Has Natural Selection Met Its Match?

[ScabbyDouglas]

well, that was interesting...

Not much, to be honest, to do with Natural Selection having met its match, but I don't suppose you can have everything.

Tom: as usual, you give the appearance of evading certain challenges. Often you cite the pressure of work relating to studies. I quickly checked how many words you posted over the course of two hours yesterday, in this thread alone: just shy of 1600 words - not counting bits that you had pasted from other contributors. That's a lot of verbiage. I haven't checked today's outpourings, but there's a lot of typing there, sure enough. Typing a lot of words is not a substitute for meaningful content.

I am regularly amused by the way that you describe yourself as "too busy" with other significant things to answer a specific point, and then you go on to write another couple of hundred words.

I loved this chunk:
Something funny was going on there, I feel. I cannot argue that, to the point of a logical conclusion, but I can make intuitive leaps based on the available information, which tells me that at least some of the disappearances were possibly paranormal. And this is not so unreasonable given the recent argument that cosmic wormholes are scientifically possible, and given the reported instances of 'time slips' in other parts of the world. There are 'strange' things on land, and I see no reason why there wouldn't be 'strange' happenings in the water as well.

Something "funny" going on, that you admit you cannot discuss logically, and which you can only explain by using "intuitive leaps" (is that the same as guessing?).

"at least some of the disappearances were possibly paranormal" at least some?
possibly paranormal? what happened to all that certainty?

Sounds like doubt is setting in....

Until you have read them, one by one, you cannot say whether they are reliable or not. When we write about the Druids we 'depend' on Caesar.
Actually no. On that specific point, I have always taken Caesar's account of the Druids with a large pinch of salt. The Romans systematically suppressed the Druids in Gaul and in Britain. Anything that the arch self-publicist Caesar tells us about them has to be scrutinised, and examined against any other sources we can.

This one though, has me foxed: When something is "unexplained" : a known man walks into a room, seen by witnesses. We go into the room: he is not there. There is no other doorway but the one he entered. There are no 'secret' doors: and this can be proven. In this situation, the 'unexplained' is synonymous with 'paranormal.' So you see, your theory that "no explanation" cannot lead to "paranormal occurence" is quite simply wrong.

OK, but has this vanishing man thing actually happened? No. I don't think it has. And indeed, if such a thing were to have occurred under properly supervised scrutiny, and it could be repeated, then maybe we could agree that there is a phenomenon here we don't understand.

But that hasn't happened. There are acceptable, sensible, ordinary explanations for the events you describe. But it would appear that prefer to you use an intuitive leap to seize the outlandish and un-scientific explanation. Many people prefer the idea of paranormal to normal, and I can sympathise. I can only sympathise with the tendency, not the conslusions

[ScabbyDouglas]

On the Bermuda Triangle: I never claimed that it was ALL paranormal: no one can
OK, that's an interesting point. If we decide that not all of the diappearances that have occurred in the Bermuda Triangle are inexplicable, or, more accurately not all of the Bermuda Triangle disappearances require a "paranormal" explanation, then how many are we left with? What percentage of the the disappearances then require particular attention, special explanation? If you think I'm hair-splitting or invoking statistics, then I am sorry it looks like that. However, one of the major arguments cited by proponents of the Bermuda Triangle "phenomenon" is that seeingly inexplicable occurrences, and disappearances occur more often and in greater numbers within the "Triangle" than elsewhere in the world. Now if we can start to rule out some of these - even a percentage of them - then what does that do to the stats. ? Is the Bermuda Triangle starting to look just like any other area of the ocean?


You, on the other hand, are not making the same effort: you make bold accusations against my character, and that is unwarranted, even on your view.

Tom: I have not at any time attacked your character. I have made some observations about how you have behaved. The behaviour I have discussed is the way you have conducted yourself within this discussion forum. I have no information about your character.

The old disappearing man thing: But how can you 'know' that it hasn't happened? Unless you have decided, a priori, that is improbably or impossible. But you cannot know for sure. My example was a hypothetical one, but since you ask there have been situations like the above in old documentation. But since you are automatically disbelieving, you will probably call it all lies. So be it.

Tom, when you posit something that is a) unlikely to happen, and b) may well have never happened, apart from accounts in what you very vaguely allude to as "old documentation", how do you expect me to respond? You are (I think) taking me to task for not being willing to consider alternative explanations - paranormal explanations - for something that by your own admission is a hypothetical example - i.e. an example you just made up.

I don't mind being admonished when it's justified, but that is really such a bizarre thing to base your argument on.

