We have evolved to have soft, friendly looking faces because we are very cooperative and gregarious creatures, say researchers. Our ability to cooperate is probably more important than our intelligence for the survival of our species.
British naturalist Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection often gets broken down into one simple phrase: ‘Survival of the fittest,’ which we’ve come to understand as the survival of the strongest, meanest, most aggressive, and selfish. It’s a concept that thrives even today, as invoked in the Covid19 pandemic to shrug our shoulders at the plight of the elderly or to bolster anti-science politicians talking about their strength as a tool to fight off the virus. But evolutionary biologists say we’ve grossly misunderstood the concept of ‘fittest,’ and it’s hurting our lives and livelihoods.
We’ve Completely Misunderstood ‘Survival of the Fittest,’ Evolutionary Biologists Say
Tribalism offers the best of both worlds. Survival of the fittest against those outside your tribe, and co-operation with everyone within it.
ReplyDeleteWe seem to misunderstand the term 'civilization'. Especially the 'civil' part.
How do you misunderstand 4 words?
ReplyDeleteIdeology.
ReplyDeleteI've no idea what Rajiv Desai is on about. I've never taken Darwin's theory to mane survival of the "strongest, meanest, most aggressive, and selfish." I've taken the word "fit" to mean a whole host of characteristics: ability to fight off desease, ability to cooperate when that makes sense, ability to NOT COOPERATE when it doesn't etc etc etc.
ReplyDeleteRalph that is just defining “fit” to mean whatever you want it to mean to support your theory.... in this case the antithesis to creation...
ReplyDeleteit biases you guys to think “things happen by themselves!” then when you guys come up with a new policy proposal or adjustment your fellow Darwin people counter with “free markets!” and “let the market decide!” etc.... like were not allowed to do anything....
“We can’t run a numismatic information system we need to just happen upon mass measures of gold by random chance!”
You guys are getting what you deserve (which is very little) with all your Darwin bullshit....
“But evolutionary biologists say we’ve grossly misunderstood the concept of ‘fittest,’ “
ReplyDeleteThis is textbook platonism 101....
When evidence is shown to falsify your theory then you have to attempt to redefine terms...
So here is “we have to redefine what the word ‘fittest‘ means!”
Just like MMT the MMT people say “JG! JG!” then COVID hits and we are preventing people from going to their jobs so then the MMT people say “well... I guess we’re going to have to redefine what a job is...”. rather than adjust or correct their theory...
Classic...
Then let's just say "Survival of the survivors" and be done with it.
ReplyDeleteWell we have been told (by you know who) that Minnesotans have good genes. Would that have anything to do with Minnesota's Scandinavian heritage? Anyways... I do know that when the Byzantine Greeks came into contact with them, they found them quite smelly. However I am not sure if they were referring to bad Viking body hygiene, or if it had to do with that god-awful smelly cheese that they ate such as Gamle Ole :|
ReplyDeleteAlso, Richard Dawkins regrets the title of his book "The Selfish Gene" :)
"This is textbook platonism 101....
ReplyDeleteWhen evidence is shown to falsify your theory then you have to attempt to redefine terms...
So here is “we have to redefine what the word ‘fittest‘ means!”"
Matt, it's obvious you didn't even read the first paragraphs of the linked article. The author is arguing that the popular conception of "survival of the fittest" is wrong.
The concept, survival of the fittest in those words is is from Herbert Spencer not Darwin. The article goes on to point out that Darwin rejected Spender's view as incompatible with his own view of natural selection.
Darwin's view of natural selection, which is still basic to evolutionary theory, should not be confused the Spencer's view, which came to be known, unfortunately, as "social Darwinism."
This a bastardization of Darwin, just as "Keynesian" applied to New Keynesianism (neoclassical synthesis) is a bastardization of Keynes general theory. And Adam Smith never put forward or embrace the Samuelson version of the "invisible hand" that is now attributed to Smith, wrongly.
“ Wallace suggested that Darwin substitute ‘survival of the fittest’, an expression first used by Herbert Spencer in an 1864 instalment of Principles of biology. (Letter from A. R. Wallace, 2 July 1866.) Darwin agreed that Spencer’s term had merit, but argued that it could not be directly substituted as, unlike the term ‘natural selection’, it could not be used as a substantive governing a verb.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it was too late to alter the fourth edition of Origin, Darwin did insert Spencer’s expression at numerous places in the fifth edition, as well as in Variation.”
https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letters/darwins-life-letters/darwin-letters1866-survival-fittest
There is a somewhat well known quote from Darwin cited by Platonist creationists where he said at one point “survival of the fittest IS natural selection...”
He could approve of this synthesis of his thesis with Spencer’s while he was alive... it’s his thesis... he can either approve of a synthesis or disapprove a synthesis of his thesis while he was alive... once he died then it’s left up to the academe surviving him to synthesize or not...
