tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post54632388901764427..comments2024-01-25T13:46:11.967-06:00Comments on The Bronze Blog: The Reality of WikipediaRyan Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14750814560493466382noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-41891818849681191972010-01-15T21:21:34.236-06:002010-01-15T21:21:34.236-06:00Agreed, and in a sense if we have the means to gen...Agreed, and in a sense if we have the means to genetically eliminate detected problems like autism or down syndrome right at conception, and the parents are fully aware of that and "opt out" of the treatment for whatever reason, I think there's a valid argument that they would be enacting an extreme form of cruelty on their child.<br /><br />I know, "Stay out of my womb", but when the mother is opting to keep the child with full knowledge that the one born will end up with some crippling life expetancy/quality reducing disease, I'd say such a concern has to take a back seat.Dark Jaguarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-68813285558374874252010-01-15T20:59:16.467-06:002010-01-15T20:59:16.467-06:00Obviously, not all disorders are this amenable to ...<b>Obviously, not all disorders are this amenable to eugenics treatment, but I'd say eliminating certain types of diabetes, sickle-cell anemia and Haemophilia from the population would certainly be a disarable result.</b><br /><br />I guess I was approaching eugenics more from the "augmenting/propagating positive traits" angle than the "eliminating deleterious traits" angle. The former case, depending on what results you want, seems like it'd be more complex and time-consuming. In the latter case, I think the line between "eugenics" and "medicine" ends up blurring quite a bit. While I'd certainly prefer gene therapies that didn't require selecting embryos for in vitro fertilization, I'm not opposed to it if it means preventing the short painful life of a kid with Tay-Sachs or something like that.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-56553311367238165722010-01-15T12:32:52.693-06:002010-01-15T12:32:52.693-06:00I must say that "eugenics" in such a for...I must say that "eugenics" in such a form doesn't bother me at all. Gotta admit though, the moment this starts being offered, all sorts of people will start screaming "Gattaca" at you.<br /><br />Here's an argument I hear every now and then. "If some children get superior genes or cybernetic implants, my natural children can't compete." First note the lack of confidence in the ability of people with "less" to make do. Otherwise, I have to say holding back progress for the sake of people who intentionally want to forgo giving their kids advantages due to personal hangups is downright selfish, and to me no different than saying glasses should not be "allowed" because parents who refuse to get them for their kids will have disadvantaged kids in comparison.<br /><br />It's true that lots of genetic therapy in the future won't be able to just say "this is a universally good gene", it'll sometimes, perhaps often, have to take into account one's entire gene lineup before making a good call. After all a single "bit" like a 1 or 0 in a program is utterly meaningless without the context of it's surroundings.<br /><br />As for sickle cell, I'm personally for the eradication of the mosquito so that the gene won't need to be kept around just to survive malaria.Dark Jaguarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-25848698573641028322010-01-15T11:13:13.149-06:002010-01-15T11:13:13.149-06:00Well, we're already developing various gene th...Well, we're already developing various gene therapies, but I'm not really sure that counts as eugenics, even in the case of germ-line treatments...<br /><br />Sickle-cell is a tricky one, as having a <i>single</i> copy of the gene is quite beneficial if you live in an area prone to malaria. It's only when you end up with two copies (one from each parent) that it causes problems. If you were to totally eliminate the sickle-cell gene from the population, more people would end up dying of malaria. Pre-natal screening could potentially be very useful though.Duncnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-42606113845709172032010-01-15T06:22:58.272-06:002010-01-15T06:22:58.272-06:00Well, I just claimed that the Eugenics movement of...Well, I just claimed that the Eugenics movement of the 30's had it wrong, not that eugenics in humans is impossible. You wouldn't even have to model your approach on the dog-breeding exercise, either; with current technology, and technology that is likely to be developed in the near future, you could take the methods of the early eugenicists, modify them, and produce a eugenics program that would give results while requiring no creulty at all in its application.