"...so doing become stupid. I say that without malice..... only a stupid fool can't see what is happening." - Tom, when I poke someone with a ten-foot pole, I may imagine that I am being impersonal becasue I was ten feet away when it happened, but the person is still poked, and just because you wrap your insult in a disclaimer makes it no less of an insult. You are, as usual, saying: Here is my argument - if you disagree you must be a stupid fool.

Despite cloaking your scorn in claims that you are trying to be less offensive, you can not help but give yourself away. If you want to attack my arguments, that is your preorogative, but when you declare that stupidity is the only reason that I cannot agree with you, then it is your arguments that fail, not mine.


Scabby and CJ,

I have found your arguments pretty poor stuff and, for that very reason, I take leave now. I will not be replying anymore. I have a vacation to see my relatives in S. Africa and I have to get ready for that immediately. And, I won't be reading your responses, either. So say what you will, amongst yourselves. Good day.

As for my own arguments, I find it hard to assess them adequately, but I think that CJ was doing OK, and I know where all the "poor stuff" was coming from.

As has been said before, the existence of the paranormal cannot be DISproved. What can be DISproved are specific instances, individual events that lead some people to jump to conclusions (is that the same as an intuitive leap?) because they can see no obvious explanation. Just because we cannot understand what is happening, doesn't mean that it's paranormal. The main reason that we do need to remain skeptical is that to do otherwise allows the charlatan, the trickster, the sloppy researcher to mislead us intentionally and unintentionally. At one end of the spectrum you have Uri Geller, somewhere in the middle, David Copperfield (stage illusionist) and at the other the "cold fusion" guys. These are not some army of ignorance waiting to invade, but when we are too willing to suspend our disbelief, too credulous and place too much trust in what people say, then we open ourselves to manipulation.

Uri Geller and David Copperfield are showmen - entertainers, really (sorry Mr Geller) - and harmless. But when we stop being critical, when we are too gullible, then we will start to allow the real, cynical, malicious smoke and mirrors merchants to operate without let or hindrance.

But , you won't be reading this apparently... you'll be too busy getting read for your trip to SA.


Well, enjoy your vacation, Tom. Chill, have a beer (if it's legal in S.A.) and relax. Consider taking out a subscription to some of the scientific journals, and if you can avoid visiting the Jo'burgh "Ripley's Beleive It Or Not... " museum, then that might be best...

And a very good day to you too, sir...

[CreepingJesus]

Right....

Now the entertaining diversion's given up the ghost, (wee joke there), I'd like to return to the original topic.

I think Sigurd's point can be summarised as..

"Is our technological and cultural progress as an aspect of human development outrunning the rate of (natural) human evolution?"

Scabby suggested that civilisation insulates us from pressure to evolve.

I'm attracted to the idea that civilisation, as the mutually beneficial organisation of individuals, could in itself be viewed as an evolutionary process.

I'm not a sociologist, my academic background was in zoology and botany, and (perversely perhaps), economics, so my understanding of the dynamics here is open to correction.

I've toyed with the idea that large human communities could be viewed as "superorganisms".

An example of a superorganism would be the Portuguese Man o' War which is not a single animal but a collective of interdependent specialised individuals which perform specific tasks contributing to the smooth running of the community. One set of individuals carries the cnidoblasts which sting prey, another is specialised to digest prey and still others to provide the "building blocks" to give the community form and flotation.

The analogy with human communities is very tempting.

Taking the superorganism concept further let's look at the evolutionary pressures that might influence its development.

One of the reasons we have developed communities is the length of time a human child is dependent on parental support.

Ballparking this at 10-15 years per child, a potential birth rate of one per year, and a reproductive life of x years, you're looking at a big big overhead in time spent rearing young.

This is where the collective instinct comes in.

Communities form from extended families, individuals repond to the collective resposibilituies of the group, and given a survivable environment, the whole thing grows into a superorganism.

The accompanying advance of technology contributes to the development of the structure and it begins to take on the character of an individual entity - a superorganism.

As an entity it may appear to be evolving at a faster rate than the species whose individuals make up the superorganism.

Stepping back a few paces might even show us what appears to be parallels with the physical process of natural selection. For example the failure of Stalinist Communism as an organisational force may be seen as an example of a mutant strain that could not compete.

We reach a situation where it is the superorganism which evolves rather than its individual components.

Where I feel my model is shaky is that

A; the time scales are too short and the sample sizes too small for this to be anything but idle speculation.

B: I would be more conmfortable describing what is happening to the superorganism as "development" rather than "Evolution".

Thoughts anyone?

