ecnarf

Me and heyrabbit and prometheon have been scientifically chirping each other for several pages. How did you miss it?

I woke up at 8:00 and then fell asleep and dreamt about being back in res. It was way more awesome than res actually was. Mostly because it was pathetically unrealistic. THE SUN DOESN'T SET IN THE SOUTH.

Chuck fucks fatties!

There's been more than one. First, the ethernet card failed and I got it repaired through an Apple authorized repair place. Secondly, my screen has cracked under conditions where Apple has simply plugged its ears and started screamin "Lalalalala I can't hear you accidental damage!". Now I've got this problem with the CD drive not being able to import CDs all the way before it freezes up. I'll have to look into it. As for why I didn't answer, I didn't see your post. Obviously there was a reason the screen cracked and there was a very specific timeframe in which it happened, and I cannot think of a particularly hard bump or landing that it got. The initial crack was pretty small, but it has since grown (apparently glass will do that) and solution from behind the LCD has leaked out covering the screen in black splotches. Fun. The thing is, Apple wants to charge about 2/3rds the price of the initial machine to repair it, when the computer wouldn't be worth that much if it were in perfect condition right now. I've found places in the states that will do it for about half the price, and I've been trying to get an estimate on it from a place in Toronto.

I think I can say with some certainty that both Owen and I have taken introductory biology courses and were familiar with evolution before we knew who Dawkins was. Sexual selection isn't quite the same as natural selection; it's artificial. The features being chosen for don't necessarily have to do directly with biological fitness. In natural selection, environmental pressures put certain phenotypes at an advantage and others at a disadvantage. Sexual and artificial selection select for phenotypes based on things like how aesthetically pleasing they are. It's a rather important distinction; breeds of modern dogs came about by artificial selection. Peacock's tails attract predators and put them at risk of not being alive enough to pass on their genes, yet without a large tail they won't get any tail (if you know what I mean). Again, Dawkins frequently speaks at length about the distinction between natural and artificial selection.

And the cars.

Would sure explain the guns.

Sounds mildly sexual.

In reference to WHO? Inquiring minds want to know it isn't me.

What's that now?

You cut that out.

The best one in a real long time.

And there I was, enjoying our discussion on biology... Actually, I do enjoy science debates. You're either right or wrong (or that rare third class, "speaking out of your ass") and there's an easy to way settle who is what.

Fucked up. In the literal sense.

Probably likewise but I hate to jump to conclusions.

Likewise. EDIT: Applies to Tim as well.

OH! A paradox.

Poor taste in TV.

There isn't much natural selection in Western society. Unless you have a serious genetic disease, you can still bear children if you are ugly, disabled, prone to heart disease, have diabetes, severe allergies, whatever. If you're too ugly, just liquor somebody up. Deformed? In vitro fertilization. Et cetera. The only major exception I can think of are Ashkenazim Jews, who are advised to undergo genetic counselling to find the risks for having infants with fatal genetic disorders (which are especially high among them). There are people who are genetically immune to AIDS and heart disease. Theoretically, those people would be able to propagate their genes much better, but selective pressure against it is extremely low. In Africa, on the other hand, the rate of people being heterozygous for sickle-cell anemia is high. Why? It prevents them from being infected with a mosquito with malaria bites them. Only 4% of individuals actually have sickle-cell anemia, and heterozygotes only show signs of the disease when pushed to low-oxygen high-altitude conditions. THAT is natural selection. Good luck finding similar examples in the West.

Where did either of us say there was no natural selection?

Ah, the things we learn from the Discovery Channel. The symmetry thing is pretty popular around the animal kingdom. Flies have been found to exhibit the same behaviour.

Oh, yes you do.

Remembering back to section from Dawkins' God Delusion (or was it Climbing Mount Improbable?) it's been shown that people are... drawn (I hesitate to say "attracted") to babylike features. For example, cats have faces that are proportionally similar to those of infants. People could have a genetic disposition to be attracted to such features because it provides a biological basis for caring for your kids. A caveman would be likely to take care of his kids if he found them aesthetically pleasing, which means they would be more likely to survive beyond infancy and propagate those genes. Of course, what with crazy cat ladies, what once might have been an advantage sure has backfired.

Of course you don't want to fuck apes. Some people, however, do. The whole not wanting to fuck another species thing is an important part of the process of speciation. Technically speaking, we shouldn't want to fuck women who are infertile or on birth control or while wearing condoms (err), but we do anyways. It's kind of an evolutionary byproduct. That doesn't indicate a genetic tendency to fuck those with similar phenotypes. Besides that, Freud's conjectures about being attracted to your parents aren't accepted by serious psychologists anymore. And with respect to Owen whose psychology program involves real science, there is much of psychology (esp. 19th century psychology) that isn't actually science or scientific. An oedipus complex will not account for wanting to fuck those with a certain blood type, or for someone who isn't a carrier of a genetic disorder. Nor will simple genetics for having a certain hair or eye colour carry a genetic disposition to fuckign someone with that same hair or eye colour. Just because DNA exists doesn't mean it controls every aspect of our being. There is evidence that DNA is extremely powerful in shaping who we are; there is also evidence that the social environment in which you are brought up is also extremely powerful. At this point, attempting to explain something as complex and poorly understood as specific sexual tendences purely in terms of genes or genetic selection is a bullshit conjecture not supported by evidence. One of the basic tenets of science is that ANECDOTE IS NOT EVIDENCE. Having heard a certain hypothesis, odds are you will look for evidence to support it, and ignore all evidence to the contrary. You take Meg and Owen's eyes; the odds that it happens to be a coincidence is through the fucking roof. What are the odds that any two people have similar "eye width"? To get a proper analysis, you have to randomly select couples, measure their respective eye width, and look for a correlation. You have to randomly select individuals, measure their eye width, have them look at pictures of people with various eye widths, and have those people rate the attractiveness of the faces. To control, you would have to digitally manipulate the images to alter eye width while keeping other features similar. And so on and so forth. THAT is science. Dawkins has written at length about the process on more than one occasion.

I haven't read the Selfish Gene yet but something tells me that Dawkins does not posit the theory of wanting to fuck those with similar "proportions" or what have you. Sexual selection for expression of certain phenotypes exists but I have no idea about selection for those with YOUR phenotypes, specifically. Besides that, what of genes that aren't visually expressed?