<br /><br />If two prospective parents who have family histories of hereditary diseases get tested and are found to be carriers of the disease, instead of going the normal route, they could carry out in-vitro fertilization. Once that was done, all the fertilized eggs created could be genetically tested, and the eggs that were found to be sufferers or carriers of the disease could then be discarded, leaving only eggs that contain no trace of the bad allele to be implanted. Doing this, while expenxive, would not violate anybody's rights (unless the two parents were forced to participate, ut there is no need for that), and it would result in the complete disappearance of the geentic disorder from that branch of the family tree.<br /><br />Obviously, not all disorders are this amenable to eugenics treatment, but I'd say eliminating certain types of diabetes, sickle-cell anemia and Haemophilia from the population would certainly be a disarable result.<br /><br />The technology required to do this is not yet here, but we are close. This is the kind of gene-splicing eugenics that I favour.Valhar2000https://www.blogger.com/profile/05467019327257867276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-43482672139463162142010-01-12T22:56:15.304-06:002010-01-12T22:56:15.304-06:00The biggest problems with human eugenics are the t...The biggest problems with human eugenics are the timespans involved (at least 12-16 years per generation); sorting out the genetic, epigenetic, and environmental traits (if intelligence is largely nurture, for instance, you can't really breed for it); and getting your favorable traits augmented without running into problems of inbreeding and accumulating detrimental mutations. It's a far cry from Mendel's pea plants, or even dog or cow domestication. Not impossible in principle, but certainly difficult.<br /><br />It'd be easier, I think, just to do things on the gene splicing level.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-52497317357826462272010-01-12T16:24:25.169-06:002010-01-12T16:24:25.169-06:00While it's true that their understanding and t...While it's true that their understanding and their plans on eugenics were fatally flawed, that's not to say that it couldn't work if done in the same manner as breeding new strains of a horse. Of course the morality is appaling, but it would certainly be possible to breed humans for faster running, better swimming, greater lung capacity, and perhaps even better milk giving capacity.<br /><br />This is actually where I am right now in chapter 2 (it's been slow going in my reading, just haven't put a lot of time into it). He's just finished explaining the nature of just how different breeds of dogs can get and the methods used, which includes breeds created by specifically cross-breeding two strains, and breeds taken from the occasional random mutation like short legs.<br /><br />You could do the same for humans, there's nothing about us that rules it out, except obvious moral concerns. That said, it's certainly not the concept of "eugenics" which assumes that all germans (or whatever) are just inherantly better and continuosly breeding "just germans" would produce some sort of super german. "Germanness" isn't a quality you can breed for. It's got to be specific. So, saying "my parents are pure blooded because they were all from Germany" is meaningless. So what? It's isolated, sure, but that says nothing about what traits, if any, are intended to be "better" than average. Indeed, anyone in that "pure" line that had a gene that was deemed "harmful" is not going to be selected either for or against in that system. You still need to first establish THAT your "stock" is better, and then explain exactly which traits, aside from "born from a german" you are selecting for each generation.Dark Jaguarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-66169039728994514732010-01-12T07:52:10.653-06:002010-01-12T07:52:10.653-06:00On that note, I remember once reading a quote from...On that note, I remember once reading a quote from Hitler that was highly critical of evolution - I've got a numbnut friend who's about ready to come to the side of reason on the evolution issue, but has become convinced that Hitler was an evolutionist, so no right-thinking person should be.Jim Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13168308019214687820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-3113475196425398682010-01-12T07:04:31.175-06:002010-01-12T07:04:31.175-06:00Again and again, I read this point, and it goes co...<i>Again and again, I read this point, and it goes completely agaisnt racist ideas of "watering down racial purity", as the analogy just plain fails to work when you realize just how genes function.</i><br /><br />Indeed. I sometimes try to point out to people that eugenics, as understood by Nazi pseuo-biologists and american proto-fascists in the 30s simply cannot work for this very reason. The eugenics movement of the early 20th century is rooted in racism and medieval pseudo-science, and is contradicted by modern biology (and even comtemporary bioogy of the time), which concludes quite clearly that the methods advocated by early eugenicists cannot possibly produce the outcomes intended by those same eugenicists.Valhar2000https://www.blogger.com/profile/05467019327257867276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-75297927097140923392010-01-08T16:34:04.804-06:002010-01-08T16:34:04.804-06:00Lightglobe?