It went on to be synthesized into social science by the Platonist academe that survived him then you had eugenics, racism, abortion, etc... all synthesized theses inluding Darwin’s thesis...
When Darwin came up with that Thesis my people bolted the academe at that time (1860ish) and founded their own Degree programs in the Land Grant Institutions under the Scientific Methodology... not Platonism...
So the academe has remained bifurcated .., you have the science side and the Platonist side still...
I’m biased towards the science side ... I think it’s superior to platonist when dealing with material matters this is pretty evident to say the least...
Your people? WTF are you even talking about? Who do you cite as a founding member of “your people”, who split in 1860s from the “Darwinists”.
ReplyDeleteLet me guess, he was an accountant. Worked for Ebeneezer Scrooge. “.Evolution..... bahhhh humbug!”
@ Greg
ReplyDeleteYes, the ignorance is this vicinity is rising to the amazing level. Getting comical.
I am beginning to wonder if it is intended as satire, like the Onion, instead of asserted seriously.
(scratches head)
I’m discriminating between 2 types of people ... those oriented towards science and those oriented towards Platonism..
ReplyDeleteD-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N
I’m on the science side... you guys are on the platonist side ... you guys dogmatically advocate for a thesis and are biased towards synthesis never discriminate and never make an adjustment or correction...
There are these 2 different approaches...
When you guys come to a dead end T in the road (you have go go left or right) do you guys just drive straight into the woods? Have to get towed out all the time?
ReplyDeleteI would not be surprised if you said yes...
ReplyDeleteTo the degree that "survival of the fittest" and "natural selecton" are subitutable terns in Darwin's theory of evolution, they mean genetic adaptation to environmental conditions that selects the fittest on the basis of survival.
ReplyDeleteNatural selection is the idea that species that acquire adaptations favorable for their environment will pass those adaptations to their offspring. Eventually, only individuals with those favorable adaptations will survive, which is how the species changes over time or evolves through speciation.
Social Darwinists take "survival of the fittest" in the sense that alpha male get wider and more frequent access to opportunities for reproduction, but that is NOT what Darwin was assuming as the basis of his theory of evolution.
Darwin's view of natural selection also applies to intra-species variation. There is a genetic reason that people of different skin pigmentation are found to predominate in different climatic conditions. The less sunlight the fairer the complexion and vice versa. This was especially the case when humans were exposed to the elements.
IN harsh conditions, the stronger would prevail and there would likely be genetic adaption regarding size and strength. In a different environment, intellectual capacity might be the difference. But this fits the theory in that it has to do with genetically based adaptation to conditions.
"Fittest" here means suited to environmental conditions. Darwin theorized that this was due to inherited characteristics, although the theory of genetics was not yet known. That discovery explained the organic mechanism (causality) behind Darwin's hypothesis. This is as well established now in biology as the laws of physics.
Thought Co
Survival of the Fittest vs. Natural Selection: It is important to understand what Darwin meant by 'fittest'
Heather Scoville
Speeding up things up using genetic-based breeding to domesticate formerly wild-only species.
ReplyDeleteI have seen also reports of city-dwelling foxes self-domesticating, at least to some degree. Changes in physiology suggest that this is genetic adaptation taking place, too.
Russia Beyond
How Siberian geneticists domesticated the FOX
Anna Sorokina
Matt Franko you say: "It went on to be synthesized into social science by the Platonist academe that survived him then you had eugenics, racism, abortion, etc... all synthesized theses including Darwin’s thesis..."
ReplyDeleteFrancis Galton and Karl Pearson basically were the founders of eugenics. R.A Fisher was one of the most prominent eugenicists of that era in Britain. All three were prominent statisticians and highly skilled mathematicians. Fisher and Pearson are unmatched in their contributions to mathematical statistics and their methods (as well as Galton's) are taught in virtually all college science departments in a wide variety of subjects.
In your attempt at D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N would they fall on the science side or the platonist side of your discriminator?
When you guys come to a dead end T in the road (you have go go left or right) do you guys just drive straight into the woods? Have to get towed out all the time?
ReplyDeleteI've encountered dead ends, and T intersections, but never a dead end T.
Nice dodge there Franko
ReplyDeleteYou spend time talking about “bolting the academy “ in the 1860s purportedly to start their own institutions, said Land Grant colleges, founded on a different scientific way of thinking. Casting off that platonist shackle that keeps you simply synthesizing ideas and never coming to a truth. You state this as if it’s some nexus point in history when we can find the discriminators rising and giving us all these material systems which we are endowed with today
When I ask you for more details you simply say that you weren’t really talking about anything in particular but just making a point about 2 ways of thinking........ which you’ve been making incessantly for a while. Why all the specific dates and references to new institutions like Land Grant university ?
I’m left thinking your just speaking metaphorically, using figures of speech, rather than abstracting the real truth out of all the unnecessary noise...... which is just a nicer way of saying YOUR FULL OF SHIT