[ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"

hkhenson hkhenson at rogers.com
Mon Sep 22 15:22:40 UTC 2008

At 11:42 PM 9/21/2008, you wrote:
>--- On Sun, 9/21/08, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:


> > You can use "evolution" to describe stars over
> > time, but it has
> > nothing to do with the mechanisms of biological evolution.
>Nonsense. The evolution of life is courtesy of and *powered* by 
>stars. They are the *source* of all biological evolution to date 
>from manufacturing the carbon atoms that make up life to pushing 
>those atoms through the Kreb cycle. Every calorie that accrues on 
>ones thighs has its ultimate origin in the sun. If under penalty of 
>death, I *had* to worship a deity, guess what that diety would be?

Stellar evolution is not related to biological evolution.  Different 
classes of knowledge.  Knowing a lot about one does not help you 
understand the other.

> > >While I don't doubt that is certainly part of the
> > psychology of
> > >humans, I am not certain how much of that has a genetic
> > basis.
> >
> > All human psychology has a genetic basis.  Psychology
> > emerges from
> > brains.  Brains are the product of genes.  How could it be
> > otherwise?
>So you are saying that somebody who suffers from a post-traumamatic 
>stress syndrome can pass it on to their kids? Come on.

Of course not.  But you might note that genes do make a lot of 
difference in how susceptible people are to PTSD.

>The idea that genes rule the world from the shadowy confines of 
>cellular nuclei is as preposterous as any conspiracy theory.

Tell this to the parents of a kid with cystic fibrosis.


> > If you can cite an example where there is
> > evidence that
> > clearly rules out gene selection present or past, let me
> > know.
>Well if you consider Bonsai trees as a group, it is clear that there 
>is no gene selection that underlies their phenotype.

Sheesh.  That's really reaching.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list