Alright I'm reading further into ...Lightglobe?<br /><br />Alright I'm reading further into chapter 2. He's used what I think is possibly the best "bridge metaphor" he could have opened up with, domestic breeding. Along with the familiar are more "surprising" results of breeding like cabbages and so on that someone doubting evolution may not be aware of. Really I think this is a great book to teach those who are looking for evidence can find so far. The lamentable part is that the cover has "From the Best Selling author of The God Delusion" on it. It's not that there's anything wrong with that book, but seeing that right on the cover is not really going to do much for getting passers by to open it up. Dawkins himself is pretty upset that every interview he gets in about this book ends up being an interview about his atheism. I think "Author of The Selfish Gene" would have been a better choice, but that's all just politics.<br /><br />In any case, he notes that in the past, people thought modern domestic breeds came not just from wolves, but from jackels, foxes, and coyotes. However modern genetic testing has made it clear that ALL modern breeds share a single common ancestor in wolves, and none of the other "natural" canine variants. Another point he gets at is that genes are not like blending paint, adding "red" and "blue" to get a "purple" offspring. If it was, all species would tend to blend into identical mixtures in only a few generations. Instead people keep their specific genetic traits, half inherited from each side. The analogy he uses is shuffling cards. Genes are discrete entities, not like mixing liquids.<br /><br />Again and again, I read this point, and it goes completely agaisnt racist ideas of "watering down racial purity", as the analogy just plain fails to work when you realize just how genes function. There is no such thing as racial purity, and there never was. Every single individual is basically a mishmash of genes collected from shuffling from parent to offspring.<br /><br />Once again, not a single thing I've read up until now supports your conclusion that Dawkins sympathises with a "racial" viewpoint. In fact I'm reading strong evidence AGAINST that concept.<br /><br />Care to respond at all Gabe? Now you may respond that we're just assuming you're talking about genes, and all you are talking about is "race", but what do you think race IS if not caused by genes? Do you think people literally inherit "blood" from their parents? What mechanism imparts whatever you define as your race's inherited characteristics if it isn't race? If it's ENTIRELY "memetic", that is just culture, then you have no basis for claiming race matters at all, because in that case ANY member of any "race" you care to define would be equally capable of learning it (which happens to be our viewpoint by the way).<br /><br />Also, you never once bothered to define what race is, and what makes any particular definition of "white" more or less arbitrary than any other.<br /><br />And heck, I still have my big question, what race am I? If you can't tell, why not?Dark Jaguarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-7908039338584695642010-01-08T15:48:15.287-06:002010-01-08T15:48:15.287-06:00I was mostly thinking of Dawkins and the general c...I was mostly thinking of Dawkins and the general concept behind the "Selfish Gene" mostly because he was the one who got that lightglobe lit up in my head.<br /><br />I didn't have any reason to think he made up the chicken quote, but it does touch on the same sort of idea.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-5781305466761219062010-01-08T00:48:40.150-06:002010-01-08T00:48:40.150-06:00I remember pointing stuff out like this in the pas...I remember pointing stuff out like this in the past, and having my contemporaries go "Yeah? What's your <i>point</i>?" The proper conclusion to take from this, clearly, is that young children are boring.MWchasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08195851187187771113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-80965394034172975642010-01-08T00:21:54.984-06:002010-01-08T00:21:54.984-06:00Actually Dawkins himself credits the idea to Ernst...Actually Dawkins himself credits the idea to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr" rel="nofollow">Ernst Mayr</a>.Dark Jaguarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-44601904443021307962010-01-07T20:29:49.135-06:002010-01-07T20:29:49.135-06:00*looks at the start of the post*
