4 ms·

It is the correct model. You can learn more about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIftg3cM4BM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIftg3cM4BM

by Flankk 4y ago

DubiousPusher 4y ago
You misunderstood me. I didn't mean to say that you had proposed the wrong model for neutral evolution. Rather that direct selective pressure and neutral evolution were not the only possible explanations for how a certain gene sequence might become widespread and therefore your model was incomplete as regards the spread of genes. Again, there are genetic mutations which make certain other mutations more likely. A beneficial mutation which spreads widely can eventually cause a plurality to carry a gene that is neutral or even harmful by giving it a ride on its own selective pressure. Furthermore, complex systems are susceptible to emergent behavior. For example, is our brain selected by nature to undergo altered consciousnesses in the presence of some chemical substances? Probably. Should we then believe that nature has "selected" our brains to be altered by every psycho-actice drug that exists? Probably not. Some of these are certainly "happy" accidents by which the chemical function of our brain also happens to be impacted or interfered with by some other chemicals, thus inducing a "high".
- throwanem 4y ago
  This gets a little complicated with the fact that many exogenous psychoactive drugs work because they mimic endogenous chemicals - we have receptors for cannabinoids and opioids because we produce cannabinoids and opioids. The effect of the exogenous versions isn't so much an accident as that some plants produce substances that bind to the same receptors, and we're smart enough to have figured that out and learned to cultivate them. The argument could be made that this serves some vast evolutionary purpose, but then we're back to inventing gods for ourselves again. (And in any case, such a theory would need also to explain why wasps also enjoy getting drunk, this being after all another example of the same behavior. Evo-psych types being as anthropocentric as they are, this never seems to be addressed, but it needs to be if they want the intellectual coherence to which they so anxiously pretend.)

It is the correct model. You can learn more about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIftg3cM4BM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIftg3cM4BM

by Flankk 4y ago

It is the correct model. You can learn more about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIftg3cM4BM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIftg3cM4BM

DubiousPusher 4y ago

You misunderstood me. I didn't mean to say that you had proposed the wrong model for neutral evolution. Rather that direct selective pressure and neutral evolution were not the only possible explanations for how a certain gene sequence might become widespread and therefore your model was incomplete as regards the spread of genes. Again, there are genetic mutations which make certain other mutations more likely. A beneficial mutation which spreads widely can eventually cause a plurality to carry a gene that is neutral or even harmful by giving it a ride on its own selective pressure. Furthermore, complex systems are susceptible to emergent behavior. For example, is our brain selected by nature to undergo altered consciousnesses in the presence of some chemical substances? Probably. Should we then believe that nature has "selected" our brains to be altered by every psycho-actice drug that exists? Probably not. Some of these are certainly "happy" accidents by which the chemical function of our brain also happens to be impacted or interfered with by some other chemicals, thus inducing a "high".

throwanem 4y ago
This gets a little complicated with the fact that many exogenous psychoactive drugs work because they mimic endogenous chemicals - we have receptors for cannabinoids and opioids because we produce cannabinoids and opioids. The effect of the exogenous versions isn't so much an accident as that some plants produce substances that bind to the same receptors, and we're smart enough to have figured that out and learned to cultivate them. The argument could be made that this serves some vast evolutionary purpose, but then we're back to inventing gods for ourselves again. (And in any case, such a theory would need also to explain why wasps also enjoy getting drunk, this being after all another example of the same behavior. Evo-psych types being as anthropocentric as they are, this never seems to be addressed, but it needs to be if they want the intellectual coherence to which they so anxiously pretend.)