[ANDY-J2]

Just to satisfy my curiosity about the shark question I went to my local library and did a bit of research on them.In fact the reason that sharks don't attack cleaner fish remains a mystery however these fish do have distinct patterns and dances which seem to inhibit the shark's aggression.Also when the shark is in "attack mode" it releases pheromones into the water and certain species adopt an attack posture by,for example,arching their back and dipping their pectoral fins,so the cleaner fish would receive prior warning if they were in jeopardy.Interestingly divers who swim with sharks have observed that if they remain calm and confident the sharks tend to remain passive however if the diver feigns panic and exhibits submissive gestures then the shark will often begin to behave aggressively.They are fascinating creatures and are not the terrifying,cold blooded killers that they are often portrayed as.

[CreepingJesus]

"In fact the reason that sharks don't attack cleaner fish remains a mystery however these fish do have distinct patterns and dances which seem to inhibit the shark's aggression.Also when the shark is in "attack mode" it releases pheromones into the water and certain species adopt an attack posture by,for example,arching their back and dipping their pectoral fins,so the cleaner fish would receive prior warning if they were in jeopardy"

Sterling work that man.

Chemicals, colour coding, posture signals, all evolutionary adaptations.

Not a telepathic message in sight!

Well done sir.

[Clash20]

Ah'm tellin on you Tom Sawyer. I saw you I saw you!

Scabby an Creepy! He's still here! He didny go away like wot he said. He wis hiding an keeking oot at ye when he thought ye wurnae looking. Ah saw him so ah did bletherin away 12 hours later.

You're just a wee liar so you are Tom Sawyer an ah'm telling yer mammy you tell fibs aw the time becos YOU WERE SEEN.

The bad man wull get ye so he will an skelp yer erse fur ye so hard ye wullnae be able tae sit doon fur a week.

Just wait till yer faither gets hame.

[Scunner-]

Lets see if I've got this

Tom has an imaginary friend called Adam.
Adam goes into an imaginary room, wittnessed by imaginary people, and, when other imaginary people go into the imaginary room Tom’s imaginary friend has disappeared.

And as a result we can deduce that there are poltergeists

um err

Tom here are someother little nit picnics

all sitting on the field, and at the same time leaving up in the air and in the same direction.
Any sensible person can see that it was a group mind or one 'leader' bird communicated the 'plan' to the rest, in a fraction of a second
You have contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. Do you mean at the same time or a fraction of a second later, How large is a fraction of a second.
Obviously I am not a sensible person

microstatum, paraspycology
I‘ve not read any books on these subjects, Please provide references

If a man really is stupid . . then our calling him "stupid" is not really an insult
I like to call a spade a geomorphological modification instrument

We have mammals like sharks, for example
I always thought that a shark was a fish, perhaps you’ve read a book by a man who knows better

The masses only really know (b) and very little at that
Would that be the ignorant masses (see below)

Animals are psychic, and this is plain for all to see
But not all animals are telepathic (see below)
it is not plain for me to see

There are key photographs which never were falsified, of UFOS in particular.
Ah yes I forgot about those photographs

We know that bears do not hunt sheep because the sheep are too quick. But the bears had to attempt to chase them in order to know that. Yet I have never seen footage of a bear even attempting to catch gulls
I’ve never seen footage of a bear hunting a sheep, never mind a quick sheep, but then pigs can fly.

I would say that most animals are telepathic
But all animals are psychic (see above)

The very word poltergeists is relatively recent
From the German Poltern (to crash about) and geist (a ghost). I’m sure your familiar with the German habit of joining to words together to make a third word.
How recent is relatively. Is it similar to a fraction of a second

Why are you irrate? Why are you getting emotional? I hadn't realized this was a children's fight after school. But that makes me wonder
Kettle, pot, black come to mind

we do not draw conclusions
You are doing exactly the opposite of what you say you are doing:
I have concluded that I do not draw conclusions

You are the ones who draw conclusions: "Adam did not really disappear into the room, the stress of the sunlight made you envisage Adam going into the room." Good one!
I agree with you on this point:
Adam did not disappear into the room because Adam did not exist (see above)

in a humble and diplomatic way
I equate that with mental laziness and possible stupity

I am trying to be less and less offensive
that only a stupid fool can't see what is happening

based on usually regular people
Would these regular people be the same as ‘the ignorant masses’ (see above

that poltergeists are collectively shown to exist - and only human stupidity can't see that.
Well, that puts me in my place then

I am trying to be less and less offensive
I equate that with mental laziness and possible stupity

that only a stupid fool can't see what is happening
in a humble and diplomatic way