking. I suggested that variation might be the condition that's lacking, though not totally. Mentioning altruism was just a side bar in case anyone didn't trsut the Access Denied that SAYS aborigines weren't created by evolution. Later, Eva @@@(* > *)@@@ On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Chris Sakal wrote: > >There is none. If a creature displayed such a quality, it would proove > > that the creature wasn't a product of evoltuion, which is what I just > >said in that email. This was one of Darwin's own falsifiable tests that > >could > >potentially disproove evolution, for obvious reasons. > Untrue. There are several situations on earth where animals will display > seemingly altruistic behaviors. The first prairie dog to see a hawk (a > predator or the special) will emit a loud cry to alert the others before it > runs for cover. This is clearly not in it's self interest because it draws > attention to itself and makes it more likely that it will be killed by the > predator, but makes it more likely that other prairie dogs will survive. > At first this did present some difficulties for evolutionary theorists, > but now it is realized how such a behavior could be the result of > evolution. Although a creature may sacrifice itself, if it can save family > members, then it is still playing a role in passing it's genetic makeup on, > which is the critical property for any trait that wishes to gain prevelence > by evolution. Prarie dogs live in large commuties which are usually > descended from relatively few family lines, and thus helping the community > is helping one's own genetic makeup, and thus would be encouraged by > evolution. > If all abos are genetically identical, then it's the easiest thing in the > world to see how evolution would favor altruism, if another has the exact > same genetics as you do, then saving him is the same as saving yourself as > far as evolution is concerned, and it's a good trade-off if you can save > two or more, so in that case, there would actually be strong selective > pressure for seemingly altruistic behavior. > > > > > > > > > >Later, > > > >Eva > >@@@(* > *)@@@ > > > Chris Sakal > csakal@erols.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: c718678@showme.missouri.edu Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 3:26 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) I never said that behavior was a straight function of genetics; in fact I spent several sentences talking about learning and environmental influence, which would be extremely similar for all aborigines. Later, Eva @@@(* > *)@@@ On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Chris Sakal wrote: > > > >>they > >>must have pretty similar DNA in order to not be subject to natural > >>selection; in other words, practically no variation in the species. > >>That said, if you believe that behavior comes from genetics at all (and > >>frankly I don't see how one wouldn't) > Well, actually, the belief that behavior is a straight function only of > genetics is not well accepted in the scientific community, and by that I > mean that it's pretty much universally accepted that it's false. The > nature/nurture debate rages on, and the only thing we can be sure of is > that they each have a contribution to behavior, though nobody can agree on > the amount each side contributes. If what you are saying is true, then > identical twins would be absolutely the same in every way, and I happen to > know empirically that's not the case, I've known several sets of twins, and > none of them have been exactly the same as the other. > Abos may all be genetically identical, but they will have different > experiences, and this will cause them to have different personalities, so > it is perfectly feasible for some group of them to have a set of > experiences that convinces them that rebellion is the way to go. > > > > > Chris Sakal > csakal@erols.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Chris Sakal [csakal@erols.com] Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 12:56 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) >If you want to argue that our awareness of the pressures means it is >behavioral science, not evolution, that's a different issue. I happen to >believe that evolution encompasses all species adaptation, physical and >psychological. Darwin's paper be damned. Well, you're playing sematics now. If we want to have a debate on the topic of evolution, we may as well accept the definition used by scientitst in the field, which is just physiological. Now, in everyday speech it's perfectly correct to talk about people evolving as they learn and change, but that's a colloquial use and bringing it into the definition here would only serve to muddle the picture. It's not evolution when humans use technology to adapt to their enviornment (i.e. heating has made it possible for humans to live in cold climes in much larger numbers than they would otherwise we able to) and it's not evolution when we learn to do things like not stepping out in front of cars. Evolution can affect behavior, but only in terms of genetically hard-wired preferences for certain kinds of behavior than are advantagous in some context. In short, you're not really wrong to advocate that definition, but it's not necessary and it will just serve to make things confusing, so I'm going to have to reject it and say that we should refer narrowly only to the process of natural selection of more fit organisms when we say evolution. Chris Sakal csakal@erols.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Archangel Gabriel [angelgabriel@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 11:57 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) >There is none. If a creature displayed such a quality, it would proove > that the creature wasn't a product of evoltuion, which is what I just >said in that email. This was one of Darwin's own falsifiable tests that >could >potentially disproove evolution, for obvious reasons. I disagree completely. Evolution is a phenomenon, not an attribute. Humans can (and do) create environmental pressures that alter the evolution of other creatures. There's no reason we could not do so deliberately with the purpose of generating a creature of specific abilities. It's eugenics, and it's probably the earliest efforts we will make in wholesale genetic engineering. It is possible for us to alter environmental pressures in a way that cooperation is selected for, resulting (eventually) in such a being. I recognize that the natural tendency is to disqualify this as evolution, but the point is this: environmental pressures can exist that will select for cooperation, especially if intelligence is already present in a species. Enlightened self-interest is not precluded by evolution. If you want to argue that our awareness of the pressures means it is behavioral science, not evolution, that's a different issue. I happen to believe that evolution encompasses all species adaptation, physical and psychological. Darwin's paper be damned. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Chris Sakal [csakal@erols.com] Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 11:17 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) >There is none. If a creature displayed such a quality, it would proove > that the creature wasn't a product of evoltuion, which is what I just >said in that email. This was one of Darwin's own falsifiable tests that >could >potentially disproove evolution, for obvious reasons. Untrue. There are several situations on earth where animals will display seemingly altruistic behaviors. The first prairie dog to see a hawk (a predator or the special) will emit a loud cry to alert the others before it runs for cover. This is clearly not in it's self interest because it draws attention to itself and makes it more likely that it will be killed by the predator, but makes it more likely that other prairie dogs will survive. At first this did present some difficulties for evolutionary theorists, but now it is realized how such a behavior could be the result of evolution. Although a creature may sacrifice itself, if it can save family members, then it is still playing a role in passing it's genetic makeup on, which is the critical property for any trait that wishes to gain prevelence by evolution. Prarie dogs live in large commuties which are usually descended from relatively few family lines, and thus helping the community is helping one's own genetic makeup, and thus would be encouraged by evolution. If all abos are genetically identical, then it's the easiest thing in the world to see how evolution would favor altruism, if another has the exact same genetics as you do, then saving him is the same as saving yourself as far as evolution is concerned, and it's a good trade-off if you can save two or more, so in that case, there would actually be strong selective pressure for seemingly altruistic behavior. > > > >Later, > >Eva >@@@(* > *)@@@ > > Chris Sakal csakal@erols.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Chris Sakal [csakal@erols.com] Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 11:11 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) > >>they >>must have pretty similar DNA in order to not be subject to natural >>selection; in other words, practically no variation in the species. >>That said, if you believe that behavior comes from genetics at all (and >>frankly I don't see how one wouldn't) Well, actually, the belief that behavior is a straight function only of genetics is not well accepted in the scientific community, and by that I mean that it's pretty much universally accepted that it's false. The nature/nurture debate rages on, and the only thing we can be sure of is that they each have a contribution to behavior, though nobody can agree on the amount each side contributes. If what you are saying is true, then identical twins would be absolutely the same in every way, and I happen to know empirically that's not the case, I've known several sets of twins, and none of them have been exactly the same as the other. Abos may all be genetically identical, but they will have different experiences, and this will cause them to have different personalities, so it is perfectly feasible for some group of them to have a set of experiences that convinces them that rebellion is the way to go. Chris Sakal csakal@erols.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: c718678@showme.missouri.edu Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 10:52 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Archangel Gabriel wrote: > Eva wrote: > > > consciousness. Ergo, it is possible for deviant abos to exist, even if it > is unlikely. They could be created, and destroyed as soon as the other abos realize they've deviated, which would be right away. Or the deviants could be just chemically altered to fit. Remeber, these things are built, not born in the traditional sense. > >I say that because, even though the fact that the aborigines have > >behaviors intended solely for > >the purpose of aiding other species is proof that they're not a product of > >evolution, but since they have genes, if there was the usual variation and > >hostile forces at work and they reproduced more "naturally", the species > >would evolve over time anyways. > > > Imagine an environmental pressure that would select for creatures that > helped each other instead of themselves. There is none. If a creature displayed such a quality, it would proove that the creature wasn't a product of evoltuion, which is what I just said in that email. This was one of Darwin's own falsifiable tests that could potentially disproove evolution, for obvious reasons. Later, Eva @@@(* > *)@@@ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Robert P. Stefko [rpsst16@pop.pitt.edu] Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 10:17 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) >Radiation and chemical (I've lost the word for "causes of genetic deviation") are still present.< The word you're looking for is probably mutagen. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Archangel Gabriel [angelgabriel@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 9:45 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) Eva wrote: >they >must have pretty similar DNA in order to not be subject to natural >selection; in other words, practically no variation in the species. >That said, if you believe that behavior comes from genetics at all (and >frankly I don't see how one wouldn't) aborigine rebellion isn't likely >since they don't vary. Even a species mass produced from a template has individuals subject to individual environmental conditions. Radiation and chemical (I've lost the word for "causes of genetic deviation") are still present. Unless the Abos get regular genetic "tune-ups" to prevent gene fade, the fact remains that they are still individual creatures, even if they don't have individual consciousness. Ergo, it is possible for deviant abos to exist, even if it is unlikely. >I say that because, even though the fact that the aborigines have >behaviors intended solely for >the purpose of aiding other species is proof that they're not a product of >evolution, but since they have genes, if there was the usual variation and >hostile forces at work and they reproduced more "naturally", the species >would evolve over time anyways. Imagine an environmental pressure that would select for creatures that helped each other instead of themselves. Archangel *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message.