Hey, what's ...*looks at the start of the post*<br /><br />Hey, what's that supposed to me- Ooo, shiny!King of Ferretshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07893294460892136598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-84527926706333950902010-01-07T08:46:38.753-06:002010-01-07T08:46:38.753-06:00DJ: Namely, he talks about platonic idealism, and ...DJ: <i>Namely, he talks about platonic idealism, and how it's possible such a philosophy is what kept people from coming up with the concept of evolution for so long. He makes it very clear that concepts like "rabbit" are just handy labels, and there is not "pure essence of what it is to be rabbit" hanging in conceptual space tieing together all that we call rabbits.</i><br /><br />It's good to know that Dawkins came up with a similar train of thought to mine.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-68309005687185605662010-01-07T07:50:10.567-06:002010-01-07T07:50:10.567-06:00Dark Jaguar, one thing you're probably doing w...Dark Jaguar, one thing you're probably doing wrong: you're not reading it while travelling. Try reading it on the subway or the bus at least. That's the only way to real enlightenment.Jim Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13168308019214687820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-22441541629786566312010-01-07T03:06:47.281-06:002010-01-07T03:06:47.281-06:00Read a little into chapter 2. So far, already som...Read a little into chapter 2. So far, already some insight that goes against Gabe's claim that this is a book in support of his ideas on race. Namely, he talks about platonic idealism, and how it's possible such a philosophy is what kept people from coming up with the concept of evolution for so long. He makes it very clear that concepts like "rabbit" are just handy labels, and there is not "pure essence of what it is to be rabbit" hanging in conceptual space tieing together all that we call rabbits. In fact, you can make an unbroken chain of lineage tying together rabbits and leopards, and in every single step along the way, you would be hard pressed to draw the line where "rabbit" stops and a new species "should start".<br /><br />If that's the way it is with species, how do you draw such a hard and fast line with something as base as "race"? We're back to one of our simple questions. Define race.Dark Jaguarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-75746007836043569092010-01-06T20:58:55.927-06:002010-01-06T20:58:55.927-06:00Just reading the comments is so much fun. :)Just reading the comments is so much fun. :)Touro73https://www.blogger.com/profile/17360948330894508789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-14078220631602499282010-01-06T20:22:34.435-06:002010-01-06T20:22:34.435-06:00The guy does seem like the sort of person who watc...The guy does seem like the sort of person who watches TV, sees someone do something stupid, realize it's a cliche, and then go on about how "THIS is what's wrong with America today", even though he's got no reason to believe that something he saw on TV reflects some deep seeded problem in society.<br /><br />I wonder, after watching Sienfeld does he complain about the epidemic of nerds trying to save Frogger high scores?Dark Jaguarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-23770301123101445912010-01-06T20:09:51.551-06:002010-01-06T20:09:51.551-06:00Shh! Don't ruin the joke!
Of course, to dumb ...Shh! Don't ruin the joke!<br /><br />Of course, to dumb it down for Gabriel: I'm saying that you think life in America works like it does on television.<br /><br />Quite frankly, I imagine if we brought in a complete stranger who was just a little media savvy, he'd conclude Gabriel watches too much television.<br /><br />Of course, I'd make the distinction that Gabriel <i>believes</i> too much television, even if he doesn't watch much of it. At least in my TV-heavy days, I knew it was fantasy, and that "reality" television was not to be blindly trusted.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-62172350044750251962010-01-06T19:54:32.766-06:002010-01-06T19:54:32.766-06:00Doesn't the Hollywood Atheist entry point out ...Doesn't the Hollywood Atheist entry point out that the portrayals don't really coincide with reality in any meaningful sense?<br /><br />I mean, if he were a diehard TVTropes-ian, he'd have started speculating about the arc-words-esque nature of "What exactly do you mean by white?" by now.<br /><br />"It's like... somebody... is trying to communicate... something. Nah. The writers probably just threw that in randomly." ... Actually, that would seem to accord pretty well with the behavior that we've seen so far.MWchasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08195851187187771113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-43393571966789088702010-01-06T11:33:22.525-06:002010-01-06T11:33:22.525-06:00Back on the topic of Wiki's:
We believe that ...Back on the topic of Wiki's:<br /><br />We believe that Wikipedia is just another reference source.<br /><br />Gabriel believes that <a href="http://tvtropes.org/" rel="nofollow">TV Tropes Wiki</a> is holy writ. That's why he relies on television stereotypes to make unwarranted conclusions.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-81011826667839055312010-01-06T10:52:50.534-06:002010-01-06T10:52:50.534-06:00Since Gabe's clueless about evolution (by beli...Since Gabe's clueless about evolution (by believing all of the comic books he's read and failing to comprehend scientists who write above his grade level), here's a quote I once read that summarized it pretty well:<br /><br />"A chicken is an egg's way of making more eggs."<br /><br />Or to put Dawkins another way: A chicken is a gene's way of making more genes.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-92061160707579559572010-01-06T04:53:10.513-06:002010-01-06T04:53:10.513-06:00This message is probably a promise that I'll n...This message is probably a promise that I'll never see a whit of response to my previous one, but I have to say it anyway. Don't misunderstand my use of the word "upward".<br /><br />There is no universal meaning of "upward direction" of evolution. That's why lamarkism doesn't even have a basic mechamism. The "use/disuse" idea lacks any means for the "used" bodypart to "know" what better function even is. An increase in size is fine for muscles (explained in modern biology as simply a balance between nutrients and needed strength, an evolved feature of muscles to be sure, but the feature itself is not evolution in action but simply a product of it) however it is not very good for, say, eyes. What does it mean to even "use" an eye? More light magically focuses it better, or grows a moving lense? There's no meaning to "better" in lamarkism. Natural selection however DOES define what "better" or "upward" means, and it's simply "more succesful at reproducing itself". This isn't a morally better situation, it's not an absolute good, and plenty of creatures throughout time have evolved into dead-ends due to the short sighted nature of the process. There is no point in arguing that evolution is "the best" at anything other than making better copiers. Novel solutions to engineering problems show up, but it's only because some copying programs are, to quote dawkins, a program that circuitously says "make a copy of me by first making AN ELEPHANT".Dark Jaguarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-15513729532326860822010-01-06T04:45:26.993-06:002010-01-06T04:45:26.993-06:00Okay Gabe, I do have something else to say. This ...Okay Gabe, I do have something else to say. This goes way back to when you were saying Dawkin's latest book seems to support your ideas about race.<br /><br />You also noted he seemd to "sympathize" with lamarkism. I doubted this not because Dawkins is my idol, but because previous books spent entire chapters explaining how lamarkism not only has no evidence in support of it, but couldn't possibly explain the diversity and adaptiveness of life in the first place.<br /><br />I just got Greatest Show on Earth this Christmas as a gift. I was in the middle of Unweaving the Rainbow so I hadn't started reading it until now, but I am. I first want to ask you for some page numbers where you got this impression from. Barring that, at least mention which chapter or give me some general gist of what he was discussing.<br /><br />At any rate, even if you can't give that to me, I'll eventually be through this entire book and I'll see for myself if you've got anything to stand on. So far, I've finished chapter 1. He mentioned lamarkism near the end, but it didn't appear to be in any sort of sympathetic terms. This chapter was setting the stage for what he considered evidence for a theory, that is, the basic epistomology. Near the end he was talking about how while a theory may not be accepted as true when first proposed, even mocked, if it has validity it may yet eventually be accepted to the point where it would be ridiculous to even guess that maybe it just might be overturned, such as the idea that the sun is bigger than the earth.<br /><br />He mentioned that there is a difference between the basic premise of common decent and the mechanism. That is, he mentioned that even having established common decent, it could be natural selection that governed the process, or some other hypothesis such as lamarkism. There are others besides those two as well, such as pure genetic drift, but he makes it clear that of those, only natural selection has the ability to present novel solutions to problems, to actually progress in an "upward" direction of refined functionality. Again, it's just chapter 1, but no sympathising as of yet.<br /><br />Just give me some sort of page number if you want to say it's the case later in the book. Don't do something stupid like say "just keep reading and you'll see". Aside from being annoying and pretentions, it helps no one, least of all your point, to delay your argument this long.<br /><br />Heck look who I'm asking, you won't even make it clear WHAT your hypothesis about race specifically is.Dark Jaguarnoreply@blogger.com